047 The Erickson Report for February 3 to 16, Page 3: Police Training Needs Changing

047 The Erickson Report for February 3 to 16, Page 3: Police Training Needs Changing

Here's a tragedy about which you might have heard, which raises two things I have talked about before with regard to police training and encounters with police.

On January 27 on I-65 south of Nashville Tennessee, a state trooper saw a man named Landon Eastep on the shoulder and pulled over to get him off the highway. Eastep, according to police, pushed away and produced a box cutter which he refused to put down.

Another cop came and tried to de-escalate the situation. More cops arrived until Eastep faced a semicircle of nine cops, most if not all with their guns drawn.

After about a half-hour of this standoff, Eastep pulled from his pocket what police called "a cylindrical object" and held it out toward the cops. They shot him, killed him. The object was not a gun.

First off, I will say that I can't honestly blame the cops for shooting. Look a the picture to the right, a freeze frame from a body cam. You can see Eastep holding out his arms toward the line of cops. I guarantee you every one of those cops thought - and you too would think - "he's pulled out a gun and he's aiming." I would likely be thinking "Omigod he's going to kill me."

We can argue about did all nine of them have to shoot him, or did they have to shoot him more than once, which apparently they did, or a bunch of related questions about the intensity of the response, but I can't blame them for there being a response.

But given that, that's where's where my questions rise. One, why did they have to shoot him - by which I mean, why was that their only present alternative? Why have we devoted so little energy, so little research, so few resources, to the idea of truly non-lethal methods? And no, I don't mean tasers; they are not non-lethal - even the company now calls them "less lethal" or not "intended to be lethal" or some such blather - and really are for relatively close quarters.

Next, one of the cops tried to, again, "de-escalate" things. But in a true sense, he didn't; rather, he avoided further escalation. Which is not the same thing. Remember, this had already gone from one cop to two cops to nine cops with guns drawn. It had already escalated. De-escalating would mean lowering the existing tension, not just avoiding raising it further. What that cop was trying to do was convince Eastep to de-escalate by dropping the box cutter and cooperating.

He was saying all kinds of encouraging things, like "whatever it is, we can work it out; we can get help; I don't want to die, you don't want to die; you're not going to jail," and so on, all of which is good - but, and this is a serious failing, I think, with the training they get and okay maybe it did happen across the half-hour outside of time frame of the video that was released so if it did excellent, but what I noticed is that the cop never asked a question. It was never "what's going on; what would you like us to do for you; what do you hope will happen here." He was just making flat statements. Statements hoping to keep Eastep calm, yes, but still flat statements.

And if asking open questions isn't part of what they're taught in dealing with these kinds of situations, I think it's a terrible mistake. A terrible shortcoming.

Because again: Look at the picture: Where is Eastep going to go? What is he going to do? Unless he is truly clinically insane, so divorced from reality that he can't even comprehend what's going on around him, he can't think he is going to shoot his way out of this. He can't think he's going to fight his way out of this. If he wants to get away, his best, his only, chance is to hop that guardrail and run like hell, hoping either to outrun the cops or they'll decide he's just some vagrant and isn't worth pursuing. But he didn't. He stood there not cooperating for a half-hour and then pulled something from his pocket and held it like it was a gun.

I think we can even determine the critical moment that generated what followed. Remember, this started when a state trooper stopped to get Eastep off the highway. According to Don Aaron, a representative for the Metro Nashville Police Department, I'm quoting NBC News here, "as they approached the trooper’s car, Eastep 'pushed away' from the officer and produced a box cutter." Given that description and what followed, especially when combined with his window's acknowledgement that he was struggling with mental health issues and drug addiction and had relapsed just a few days earlier, I cannot help but think that he was sitting on that highway with a box cutter thinking about suicide and trying to get up the nerve to do it. But as he's approaching the cop's car, he thinks "If I get in that car there's going to be a lot of hassle for my wife and they're going to stop me. I can't let that happen." And then the flash, which may not have even been in words, "I know what I have to do."

In other words, I'm convinced that what we had here is a case of "suicide by cop" and it is a real thing. In fact, a survey of the research literature on the topic a few years ago¹ found that by various estimates, approximately 10 to 29 percent or more of officer-involved shootings involve suicide by cop incidents.

Consider that Eastep stood on that highway for a half-hour, just standing as if waiting, and again it just seems to me that at some point he realized the cops were not going to shoot him so he did something to provoke them - make them think he had a gun. Suicide by cop is a real thing.

And there are in fact training modules, good training modules, for cops on just that, including what it is, how to recognize that it's what you're facing, and ways to deal with it.

But those sorts of materials don't do a damn bit of good if they are not a routine - by which I mean a standard, in fact make that a required - part of police training.

So again again again I say that part of the whole problem with police violence, part of the whole issue of police actions, of what they should be doing, of what we should not expect them to be doing, of what we should not have them dealing with, and of what we should expect them not to be doing, is that the way we train police is deeply screwed up and leads to needless violence and needless death. It remains true that we can't deal with the problem of police violence until we deal with racism in policing and in society - but it is equally true that we can't deal with the problem of police violence until we deal with the way we are training police to think.

¹Patton, Christina L. and Fremouw, William J. “Examining ‘suicide by cop’: A critical review of the literature." Aggression and Violent Behavior, 27 (2016) 107-120. (I couldn't find a direct link.)

The Erickson Report, Page 3: Listen Up: police training causes murders like that of Willie McCoy

Listen Up: police training causes murders like that of Willie McCoy

Now for one of our occasional features, Listen Up.

First, a little background is in order here. On February 9, an employee at a Taco Bell in Vallejo, California called police to report a man unresponsive in his car in the drive-thru lane.

Six cops came and found Willie McCoy, a 20-year-old Bay Area rapper, asleep at the steering wheel with a gun in his lap. They surrounded the car with their guns drawn, later reporting it as "a confrontation with an armed man," saying that he didn't follow "loud verbal commands" and they were forced to kill him when he reached for his gun.

It was an all-too-typical, an all-too we have seen this movie too many times, of police seeing a young black man and seeing - or, often enough, merely thinking they see or later claiming to have seen, a gun - followed shortly by another young black man dead for no discernible reason - because remember, McCoy was asleep.

That became obvious in March when public pressure forced the release of body-cam footage, which revealed that police made no real attempt to wake McCoy but stood for some minutes with guns pointed at the sleeping man, during which time they noted that the gun had no magazine in it which meant that even if it was loaded, it had no more than one bullet.

And the footage also showed that the only moves McCoy appeared to make just before he was murdered was to stir slightly, scratch his left shoulder, and lean forward, his left arm moving toward his lap. The cops almost immediately opened fire. It's unlikely that McCoy even know what was happening to him.

The shooting, which McCoy’s family called an “execution by a firing squad,” sparked outrage and led to scrutiny of the Vallejo police department’s frequent use of deadly force and its history of misconduct and abuse cases.

Okay, that's the background. The reason for talking about it today is that news on this exploded anew on June 10 when a report from a city-hired consultant revealed that police has fired at McCoy 55  times in the space of 3.5 seconds. He was hit around 25 times in the chest, face, arm and shoulders.

Willie McCoy

What seemed especially shocking to many is that the consultant, one David Blake, a retired cop who has a history of writing reports that exonerate killer cops, declared the shooting to have been a "reasonable" - that was his word - a "reasonable and necessary" response by the cops.

More particularly, he said the killing was “in line with contemporary training and police practices associated with use of deadly force.”

Okay, Listen Up, people: That is the flaming problem!

It being "reasonable and necessary" to shoot a sleeping man 55 times in 3.5 seconds because he dared to scratch his arm is "in line with contemporary training and police practices." That's exactly what's wrong - exactly why the murder of Willie McCoy may anger us, may infuriate us, may even in some way shock us, but it does not truly surprise us.

The point here is that when I say that the killing of Willie McCoy is "in line with contemporary training and police practices," I don't mean that in the political sense - or just in the political sense - of this is how police deal with people, particularly black people, I mean in the literal sense that police are trained to behave this way.

We all know the racial and racist aspects. The equation in the public mind of "black" (and even more "black male" and even more "young black male") with violence and criminality is not merely our assertion, it's been researched and demonstrated repeatedly over decades. And we know how much of a driving force that equation can be in how cops act and react.

At the same time, the victims of mistreatment and police violence are not exclusively African-American (ask pretty much any white antiwar or anti-corporate protester).

So the point here is, the shooting of Willie McCoy is in line with current training and practice because that is what we are actively teaching cops. We are teaching them to be afraid, to be in constant fear, to have adrenelin pumping at the smallest provocation, to be ready - literally - to shoot first and ask questions later. The racism then amplifies it.

Cops are being taught risk avoidance, being taught to regard self-protection as their highest priority. Protect yourself first, fellow cops second, and the public third.

There is for example something taught in at least some police academies called the "21 foot rule," which holds that someone with a bladed weapon who is less than 21 feet away can rush a cop and injure or kill them before the cop could get their gun out and fire. Not only has this rule been questioned, it has been twisted and distorted to mean that if you are carrying a blade within 21 feet of a cop, they are justified in shooting you on the grounds that they felt they were at immediate risk of death; no actual aggressive move on your part is required.

This notion has become bad enough that in December 2014 some 125 Seattle police officers filed a lawsuit claiming that new rules in the city about the use of deadly force violated their Constitutional right not to de-escalate a situation before turning to lethal force, arguing in effect that cops have a Constitutional right to use any level of force up to and including shooting someone to death, any time they think they should, even if alternatives exist.

Meanwhile, a couple of years after that, a cop in West Virginia named Stephen Mader was fired for - and this is no joke - fired for not killing someone on the grounds that he had thus "failed to remove a threat," the "threat" in this case being a man with an unloaded gun who was trying to provoke the cop into killing him. "Suicide by cop," it's called and it's a real thing.

Cops being safe

So again, yes, the shooting of Willie McCoy is in line with current training and practice - and that is the problem!

Yes, police work can be dangerous, no doubt, no question, but if you're not prepared to deal with danger, if you're going to take the attitude, one which appears to be the default stance these days, that your personal safety outweighs any other considerations, even when that means just dumping that risk onto non-cops, then you shouldn't be a cop.

Having certain powers and authorities, including the authority to use force, even deadly force, when the situation demands it, powers and authorities that are unavailable to the general public, are part of what it means to be a cop; they are necessary tools cops must have in order to do their jobs.

But acceptance of genuine risk is another necessity without which the job is no longer that of a cop but that of an occupying military force, something too many police forces increasingly resemble and as which they are increasingly and not inaccurately perceived by the communities in which they operate.

Listen Up, people: The way we train police is screwed up and will only lead to more and more Willie McCoys.

036 The Erickson Report for April 22 to May 5, Page One: Some thoughts prompted by the Derek Chauvin conviction

036 The Erickson Report for April 22 to May 5, Page One: Some thoughts prompted by the Derek Chauvin conviction

I was happy that Derek Chauvin was convicted for the murder of George Floyd. I have to say that because of my overall feelings about the US criminal injustice system it feels rather creepy to say this, to say I was happy someone was convicted of murder, but I was.

I wasn't really surprised when it happened. First because the case appeared overwhelming and the fact that the usual "split-second decision" excuse was unavailable left the defense reduced to a string of "could be"s lacking any real basis coupled to the notion that some undetermined one of those "could be"s just happened by some truly remarkable coincidence to kill Floyd at the same time his neck was being crushed into the pavement. Second, because the jury came back so quickly, usually a bad sign for a defendant.

I was a little surprised that it was on all three counts - I more expected the jury to convict on two of the charges to give an impression, as juries often wish to do, of really working through the implications of all the testimony. But this jury obviously and I'd say correctly thought that unnecessary. The evidence was that overwhelming.

Which - leave it to me to find the downside - may become our societal means to ignore the broader meaning of the case. Precisely because the abuse was so blatant, precisely because the indifference to human life was so obvious, precisely because the evidence was so overwhelming, overwhelming to the point that even other cops testified against Chauvin, which is almost unheard of, precisely because of that, we can and I fear will dismiss it as an outlier, as not reflecting the day-to-day reality of how black Americans are treated by cops so very differently from how white Americans are.

Which is why the less shocking but for that very reason more important case is that of 13-year-old Adam Toledo, shot and killed by police in Chicago on March 29. It's important because it's a more common one, one where it is not completely cut and dried with no room for questions and so one where all the usual excuses are trotted out, all the usual justifications are cited.

Derek Chauvin

Based on body cam and surveillance video of the event, it appears Toledo had had a gun - notice the past tense - which he might still have had when he was confronted by the cop. At a command to "Show me your effing hands," he turns and raises his hands. They're empty. So either he had already ditched the gun or he tossed it as he turned. Doesn't matter. He gets shot. He later dies. And another unarmed black person gets buried.

To the police, this was an "armed confrontation" and prosecutors initially claimed a gun was in Toledo’s hand when he was shot. The body cam forced them to drop that particular line, but the assertions that the cop was "100% right" are already echoing and the "split-second decision" banners are already being waved.

And the result will likely be that the cop involved will face no charges and not even departmental discipline. Which makes Adam Toledo more revealing than George Floyd - because that is the usual result: In 98.3% of killings by police from 2013-2020, no charges of any kind were filed - and in those that were, only a quarter resulted in convictions.

Meanwhile black people are three times more likely than whites to be killed by cops - and those black victims are more likely to have been unarmed than the white ones, figures doubtless driven in significant part by the same racism that has black males perceived - especially by whites - as bigger and more menacing than whites of the same height and weight and black boys as older than they are. 13-year-old Adam Toledo was described in the initial police report as being between 18 and 25.

Reformers often call for "improved training" but as others have pointed out, that will not solve the problem of the racism driving much of the difference in treatment.

And yes, that's true - but training does impact that problem and it does relate to the overall question of police violence and brutality because not being black is not absolute protection against that. Just ask the water protectors from the Dakota Access Pipeline encampment or for that matter pretty much any '60s antiwar protester.

The fact we need to face is that the way we train police makes brutality more likely. And I'm not referring here to "we should teach them de-escalation techniques" or some such, not to what we should do, but to what we do do.

Adam Toledo

And the reality is, we are teaching police to be afraid. We are teaching them to be scared all the time. We are teaching them to think of every non-cop as a potential suspect and even a potential assailant. One notorious example is the so-called "21-foot rule" or "Tueller drill." Even though it was only intended as a training exercise, it is actively taught in some police academies and widely accepted informally among police forces. It is the idea that someone with a bladed weapon who is 21 feet away can attack and kill you before you as a cop can unholster your gun and get off a good shot. It has been debunked but still leaves police with the feeling that anyone within 21 feet of them is a potential threat.

But it's not just that rule, it's an overall pattern, and overall way of thinking, that gets instilled in cops that leaves them in a constant state of stress. And note I didn't say alertness, I said stress.

I've talked about this before, how in watching videos of shootings by police, I was struck by how often the cops sounded scared. I particularly remember the video of the killing of Philando Castile. The cop has the gun, it is pointed at Castile, who is sitting and obviously unarmed, but I clearly recall thinking that despite that, the cop sounded terrified - and that wasn't the only example.

All of which brings us to the killing of Daunte Wright by cop Kim Potter in a suburb of Minneapolis on April 11. This was the case where the cop shot him with her gun, supposedly thinking she was wielding a taser. And it demonstrated what I maintain are multiple things wrong with how we train police.

First off, the male cop who first approached the car had his gun out and demanded Wright get out of the car.

Wright says "For what?" and the cop answers "I'll explain to you when you get out of the car." Right off: Cops are taught they they have to be in control of the situation, to dominate the situation, at all times. Why couldn't he have said "You have an expired inspection sticker," which is supposedly the reason they pulled him over in the first place? Why couldn't he just answer the question instead of responding, in effect, "Be quiet and do what I tell you" and so raising the tension and giving Wright cause not to cooperate but to fear cooperation? Why? Because that's what cops are taught: to be in charge and accept nothing other than passive submission.

Daunte Wright

Wright starts to get out of his car but then tries to get back in. Potter runs up to join the other cop. The tension has already soared. Potter is heard shouting "I'll tase you! Taser! Taser! Taser!" - and then a second later, "Holy shit, I shot him."

In the wake of this, the police chief said he believes Potter intended to use a Taser but mistakenly drew her gun, a claim widely ridiculed by civil right activists and the local community.

And on its face, it does seem absurd. A cop's gun is about a pound heavier than a taser, is a different color and an at least somewhat different feel.

So here's the question: Can I believe Potter told the truth? Can I believe that she shot Daunte Wright thinking she was tasering him? The answer is yes, I can. And again it relates to failures in how we train police.

Most police departments, including the one here, require that officers carry their guns on their dominant side and Tasers on the opposite side, which is supposed to lower the risk of confusing the two. But the instant I heard that, I said "that's wrong, that's ridiculous, that's the opposite of what it should be." Because under stress, in a high-stress, adrenaline-pumping situation, you are going to default to your dominant hand. Having your gun on you dominant side is going to increase the risk of cases such as that of Daunte Wright.

Betsy Brantner Smith of the National Police Association said it's called "slip and capture" and likened it to getting into a rental car, going to start it up, and reaching for how you start your own car before realize that's not where you are.

It's also called "muscle memory" and you know damn well you have experienced it. Hell, I have a car I've had for six months and I've finally stopped reaching for the gear shift in the wrong place. You've experienced it and you weren't even under stress.

What's more, this is certainly not the first time this has happened, of a cop shooting someone thinking they were firing a taser. There are documented cases of it. So can I believe that Kim Potter shot Daunte Wright believing at that moment that she was tasering him? Yes, I can. Because of the way she was trained. That, it shouldn't need to be said but probably is, does not excuse it. In the immortal words of Mr. Spock, "I understand. I do not approve."

And it also doesn't mean that racism was not a factor in the killing of Wright, if only because our society is such that it's difficult to completely ignore race in any interaction between blacks and whites.

So yes, it's true that we can't address police violence and brutality without addressing racism, particularly in our police forces but in our society as well. But it's also true that we can't address police violence and brutality without addressing how we are training them to think.

261.3 - Extended Footnote: Why do we keep seeing stories like that of Terrence Crutcher?

Extended Footnote: Why do we keep seeing stories like that of Terrence Crutcher?

When we face the issue of police violence, when we face the issue of police killing unarmed people, we instinctively look for reasons. There has to be a reason why.

So you want some reasons why we keep covering the same ground about police, why the stories keep arising? I'll give you some and here I'm not even going to be talking about the racism that runs through so many of these accounts, where being black is to be menacing, where just by being black you "look like a bad dude." Instead, here I'm going to be talking about what could well be described as institutional reasons.

Here's one such reason: After Terrence Crutcher was shot, someone on the police radio can be heard saying, "Shots fired. We have one suspect down."

Suspect? What was he suspected of? For what crime was he being investigated? The answer, of course, is that he wasn't suspected of anything - except, of course, being "a bad dude."

Yet simply by having an encounter with police, he becomes a "suspect." Because we are all "suspects" in the eyes of police, for who there are cops and there are "suspects." And "suspects," of course, are by definition dangerous to some degree or another.

I have said it before: We are teaching cops to be afraid. We are teaching, and I mean actively teaching, cops to be in constant fear of instant death, to be prepared to shoot first and ask questions later, to feel it's not only their right but their duty to avoid to the extent possible any degree of risk even when that means just shifting the risk onto non-cops.

There is, for example, something taught in police academies called the "21 foot rule," which holds that someone with a bladed weapon who is less than 21 feet away can rush a cop and injure or kill them before the cop could get their gun out and fire. Not only has this rule been questioned, it has been twisted and distorted to mean that if you are carrying a blade within 21 feet of a cop, they are justified in shooting you on the grounds that they felt they were at immediate risk of death; no actual aggressive move on your part is required.

That has got to change. It has to or the body count will only continue to rise. So far in 2016, 40 cops nationwide have died in the line of duty by being shot. At the same time, 706 people have been shot and killed by cops, 41 of them unarmed. Cops have killed more unarmed people than the total number of cops killed by others.

That training to be afraid, to think of everyone as a potentially dangerous "suspect," is one reason why we keep seeing these sorts of stories. Here's another. In covering the Crutcher family's contention that the window to Terrance Crutcher's SUV was closed, the Washington Post reported that, quoting,

If confirmed by police, the admission would eliminate one of the chief justifications for police using deadly force against Crutcher.*

Actually, it would eliminate the only justification, but "if confirmed by police?" What does that mean? That when it involves police we have to wait for the judgment of the accused? That when it comes to people shot in the street by someone in a uniform we have to have the accused decide what is and isn't true, what is and isn't fact?

That attitude among the media that "it's not true unless an official says it is," which positively encourages evasion, subject-changing, and outright lying by police when faced with uncomfortable truths, is another reason why Terrence Crutcher is just one of many.

But there's an even bigger one. And the most important one.

I've said several times in discussing cop violence that most cops are good cops, most cops are trying to do the best, the most professional, job they can for their communities. And I will add that in my own personal encounters with cops, apart from the one some years ago where a cop hassled, rousted, and unlawfully searched me and two friends before telling us to get out of town - all because we were "hippies" -  have for the most part been professional and courteous.

But for that very reason, that most cops are good cops, trying to do the best, most professional, job they can, it is vital that those good cops stop shielding the bad ones and beyond that it is vital that city administrations stop agreeing to police union contracts with ethically outrageous provisions that actively shield police from the immediate questions and investigations that any of the rest of us would face when a crime is suspected and provide for an internal appeals process that almost guarantees that any discipline a cop faces will be reduced or tossed out entirely.

Because why should we expect any change in cop behavior when there are no consequences for doing the wrong thing? When your contract protects you, your union shields you, and your colleagues, the ones who know what you did, stand silent?

One of the things that some police departments look to in looking for red flags of misconduct is how many "resisting arrest" charges get added to other charges on which someone is arrested, especially if those other charges are later dropped or dismissed, because "resisting arrest" is frequently used as a cover for police brutality. "I wasn't using excessive force, he was resisting me."

The New York police is among the departments that tracks resisting arrest data this way. About two years ago, one researcher crunched NYPD arrest stats since 2012 and found that just 5 percent of cops accounted for 40 percent of all resisting arrest charges. In fact, a majority of New York officers filed no resisting arrest charges at all in that time, which means that this sort of red flag was concentrated among a very small cohort of cops.

That is, it is very likely that examples of excessive force, that is, of police brutality, are likewise concentrated around that 5 percent - and it is vital that the 95 percent stop protecting that 5 percent.

Frank Serpico

Those cops who want to do the right thing, who want to have good relations with the community, those cops who are not going to reach for the club or the mace or the taser or the gun at the first provocation, those cops who do not want to divide the world into cops and suspects, they have got to stop shielding those who do. They have got to step up and speak up.

Is that professionally risky? It most certainly is. Is it even personally risky? Frank Serpico, who said that after he became a whistle-blower his calls for back-up would be answered slowly if at all, would surely say yes.

Then again, we are always being told how dangerous police work is - so maybe they should just think of this as another part of the job, another part of their commitment to "protect and serve."

The issue, the problem, the disease, of police brutality and excessive violence extends beyond the minority community - although they clearly bear the greatest brunt of it, with black Americans being 2.5 times more likely to be killed by a cop than white Americans and unarmed black Americans five times more likely. But it does extend beyond and the single most important reason this scourge continues to fester is the reluctance of the vast majority of good cops to stand up to, to speak out against, the bad ones. Until that changes, I fear little else will.

*The statement is no longer found in updated versions of the story on the Post website.

Sources cited in links:
https://www.mprnews.org/story/2016/09/19/tulsa-police-shooting-video-shows-hands-up-man-unarmed
http://www.guns.com/2013/11/21/knife-v-gun-changing-think-21-foot-rule-video/
http://www.odmp.org/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/police-shootings/?tid=a_inl
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/09/19/man-fatally-shot-by-tulsa-police-was-unarmed-chief-says-as-disturbing-video-is-released/?utm_term=.4c66ea13fdbf
http://www.overlawyered.com/2014/08/police-unions-produce-rules-protect-bad-actors/
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/12/how-police-unions-keep-abusive-cops-on-the-street/383258/
http://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2015/02/10/384990293/nypds-top-cop-wants-to-make-it-a-felony-to-resist-arrest
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/07/11/arent-more-white-people-than-black-people-killed-by-police-yes-but-no/?utm_term=.f782ea0a7bf9

045 The Erickson Report for December 29 to January 12, Page 2: The case of Kim Potter and Duante Wright

045 The Erickson Report for December 29 to January 12, Page 2: The case of Kim Potter and Duante Wright

Kim Potter                             Duante Wright

Okay, let's get to this.

On December 23, Minnesota local cop Kim Potter was convicted of first- and second-degree manslaughter in the killing of 20-year-old Duante Wright during a traffic stop in April. You probably recall this was the case where she shot him, thinking, she said, she was using her Taser, a claim that at the time was widely mocked by civil right activists and the local community and numerous places on the left.

Potter was jailed immediately after the verdict with sentencing set for February 22. I don't know why it should take two months for that, but that's the date.

Overall, I think the best reaction came from the ACLU, which tweeted "This verdict is still not justice. True justice doesn't come one verdict at a time. Real justice means that these situations do not happen in the first place."

I'll get to my own take on this outcome later but first, I want to talk about something else, something that this case raised for me when it first hit the news in April, something I have talked about before but which has gotten far too little attention and to which this case should draw attention but I fear won't: the fact that the screwed-up way we train police in this country leads to, produces, cases such as this one.

Because the fact is, we are teaching police to be afraid. We are teaching, and I mean actively teaching, cops to be in constant fear of instant death, to be prepared to shoot first and ask questions later, to feel it's not only their right but their duty to avoid to the extent possible any degree of risk even when that means just shifting the risk onto non-cops.

One notorious example is the so-called "21-foot rule" or "Tueller drill." Even though it was only intended as a training exercise, it is actively taught in some police academies and widely accepted informally among police forces. It is the idea that someone with a bladed weapon who is 21 feet away can attack and kill you before you as a cop can unholster your gun and get off a good shot. Not only has it been debunked, it has been twisted and distorted to mean that if you are carrying a blade within 21 feet of a cop, they are justified in shooting you on the grounds that they felt they were at immediate risk of death; no actual aggressive move on your part is required.

There is the widely-used "Bulletproof Warrior" seminars from Illinois-based outfit called Calibre Press, seminars which press the idea that "officer safety" is the overriding consideration in any interaction with non-cops and pushes the implicit notion that general public views cops as their enemy.

There was the so-called "research document" promoted by the International Law Enforcement Educators and Trainers Association a year ago that called Antifa and Black Lives Matter activists "terrorists" who were plotting "extreme violence" and described civil right protesters as "useful idiots."
    
We are both formally and informally, officially and unofficially, teaching police to be afraid. We are teaching them to be scared all the time. We are teaching them to think of every non-cop as a potential suspect and even a potential assailant.

That's why, for example, to cops there are police and there are "civilians," a term that by default defines the police as a military force, an army. It's why in any encounter with police we will likely be regarded as a "suspect" and therefore by definition dangerous to some degree or another.

It's an overall pattern, and overall way of thinking, that gets instilled in cops that leaves them in a constant state of stress. And note I didn't say alertness, I said stress.

I've talked about this before, how in watching videos of shootings by police, I was struck by how often the cops sounded scared. I particularly remember the video of the killing of Philando Castile in 2016. The cop has the gun, it is pointed at Castile, who is sitting and obviously unarmed, but I clearly recall thinking that despite that, the cop sounded terrified - and that wasn't the only example.

Which brings us back around to Kim Potter and Duante Wright. I'm going to revisit something I said in the spring, shortly after this hit the news, because, as I said at the time, it demonstrated what I maintain are multiple things wrong with how we train police. Some of what fllows is quoting that earlier post.

We start the incident with the male cop, Potter's partner, approaching Wright's car after he was pulled over. The cop approaches the car with his gun out and demands Wright get out of the car. Immediately: Why is his gun out? The tension is mounting before anything even happens.

Wright says "For what?" and the cop answers "I'll explain to you when you get out of the car." Again: Cops are taught they they have to be in control of the situation, to dominate the situation, at all times. Why couldn't he have said "You have an expired inspection sticker," which is supposedly the reason they pulled him over in the first place? Why couldn't he just answer the question instead of responding, in effect, "Be quiet and do what I tell you" and so raising the tension further and giving Wright cause not to cooperate but to fear cooperation? So why? Because that's what cops are taught: to be in charge and accept nothing other than passive submission.

Wright starts to get out of his car but then tries to get back in. Potter runs up to join the other cop. There is a struggle. The tension is stretched to the limit. Potter is heard shouting "I'll tase you! Taser! Taser! Taser!" - then a bang and a second later, "Holy shit, I shot him."

In the wake of this, the police chief said he believed Potter intended to use a Taser but mistakenly drew her gun, a claim that was, as I said, widely ridiculed.

And on its face, it does seem absurd. A cop's gun is about a pound heavier than a Taser, is a different color and an at least somewhat different feel.

So here's the question: Did I believe, do I believe Potter told the truth? Did I believe, do I believe that she shot Daunte Wright thinking she was Tasering him? The answer is yes, I did and I do. And again it relates to failures in how we train police.

Most police departments, including the one here, require that officers carry their guns on their dominant side and Tasers on the opposite side, which is supposed to lower the risk of confusing the two. But the instant I heard that, I said "That's wrong, that's ridiculous, that's the opposite of what it should be." Because under stress, in a high-stress, adrenaline-pumping situation, you are going to default to your dominant hand. Having your gun on your dominant side is going to increase the risk of tragedies such as that of Daunte Wright.

Betsy Brantner Smith of the National Police Association said it's called "slip and capture" and likened it to getting into a rental car, going to start it up, and reaching for how you start your own car before realizing that's not where you are.

It's also called "muscle memory" and you know damn well you have experienced it. Hell, I had my current car for six months before I finally stopped reaching for the gear shift in the wrong place. You've experienced it, you know you have, and you weren't even under stress.

What's more, this is certainly not the first time this has happened, of a cop shooting someone thinking they were firing a Taser. There are documented cases of it. So can I believe that Kim Potter shot Daunte Wright believing at that moment that she was Tasering him? Yes, I can. Because of the way she was trained. That, it shouldn't need to be said but probably is, does not excuse it. In the immortal words of Mr. Spock, "I understand. I do not approve."

So if I were the sentencing judge, what would I do? I have genuine sympathy for Kim Potter. I believe it was a genuine mistake - something on which, I will note, it seems most observers now agree. Not, however, some places on the left; the Southern Poverty Law Center, for example, used the term "murder," which while technically legally correct, still carries a heavy connotation of deliberateness, something made explicit by Color of Change which said of Potter "her actions were not accidental," which if it means anything at all it means they're saying she shot Wright on purpose.

I also noted more a recent video, from the body cam of a cop who arrived soon enough to see what happened but not soon enough to be involved, showing the immediate aftermath of the shooting, showing Kim Potter on the ground, crying, her remorse both immediate and extreme, extreme to the point where that cop took her gun for evidence but let her hold his - and then went back and took his gun back because of fear of what she might do as she leaned on a fence going "I just want to die."

So I do have genuine sympathy for her. But at the same time, we can't let this go. We can't let it pass. She made a mistake and she's sorry, but someone died. There has to be punishment; there have to be consequences.

So with all that in mind, if I were the sentencing judge I would go for 3.5 years followed by several years of probation and community service and I would very likely say she could never again be a cop. Anywhere - none of this going to another jurisdiction and getting hired there. Anywhere.

I guarantee you that for some people that would not be nearly enough and some news accounts say prosecutors intend to push for something close to the maximum of 15 years to "make a point." But I think that would only add another tragedy to a tale that already had enough of them.

Because the point I would make is that while it is true as we so often say that we can't address police violence and brutality without addressing racism, particularly in our police forces but in our society as well, it's equally true that we can't address police violence and brutality without addressing the screwed-up way we are training them to think.

026 The Erickson Report for November 25 to December 8, Page 2: Listen Up!

The Erickson Report for November 25 to December 8, Page 2: Listen Up!

I only have a few minutes left and I'm going to spend them expanding on a rant from last time on the efforts of the establishment Democratic Party to use progressives for voter turnout but otherwise dismiss them.

And just to be clear: The term "establishment Democratic Party" refers to the DNC, the party leadership in the House and Senate, and the party's Congressional and Senate Campaign Committees

Okay. I said last time that the establishment Dem Par was looking to blame progressives and progressive causes for the party's down-ballot failures - that is, in the House and Senate - rather than even considering their own roles. That hasn't let up, it wasn't just that one notorious post-election conference call. AP has joined the fray with an article which could barely get past one tepid criticism of party strategy before rushing on blame Medicare for All and the Green New Deal and criticisms of police racism and violence.

You want to know how unpopular Medicare for All is? According to a November 3 exit poll by Fox News, 72% of voters favored a "change to a government-run health care plan." 112 co-sponsors of Medicare for All were on the ballot in November. All of them won.

You want to know how unpopular the Green New Deal is? That same Fox poll found 70% of voters supporting “increasing government spending on green and renewable energy.” There were 98 co-sponsors of the Green New Deal on the ballot in November. 97 of them won.

Bernie Sanders said it well:

The lesson is not to abandon popular policies like Medicare for All, a Green New Deal, living wage jobs, criminal justice reform and universal child care, but to enact an agenda that speaks to the economic desperation being felt by the working class - Black, white, Latino, Asian American and Native American.

That is a desperation to which the establishment Democratic Party did not speak in its campaign. Yes, I know all about the Heroes Act and I know all about the intransigence of Fishface McConnell and the rest. But the establishment Democratic party figured that the public distaste for Tweetie-pie so great that laying real hardball on COVID economic relief was a good political course. They were wrong. And instead of recognizing their failing to make that very GOPper intransigence a centerpiece of their campaign, their answer is to blame progressives - and to do as much as they can to shut them out from decision-making roles.

Which brings me to what really prompted this renewed rant. News is emerging of who Joe Blahden wants in his administration and the trend is not encouraging.

Michael McCabe is a former consultant to DuPont who lead its successful campaign to head off regulation of a highly toxic chemical called PFOA. He's been appointed by the Blahden transition to its review team for the Environmental Protection Agency.

Rep Cedric Richmond is joining the administration as a senior adviser to serve as a liaison with the business community and climate change activists. Richmond is a darling of the oil and gas industries, having gotten more donations from them than nearly any other Democrat.

Blahden is nominating Antony Blinken as secretary of state. Blinken supported the invasion of Iraq and the assault on Libya and has spent his recent years as a partner in a consulting firm with a secret client list drawn from the tech, finance, and arms industries.

A leading candidate for defense secretary is Michèle Flournoy, Blinken's partner in that consulting firm. Among his other achievement, Flournoy supported the wars in Iraq and Libya, thought Obama wasn't tough enough on Syria, and helped craft the surge in Afghanistan.

Those two are likely why defense executives have been boasting about their close relationship with Biden and expressing confidence that there will not be much change in Pentagon policy.

Perhaps worst of all, it's reported that Blahden is considering Bruce Reed for director of the Office of Management and Budget. Reed is a deficit hawk who was a lead architect of the destructive 1996 welfare "reform" law and was executive director of the Obama-appointed Bowles-Simpson Commission, which became known as the Cat Food Commission because its central proposal was to slash Social Security. Appointing someone like that to direct OMB in the midst of an economy-wrecking pandemic is just insane.

So far, I am neither impressed nor encouraged.

But in closing I will say there is one thing on which I agree with the critics of progressives: The slogan "defund the police" - which has got to be the worst political slogan in the history of campaigning. My central principle for effective communication is that what you say is not as important as what the other person hears. On that score, "defund the police" is a miserable, abject failure. Not only does it not express what supporters want it to, it positively invites people to misunderstand it.

The idea of "defund the police" in a nutshell is to stop expecting police to deal with things for which they have neither the training nor the competence- such as mental health crises and drug issues - cases where their intervention so often leads to tragedy, and instead direct those resources to agencies and personnel which do have the training and competence. But if people hear "defund the police," they think - reasonably - that you want to zero out the budgets, to dispense with police altogether. An effective slogan depends on a previously-existing, widespread understanding of its meaning. "Defund the police" doesn't have that - which is why it's a failure.

I don't have a devastatingly better alternative, but I will say that my preference would be for "demilitarize the police" which I think would not only cover what "defund the police" means to address, it would expand on it and without making it so easy to misunderstand or willfully distort.

Even saucier

Consider this a follow-up to the post a couple down where I said that other than a few individuals (and, I'll add here, groups) I could not find any white hats in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I'll go beyond that to asserting, as I have several times before, that the government of Israel does not want peace.

The latest evidence of that comes from Saturday's Washington Post, which reports on a multi-million dollar program funded by the US to train Palestinian security personnel for the specific purpose of improving the ability of the Palestinian Authority to control outbreaks of violence in the West Bank, thus strengthening the position of the US- (and, allegedly, Israeli-) supported government of Mahmoud Abbas.

The first class is now deploying to Jenin, a focus of discontent and a site of fierce fighting during the last intifada. And they are doing it without uniforms, body armor, helmets, flashlights, or even first-aid kits - because Israel blocked delivery of the equipment.

A Western security official familiar with the aid program said the list was submitted months ago and included only nonlethal items,

including, besides the above, such things as tarps, canteens, socks, boots, and vehicles. In fact, the deployment of 300 personnel is being carried out using only 10 unarmed Volkswagen vans, each of which seats only 10 people.

Much of the training equipment - including vehicles, two-way radios, dummy pistols, rifles and batons - arrived after the first training sessions had begun. Israel also placed restrictions on the kind of equipment and curriculum available to the Palestinian trainees. ...

Steve Smith, a veteran of international police training programs, resigned from this one in protest over what he said was inadequate training, equipment and curriculum being provided to the Palestinians.

In a letter to Rep. Nita M. Lowey (D-N.Y.), Smith said the students received "communication training with no radios, drivers training with no vehicles, mounted patrol tactics without vehicles, no course handouts or student manuals."

The result is under-supplied, under-protected, unprepared people trying to act as a security force. Then consider just one other point:

Israel has frequently criticized the Palestinian Authority, run by the relatively moderate Fatah party, for not doing enough to combat armed groups such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad that have pledged to eradicate Israel. Israeli officials said their military forces cannot withdraw from the West Bank - occupied by Israel in the 1967 Middle East war - until the Palestinian Authority proves it can take control.

That is, as a precondition for withdrawal, the Israelis are demanding that the Palestinians do what its own military has been unable to do in decades of trying - stamp out opposition - while at the same time actively hindering the Palestinian government's ability to do so.

The words of the Israeli government speak of peace. It's actions speak of occupation, dominance, and conflict.

Footnote: In November 2004, commenting on the death of Yasser Arafat, I mentioned the talk of "change" and "new openings" his death would supposedly provide.

I fear it will change nothing, open nothing. And soon enough the "new leadership" will be denounced in the same terms that Arafat was, as obstacles to peace and as proof that Israel must continue on its "unilateral separation," involving turning Gaza into a gulag and clamping a tighter hold on significant portions of the West Bank, while putting even more restrictions on Palestinians in the rest of the occupied territories.

Just two months later, I was able to note that

Mahmoud Abbas hasn't even been elected yet and already Israeli officials are "cast[ing] doubt on the ability of Mr. Abbas to reach a peace deal with Israel"

and those officials were demanding a "crackdown" as a precondition for any progress, even as they knew that the Palestinian Authority had

neither the people nor the arms to overcome radical groups and prevent violence against Israel and Israelis by force.

More than three years later, the Israelis continue to sing the same song: "You must do what we could not do and we know you cannot do, even as we keep you from doing it - and until you do, we need do nothing." It certainly appears my fear of "no change" was well-founded.

But don't count on it

The Policing Board in the UK

has formally endorsed the chief constable's decision to deploy Taser stun guns[, the BBC reports].

Twelve guns were given to specialist police teams in a pilot scheme in January. ...

The chief constable will decide if the weapon should be used on a permanent basis after an equality impact assessment is completed.

The decision was taken in the face of a legal challenge to be heard in January and a call by Sinn Féin for the action to be deferred until after the judicial review.

In defense of the move, police officials pulled out the usual clichés:

The DUP's Peter Weir said it was a "logical move".

"Would the opponents of Tasers rather that police officers were forced to use handguns in every situation where a Taser should be used?

"Or perhaps they would like to make it impossible for the police to use necessary and proportionate force in order to defend innocent members of the public?"

This kind of sneering dismissal is not only bullshit, it's not even original bullshit. It's run of the mill bullshit that presents guns as the only alternative to tasers and suggests that opposition to tasers equals opposition to public safety. It really reads, "You're either with us or you're with the criminals! Why do you hate innocent members of the public?"

But if the record of tasers was one demonstrating that it only gets used in cases where otherwise guns would be used, there would be minimal opposition. The point, the point, the point - the point that never seems to register with these chowderheads is that tasers are frequently, mostly, used not as an alternative to deadly force, but as an alternative to any force, often enough to no force. Used instead as a means of domination, of humiliation, of intimidation, as punishment for resistance, as a convenience rather than a necessity.

Meanwhile, Great Britain is not the only place experiencing tasermania. Police in the Australian state of New South Wales are expanding their deployment of tasers.

Specially-trained police officers at this year’s Bathurst 1000 [auto race] will be equipped with taser stun guns after Commissioner Andrew Scipione yesterday announced the weapons would be issued to general duties police officers across the state. ...

Until yesterday, the weapon was restricted to the NSW Police Force’s riot squad and elite tactical operations unit, but now general officers with special training will be able to carry the weapon.

As has become typical, the decision to expand the use of tasers, which were described by local police commander Lionel White as "just another tool," came before, not after, a NSW Ombudsman report into their safety, which is not expected to be presented to the NSW parliament until later this month.

Footnote: Scipione said tough police procedures would avert the sort of deaths that have been associated with the weapons.

“We have really strong ... procedures that govern the way we use these devices and it can’t happen here[," he said.]

They had "strong procedures" in New York, too.

The Erickson Report for December 9 to 22, Page Two: Police training document calls Antifa, BLM "terrorists" and civil right protesters "useful idiots"

The Erickson Report for December 9 to 22, Page Two: Police training document calls Antifa, BLM "terrorists" and civil right protesters "useful idiots"

There's an outfit in Indiana called the International Law Enforcement Educators and Trainers Association, or ILEETA.

Among the guidance documents they have circulated to police departments is something called "Understanding Antifa and Urban Guerrilla Warfare," and it is chock-a-block with falsehoods and conspiracy theories about Antifa and Black Lives Matter.

It claims they have no intentions to negotiate but instead are "revolutionary movements whose aims are to overthrow the US government" while labeling those who participated in the nationwide protests for civil rights over the summer as "useful idiots" who were working for "hard-core, terrorist trained troops."

It even claims that BLM is "supposedly funded by China and that money is then donated to the Democratic Party."

In the face of complains, Harvey Hedden, ILEETA's executive director, defended the document, dismissing the concerns as "differences of opinion" only to later say it was the opinion of a single member even though the document says some of those making the observations there are veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan who have witnessed these types of terrorist groups organizing" - and so, seemingly, are to be regarded as experts, not just people with opinions.

Despite his offhanded dismissal of objections, Hedden also says that the "just one person's opinion" document has been removed and replaced. I fear to think with what.

261.2 - Another name on the list: Terrence Crutcher killed by police

Another name on the list: Terrence Crutcher killed by police

Okay, we have to go through this again. When is it finally too much? When is it finally too many times? When is it finally too often? When do the lies - the lies we tell ourselves - finally stop?

Terrence Crutcher

The latest too much too many too often comes out of Tulsa, Oklahoma. On September 16, Terrence Crutcher, 40 years old, became the latest addition to the ever-lengthening list of names of unarmed black men who have been shot and killed by police. He was, in fact, according to a Washington Post database, at least the 15th unarmed black man to have been killed by police so far in 2016.

And, as we have found all too often in past cases, the shape-shifting police accounts were more about looking for a justification for the killing than about investigating it.

About the only thing all the accounts agree on is that Crutcher's vehicle was stopped in the road. They can't even agree on if the car was running or not. The initial police story said it was stalled but Scott Wood, the lawyer for the cop who pulled the trigger, who is named Betty Shelby, said she found it with the engine running and the doors open.

That same initial cop story had it that two officers were walking toward the SUV when Crutcher approached them from the side of the road. But, again according to her lawyer, Shelby arrived on the scene first and alone and had already spoken to Crutcher and - this is important, so remember it - she had already checked the driver's side of the car when Crutcher approached her.

That initial cop tale went on to claim that Crutcher "refused to follow commands" and when "they got closer to the vehicle, he reached inside the vehicle and at that time there was a Taser deployment, and a short time later there was one shot fired."

Wait - "short time later?" He was tasered and then they still shot him? Oh, that won't do at all. So it became, in the lawyer's words, the taser and the gun were fired simultaneously. No gap. Because he reached into the car. Remember that.

Most of this got blown away when the videos were released, which clearly shows Crutcher walking slowly towards his car - away from the cops, not approaching them - with his hands raised, followed closely by one cop, then two, then four, at least three of who have weapons - guns or Tasers - drawn. Crutcher can be seen leaning against his car before he suddenly falls to the ground with a woman's voice going "shots fired."

He lies on the ground bleeding to death as three cops, in a moment that is bitterly amusing, back away from him as if they are afraid he will rise from the grave to attack them. Crutcher lies there about two minutes before anyone even bothers to check on him. No attempt to render any sort of aid is made, even though it turns out that Shelby has some EMT training and had a trauma bag in her trunk.

Shelby claimed she thought Crutcher was behaving like someone possibly under the influence of PCP and the cops made a big point the next day of announcing that some PCP had conveniently been found in Crutcher's car, although they wouldn't (or couldn't) say where in the car.

Screen capture

But the idea of killing someone because they looked like they were high, even on angel dust, obviously wouldn't fly, so we're left with the claim that Crutcher, with four cops gathered around him and a police helicopter circling overhead, reached into his car for some unknown, totally irrational, but we are supposed to assume nefarious reason, justifying his immediate execution.

But the next day, attorneys for the Crutcher family showed an enhanced screen capture from the police video taken from the helicopter which appeared to show that the window was closed with a streak of blood running all the way down the window and across the side of the car. Appeared to show, that is, that there was no way Crutcher could have reached inside the car. That it was a flat out lie.

Now the image that was shown obviously is not going to be crisp and sharp, being an enhanced still taken from a video. So it has its limitations. But I am going to offer my own take on it.

Screen capture with my reference points

It appears to me that the driver's side window does seem to be a little reflective, which would mean that there is glass there, which would mean it was closed. Compare it to the windshield, where we know there was glass.

On the other hand and in all fairness - which is more than was given to Terrence Crutcher - I suspect that the line from the top right corner of the window frame, identified as blood by the family, is actually a shoulder strap of a seat belt. However, at the very bottom of the window frame, immediately above the door panel, is a blotch that appears to closely match in color what is undeniably blood streaked down the side of the car.

My conclusion? The window was closed. The cops were lying.

But here's where something becomes important, something I told you to remember. Remember that according to her lawyer, Shelby had already checked the driver's side of the car - recalling, too, that she said the door was open - before she had any interaction with Crutcher.

So even if I'm wrong and the family is wrong and the window was down, and even if Crutcher for whatever unfathomable reason did reach in through that window, Betty Shelby still, based on her own account, would have had no reason to shoot Terrence Crutcher because she would have already checked out that area and would have known there was no weapon there.

Every version of the story offered by police breaks down. And the meaning of the arguments made is even more chilling than the deceptions.

According to Tulsa Police Chief Chuck Jordan, Shelby told a dispatcher "that she [was] not having cooperation" from Crutcher. She then aimed and took fire. So what, you don't "cooperate" and so we kill you?

Shelby thought Crutcher was on PCP. So what, we think you're high and so we kill you?

A man in the helicopter can be heard saying "time for a Taser." He then says: "That looks like a bad dude, too." So, what, we think you "look like a bad dude" and so we kill you?

You reach through a window to where we know there is no weapon. So, what, so we kill you?

I don't know exactly what motivated Betty Shelby to pull the trigger that Friday evening. But I do know this: When Benjamin Crump, attorney for the family, called it "clearly a case of excessive force," he was wrong.

What this was, was murder.

Sources cited in links:
https://www.mprnews.org/story/2016/09/19/tulsa-police-shooting-video-shows-hands-up-man-unarmed
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/police-shootings/?tid=a_inl
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/09/19/man-fatally-shot-by-tulsa-police-was-unarmed-chief-says-as-disturbing-video-is-released/?utm_term=.a1c99cfa12dc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9F-Bxwu3_Y
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVQy3HVEfQg
http://jezebel.com/terence-crutcher-shot-and-killed-by-tulsa-police-while-1786830387
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/tulsa-fatally-shot-terence-crutcher-pcp-article-1.2799465

Boston as a "no free speech zone"

Updated So it's time for anointing the noble standard bearers who will carry us to victory! truth! justice! peace! prosperity! free beer! And, to the surprise of no one with the possible exception of some supposedly lefty lapdogs (If you want some genuine, i.e., not sarcastic, drooling and fawning, try this.), the minions of the anointees are no more interested in contrary sounds than those they slam. As the Dems turn out in Boston, CNN notes that

[t]housands of local, state and federal officers are helping turn the city into a veritable fortress.

Last week, the Boston Globe reported that

[a]n unprecedented number of video cameras will be trained on Boston during the Democratic National Convention, with Boston police installing some 30 cameras near the FleetCenter, the Coast Guard using infrared devices and night-vision cameras in the harbor, and dozens of pieces of surveillance equipment mounted on downtown buildings to monitor crowds for terrorists, unruly demonstrators, and ordinary street crime.

For the first time, 75 high-tech video cameras operated by the federal government will be linked into a surveillance network.... Their feeds from cameras mounted on various downtown buildings will be piped to monitoring stations in the Boston area and in Washington, D.C., and officials will be able to zoom in from their work stations to gather details of facial descriptions or read license plates. ...

An unspecified number of State Police cameras are also being installed, and more than 100 previously existing MBTA cameras will be used to monitor area subway and bus stations. Law enforcement officials will have as-needed access to as many as 900 cameras that have been operated for months or years by the Massachusetts Port Authority, the state Highway Department, and the Big Dig. ...

The Boston Police Department has a new policy permitting police to videotape political demonstrations during the convention, and federal officials also are planning to use hand-held cameras to videotape clashes between protesters and police.

Big Brother is here and you are being watched.

(Sidebar: The Globe also notes that such video surveillance is "here to stay: Boston police say the 30 or so cameras installed for the convention will be used throughout the city once the event is over.

'We own them now,' said police Superintendent Robert Dunford. 'We're certainly not going to put them in a closet.'")

Happily, some media attention is being drawn by protest organizers in the city to the absurd conditions under which speech - I can't bring myself to refer to it as "free" speech - will be "allowed." (Funny, I was brought up thinking it was a right, not something to be "allowed." How silly people were before "9/11 changed everything!") For example, CNN reported on Sunday that

[p]rotesters at the Democratic National Convention say their designated area outside the FleetCenter infringes on their safety and free speech rights.

At a news conference Saturday, protesters also complained that the fenced-in area is out of sight to most delegates and passers-by en route to the arena. ...

"We are very alarmed that our First Amendment rights have been undermined to the degree that the city of Boston now thinks the rights of free expression, the right to rally and protest means you get out into an area like this," said Leslie Cagan, co-founder of United for Peace and Justice, who likened the protest area to an internment camp.

The area, with a small stage, is surrounded on three sides by a wire fence with razor wire on top.

AP went further, with a more complete description.

As thousands of delegates, journalists and dignitaries stream into the FleetCenter, protesters for the next few days will be enclosed in a shadowy, closed-off piece of urban streetscape just over a block away.

The maze of overhead netting, chain link fencing and razor wire....

Abandoned, elevated rail lines and green girders loom over most of the official demonstration zone that slopes down to a subway station closed for the duration. To avoid hitting girders, tall protesters will have to duck at one end of the 28,000-square-foot zone. Train tracks obscure the line of sight to much of the FleetCenter. Concrete blocks were set around streets in the area....

The question is, whether this attention will do any good or not. I happen to know the area being described. It is indeed dark and out of the way, inconvenient even if not fenced in. Any protest there will be essentially invisible as well as - and I do not believe this is by coincidence - uninviting to the media, particularly TV because of difficult lighting conditions. (By the way, the purpose of the overhead netting is to protect pedestrians from pieces of concrete that may fall from the roadway above - but the main thing it fills up with is bird shit.)

And if the poor conditions aren't enough, there's always the fear factor.

Authorities fear that some protesters are preparing to target the media.

The FBI said Friday that it had "unconfirmed information" that a domestic group plans to attack media vehicles, possibly with "explosives or incendiary devices," according to a statement issued by the FBI's Boston field office.

It's all part of a plan to limit speech, to curtail protest. This isn't about maintaining security, it's about disappearing dissent. Think I'm joking or being paranoid? Consider that it was the city that insisted on the dark, out-of-the-way protest site behind razor wire-topped fences and under girders, a place a US District court judge called "an affront to free expression" and a "festering boil" before - get this - refusing to order changes. And now,

[a]uthorities said they were lowering the maximum number of protesters to 1,000, from a previous 4,000, because of concerns of overcrowding.

That is, having enforced a lousy location and having done their best to limit media coverage, they want to limit the size of protests as well.

Still not convinced? This is also from AP for Sunday:

About 2,000 protesters gathered at noon on the historic Boston Common, site of many of the city's most memorable demonstrations. After about two hours there, they marched about half a mile to the Fleet Center, where Democrats plan to nominate hometown candidate John Kerry for president on Wednesday.

Several blocks away, about 1,000 anti-abortion advocates gathered at Faneuil Hall, the historic meeting house where patriots gathered before the American Revolution, and set off on their own march to the FleetCenter.

The two groups crossed paths at an intersection, where demonstrators exchanged angry words with one another. Some of the anti-abortion marchers laid down in the street. They soon stood up at the request of the police and the two marches continued their separate ways following a few minutes of confusion.

About 30 state police officers wearing riot gear lined Beacon Street for the larger march, in which the throng paraded behind a banner reading "Bring the troops home now."

A half dozen cruisers and 18 police vans followed slowly along the parade route.

First note that the antiwar march was one for which city officials originally refused to give a permit, claiming they were concerned about public safety. It took a federal judge to force them to change their decision.

So despite all the "concern," despite all the surveillance, despite all the negotiations, despite 30 cops in riot gear, a half-dozen cruisers, and 18 vans, they still allowed two marches with sharply differing agendas to "cross paths at an intersection?"

What the hell kind of nonsense is that? What, are we supposed to believe this was an accident, a surprise, a coincidence? That no planning by police took this into account? That despite the show of force, no effort either was or could have been undertaken to divert one march to a slightly different route or hold it back for a few minutes until the other had gone by? Are we supposed to think police did not deliberately let this happen?

Well, I for one do not buy that for one single instant. I say - and it will take a great deal to convince me otherwise - that the police did allow this to happen, did it knowingly, in anticipation of a confrontation that could be used to revoke other permits and lock the city down against protest altogether. To the credit (and benefit) of both marches, it appears nothing beyond angry words were exchanged.

Much, I suspect, to the frustration of the Boston PD.

Updated to note that playing up the supposed threat of an attack on the media is already having an effect, as the Miami Herald (registration required) described on Monday.

Television stations have enhanced security around broadcast vans and distributed bulletproof vests to some employees. Members of Knight Ridder's coverage team, which serves The Herald and dozens of other newspapers, were urged by managers to attend "hostile environment" training similar to that given to staffers bound for Baghdad.

That is, the media are already playing it cautious - which will likely have an effect on their willingness to cover demonstrations.