bureaucracybusters

Posts Tagged ‘SAN FRANCISCO POLICE DEPARTMENT’

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

THE AGENCIES WE DESERVE

In Bureaucracy, Law Enforcement, Politics, Social commentary on March 22, 2013 at 12:13 am

The quickest way of opening the eyes of the people is to find the means of making them descend to particulars, seeing that to look at things only in a general way deceives them.…

--Niccolo Machiavelli, The Discourses

One morning at about 8:10, a friend of mine named Robert heard a helicopter repeatedly buzzing the San Francisco Ternderloin area, where he lives.

Thinking that a fire or police action might be in the works, he called the non-emergency number of the San Francisco Police Department (SFPD): (415) 553-0123.

Police dispatcher

And he got a recorded message.

This told him–in English–what he already knew: He had reached the San Francisco Police Department.

Then it told him this again in Spanish.  Then again in Cantonese.  Then came a series of high-pitched squeals–presumably for those who are hard-of-hearing.

Then the line went dead, and another recorded voice told Robert: “If you’d like to make a call, please hang up and try again.”

At that point, Robert decided to waste no more time trying to learn if there was an emergency going on in his area.  Or, to put it more accurately, he decided to waste no more time trying to learn this from the SFPD.

Instead, Robert turned on his TV and checked all the local news channels.  When he didn’t see anyone reporting a raging fire or police sealing off an area, he decided there probably wasn’t anything to worry about.

But later on he decided to call the SFPD once again–to complain at a level he believed would attain results.

That level was the office of its chief, Greg Suhr.

Robert didn’t expect to reach the chief himself.  But he didn’t have to: Reaching Suhr’s secretary should serve the same purpose.

The secretary he reached turned out to be a sworn officer of the agency.  She patiently heard out Robert’s complaint.  And she totally agreed with it.

She also agreed that this was a longstanding problem with the SFPD–citizens not being able to get through for help because of an ineffective communications system.

Finally, she agreed with Robert that the situation counted as a major PR disaster for her agency.  People who become disgusted and/or disallusioned with a police department’s phone system aren’t likely to trust that agency with their cooperation–or their lives.

Then she had a surprise for Robert:  Like him, she had at times been unable to reach a live dispatcher–even when calling 9-1-1.

She added that the police department did not handle its own dispatch work.  This had been farmed out long ago to the San Francisco Department of Emergency Management (SFDEM).

She said that the SFPD didn’t have any control–or even influence–over SFDEM, which operated as an independent agency.

Robert suggested that it was definitely in the best interests of the SFPD for someone at its highest level to contact SFDEM and demand major reforms.  Or to find another agency that would take its dispatcher responsibilities seriously.

The chief’s secretary said she would pass along Robert’s comments to the proper authority.

Will anything change?  Not likely, barring a miracle.

There are few events more frightening and frustrating than having to call the police, fire department or paramedics during an emergency–and get a recorded message.

Whether intended or not, the message this sends the caller can only be: “Your call is simply not important to us–and neither are you.  We’ll get to you when we feel like it.”

When people call the police or fire department, they’re usually frightened–for themselves or others.  They know that, in a fire or crime or medical emergency, literally second counts.

It’s going to take the police or fire or paramedics several minutes to arrive–assuming they don’t get caught up in a traffic snarl.

And it’s going to take them even longer to arrive if it takes the caller several minutes to reach them with a request for help.

This is the sort of bread-and-butter issue that local authorities–who operate police and fire departments–should take most seriously.

Mayors and council members should not expect to be treated with respect when their constituents are treated so disrespectfully in a time of crisis.

And citizens aren’t stupid.  They can easily tell lies from truths.

Lies such as: “We’d like to put in a new communications system, but we can’t afford it due to budget cuts.”

And truths such as: While San Francisco faced a $229 million deficit for the fiscal year, 2012, it nevertheless found untold monies to tap after the San Francisco Giants won the 2011-12 World Series, 4-0.

Monies to decorate various San Francisco buildings (such as the airport) with the orange-and-black colors of the Giants.  Or with the Giants logo.

San Francisco Airport–decked out with San Francisco Giants colors

Monies to throw a day-long party for the victorious Giants on October 31–Halloween.

So, in the end, it all comes down to a matter of priority–for both citizens and their elected leaders.  As Robert F. Kennedy once said: “Every nation gets the kind of government it deserves–and the kind of law enforcement it insists in.”

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

POT-HEAD HYPOCRISY – PART THREE (END)

In Law, Law Enforcement, Politics, Social commentary, Uncategorized on January 17, 2013 at 12:01 am

On November 6, 2012, Americans overwhelmingly re-elected Barack Obama as President of the United States.

And on the same date, Americans in Colorado and Washington state overwhelmingly voted to decriminalize and regulate the possession of an ounce or less of marijuana by adults over 21.

But at the Federal level, marijuana remains a prohibited, Schedule 1 drug.

And the Justice Department–seeing these initiatives as a direct challenge to its authority–are considering taking legal action against those states.

Among their weapons: Federal asset forfeiture laws which allow the Justice Department to seize properties used to facilitate violations of Federal anti-drug laws.

Prosecutors and case-agents view the seizing of drug-related properties as crucial to eliminating the financial clout of drug-dealing operations.

There is an additional incentive for the government to seize properties involved in drug-law violations: Local and State law enforcement agencies are allowed to keep some of the proceeds once the property has been sold.

Thus, financially-strapped police agencies have found that pursuing drug-law crimes is a great way to fill their own coffers.

Nonsmoking tenants in apartment buildings who do not wish to inhale the cancerous fumes of marijuana smokers will likely find their options limited.

In San Francisco, landlords can ban smoking from common areas of their apartment buildings–such as the lobby and hallways. But if a tenant wants to toak up in his unit and that stench enters another apartment, city laws do not provide for a remedy.

In most cities and states, apartment residents will face a bitter truth: The legal system has not yet caught up with the scientific realities of the carcinogenic properties of tobacco–or marijuana–smoke.

This is comparable to the situation existing 25 years ago, when people could openly smoke in Federal buildings across the nation.  And when restaurants offered “non-smoking” sections–which were often polluted with the smoke of cigarettes, pipes and even cigars.

Over time, the law finally caught up with the lethal realities of secondhand tobacco smoke.  Unfortunately, it has not yet caught up with the equally lethal realities of secondhand marijuana smoke.

But a two-step remedy does lie at hand–for both nonsmoking tenants and cash-strapped Federal agencies:

First: If the Federal Drug Enforcement Administration finds widespread drug-abuse occurring within an apartment complex, it should arrest the tenants involved.

Second, more importantly, the Justice Department should levy a punitively large fine against the landlord on whose property these violations occurred.

The results of such a policy would be as follows:

  1. The violators of Federal anti-narcotics laws will be immediately put out of business.
  2. The revenues from the fine(s) can be divided between (1) financing future law enforcement efforts; and (2) financing the workings of Federal agencies generally.
  3. Thus, the Government can generate untold and desperately-needed revenues—without making itself politically vulnerable to the charge of raising taxes. Only law-ignoring landlords and their drug-dealing tenants will protest the enforcement of such fines.
  4. In San Francisco alone, more than two-thirds of its residents are renters.  Multiply the number of apartment complexes that exist just in this small city by the number that exist in larger ones—such as Los Angeles and New York—and you can easily imagine the revenues to be generated.
  5. Landlords who are assessed such fines will be served unmistakable notice that passively tolerating violations of Federal narcotics laws is no longer in their best interests.
  6. They, in turn, will take a far more pro-active approach to combing known drug-dealers and –abusers from their rolls of tenants.
  7. This, in turn, will make their complexes far safer for their law-abiding tenants.
  8. The Federal Government need not burden itself with assuming custody of such properties. Since landlords live essentially for their wallets, the levying of massive fines against them will send a message they cannot/will not dare ignore in the future.
  9. If the Federal Government chooses to seize apartment complexes found in violation of Federal anti-drug laws, it can strip the current owners of those properties and re-sell the complexes—as it now sells other properties bought with drug-tainted monies.
  10. Presumably the new owners of those properties will take warning from the successful prosecution of the previous owners.

Conventional remedies are useless against unconventional law-breakers.

By simply putting the onus on landlords to police their own buildings, the Justice Department can, in one stroke, accomplish a series of worthwhile goals on behalf of:

  • law-abiding tenants;
  • itself;
  • the Federal Government generally; and
  • those Americans served by its agencies.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

POT-HEAD HYPOCRISY – PART TWO (OF THREE)

In Law, Law Enforcement, Politics, Social commentary on January 16, 2013 at 12:16 am

On November 6, 2012, Americans overwhelmingly re-elected Barack Obama as President of the United States.

And on the same date, Americans in Colorado and Washington state overwhelmingly voted to decriminalize and regulate the possession of an ounce or less of marijuana by adults over 21.

Both measures called for setting up state licensing schemes for pot growers, processors and retail stores.

On December 6, hundreds of potheads gathered at Seattle Center for a New Year’s Eve-style countdown to 12 a.m., when the legalization measure took effect.

When the clock struck, they cheered and lit up in unison–as though inhaling cancerous fumes and a skunk-like stench was something to celebrate.

But at the Federal level, marijuana remains a prohibited, Schedule 1 drug.

And in a marijuana-related decision–King v. Kentucky–the Supreme Court ruled in 2011 that police can force their way into a home without a warrant.

By an 8-1 vote, the Court upheld the warrantless search of an apartment after police smelled marijuana and feared that those inside were destroying incriminating evidence.

Prior to the November 6 marijuana-legalization votes, the Obama Justice Department had issued a policy for handling states that had legalized “medical marijuana.”

This said that Federal officials should generally not use their limited resources to go after small-time users, but should investigate and prosecute large-scale trafficking organizations.

The result was increased Federal raids on marijuana dispensaries–much to the outrage of potheads and liberals.

Marijuana leaf

Since the legalization of “recreational marijuana” in Colorado and Washington state, senior White House and Justice Department officials have considered taking legal action against those states to undermine their voter-approved initiatives.

The Federal Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) in particular sees the legalization of marijuana as a direct challenge to its authority to enforce Federal anti-drug laws.

The agency’s official position in marijuana is as follows:

Marijuana is properly categorized under Schedule 1 of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), 21 U.S.C. S 801, et seq. 

The clear weight of the currently available evidence supports this classification, including evidence that smoked marijuana has a high potential for abuse, has no accepted medical value in treatment in the United States, and evidence that there is a general lack of accepted safety for its use even under medical supervision.

The campaign to legitimize what is called “medical” marijuana is based on two propositions: first, that science views marijuana as medicine; and, second, that the DEA targets sick and dying people using the drug.  Neither proposition is true. 

Specifically, smoked marijuana has not withstood the rigors of science–it is not medicine, and it is not safe.  Moreover, the DEA targets criminals engaged in the cultivation and traficking of marijuana, not the sick and the dying.  This is true even in the 15 states that have approved the use of “medical” marijuana.

Click here: http://www.justice.gov/dea/docs/marijuana_position_2011.pdf

Among the DEA’s weapons: Federal asset forfeiture laws allow the Justice Department to seize properties used to facilitate violations of Federal anti-drug laws.

To increase the penalties for violating such laws, Congress amended the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984.

Section 881(a)(7) authorizes the forfeiture of real property “which is used, or intended to be used, in any manner or part, to commit, or to facilitate the commission” of a felony violation of the Federal Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970.

Congress intended that section to attack the economic power underwriting illegal drug operations.  As a result, the Justice Department can seize houses and/or land from a landowner owing to a tenant’s illegal drug activity.

This holds true even if the landlord didn’t participate in or claimed to be unaware of the drug-law violations.

Before civil forfeiture can proceed, two requirements must be met:

  • An exchange of a controlled substance; and
  • A substantial connection between the property and the illegal activity.

Once the government has proved the property was used to “facilitate” the violation of Federal anti-drug laws, seizure of the property can occur.

This usually means invoking the “innocent owner” defense: “I didn’t know or consent to what was going on.”

It’s up to the landowner to prove his innocence.  And proving a lack of knowledge and/or consent is extremely hard.

If an “affirmative” defense can’t be proved, forfeiture of the property is virtually inevitable.

The U.S. Attorney General then has the legal right to sell the forfeited property.  The profits from this sale can then be forwarded to various agencies of the United States Government.

Prosecutors and case agents think of this as a tax on criminality.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

POT-HEAD HYPOCRISY – PART ONE (OF THREE)

In History, Law, Law Enforcement on January 15, 2013 at 12:03 am

The American Lung Association has brilliantly put the dangers of tobacco smoking into vivid perspective:

“Three decades ago, public outrage killed an automobile model (Ford’s Pinto) whose design defects allegedly caused 59 deaths.

“Yet every year tobacco kills more Americans than did World War II — more than AIDS, cocaine, heroin, alcohol, vehicular accidents, homicide and suicide combined.

“Approximately 443,000 people die prematurely from smoking or exposure to secondhand smoke each year. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 24,518 people died of alochol, 17,774 died of AIDS, 34,485 died of car accidents, 39,147 died of drug use — legal and illegal — 16,799 died of murder and 36,909 died of suicide in 2009.

“That brings us to a total of 169,632 deaths, far less than the 430,000 that die from smoking annually.

“As for the part about World War II, approximately  292,000 soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines were killed in battle during World War II, according to a U.S. Census Bureau April 29, 2004, report in commemoration of the new World War II memorial in Washington, D.C.

“An additional 114,000 members of U.S. forces died of other causes during the war, bringing the total to 406,000 people.”

Click here: Tobacco – American Lung Association

Laws restricting where people may smoke have–in most parts of the country–caught up with the deadly realities of this habit.

No longer can smokers light up in restaurants, supermarkets, local, State and Federal buildings–and even hospitals.

The dangers of secondhand smoke are now almost universally accepted, even by smokers.  As a result, most smoking parents try to do it well out of range of their children.

The vast majority of employers ban smoking in the workplace–and, increasingly, are offering smoking-cessation programs as part of their medical insurance plans.

A growing number of apartment complexes now ban smoking by their residents–partly for the safety of tenants, and partly as a precaution against accidental fires.

So it comes as a shock to see how totally different are public attitudes toward the smoking of marijuana.

From a strictly health-related viewpoint, there is as much reason to restrict exposure to marijuana smoke as that from tobacco.

Consider the following from the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment OEHHA) of the State’s Environmental Protection Agency:

“MARIJUANA SMOKE LISTED EFFECTIVE JUNE 19, 2009 AS KNOWN TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA TO CAUSE CANCER [06/19/09]

“The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) of the California Environmental Protection Agency is adding marijuana smoke to the Proposition 65 list1, effective June 19, 2009.

“Marijuana smoke was considered by the Carcinogen Identification Committee (CIC) of the OEHHA Science “Advisory Board at a public meeting held on May 29, 2009.  The CIC determined that marijuana smoke was clearly shown, through scientifically valid testing according to generally accepted principles, to cause cancer.

“Consequently, marijuana smoke is being added to the Proposition 65 list, pursuant to Title 27, California Code of Regulations, section 25305(a)(1) (formerly Title 22, California Code of Regulations, section 12305(a)(1)).

“In summary, marijuana smoke is being listed under Proposition 65 as known to the State to cause cancer:”

Chemical

CAS No.

Toxicological Endpoint

Listing Mechanism

Marijuana smoke

—

Cancer

State’s Qualified Experts

Yet marijuana smoke is treated as something harmless, even as a subject for humor.

On “The Tonight Show,” Jay Leno often jokes about the growing number of “patients” who need “medical marijuana” as a remedy for glaucoma.

In San Francisco–long known as a bastion of tolerance for drug-abuse offenses of all types–police are cutting back on the enforcement of drug crimes.

This is especially true in the case of marijuana.

The SFPD claims this reflects a shift to focusing on violent crime,

The decline is also partly due to a 10% staff cut during the past two years, as well as a $600,000 reduction in state and federal grants for drug enforcement.

The president of a property management agency recently told me that if a tenant complains of marijuana smoke pollution from another unit, the police will not enter the unit from which the stench is coming.

Yet marijuana remains illegal under the Federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA), classified as a Schedule 1 substance.

A Schedule 1 substance is defined as having the following characteristics:

  • It has a high potential for abuse.
  • It has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
  • There is a lack of accepted safety for its use under medical supervision.

And despite the unwillingness of the SFPD to enforce anti-drug laws, a 2011 Supreme Court decision allows police to force their way into a home without a warrant.

By an 8-1 vote, the Court upheld the warrantless search of an apartment after police smelled marijuana and feared that those inside were destroying incriminating evidence.

In addition, Federal asset forfeiture laws allow the Justice Department to seize properties used to facilitate violations of Federal anti-drug laws.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

“THE STREETS OF SAN FRANCISCO”–TV AND REALITY

In Bureaucracy, Law Enforcement, Politics, Social commentary on January 9, 2013 at 12:03 am

Remember Mike Stone, the no-nonsense homicide detective of the San Francisco Police Department?

Each week, he and his partner, Inspector Steve Keller, selflessly risked their lives battling criminals of all types–all to clean up “The Streets of San Francisco.”

Of course, the actors who played these giants of law enforcement–Karl Malden and Michael Douglas, respectively–never risked so much as a strained trigger finger.

Which gave them something in common with many of the men and women who run the real-life San Francisco Police Department today.

Consider: A friend of mine named Tom was a tenant in a San Francisco apartment complex owned by a notorious slumlord.

One July 2, he was assaulted by the often drunk, drug-abusing cretin who served as the building manager of the complex.  So he walked into his neighborhood police station and filled out a detailed report of the assault.

A few days later, realizing he had forgotten to add certain details the police might find important, Tom returned to the station.

But when he asked permission to add to the report, he made a discovery that left him surprised and outraged: Over the course of the July 4 holiday, the police had lost the original report he had filed!

Determined to not go through this experience again, he went home and typed up an even more detailed report.  Then he got online and looked up “San Francisco Police Department” on google.

The website for this agency listed the fax numbers to various high-ranking police officials–including its then-chief, George Gascón.

So Tom jotted down this number, then visited his local Kinko’s office.  For a small price he faxed his request for assistance directly to Chief Gascón.

The next night, two visitors knocked at his apartment door.  They turned out to be Inspectors for the SFPD.

As one of them reached into a briefcase to pull out a document, Tom noticed a copy of his faxed letter to Chief Gascón protruding from the briefcase.

The Inspector asked Tom if he wanted to sign a complaint against the building manager for assault.  Tom said yes, and he quickly did so.

But even though he had finally gotten the attention of the police department, this did not win him any help from the local District Attorney’s office.

The agency decided that a mere assault on a mere tenant by a slumlord’s building manager was not worth holding the manager–and landlord–accountable.

At that time, Kamala Harris was the D.A.  Among her priorities had been creating a secret program to allow even convicted illegal aliens to stay out of prison.

The program, Back on Track, did so by training them for jobs they couldn’t legally hold.

Click here: San Francisco D.A.’s program trained illegal immigrants for jobs they couldn’t legally hold – Los Angeles Times

Certainly it was more important to Harris to prevent violence-committing illegal aliens from going to prison than protecting the lives of law-abiding San Franciscans.

Harris has since won election to California Attorney General.

One of the many crimes that Detectives Stone and Killer relentlessly attacked was that of drug-dealing.  But today’s SFPD has essentially sworn off enforcement of the anti-drug laws.

Today, whole apartment complexes are awash in drug-usage and -dealing.  One such complex, located in the Tenderloin, has enough activity going to give Walgreen’s a serious run for its money.

In 2002, the San Francisco Chronicle ran a blistering series of investigative articles about the SFPD.  Among its findings:

  • Violent criminals in San Francisco have a better chance of getting away with their crimes than predators in any other large American city.
  • Someone who is shot, treated at a hospital and then released is not guaranteed an investigation. 
  • “Unless we have a named suspect, we’re not going to assign the case.  The solvability is too low,” said SFPD Lt. Henry Hunter, the supervisor then overseeing investigations of serious assaults.
  • The assault victim must visit the Hall of Justice for a follow-up interview by an inspector. 
  • “If a person is just shot and they don’t come in, that won’t be assigned necessarily,” Hunter said. “Even if a person comes in, it doesn’t mean it’s going to be assigned.”
  • The department’s inspectors investigate only the most egregious or easiest to solve violent crimes.
  • Most investigations are done by phone, with inspectors seldom leaving the office.
  • Under a formal agreement with the Police Officers Association–the police union–key investigative positions are filled on the basis of time that applicants spend on a signup list, not on demonstrated ability.
  • According to FBI criteria for clearance rates, police simply need to make an arrest to claim a crime as “solved” or “cleared.” It ­doesn’t matter what happens in court.

During the last 10 years, little has changed at the SFPD.  And little is likely to–for the better.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

STRIPPING DOWN FOR THE FBI – PART TWO (END)

In Bureaucracy, History, Law Enforcement, Social commentary on January 8, 2013 at 12:07 am

So you want to report a crime to the FBI?  Then be ready to give up your most private information before you get to speak with an agent.

If you feel you’re an upstanding citizen with nothing to hide, then fine.

But many people who don’t have anything to hide will hesitate to surrender such personal information to a powerful law enforcement agency–simply to talk with one of its agents.

This is even more true in this age of right-wing crusades against the Federal Government–and especially its law enforcement agencies.

At a time when Federal law enforcement agencies need all the cooperation they can get, this is definitely not the way to go about getting it.

It’s analogous to the famous joke about an English-speaking reporter covering a civil war in a foreign country who enters the scene of a massacre and asks: “Is there anyone here who speaks English and has been raped?”

Good detectives know that if you want to establish a bond between yourself and a potential source, you must prove, over time, that you can be trusted.

People who get most of what they “know” about police work from TV crime shows know almost nothing about its realities.

Cases aren’t wrapped up in 45 minutes.  Oftentimes, cops make deals with hardened criminals to solve a case: “You have to use a smaller bum to get a bigger bum,” as a deputy U.S. marshal once said about protecting Mafia informants through the Witness Security Program.

And merely slapping handcuffs on an accused criminal and saying “Book ‘em, Danno” isn’t the same as ensuring his conviction and imprisonment.

As cops know better than anyone, today’s arrest is often followed by tomorrow’s release on bond.  And, still later, by a watered-down sentence under a plea bargain agreement–if not an acquittal by a judge or jury.

Shows like “Hawaii Five-O” and “Law and Order” have proven great hits with the public.  But they don’t reveal the highly mixed feelings that most people actually have about the men and women who enforce the nation’s laws at local, state and Federal levels.

On one hand, many children are taught to believe in Officer Friendly as their protector in times of peril.  They grow into adults who want to believe the best about those sworn to “protect and serve.”

But if someone breaks into your home and steals your TV set, chances are, that’s the last you’ll ever see of it.

The cops aren’t going to put out an APB (All Points Bulletin) for a missing TV set, even if you’ve inscribed your own driver’s licence number on it with an engraving pen for quick identification.

And while “the law is the law is the law,” the quality of the police response depends heavily on the status of the person who gets victimized.

Thtreaten to kill the President of the United States and you’ll instantly get a visit from the Secret Service.  You may be arrested, indicted, convicted and sent to prison.

Or you may simply be added to a “watch list” of those considered possibly dangerous to the President.  If he visits your city, you may be put under temporary house arrest until he’s passed through.

The same holds true–but to a lesser extent–for those who threaten the governor or mayor.  If the threat is deemed serious, you can be certain that official will have a full SWAT team assigned to his protection.

But suppose you’re just Mr. Average Citizen.  If your neighbor thinks you’re trying to horn in on his wife or girlfriend and threatens to blow your head off, the police will take an entirely different tack.

“If he does anything,” will be the standard police reply, “give us a call.”

Odds are that by the time the police arrive, there will be a warm body for them to draw a chalk circle around.

In San Francisco, calls to the regular police number–(415) 553-0123–will usually get you a recorded message (in English, Spanish and Chinese) letting you know what agency you’ve reached.

You’ll then be told that if this is an emergency, hang up and call 9-1-1.  So if it is an emergency, you’ve already lost valuable time calling a number that nobody is answering.

But even calling 9-1-1 isn’t a guaranteed way to get help.  At times you’ll get a recorded message saying that “all calls are answered as quickly as possible.”

That’s small consolation for the caller whose house is burning down or who’s threatened by someone pounding at the door.

Even reaching the police department offers no certainty of assistance.  In cash-strapped San Jose, short-handed police are no longer responding to home burglaries.

Meanwhile, police departments loudly complain they get no support from the public they’ve sworn to “protect and serve.”

Law enforcement agencies–at all levels–need to vastly improve their relations with those whose support they need–and who need their protection.  Until this happens, both the police and public will be the poorer for it.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

STRIPPING DOWN FOR THE FBI – PART ONE (OF TWO)

In Bureaucracy, Law Enforcement, Social commentary on January 7, 2013 at 12:15 am

The Federal Bureau of Investigation has always encouraged Americans to report anything they consider a threat to national security or a violation of Federal law.

But recently the FBI has adopted a practice that is almost certain to sharply decrease the number of people willing to report knowledge of a crime.

A friend of mine named Jim recently visited the San Francisco field office of the FBI to report a violation of Federal computer fraud and harassment laws.

This meant visiting the San Francisco Federal Building (technically named the Phillip Burton Federal Building, in honor of the late San Francisco Congressman).

At 450 Golden Gate Avenue, located close to the Civic Center and City Hall, it serves as a courthouse of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.

It also lhouses offices for such Federal law enforcement agencies as the FBI, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, Drug Enforcement Administration and U.S. Marshal’s Service.

To enter, you must first show a driver’s license or State ID card.  Then you must remove

  • Your belt
  • Your shoes
  • Your watch
  • Your wallet
  • All other objects from your pants pockets
  • Any jacket you’re wearing
  • Any cell phone you’re carrying

All of these must be placed in one or more large plastic containers, which are run through an x-ray scanner.

Then, assuming you avoid setting off any alarm system, you’re set for your next big screen test.

This comes when you enter the 13th floor office of the FBI.

According to Jim: You walk into a large room filled with several comfortable chairs that sit close to the floor.  Ahead is a window such as you find in a bank–made of thick, presumably bulletproof glass.

A secretary on the opposite side greets you, and asks why you’ve come.

You say that you want to speak with an agent about what you believe is a violation of Federal law.

If you’ve done your homework, you should know at least the general legal area this violation falls under.  And you’re even better-off if you know what division of the FBI is assigned to handle it.

For example: Jim knew the acts he wanted to report were a violation of Federal anti-computer hacking and harassment laws.  He also knew that these violations are handled by the FBI’s Cybercrime Division.

So he asked to speak with an agent from that division.

The secretary said she would see what she could do.  But before he could speak with an agent, he would have to show her his driver’s license or State ID card.

The secretary makes a xerox of this, and then hands the card back.

Then, as if that isn’t enough, you must fill out a single-page form.  In this, you’re required to provide your:

  • Name
  • Address
  • Phone number
  • Social Security Number
  • The reason you want to speak to an agent

Of course, you can refuse to fill out the form.  But then they will refuse to let you meet with an FBI agent to gain help in resolving your problem.

In Jim’s case, his request to speak with an agent specializing in Cybercrime was denied.   He would up speaking instead with the “duty agent”–whichever luckless person has been assigned to deal with the public that day.

Unofficially, the “duty agent” is the one who takes the “nut calls” from, among others, the mentally disabled who claim they’re picking up KGB transmissions in the fillings of their teeth.

In Jim’s case, the “duty agent” he drew specialized in Gang Violence.  While this is definitely a worthy subject for investigation, it had nothing to do with the matter Jim wanted to talk about.

The agent candidly said he knew nothing about cybercrime.  Which meant he couldn’t give Jim even the barest information about what he might expect to happen after submitting his report.

Fortunately, Jim had thought ahead enough to write up a detailed, three-page report of the cyber attacks he had recently experienced.  He now gave this to the agent.

The agent promised to forward it to the Cybercrime Division.

Jim asked when he might hear from someone there.  The agent said this was highly unlikely.

Jim was surprised.  The agent was in turn surprised that Jim would expect anyone to get back to him.

“I would think,” said Jim, “they would want to ask me a few questions.  And give me some idea as to what was going on in my case.”

The agent said that if the FBI wanted more information, they would contact him.  And, no, they wouldn’t give him any hints about what–if anything–was happening in his case.  (Assuming they chose to investigate it.)

All of which means that if you’re a citizen who wants to report a crime to the FBI, you had better be willing to give up a lot of your own privacy beforehand.

, , , , , , , , , ,

THUGS ON BIKES: Q & A

In Bureaucracy, Law, Social commentary on April 12, 2012 at 11:00 am

I built a bike piece by piece over the course of a year, I’ve read all the rules and regulations for my state, and one day I hope to participate in the community driven event called Critical Mass. Does that make me a thug?

You seem like you wrote this angry, why are you being so prejudice against people on bikes? Your article makes me think you like would rather bikes be outlawed.

Why are you so mad at an entire community based on specific actions of a few?

* * * * *

In response to my April 11 posting, “Thugs on Bikes,” a reader sent me the above email.  Since his sentiments may be shared by others, I will respond accordingly:

I once owned a bike and enjoyed riding it–on the street. It’s a great way to exercise and travel faster than you can on foot–without having to own or maintain an expensive car.

In addition, there are bike trails–in San Francisco and other cities–where people can pedal away without risk to themselves or others.

If the goal of Critical Mass is to propularize bicycling, then it has failed miserably.

Forcing untold numbers of people–in buses, in cars and on foot–to wait endlessly for a needless procession by hundreds of arrogant, self-indulgent bikers arouses only frustration and anger.

And why are these people waiting endlessly?

Because:

  1. pedestrians fear getting hurt by legions of oncoming bikes, and
  2. drivers fear causing injury or death to bikers and facing lawsuits as a result.

It would be one thing if one or more bicyclists had to carry out an emergency ride for, say, medical or police help.

No one could begrudge their taking shortcuts, especially at the risk of their own lives.

It would also be acceptable if even large numbers of bikers held a race within a designated area–such as happens at the Daytona 500.

But you don’t see racing car drivers turning the streets of major cities into Death Race 2000 marathons, where the lives of other drivers and pedestrians are placed at risk.

Of course, you don’t have to wait for a Critical Mass rally to have your life placed in danger by bikers.

You have only to step onto a sidewalk and have a bicycle whiz by, missing you by inches, to realize you just stared death in the face.

And you did it for no other reason than a biker decided it was better to risk pedestrian lives on a sidewalk than to risk his own riding on the street.

I take the view: “Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins.” And my right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins as well.

I don’t believe that all bikers break the law or act thuggishly. But I believe that far too many of them do.

And when this happens they should be held legally accountable–before they bring injury or death to one or more pedestrians or afterward if they do cause such harm.

Yes, I am angry at those bikers who take stupid risks with the lives of others–and their own.

I can’t tell you how many times I’ve come close to serious injury or worse at the wheel of a biker racing along a sidewalk.

But I am just as angry at city officials who deliberately ignore what is happening daily on the sidewalks of this city and refuse to enforce the laws already on the books.

In short: It isn’t necessary–or even desirable–to outlaw bikes.

But it is essential to put a stop to the potentially lethal behavior of bike outlaws.

, , , , , , , , , ,

THUGS ON BIKES

In Bureaucracy, Law, Social commentary on April 11, 2012 at 12:00 am

San Bruno resident Sutchi Hui, 71, was visiting San Francisco when Death found him.

No doubt he felt safe before it snatched him away–just before 8 a.m. on March 29.

After all, he was walking through a crosswalk in the affluent Castro District, one of the city’s safest areas.

It was there that bicyclist Chris Bucchere plowed into him.

Bucchere was also hospitalized for injuries in the crash.  Later that day, he appears to have posted his thoughts about the accident to the Mission Cycling AM Riders Google group.

According to the post, Bucchere was about to cross Market Street when the traffic light ahead of him turned yellow.

“I was already way too committed to stop,” the post states.

“The light turned red as I was cruising through the middle of the intersection and then, almost instantly, the southern crosswalk on Market and Castro filled up with people coming from both directions….

“I couldn’t see a line through the crowd and I couldn’t stop, so I laid it down and just plowed through the crowded crosswalk in the least-populated place I could find.”

The author says he lost consciousness and awoke five minutes later.  Someone told him that a 71-year-old injured pedestrian had been taken to the  hospital.

“I remember seeing a RIVER of blood on the asphalt, but it wasn’t mine,” the  author writes. “I really hope he ends up OK.”

The author dedicates the post to his helmet, which “died in heroic fashion today as my head slammed into the tarmac…. May she die knowing that because she committed the ultimate sacrifice, her rider can live on and ride on. Can I  get an amen? Amen.”

Prosecutors for the San Francisco District Attorney’s office are treating the post as having been written by Bucchere, said Omid Talai, the agency’s spokesman.

Whether they indict Bucchere, prosecutors shouldn’t be surprised that Hui died as he did.  The wonder is that far more San Francisco pedestrians don’t meet the same fate.

In July, 2011, bicyclist Randolph Ang, 23, ran a red light on the Embarcadero–and slammed into 68-year-old Dionette Cherney.  She later died of her injuries.

In March, Ang pleaded guilty to one misdemeanor charge of vehicular manslaughter, as part of an agreement with prosecutors.

Although Ang faced up to a year in county jail, a judge sentenced him to three years’ probation and 500 hours of community service, and ordered him to pay $15,375 in restitution to the Cherney family.

That’s what the life of a pedestrian is worth in San Francisco.

According to the website of the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition:

“Pedestrians Always Have the Right of Way.  In the crosswalk or not, bike riders and drivers are required to yield to pedestrians.”

“Stay on the Streets.  It’s illegal and unsafe to ride on the sidewalk if you are over the age of 13.”

So much for the official version.  In reality, pedestrians risk their lives whenever they use the sidewalk–especially on tourist-crowded Market Street.

And if you’re wondering what role the police have to play in enforcing the bike laws, the answer is: None.

At best, a San Francisco cop might stop a law-breaking bicyclist and give him a citation.  This amounts to a bicycle traffic ticket.  The bike isn’t confiscated.

Most cops patrol in patrol cars.  If they see a bicyclist whizzing down a sidewalk, they aren’t going to cut him off and slap handcuffs on him.

If police show no interest in protecting pedestrians, it’s due in large part because the mayor and Board of Supervisors clearly favor the rights of law-breaking bicyclists over those of law-abiding pedestrians and drivers.

The greatest proof of this comes on the last Friday of every month. It’s called Critical Mass.

In this event, hundreds of bicyclists deliberately–at the height of evening rush hour–overwhelm the streets of downtown San Francisco, bringing vehicular and pedestrian traffic to a halt.

Founded in 1992 in San Francisco, the purpose of Critical Mass is not formally stated.  But it is clear to anyone who isn’t an egotistical thug: To protest against those who use cars and public transit–and intimidate their riders and pedestrians alike.

Critical Mass riders often use a tactic known as “corking” to maintain the cohesion of the group: A few riders block traffic from side roads so that the mass can race through red lights without interruption.

Cars, buses and pedestrians are expected to wait patiently for however long these self-indulgent thugs-on-bikes flood the streets.

In March, 2010, reports in local media claimed that Police Chief George Gascon was considering shutting down Critical Mass.

Two years later, the bike-thuggies continue to tie up traffic and threaten the safety of any pedestrians stupid enough to think they have a legal right to stroll sidewalks and cross streets.

As former Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy once said: “Every society gets the kind of government it deserves–and the kind of law enforcement it insists on.”

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 49 other followers

%d bloggers like this: