Skip to main content


Reposted from Daily Kos by JoanMar
United States Army Private First Class William K. Nakamura, Medal of Honor recipient
United States Army Private First Class William K. Nakamura, U.S. Medal of Honor recipient, awarded posthumously.
In "The Memorial Day history forgot: The Martyrs of the Race Course," I wrote last year about the not very well known African-American roots of Memorial Day. In recent years, some media attention has been paid to the long history of Black military service—from the Revolutionary War, including Haitians who fought for us, through the civil war, in films like Glory, and the Tuskegee Airmen in World War II—no matter the racism we faced, and still face in this country.  

We hear less about other soldiers of color—Asian, Native American and Latino who died for us, who also faced, and still face discrimination within our shores.

Pictured above is William Kenzo Nakamura (January 21, 1922-July 4, 1944).

He was a United States Army soldier and a recipient of the United States military's highest decoration—the Medal of Honor—for his actions in World War II.

Nakamura was born in Seattle to Japanese immigrant parents. He is a Nisei, which means that he is a second generation Japanese-American. His family was interned in Minidoka in Idaho during World War II. Nakamura volunteered to be part of the all-Nisei 442nd Regimental Combat Team. This army unit was mostly made up of Japanese Americans from Hawaii and the mainland.

On July 4, 1944, Nakamura was serving as a private first class in the 442nd Regimental Combat Team. On that day, near Castellina, Italy, he single-handedly destroyed an enemy machine gun emplacement and later volunteered to cover his unit's withdrawal. He was then killed while attacking another machine gun nest which was firing on his platoon

Follow me below the fold for more of this memorial history.
Continue Reading
Reposted from Steven D by a2nite

Many, many police officers and their supporters are going ape shit very upset at a group of student artists at Westfield High School in New Jersey for daring to exhibit their artwork.  Why?  Because the art in question is based on the theme "Law Enforcement - Police Brutality."  I guess cops can give a punch (or a taser shot, "rough ride" or a bullet) but they can't stand to see any artistic expression of that behavior, symbolic or otherwise.  And so they are lambasting the high school and the student artists whose only crime, as far as I can tell, was using their own life experience of interactions with police to inform what they create.

Artwork depicting scenes of police brutality displayed in a Westfield High School art show has set off a firestorm of comments from police supporters who have called the images "a gross misrepresentation," "ignorant" and "one-sided."

The artwork depicts images of officers with guns drawn, a target on a silhouette with his hands up, a bloodied body stabbed by a police shield and other scenes on a poster board that reads "Law Enforcement - Police Brutality." The silkscreens were part of an annual project where students depict their takes on controversial topics, according to a student.

A storm of protest on social media erupted after the images first appeared on the school's facebook page, with a large number of people calling for the firing of the Superintendent for the school district, Dr. Margaret Dolan.  Here's a screenshot of some of the tamer responses to the exhibit posted on the school's facebook page:

Of course, Fox News couldn't resist covering this story.  Here's Eric Bolling's fair and balanced take on this matter, where he implicitly blamed the teachers at Westfield High for attacking the police, and demanded the exhibit be "taken down."

Superintendent Dolan, as result of this "controversy" posted a response attempting to defuse the criticism from people who posted such comments and attacked the school district for "teaching kids to disrespect the police."  

I am sorry that information that has been passed along via social media and elsewhere has not told the entire story and has led some to believe that we do not respect law enforcement. We do, and we are teaching our students to do the same.
Ironically, it was the kids at the school who chose the subject - not the Superintendent, not their teachers.  They were told that it was their choice to make and that, as one of the students, Kayla related to NJ.com:
"We submitted several different topics of our choice and finally narrowed them down to three - Law Enforcement- Police Brutality, Modern Technology Advances and Gender Equality," said student Kayla McMillan. "The students were allowed to choose either side of the arguments and were told they would not be in trouble for their own opinions."
Welcome to the real world, Kayla, where people will not respect your right to freedom of expression if it upsets their delicate sensibilities.  Obviously, the student artists who created these images didn't do so in a vacuum, nor did their teachers brainwash them to "hate the police."  The reality in America today is that police violence against all citizens, but particularly minority populations, is commonplace, despite falling crime rates.  We've all seen overzealous and violent law enforcement responses to peaceful protest movements such as Occupy Wall Street, and far too many shootings, and other instances of police violence against African Americans and Latinos, many of them unarmed and often while they were already in custody (e.g., Freddy Gray).  

The cops and their supporters can loudly proclaim all they want that these "incidents" are infrequent and represent only a few bad apples.  However, as more stories come out of officially sanctioned abuse and outright torture, such as what occurred in Chicago's infamous Homan Square station, and as more and more people capture video of these brutal outrages (e.g., Tamir Rice, Walter Scott, Eric Garner) where innocent people are murdered by cops, the harder it is to defend the police, especially since so many of them remain silent in the face of their fellow officers' open criminality.

Frankly, in this case, the kids got it right.

Discuss
Reposted from Digging up those Facts ... for over 8 years. by a2nite


Americans used to have rights. Primarily the Right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Also we supposedly have the the right to be "secure from unreasonable searches and seizures of property by the government" -- "without warrant or probable cause."

It seems in some sections of America however, rogue police officers and the one-sided courts, have effectively made these American Rights -- null and void -- with respect to any common sense understanding of these rights.

It's kind of hard to "pursue happiness" -- when you've just been shot 137 times!


When can police use lethal force against a fleeing suspect?

pbs.org -- April 8, 2015

[...]

Can police officers shoot at fleeing individuals?

Only in very narrow circumstances. A seminal 1985 Supreme Court case, Tennessee vs. Garner, held that the police may not shoot at a fleeing person unless the officer reasonably believes that the individual poses a significant physical danger to the officer or others in the community. That means officers are expected to take other, less-deadly action during a foot or car pursuit unless the person being chased is seen as an immediate safety risk.

In other words, a police officer who fires at a fleeing man who a moment earlier murdered a convenience store clerk may have reasonable grounds to argue that the shooting was justified. But if that same robber never fired his own weapon, the officer would likely have a much harder argument.

You don’t shoot fleeing felons. You apprehend them unless there are exigent circumstances -- emergencies -- that require urgent police action to safeguard the community as a whole,” said Greg Gilbertson, a police practices expert and criminal justice professor at Centralia College in Washington state.
[...]

Am I creating more of a danger by chasing this person than if I let this person stay at large?” Drago said. “Especially in a vehicle pursuit, is it worth risking everyone on the road to catch this guy?”


Good questions.  When do Police in "hot pursuit" -- become a bigger problem, than the one they are supposedly chasing?


Continue Reading
Reposted from Daily Kos by JoanMar
Overpass Light Brigade with lights that read
Overpass Light Brigade, "Unlearn Racism"
When the Overpass Light Brigade brought the message of "Unlearn Racism" to Milwaukee, they held up lights on a subject that we are confronted with daily, but are not always sure how to address as individuals. We know that anthropologists and other scientists have made it clear for years that biological "race" exists as only a social construct, but that "racism" is alive and well and none of us are unaffected by the miasma from the racial swamp we breathe in daily.

So many of our efforts are focusing on protesting the more obvious deleterious effects of systemic racism—via protests and legislation—that we don't always have time to have a conversation about what to do about it, person by person. This is what Ricky Sherover-Marcuse called "attitudinal racism."

Because racism is both institutional and attitudinal, effective strategies against it must recognize this dual character. The undoing of institutionalized racism must be accompanied by the unlearning of racists attitudes and beliefs. The unlearning of racists patterns of thought and action must guide the practice of political and social change.

As a black person, I'm always interested in trying to figure out in conversations with my close friends who are not black—what makes them tick? How did they shake off the shackles of ostensible racial superiority and change? What was it in their upbringing, surrounds, faith, ethical teachings, incidents that took place along the road of life that allowed them to scour out racism or at least start the cleansing? Perhaps if more people would talk about how they unlearned racism, it would help direct others onto that path.

Follow me below the fold to begin that conversation.

Continue Reading
Reposted from Daily Kos by elenacarlena
An African American woman working at her desk
Years ago, when my career depended on my being so much better at what I did than were the men I worked with, and my willingness to work twice as hard for 60.2 percent of their salary, I was forced to walk a very fine line between my feminist principles and my need for that truncated paycheck.

I loved the work though; I was thrilled to be paid to analyze the physical and financial aspects of a business and to make a decision. Someone was actually willing to pay me to think. And to deal with abstract concepts, like finance and contracts and tort law. Heady stuff for one who was raised in an era when few women worked outside the home.

Even in my early twenties, I knew that the words we used shaped the way we think. Back before it was called politically correct, when it was merely seen as respect, we stopped referring to adult African American males as boys. But even the most liberal men of that era still referred to women as girls.

One day, up on that tenuous tightrope upon which the first woman in a man's job had to balance, I had a discussion with my boss, a Berkeley graduate working in San Francisco, about the word girl. Politely, with humor and a winning smile, I suggested that referring to an adult in the terms of childhood diminished her standing in his eyes. That it was not possible to see the professional woman when he was thinking of her as a child, as "less than" an adult member of his team. I remember saying that of course, it was his right to use whatever language he felt was appropriate, but that I did wish he would at least think about the word and what it implied, when he was using it.

Today, I am no longer in need of a paycheck issued by a man, so I can say it flat out, "Do not call me 'girl.' " I am not a child, and it doesn't matter how many women use the term to describe each other or themselves. It is inappropriate to label an adult as a child in any professional setting. Or in any discussion of adults in a professional setting.

The reason this needs to be said now, is that we are likely to nominate the first woman as president of the United States within the next year. We have to be prepared for the backlash that is sure to come, just as our black sisters and brothers have had to deal with the backlash created by the election of the first black president of the United States.

There is more below the fold.

Continue Reading
Reposted from This Week in the War on Women by elenacarlena
By Christine Gutierrez-Boswell

It has been awhile since I have authored a column here. Fortunately, the news never gets less interesting, and unfortunately gets worse for women.

The top news story this week deals with hypocrisy and “cheap grace”.

First off, let me define the term cheap grace. In his book, “Conservatives Without Conscience,“ John Dean defines “cheap grace” as (and I am paraphrasing) simply seeking forgiveness from the people [God] you have hurt,  after knowingly committing a “sin.” He goes on to elaborate the fact that the acts are done purposely and the perpetrator knows all they have to do is seek forgiveness and all will be well again. They will be accepted by their community once more. It is the cure all from murder to molestation and everything in between. Followers of these teachings therefore cannot understand why there should be backlash at all! “Why should there be punishment when God has forgiven them?” They play victim and turn the blame on the brutal media or “judgmental liberals.” It’s sort of the Ponzi scheme of morality. It’s actually brilliant…if you are a part of this warped world of thinking. (If you would like to know more about this book, read it or go here: http://www.tomhull.com/.... ) Does anyone see the correlation between the stories coming out consisting of molestation and these kind of people? “He who believes and is baptized shall be saved…”?? (Mark 16:16).

Continue Reading
Reposted from jpmassar by elenacarlena

OOPS: Someone put an autoplay video embed in the comments. If you hear audio you can go here and stop the video from playing.

-----

 photo Cleveland-RUSSELL-WILLIAMS_zpstwrr7czd.jpg

Two and a half years ago I penned "Wouldn't 136 bullets have been enough?" detailing the egregious and unjustified deaths of two Clevelanders in a hail of police bullets - chased twenty miles through the streets of that city because their car had backfired and officers thought they had fired a weapon (they had no weapon).

Michael Brelo, the officer who fired the last 15 shots from on top of the car they were driving, was put on trial and today, to few people's surprise, was found not guilty of voluntary manslaughter. The judge (who was also the jury) decided that there was no proof that Brelo had fired the fatal shots.



So now we have uncovered yet another way for police to kill and get away with it: a firing squad. And they don't even have to load one of their guns at random with a blank.

There is little more I can say. Having police fire 137 bullets at innocent, unarmed citizens and there be no consequences is absurd, yet that is the world we live in.

Continue Reading
Reposted from VetGrl by a2nite

Judge O'Donnell just announced his verdict in the Michael Brelo trial.

Not Guilty.

Judge O'Donnell also accepted as proved Brelo's claims of justification regarding the lesser included offenses.

The charges were manslaughter and felonious assault in the shooting deaths of Timothy Russell and Malissa Williams on November 29, 2012.  Brelo was a Cleveland police officer at the time and was one of 13 officers who shot 137 rounds at Russell and Williams.  Background information is available here.

Like any criminal charge, the prosecution was required to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.  Judge O'Donnell found that the prosecution did not meet its burden on the manslaughter charges.  

The prosecution did prove felonious assault, but Brelo was nevertheless acquitted because of his successful assertion of justification as a defense.  Brelo bore the burden of proof on this defense by the lower preponderance of the evidence standard.

A few initial observations:

Judge O'Donnell spent an extraordinary amount of time reading the bases for his verdict. He even left the bench to use the visual aids, talking about specific entry wounds, which were fatal, and their angles of entry.

Regarding Timothy Russell, the judge "found beyond a reasonable doubt that fired a shot that by itself would have caused Russell's death."  He added, however, that voluntary manslaughter additionally requires that Brelo's "shot alone actually caused the death or that it was 'the straw that broke the camel's back,'" meaning that Brelo's shot would have to have exacerbated potentially survivable shots, thus causing the death.  (The judge's discussion regarding Malissa Williams is a bit confusing, requiring a closer reading of the verdict.)

The judge also discussed testimony about the unreasonableness of Brelo's jumping on the hood of the car to fire.  He stated that the law requires him to look at the totality of the circumstances and that, even if that one act was unreasonable (which the judge's view on that needs a closer look) the defense of justification isn't defeated by that one aspect.

More to come. I'm going to look for the decision and transcript.

UPDATE:  You can get the written verdict here. The verdict is the entry at the top of the docket entries at that link.  The document opens as a .tif file and I don't know how to include those in a diary.

UPDATE x2:  For way more detail, see jpmasser's diary here.

Update x3:  Because, yes, we've got to find a way:

Discuss

Fri May 22, 2015 at 07:58 PM PDT

Cartoon: Crime and injustice

by rebeccahendin

Reposted from rebeccahendin by 2thanks

Click image for larger view.

See more www.rebeccahendin.com
Follow on Twitter @hendinarts

Discuss
Reposted from JoanMar by JoanMar

    Daily Kos' own ObamaCare guru, Brainwrap, has recently highlighted the story of Luis Lang in a number of posts here, here, here, and here, and on his own website. The story is particularly interesting and noteworthy because Luis Lang is losing his sight but gaining some valuable insight. This is Mr. Lang:



healthcare58



     On Wednesday, the Washington Post explained about Luis Lang to everyone who doesn't have an internet:

Lang’s story has gone wild on the internet, turning him into a symbol of a number of intertwined narratives about the law: How Republican opposition to the Medicaid expansion has created a coverage gap claiming many low income people; how justifiable confusion about the complicated law is fueling anger at it; and so on.



It all started when the Charlotte Observer reported that Lang, 49, a self-employed Republican handyman who has never bought insurance, developed “bleeding in his eyes and a partly detached retina caused by diabetes.” The paper reported that subsequent medical bills quickly ate up his savings, whereupon he turned to the Obamacare exchange. He discovered he earns too little to get a subsidy, yet he might not be able to get on Medicaid because South Carolina has not opted into the Medicaid expansion. He risks falling into the “Medicaid gap.”

The paper reported that his family blamed this on Obamacare, prompting criticism from bloggers and others, combined with a crowd-funding drive for his surgery. In a subsequent interview with Think Progress, Lang said he now thinks opposition to the Medicaid expansion is the culprit, is rethinking his GOP affiliation, and is going to try to get coverage from the law, though he still says he has issues with its implementation and blames both parties:

“Now that I’m looking at what each party represents, my wife and I are both saying — hey, we’re not Republicans!” Lang said….

“I put the blame on everyone — Republican and Democrat. But I do mainly blame Republicans for their pigheadedness,” Lang said. “They’re blocking policies that could help everyone. I’m in the situation I’m in because they chose not to expand Medicaid for political reasons. And I know I’m not the only one.”….

    He's right that he's not the only one. In fact, there are approximately 250,000 South Carolinians in the "Medicaid Gap." We at Support the Dream Defenders knew this was going to be a problem, so, back in April, we sent a Freedom of Information Act request to Governor Nikki Haley asking her: What are you doing to find out the extent of the damages you are causing? This was her response:



healthcare57



     As you can see, Governor Nikki Haley has pockets empty of fucks to give about Luis Lang or the other 249,999 or so individuals in South Carolina who are one chicken bone or one drunk driver away from personal bankruptcy (or spending the next 20 to 40 years of their lives going to court to explain to the judge why payments for the hospital's bill couldn't be made that month).

     Besides our surprising new ally, Luis Lang, there are other less surprising entities fighting back. One of those fighters is the South Carolina Hospital Association, which stands to lose billions of dollars because Governor Haley wants to be pure (evil). In fact, at the SCHA website, you can sign a petition about Expanding Medicaid in the state. The petition is kind of fun, in a way, as it goes after other big businesses that have received the Governor's largess:

The choice for our future. For decades, our state has doled-out billions of tax credits to companies like BMW and Boeing to grow our economy and enhance the quality of life in South Carolina. We’ve also offered hundreds of millions of dollars to build highways and deepen our ports to build a better future. By accepting the federal dollars offered to our state, the University of South Carolina Moore School of Business projects that the $11.2 billion in new federal dollars will result in 44,000 new jobs. With the positive economic impact and increased health care coverage, the positive return on investment is clear.
    We urge you to sign the petition, or better still, this one from CREDO.  

     Besides all of the other reasons for Medicaid Expansion, including less DEATH, better health, working population able to work more days, fewer bankruptcies, increased jobs, less need for expensive emergency room care, controlling the previously-skyrocketing effects health care had on state and the national budgets, increased revenue from jobs (South Carolina has a state income tax), the Federal Government pays for 100% of the expense until 2016, when it will gradually lower the percentage over time to 90%.

     Here's the problem: South Carolina has seen a huge increase in people who have signed up for traditional Medicaid--and the federal reimbursement rate for that program varies between approximately 50% to 73.05%. As you can see, those numbers are a lot smaller than 100% or 90%. Additionally, many more children are signing up for the Child Health Insurance Program ("CHIP"). These larger numbers will crush the South Carolina budget. As an aside, if the nearly one million children in Texas who are eligible for CHIP, but have not signed up, ever do, Governor Greg Abbott's state will be in dire financial straits. Of course, this acts as a disincentive for red state governments to aggressively seek out children who could use the health care.      


Continue Reading

Fri May 22, 2015 at 01:24 PM PDT

Black Kos, Week In Review

by Black Kos

Reposted from Black Kos community by JoanMar

Marijuana - The Playing Field is not Level

Commentary by Black Kos Editor JoanMar

I don't smoke. I have never lit up a joint in my life. But I know a lot about the good ol'  Mary Jane. I can smell it a mile away. My mother smoked like every day; my father, I have been told, smoked; my older brother smokes, my younger sister smokes (or smoked - she claims she no longer does - I have heard that before), I have had boyfriends who smoked, and I had smelled it on my son's breath a couple times.
I was not going to be my mom, so that meant no smoking and no heavy drinking.

Given all of the above, you may wonder why I am so bothered by seeing that documentary by CNN, Cashing in on the 'green rush.'  The series celebrate (the best word to describe what I saw) the "trailblazers" who are making use of the opportunity provided to them in the wake of the legalization of marijuana in Colorado.

I am not merely bothered by what I saw, I found it to be downright obscene. To be fair, those people did not invent the problem. They are merely doing what any true entrepreneur would do. I ain't really mad at them as much as I'm mad at yet another piece of evidence of just how our two-tiered justice system works.

See for yourself:

The idea that these people could be so joyously celebrating their new found wealth, even as hundreds of thousands of people have suffered and continue to suffer for trying to do what they are doing, leaves a nasty taste in my mouth

In talking about their "pioneering" business, the young (white) couple featured in the series, spoke about a conversation they had with their grandmother. Apparently they mischaracterized the nature of their business and then were forced to come clean to grandma. The wife explains that conversation this way:

"She thought we were just your stereotypical drug dealers."  
Stereotypical drug dealers. Who are those, pray tell?
Maybe someone like Vincent Winslow? Let's take a look at his case:
On September 5, 2008, Fate Vincent Winslow watched a plainclothes stranger approach him. Homeless and hungry, on a dark street rife with crime, the 41-year-old African American was anxious to make contact, motivated by one singular need: food.
More:
Police arrested Winslow, drove him to prison, and locked him up. Six months later, a jury found him guilty of distribution of a schedule I substance (marijuana). Three months after that, a judge sentenced him to life imprisonment with hard labor, without the benefit of parole.

For a transaction that involved a whopping $25.00, Mr. Winslow got a life sentence, and with hard labor to boot.
He is just one example of thousands...if not millions. Whether selling or using, African Americans are more likely to be targeted, arrested, and convicted.
Whites and blacks  use marijuana at roughly the same rates; on average, however, blacks are 3.7 times more likely than whites to be arrested for possession, according to a comprehensive 2013 report by the A.C.L.U.
In Iowa, blacks are 8.3 times more likely to be arrested, and in the worst-offending counties in the country, they are up to 30 times more likely to be arrested. The war on drugs aims its firepower overwhelmingly at African-Americans on the street, while white users smoke safely behind closed
Another ACLU report details the long lasting, life-changing effect of being arrested for keeping company with mary jane:
When people are arrested for possessing even tiny amounts of marijuana, it can have dire collateral consequences that affect their eligibility for public housing and student financial aid, employment opportunities, child custody determinations, and immigration status.
It seems to me that there is something sad and downright immoral about how the ganja god has chosen to distribute his/her blessings. In the same state, in the same country, in the same world, some people experiencing great fortune while others are  behind bars for doing the exact same thing. If we can't have a level playing field, at least show a little awareness about what's happening around you.

One law for everyone; those in Buk-in-hamm palace, and those standing in the shadows furtively scratching at the edge of the sumptuous pie.


Continue Reading
Reposted from Chitown Kev by 2thanks

One issue that comes up time and again regarding the out-of-control behavior of police departments across the country is the recycling of bad police officers from one police department to another. Tim Loehmann, the killer of 12-year old Tamir Rice in Cleveland, OH, is the poster child of this law enforcement malpractice.

Roger L. Goldman, Professor Emeritus at the Center for Interdisciplinary Study of Law & Advocacy at St. Louis University School of Law, has proposed, in an opinion piece at the Guardian, that one thing that states and legislatures can do is to take a more active role in revoking police licenses.

Since 1960, when New Mexico became the first state to get the authority to revoke licenses, a total of 44 states have established commissions that have the authority to issue and revoke licenses, similar to the way lawyers and doctors are regulated. But 25% of the nation’s police officers work in six states – California, Hawaii, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York and Rhode Island – that don’t have such regulatory bodies. And 16 of the 44 states that do have the power to revoke can only do so if the officer has first been convicted of a crime.

Approximately 30,000 law enforcement officers have had their licenses revoked in the United States. However, an officer who has lost his police license may then work in private security, corrections and other criminal justice occupations, depending on each state’s law. Such ex-officers, who are often armed in their new jobs, have sometimes gone on to commit crimes in their new uniforms.

However, a large percentage of police officers with prior misconduct don’t need to leave policing for good. Many know they can seek jobs with other departments that will knowingly hire them despite the risk of a possible damage suit for wrongful hiring. There are economic reasons why this occurs: many departments can’t afford to pay a decent wage so they hire officers who have previously been fired or resigned in lieu of firing because they know they can pay them less.

Thanks to the Infoboomtube known as Google, I also managed to locate Professor Goldman's  2001 detailed study of the issue, Revocation of Police Officer Certification: A Viable Remedy for Police Misconduct?   One interesting thing that I noted is Goldman's view that citizen review boards are often insufficient to solve the problem
Without a mechanism at the state or national level to remove the certificate of law enforcement officials who engage in such misconduct, it is likely that there will be more such instances of repeated misconduct. Traditional remedies do not address the problem. For example, the exclusionary rule prevents prosecutors from using probative evidence seized from a defendant in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights, but it does nothing to punish the officer. Likewise, criminal prosecution of officers is rare, and convincing jurors to convict is extremely difficult. Administrative complaints against the police in front of civilian review boards have been equally ineffective because the department for which the officer works rather than an independent body usually conducts the investigation. Finally, civil damage suits against police officers face the problem of juries, who tend to rule in favor of the police; even if the suit is successful, the officer is often judgment-proof.
The case studies that Goldman cites in his paper are impressive. (I do have to add here that my state of Illinois does seem to have one of the better state laws regarding the decertification of corrupt police officers, yet there was nothing to stop disgusting "human vermin" like Jon Burge or Guantanamo torturer Richard Zuley from committing horrific crimes nor does it seem to have deterred the Chicago Police Department from picking up where Burge and Zuley left off.)

To be sure, Goldman is well aware that revocation of police licenses is only a part of the solution:

States need to move beyond merely revoking licenses of unfit police officers, though. They must enact legislation to disaccredit police departments that do not meet minimum standards, just as failing local school districts can lose accreditation.
The entire oped is well worth a good read.

And given the "rarity" of police misconduct and bad police officers, it may even be necessary.

Discuss
You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.

RSS

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site