bureaucracybusters

Posts Tagged ‘CRIME’

BLACKS AND CRIME: PART TWO (END)

In Bureaucracy, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Politics, Social commentary on September 1, 2020 at 12:02 am

On August 23, Jason S. Blake, a 29-year-old black man, was shot and seriously injured by police in Kenosha, Wisconsin.

The shooting occurred as officers attempted to arrest him. Blake was tasered as he scuffled with police. When he opened the driver’s door to his SUV and leaned in, Officer Rusten Sheskey fired seven shots, striking him four times in the back.

Blake is now paralyzed from the waist down, and may never walk again.

Protests followed. Kenosha County declared a state of emergency overnight on August 24 after police vehicles were damaged, a dump truck set on fire, and the local courthouse vandalized. Police urged 24-hour businesses to close owing to armed robberies and shots being fired. Up to 200 members of the Wisconsin National Guard were deployed to maintain public safety.

Missing from the story—in most news media—has been one crucial fact:

At the time of the shooting, Blake faced a criminal complaint charging him with third-degree sexual assault in connection with domestic abuse on July 6. 

The officers had come to arrest Blake for violating a restraining order stemming from that complaint. A 911 call on  August 23 alerted them that Blake was at the home of his alleged victim. 

Restraining order - Wikipedia

A sample restraining order

The restraining order stemmed from a criminal complaint, which accused Blake of breaking into the home of a woman he knew and sexually assaulting her in May. The victim told police she was asleep when Blake broke in at 6 a.m. and said, “I want my shit.”

She told police that Blake used his finger to sexually assault her. She said the incident “caused her pain and humiliation and was done without her consent.” 

After Blake left, she realized her keys were missing and “immediately called 911,” the complaint said.

An arrest warrant was issued on July 7.

On August 9, 2014, a similar police/media incident had occurred.

Michael Brown, an 18-year-old black man, was fatally shot by a white police officer named Darren Wilson in Ferguson, Missouri, a suburb of St. Louis. 

Brown’s 22-year-old friend, Dorian Johnson claimed that Wilson shot him in the back. Wilson claimed he shot Brown after the latter charged at him.

An FBI investigation found that there was no evidence that Brown had his hands up in surrender or said “don’t shoot” before he was shot. It also found that Brown was struck six times, all in the front of his body.

The shooting ignited nationwide protests. 

Yet many of the media “covering” the story refused to note that, shortly before his shooting, a video camera taped Brown robbing a grocery store and manhandling its owner.

Michael Brown (left) roughing up a store owner

Had this been more widely noted, “Saint Michael” would have been seen as a mere thug who learned that assaulting a cop wasn’t the same as attacking a store owner. 

On May 25, George Floyd, a former black security guard, was murdered in Minneapolis, Minnesota. While Floyd was handcuffed and lying face down on a city street during an arrest, Derek Chauvin, a white Minneapolis police officer, kept his knee on the right side of Floyd’s neck for eight minutes and 46 seconds. 

Two men on an asphalt surface, behind a black van on which the letters "EAPOLIS" is seen, with a license plate ending "ICE". One man has light skin, a blue shirt with identifying badges on his chest and shoulder, black pants and boots, and black sunglasses pushed to the top of his close-shorn head. He is kneeling with his left knee and upper shin resting on the neck of the other man, and his right knee out of sight behind the van. The other man is lying prone, with his left cheek pressed against the asphalt close to a painted line. He is dark-skinned, with similarly short hair, and is not wearing a shirt; His mouth is slightly open, his eyes are closed with his eyebrows raised, and his arms are down, not visible behind the van. The kneeling man has his left hand in a dark glove, with his right arm hidden behind the van, and is looking at the viewer with his eyebrows slightly lifted and mouth slightly open.

Death of George Floyd

Across the nation, cities were convulsed by protests—including those in the San Francisco Bay Area. Among these: Oakland, San Jose, Emeryville, Walnut Creek and San Francisco itself.

On May 30, an initially peaceful protest march exploded into looting shortly before 9 p.m. as looters broke off and began smashing shop windows and ransacking stores in Union Square and on Market Street.

Among stores looted: A Sak’s Off-Fifth Avenue, an Old Navy clothing store, a Cartier Boutique and a Coach store. Looters especially targeted CVS and Walgreens drugstores. Liquor stores and a BevMo were also hit.

“Thirty businesses were looted or destroyed,” said David Perry, from Union Square Business Improvement District. 

Undoubtedly many of victims of those looters and arsonists had been horrified by the Floyd killing. But many of them undoubtedly lost sympathy for the Black Lives Matter movement as they surveyed the wreckage of their stores. 

Store owners were infuriated at having to replace stock that had been stolen or destroyed. And employees resented having to clean up the wreckage. Some stores no doubt were forced to close, leaving their former employees suddenly jobless.

And President Donald Trump has quickly moved to capitalize on that resentment. His brand of “divide and rule” politics brought him to the White House in 2016. And he’s determined to play on white fears of further black crime to win a second term.

White fears of black crime are reflected in the crime rate statistics for New York City.

While Blacks make up 24.3% of New York City’s population, they comprise:

  • 58.0% of its murder and non-negligent manslaughter arrests;
  • 40.7% of its rape arrests;
  • 34.6% of its known other felony sex crime arrests;
  • 59.4% of its robbery arrests;
  • 51.8% of its felonious assault arrests;
  • 51.7% of its grand larceny arrests;
  • 71.6% of its shooting arrests;
  • 45.0% of its drug felony arrests;
  • 48.5% of its drug misdemeanor arrests;
  • 54.7% of its felony stolen property arrests;
  • 45.9% of its misdemeanor stolen property arrests;
  • 51.8% of its violent crime suspects;
  • 60.0% of its juvenile crime complaint arrests.

This is admittedly unfair to those blacks who are law-abiding citizens. But the fear factor will continue until crime rates among blacks start falling dramatically.

BLACKS AND CRIME: PART ONE (OF TWO)

In Bureaucracy, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Politics, Social commentary on August 31, 2020 at 12:22 am

Blacks make up 13% of the American population, according to the 2010 census of the United States.

But they committed 52% of homicides between 1980 and 2008, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Only 45% of whites were offenders in such cases.

Blacks were disproportionately likely to commit homicide and to be the victims.

In 2008 blacks were seven times more likely than whites to commit homicide. And they were six times more likely than whites to be homicide victims.

According to the FBI, blacks were responsible for 38% of murders, compared to 31.1% for whites, in 2013.

From 2011 to 2013, 38.5% of people arrested for murder, manslaughter, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault were black.

In 1971, Robert Daley, a reporter for the New York Times, became a deputy police commissioner for the New York Police Department (NYPD).

In that capacity, he saw the NYPD from the highest levels to the lowest—from the ornate, awe-inspiring office of Police Commissioner Patrick Murphy to the gritty, sometimes blood-soaked streets of New York.

He spent one year on the job before resigning—later admitting that when he agreed to take the job, he got more than he bargained for.

It proved to be a tumultuous year in the NYPD’s history: Among those challenges Daley and his fellow NYPD members faced were the murders of several police officers, committed by members of the militant Black Liberation Army.

Two of those murdered officers were Waverly Jones and Joseph Piagentini.  Jones was black, Piagentini white; both were partners. Both were shot in the back without a chance to defend themselves.

Writing about these murders in a bestselling 1973 book—Target Blue: An Insider’s View of the N.Y.P.D.—Daley noted:

  • Jones and Piagentini were the sixth and seventh policemen—of ten—murdered in 1971. 
  • About 18 men were involved in these murders.  All were black.
  • The city’s politicians knew this—and so did Commissioner Murphy.  None dared say so publicly.

“But the fact remained,” wrote Daley, “that approximately 65% of the city’s arrested murderers, muggers, armed robbers, proved to be black men; about 15% were of Hispanic origin; and about 20% were white [my Italics].”

Related image

The overall racial breakdown of the city was approximately:

  • Whites, 63%;
  • Blacks, 20%;
  • Hispanics 17%.

Stated another way: Blacks, who made up 20% of the city’s population, were responsible for 65% of the city’s major crimes.

Or, as Daley himself put it: “So the dangerous precincts, any cop would tell you, were the black precincts.”

That was 49 years ago.

Now, consider the following statistics released by the NYPD for “Crime and Enforcement Activity in New York City” in 2019. Its introduction states:

“The reports below present statistics on race and ethnicity compiled from the New York City Police Department’s records management system.”

Family Secrets | Blue Bloods Wiki | Fandom

Then follows these statistics:

Murder and Non-Negligent Manslaughter Victims

  • Black (56.6%)
  • Hispanic (31.2%)
  • White (4.9%)
  • Asian/Pacific Islander (6.9%) 

Murder and Non-Negligent Manslaughter Suspects

  • Black (62.4%)
  • Hispanic (30.8%)
  • White (3.0%)
  • Asian/Pacific Islander (3.8%)

Murder and Non-Negligent Manslaughter Arrestees

  • Black 58.0%
  • Hispanic 35.2%
  • White 3.3% 
  • Asian/Pacific Islander 3.0%

Rape Victims

  • Black (38.4%)
  • Hispanic (35.4%)
  • White victims (18.1%)
  • Asian/Pacific Islander (8.0%)

Rape Suspects

  • Black 46.5%)
  • Hispanic (34.8%)
  • White (10.8%)
  • Asian/Pacific Islander (7.3%)

Rape Arrestees

  • Black (40.7%)
  • Hispanic (45.4%
  • )White (6.7%)
  • Asian/Pacific Islander (7.0%)

Image

NYPD Headquarters at One Police Plaza

Other Felony Sex Crimes Victims

  • Black (33.8%)
  • Hispanic (37.3%)
  • White (21.3%)
  • Asian/Pacific Islander (7.0%)

Other Felony Sex Crime Suspects

  • Black (41.6%)
  • Hispanic (37.5%)
  • White (12.9%)
  • Asian/Pacific Islander (7.3%)

Other Felony Sex Crime Arrestees

  • Black (34.6%)
  • Hispanic (47.4%)
  • White (11.3%)
  • Asian /Pacific Islander (6.4%)

Robbery Victims

  • Hispanic (39.5%)
  • Black (29.5%)
  • White (14.3%)
  • Asian/Pacific Islander (15.6%)

Robbery Suspects

  • Black (66.2%
  • Hispanic (27.1%)
  • White (4.3%)
  • Asian/Pacific islander (2.3%)

Robbery Arrestees

  • Black (59.4%)
  • Hispanic (32.2%)
  • White (5.2%)
  • Asian/Pacific Islander (3.2%)

Misdemeanor Assault Victims 

  • Black (39.7%)
  • Hispanic (36.5%)
  • White (14.1%)
  • Asian/Pacific Islanders (9.0%)

Misdemeanor Assault Suspects 

  • Black (51.1%)
  • Hispanic (33.0%)
  • White (9.9%)
  • Asian/Pacific Islanders (5.6%)

Misdemeanor Assault Arrestees

  • Black (47.2%)
  • Hispanic (35.8%)
  • White (10.0%)
  • Asian/Pacific Islanders (6.6%)

Felonious Assault Victims   

  • Black (45.1%)
  • Hispanic (34.4%)
  • White (12.4%)
  • Asian/Pacific Islanders (7.7%)

Felonious Assault Suspects

  • Black (53.4%)
  • Hispanic (32.6%)
  • White (7.9%)
  • Asian/Pacific Islanders (5.8%)

Felonious Assault Arrestees

  • Black (51. 8%)
  • Hispanic (33.1%)
  • White (8.3%)
  • Asian/Pacific Islanders (6.4%)

Grand Larceny Victims

  • Black (24.4%)
  • Hispanic (23.0%)
  • White (35.9%)
  • Asian/Pacific Islanders (15.7%)

Grand Larceny Suspects

  • Black (50.5%)
  • Hispanic (23.5%)
  • White (11.7%)
  • Asian/Pacific Islanders (3.9%)

Grand Larceny Arrestees

  • Black (51.7%) 
  • Hispanic (28.5%)
  • White (13.7%)
  • Asian/Pacific Islanders (6.0%)

Firearm Arrest Population

  • Black (71.4%)
  • Hispanic (24.2%)
  • White (2.5%)
  • Asian/Pacific Islanders (1.9%)

Shooting Victims

  • Black (70.9%)
  • Hispanic (23.1%)
  • White (4.3%)
  • Asian/Pacific Islanders (1.6%)

Shooting Suspects

  • Black (74.4%)
  • Hispanic (22.0%)
  • White (2.4%)
  • Asian/Pacific Islander (1.1%)

Shooting Arrestees

  • Black (71.6%)
  • Hispanic (24.1%)
  • White (2.7%)
  • Asian/Pacific Islander (1.5%)

Drug Felony Arrest Population

  • Black (45.0%)
  • Hispanic (40.2%)
  • White (9.7%)
  • Asian Pacific Islanders (4.9%)

Drug Misdemeanor Arrestees

  • Black (48.5%)
  • Hispanic (35.3%)
  • White (12.5%)
  • Asian Pacific Islanders (3.6%)

Misdemeanor Sex Crime Victims

  • Black (35.5%)
  • Hispanic (36.7%)
  • White (18.6%)
  • Asian/Pacific Islanders (8.6%)

Misdemeanor Sex Crime Suspects

  • Black (42.4%)
  • Hispanic (34.2%)
  • White (14.0%)
  • Asian/Pacific Islanders (8.7%)

Misdemeanor Sex Crime Arrestees

  • Black (52.5%)
  • Hispanic (28.9%)
  • White (14.5%)
  • Asian/Pacific Islanders (4.0%)

Misdemeanor Stolen Property Arrest Population

  • Black (45.9%)
  • Hispanic (31.9%)
  • White (16.8%)
  • Asian/Pacific Islanders (5.1%)

Felony Stolen Property Arrest Population

  • Black (54.7%)
  • Hispanic (28.6%)
  • White (11.5%)
  • Asian/Pacific Islanders (5.0%)

Petit Larceny Victims

  • Black (31.6%) 
  • Hispanic (29.9%) 
  • White (28.8%)
  • Asian/Pacific Islanders (12.7%)

Petit Larceny Suspects

  • Black (53.8%) 
  • Hispanic (26.8%) 
  • White (15.7%)
  • Asian/Pacific Islanders (3.3%)

Petit Larceny Arrestees

  • Black (44.7%) 
  • Hispanic (32.5%) 
  • White (17.9%)
  • Asian/Pacific Islanders (3.3%)

Misdemeanor Criminal Mischief Victims

  • Black (38.5%) 
  • Hispanic (29.8%) 
  • White (19.5%)
  • Asian/Pacific Islanders (11.2%)

Misdemeanor Criminal Mischief Suspects

  • Black (51.0%)
  • Hispanic (29.6%)
  • White (14.8%)
  • Asian/Pacific Islander (4.3%)

Misdemeanor Criminal Mischief Arrestees

  • Black (44.9%)
  • Hispanic (33.3%)
  • White (16.5%)
  • Asian/Pacific Islander (5.1%)

Reported Crime Complaint Juvenile Victims

  • Black (39.79%)
  • Hispanic (37.0%)
  • White (14.5%)
  • Asian/Pacific Islander (8.3%)

Juvenile Crime Complaint Suspects

  • Black (60.4%)
  • Hispanic (30.4%)
  • White (6.0%)
  • Asian/Pacific Islander (3.0%)

Juvenile Arrest Population

  • Black (60.0%)
  • Hispanic (32.0%)
  • White (6.0%)
  • Asian/Pacific Islander (3.0%)

THE NRA: FACING JUDGMENT FOR THE LEAST OF ITS CRIMES

In Bureaucracy, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Politics, Social commentary on August 18, 2020 at 1:20 am

On August 6, New York Attorney General Letitia James gave the National Rifle Association (NRA) an unprecedented broadside. 

“The NRA’s influence has been so powerful that the organization went unchecked for decades while top executives funneled millions into their own pockets,” James outlined in a news release.

And she assailed the organization’s leadership for creating “a culture of self-dealing mismanagement” benefiting themselves, family, friends and favored vendors.

As a result, the NRA had lost more than $63 million in three years.

James’ office filed the suit on August 6 in New York Supreme Court. In it, she accuses the following NRA leaders of corruption and misuse of funds:

  • CEO and Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre;
  • General Counsel and Secretary John Frazer;
  • Former Chief Financial Officer Wilson “Woody” Phillips; and
  • Former Chief of Staff and Executive Director of General Operations Josh Powell. 

Wayne LaPierre

The lawsuit accuses these officials of:

  • Violating multiple laws including false reporting of annual filings with the IRS and New York’s charities bureau
  • Improperly documenting expenses, improper wage and income tax reporting and
  • Excessively paying people for work for which they were not qualified.

The NRA is headquartered in the Northern Virginia suburbs outside Washington, D.C. But it has operated as a New York-registered 501(c)(4) non-profit group since 1871. 

As a charitable organization, the NRA faces strict state and federal rules governing spending. The alleged violation of many of those rules gives James’ office legal jurisdiction for bringing the lawsuit.

The NRA has long been one of the nation’s most powerful special interest groups. It has dominated Republican politics for decades. With a reported five million members across the country, it claims as its mission the defense of the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

The NRA claims that its mission stems from the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

NRA members conveniently ignore the first half of that sentence about “a well regulated Militia….”  They simply want everyone to own a gun—and contribute to the NRA.

The charges now facing the NRA are not the ones for which it truly deserves indictment.

For decades, the NRA has been the death-dealer of choice to criminals and terrorists. In its wake lie the bullet-torn, bloodstained bodies of countless Americans from coast to coast.

According to the non-profit organization, Brady: United Against Gun Violence: 

Every year, 114,328 people are shot. Among those:

  • 37,603 people die from gun violence
  • 13,380 are murdered 
  • 76,725 people survive gunshot injuries 
  • 34,566 are intentionally shot by someone else 
  • 22,926 died from gun suicide 
  • 3,554 survive an attempted gun suicide 
  • 478 are killed unintentionally 
  • 510 are killed by legal intervention 
  • 1,376 are shot by legal intervention
  •  310 die but the intent was unknown 
  • 4,471 are shot but the intent is unknown 
  • 529 women are killed by their husband or male dating partner

Gun Violence is estimated to cost the American economy at least $229 billion every year.

Among the NRA’s “contributions” to this carnage:

  • For decades, the NRA has peddled deadly weapons to millions, reaped billions of dollars in profits and refused to admit the carnage those weapons have produced: “Guns don’t kill people.  People kill people.”  With guns.
  • It championed the marketing of Teflon-coated “cop killer” bullets capable of piercing the bulletproof vests worn by police officers and targets of assassination.
  • The NRA opposes  removing firearms from violent individuals under active restraining orders for domestic abuse.

  • The NRA has bitterly fought background checks on gun-buyers, in effect granting even criminals and the mentally ill the right to own arsenals of death-dealing weaponry.
  • The NRA has spent millions on slick advertising campaigns to win new members and frighten them into buying guns.
  • The NRA rammed through a Republican-dominated Congress the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, (PLCAA). It was signed into law by President George W. Bush in 2005. This has armed the American firearms industry with immunity against lawsuits by victims of mass shootings and gun violence. 

  • The NRA has spent millions on political contributions to block gun-control legislation.
  • The NRA has spent millions attacking political candidates and elected officials who warned about the dangers of unrestricted access to assault and/or concealed weapons.

  • The NRA has spent millions pushing “Stand Your Ground” laws in more than half the states, which potentially give every citizen a “license to kill.”
  • In 2012, the NRA rushed to defend accused murderer George Zimmerman, the self-appointed “community watchman” who  ignored police orders to stop following 17-year-old Trayvon Martin and ultimately shot him. 
  • The NRA receives millions of dollars from online sales of ammunition, high-capacity ammunition magazines, and other accessories through its point-of-sale Round-Up Program—thus directly profiting by selling a product that kills about 30,288 people a year.

  • Anyone–including convicted criminals—can buy the NRA’s “hide-a-gun” sweatshirts, putting both the public and law enforcers at deadly risk.
  • Firearms made indiscriminately available through NRA lobbying have filled hospitals with casualties, and have thus badly strained the states’ public healthcare systems. 

The NRA’s leaders—past and present—will never be criminally indicted for the carnage their greed and irresponsibility have unleashed.

But the effort by New York Attorney General Letitia James to dissolve the NRA is at least a welcome step in the right direction.

BAY AREA ROTTEN TRANSIT

In Bureaucracy, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Social commentary on February 4, 2020 at 12:11 am

When the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) system was launched on September 11, 1972, it was hailed as the future for mass transit.

Forty-seven years later, that future looks to be a nightmare.

Here are the basic facts that the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency—which operates BART—is happy to release:

  • The BART system services Alameda County (Oakland), Contra Costa County, San Francisco County and stations in San Mateo County.
  • There are 48 BART stations.
  • There are 669 cars.
  • BART track runs about 121 miles.
  • Trains usually travel at 35 mph, but can reach a speed of 70 mph.
  • BART operates its own police force, with 206 sworn law enforcement officers.
  • Its security system includes alarms, video surveillance and other intrusion prevention equipment.

Now for the facts that BART does not feel proud to publicize.

  • BART does not provide phone service for its riders on weekends.

In 2019, BART had an average of 411,000 weekday passengers and 118 million annual passengers.

Nevertheless, those passengers using BART on weekends are left to their own devices when it comes to getting directions on which trains to take to which destinations.

“Can’t they get that information from ticket agents at BART booths?” seems a logical question.

And the answer is: “No, not always”—because many BART ticket booths are empty on weekends.

It’s as if BART officials don’t think people travel on BART on weekends—or don’t care if they do. 

Antioch-bound train approaching MacArthur station, June 2018.JPG

A BART train

Pi.1415926535 [CC BY-SA (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)%5D 

  • BART stations—especially in San Francisco—are usually filthy and potentially dangerous places. 

Many of these are peopled by drug addicts, alcoholics, mentally ill and parasitical bums. And many of these derelicts are passed out or shooting up heroin in plain sight. Naturally, they don’t worry about picking up their used hypodermic needles. They leave those out for others to step on or pick up at their own risk. 

Image result for Images of drug addicts in BART stations"

A typical San Francisco BART station

Those who aren’t shooting up are usually hitting up legitimate BART riders for money. Sometimes these encounters can become ugly, especially if the beggar is psychotic or drugged up.

As for the much-vaunted BART police: They are almost never in sight. If you can find one and point out a violation, the odds are he will say, “That falls outside my jurisdiction.”

This despite the fact that BART officials admit that “fare evasion” costs BART $15 million to $25 million each year.

So when someone pushes open the electronic “gates” that can be opened with BART cards, there are no police to nab him.

Interviewed privately, BART ticket agents admit they feel as helpless as BART riders in these stations. The police are nowhere in sight, and ticket agents aren’t trained or empowered to take action against fare-evaders, drug-abusers or those who assault BART passengers.

BART stations in downtown San Francisco are usually littered with sleeping bags or blankets— evidence of a serious bum infestation.

These stations have locked their bathrooms, claiming it’s a “security measure against terrorism.” Yet a far greater potential danger lies under all those blankets and sleeping bags: It would be easy for a terrorist to scatter such disguised bombs in a BART station and then clear out—long before his handiwork went off.

That, however, is a danger BART officials seem content to ignore.

  • BART trains are often unpleasant at best, and unsafe at worst.

Cars are often taken over by gangs of teens—usually black—who crank up “boom boxes” and “perform” high-kicking stunts, then “ask” for “donations.” Many of their kicks come close to the heads of the riders who are forced to sit through these “entertainments.”

And there is always the risk that the “entertainers” might turn violent if they feel they aren’t getting enough “compensation” for their unasked-for “performance.” 

But there are usually no guards on any BART train. And, even if there were, there are no “panic buttons” whereby threatened riders could secretly summon such aid.

According to the latest (2018) BART Uniform Crime Reporting data, violent crime increased 57% between 2013 and 2017. Robberies make up most of the reported crimes—up nearly 40% since 2013. Cell phone thefts are defined as robberies.

“He was standing in front of me just looking, and I could see his gun in his jacket,” crime victim Daniel Mendez recalled. “I was surrounded. They took everything. There was nothing you could do…They’re doing that because there’s no police presence.”

He swore he would never again ride BART.

Image result for Images of broken handcuffs

Adding to the lack of police on BART trains: Most of the vaunted “security cameras” on BART trains don’t work.

Of course, high-ranking transit officials—who almost never ride public transit—disagree. 

“Transit is very safe,” claims Polly Hansen, speaking for the American Public Transportation Association. “When you have low numbers, a slight increase will look like a large percentage. Transit doesn’t operate in isolation. It’s going through, above and around communities and you really have to analyze crime in those communities to look at the crime you’re having.” 

The BART Board of Directors is comprised of nine elected officials from the nine BART districts. Each of them earns an average of $96,110. They can well afford to use private autos—even limousines—instead of public transit. 

Only when BART officials are held directly—and financially—responsible for the disgraceful conditions in BART stations and aboard BART trains will there be any hope for long-overdue reforms.

IN SAN FRANCISCO, CROOKS ARE COOL, COPS ARE VILLAINS

In Bureaucracy, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Politics, Social commentary on November 8, 2019 at 12:12 am

“I am extremely disturbed by the state of the law today, and yet I am duty bound to adhere to the law.  Under current law, police officers do not have to retreat, police officers don’t have to use the minimum force necessary.” 

So said San Francisco District Attorney George Gascón, almost in tears, on May 24, 2018.  

The reason: He could not file charges against the San Francisco Police Department (SFPD) officers who shot a drugged-up, knife-slashing assailant to death on December 2, 2015. 

The dead slasher: Mario Woods, a known gang member, armed robber and car thief. 

Related image

Mario Woods

At 26, Woods—born on July 22, 1989—had a well-documented history of criminality:

  • He was an active member of the notorious Oakdale Mob infesting the predominantly black Bayview-Hunters Point area of San Francisco.
  • His gang-related activities included armed robbery; attempted armed robbery; shooting incidents; being a felon in illegal possession of a firearm; car theft; driving a stolen car; and being involved in an automobile injury accident while fleeing from police.
  • In 2008, he pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm by a felon.
  • In 2009, he was one of six gang members added to the provisions of a 2007 gang injunction against the Oakdale Mob.
  • Under the terms of this injunction, Oakdale Mob members are forbidden to engage in gang-related conduct within a four-block safety zone.
  • Among those prohibited activities: Possessing guns or dangerous weapons; possessing illegal drugs; loitering with intent to sell drugs; intimidating witnesses or victims; using threats to recruit or retain gang members; defacing property with graffiti.
  • In 2012, he was sentenced to seven years in state prison for armed robbery. (He had already spent almost three years in County Jail.)  He was released in 2014.

On December 2, 2015, San Francisco police officers took a report from a 26-year-old Bayview man who had been slashed in the left shoulder.

He and a female friend had been eating in a car parked in front of an apartment building. They saw a man “walking back and forth on the sidewalk talking” to himself, according to the police report.

The man—wielding a knife—reached into the passenger’s side of the car. The passenger opened the door to push the assailant away.  

When he got out of the car, the man slashed him across the left shoulder. Bleeding heavily, the passenger fled to San Francisco General Hospital.  

Two officers responded to the crime scene. Police radioed in a description of the attacker, and more officers joined in the search.

Minutes later, officers spotted Mario Woods, who matched the suspect’s description. When he saw the officers get out of their car, he pulled a knife from his jeans pocket and said: “You’re not taking me today.”

The two officers drew their pistols and ordered Woods to drop the knife. 

“You better squeeze that motherfucker and kill me,” said Woods.

Still refusing to drop the knife, Woods was hit with three nonlethal beanbag rounds fired from a 12-gauge weapon.

Image result for Images of 12-gauge bean bag rounds

12-gauge Beanbag shotgun rounds

A woman repeatedly yelled to Woods: “Oh, my God, drop it!  Drop it!”

A fourth beanbag from a 40mm gun hit Woods. Although he crouched on one knee, he still held the knife. Then he quickly regained his balance and stood up.  

dose of pepper spray had no apparent effect on him.

A crowd gathered—and an officer moved toward them to warn: “Back up!”

Suddenly, Woods moved toward the crowd.

The officer stepped into Woods’ path, to keep him from reaching the bystanders.  

As Woods kept advancing, the officer fired his pistol. So did four other officers, riddling Woods with bullets. 

The autopsy revealed that Woods had methamphetamine, marijuana, anti-depressants, cough syrup, nicotine and caffeine in his system.

Two of the officers were black—as was Woods. But in Uber-liberal San Francisco, police are widely regarded with suspicion, if not outright hostility.  Especially when a black suspect is involved.

Predictably, Black Lives Matter called for a protest and vigil on December 3, 2015.

Related image

On January 25, 2016, then-San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee requested a federal investigation into Woods’ death.

And San Francisco Supervisor David Campos introduced a resolution to name July 22—Woods’ birthday—as “Mario Woods Day.”

On January 26, 2016, the Board of Supervisors unanimously passed Campos’ resolution.

The effort sparked outrage from the San Francisco Police Officers Association (POA) which represents rank-and-file officers.  

In a letter addressed to the Board of Supervisors, POA President Martin Halloran wrote:

“It will be a hurtful day to [the families of SFPD officers killed in the line of duty] if this city’s elected officials decide to recognize and honor an individual that preyed upon our most vulnerable citizens.”

Woods’ mother, Gwen, was elated by the vote: “Sometimes you have to stand up and look life in the eye. Everyone can’t be bullied.”

Except those her son victimized.

Since December 2—the date of Woods’ shooting—blacks had demanded the firing of Greg Suhr, chief of the San Francisco Police Department and a 35-year veteran of the force.

On May 20, 2016, Shur was forced to resign at the request of then-Mayor Ed Lee. 

Thus do criminals become heroes and sworn law enforcement officers villains in San Francisco.

TWICE-RAPED CRIME VICTIMS: PART TWO (END)

In Bureaucracy, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Politics, Social commentary on November 7, 2019 at 12:16 am

“On August 7, 2017, I witnessed a brutal assault on a friend of mine named Hal [not his real name]. I was a passenger in his car as he waited for a parking space to open in front of the apartment building where we both live.”

So opened a letter from a man named Dave [not his real name] to the San Francisco Police Department (SFPD). 

Summarizing his experience as a witness and assault victim, Dave wrote: 

  • A man commits assault and battery on another without the slightest provocation.
  • He then uses his Jeep Cherokee to twice ram his victim’s car.
  • These violations of criminal law are reported to the SFPD by two eyewitnesses/victims within an hour of their occurrence.
  • One eyewitness gives the SFPD a photo of the license plate of the car used in the vehicular assaults.
  • The SFPD doesn’t contact either witness/victim in this incident.
  • Despite being provided with all this evidence, the SFPD does NOTHING.

Related image

Dave subsequently received a Complainant Satisfaction Survey from the SFPD’s Department of Police Accountability (DPA). After bluntly stating his disgust at the complete indifference of the SFPD to the assault, he got a letter from DPA on December 13, 2018, which stated: 

“Your Request for an Investigative Hearing in the above-captioned case has been received. We have reviewed the investigative file and have determined that the facts and circumstances supported the DPA’s findings.” 

And: “We understand that you may not agree with our finding(s), but it may be of some use to contact the investigator for better clarity and understanding in this matter.” 

In short: We aren’t going to arrest the man who assaulted you, but we’ll try to convince you that it’s all for the best.

Determined to not let the SFPD have the last word, Dave sent back a letter to David Henderson, executive director of DPA.

He noted that he had never requested an investigative hearing. Nor had he written a December 5, 2018 letter to the SFPD, as the letter claimed.

He also noted that, 16 years earlier, on May 19, 2002, the San Francisco Chronicle had published a series of devastating reports on the SFPD.  Among the newspaper’s findings:

  • Violent criminals in San Francisco’s had a better chance of getting away with their crimes than predators in any other large American city. 
  • The San Francisco Police Department solved, on average, just 28% of the city’s murders, rapes, robberies, shootings, stabbings and other serious assaults between 1996 and 2000.
  • Among the nation’s 20 largest cities, that was the lowest violent crime ‘clearance rate.
  • The large-city average clearance rate was 42 percent. 

“Judging from the results of my own experience with your agency, little—if anything—has changed within the SFPD during the last 16 years,” Dave wrote. 

Related image

Referring to the DPA’s false claim that he had requested an investigative hearing, he ended his letter in cold fury:

“It’s a misdemeanor to file a false report with the police. It should be a felony for a police agency to write and send a letter filled with demonstrably false information. 

“It is also the height of arrogance and stupidity to believe you can convince the victim of an assault that the criminal negligence he experienced at the hands of the police department didn’t happen.

Undoubtedly this letter was written for placement in the official files of your department, as a way to cover itself against any possible legal action. No doubt this is common practice within your agency.

“It is precisely such conduct—as well as the refusal of your agency to aggressively investigate crimes of violence against San Francisco residents—that is guaranteed to produce widespread contempt for and refusal to cooperate with your police department.”

Dave didn’t receive another letter from the SFPD.     

* * * * *

Unfortunately, real-life police departments do not operate like the ones depicted in movies and on TV.  Among the realities of those departments: 

Unless you’re wealthy, a politician or—best of all—a cop, don’t expect the police to protect you if your life is threatened. You’ll simply be told: “We don’t have the resources to protect everybody.”

Above everyone else, police look out for each other. If a citizen murders his lover, he’ll be tracked by two detectives. But whoever kills a cop is sought by the entire department.

Police departments are plagued by the same problems that haunt all major bureaucracies, such as:

  • Often lacking state-of-the-art crime labs to analyze evidence.
  • Often losing or accidentally destroying important files.
  • Staffed by those who are lazy, indifferent, incompetent or even corrupt.
  • Often refusing to share information with other police agencies, thus making it easier for criminals to run amok.

The result of all this can only be increased disrespect for law enforcement from a deservedly—and increasingly—cynical public.

When citizens believe police lack the ability-–or even the will-–to protect them or avenge their victimization, that is a deadly blow to law enforcement.

When public support vanishes, so does much of that public funding for hiring more cops and buying necessary equipment.

The result can only be a return to the days of the lawless West, where citizens—as individuals or members of vigilante committees—look only to themselves for protection.

TWICE-RAPED CRIME VICTIMS: PART ONE (OF TWO)

In Bureaucracy, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Politics, Social commentary on November 6, 2019 at 12:07 am

For countless citizens, the adage proves unfortunately true: If you become a victim of crime, you’re victimized twice—once by the criminal, and again by the criminal justice system.

And this truth proves especially apt in San Francisco.

A friend of mine named Dave [not his real name] who lives in San Francisco, offers the following case:

“On August 7, 2017, I witnessed a brutal assault on a friend of mine named Hal [not his real name]. I was a passenger in his car as he waited for a parking space to open in front of the apartment building where we both live.

“A man—clearly in an agitated state—approached the driver’s side and accused Hal of using the wrong signal. After hearing him out, Hal asked him to back away. Instead, the man quickly began striking Hal in the face at least a half dozen times.”

CA - San Francisco Police.png

Dave got out on the passenger’s side and threatened to call police. The assailant returned to his Jeep Cherokee truck, which was parked right behind Hal’s car. Dave re-entered Hal’s car and thought that the worst was over.

Suddenly the Jeep Cherokee slammed into the rear of Hal ‘s car. Then the driver pulled out.

“Hal started his car and followed the Jeep Cherokee to get a photo of its license plate. Using his iPhone, he did. The truck continued a short distance forward, then suddenly reversed and slammed into the front of Hal’s car. The driver then roared off.

“Hal and I then drove to the SFPD’s Central Station, where we both filled out statements and spoke individually with an officer. In addition, Hal provided a photo of the license plate of the vehicle that had rammed him.

“After that, Hal and I waited for a response from the SFPD. We never received one.

In early November, 2017—after waiting three months for a police response—Dave called the SFPD and arranged an appointment with a sergeant at Central Station.

“She showed me a series of photos that seemed to resemble the man who had assaulted Hal. Frankly, I had caught only a brief glimpse of the man when I exited Hal’s car and saw him heading for his Jeep. It certainly didn’t help that, three months later, I was now being asked to give an accurate description of him.

Later, Dave learned that the SFPD had chosen to not pursue criminal charges against the assailant. No reason was given for this decision. 

In January, 2018, Dave filed a complaint with the SFPD’s Department of Police Accountability (DPA), formerly known as its Internal Affairs Division.

Related image

The investigator he met with was friendly and concerned. Even so, his complaint didn’t lead the SFPD to pursue criminal charges against the assailant. Again, no reason was offered by the agency.

“In November, 2018, I received a Complainant Satisfaction Survey from the SFPD’s Department of Police Accountability. But its Q&A format didn’t let me address the issues I thought important.”  

To do so, on November 26, he sent back a memo, offering the following summation: 

  • A man commits assault and battery on another without the slightest provocation.
  • He then uses his Jeep Cherokee to ram the rear of his victim’s car.
  • He then uses his Jeep Cherokee to ram the front of his victim’s car.
  • These violations of criminal law are reported to the SFPD within an hour of their occurrence.They are reported by not one but two eyewitnesses/victims.
  • One of those eyewitnesses provides the SFPD with a photo of the license plate of the car used in the vehicular assaults.
  • The SFPD makes no effort to contact either witness/victim in this incident.
  • Despite being provided with all this evidence, the SFPD does NOTHING.

And he concluded his indictment: 

“I have nothing but contempt for [the SFPD’s] refusal to take even a cursory interest in this case.

“If a friend of mine became the victim of a crime, I would advise him: ‘Don’t waste your time contacting the SFPD. There is simply no reason to set yourself up for a double injury—the first one inflicted by the criminal, and the second one inflicted by the criminally negligent SFPD.'”

Related image
San Francisco Hall of Justice

Dllu [CC BY-SA 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0)%5D, from Wikimedia Commons

To his surprise, Dave received a letter from the DPA, dated December 13, 2018:

“Your Request for an Investigative Hearing in the above-captioned case has been received. We have reviewed the investigative file and have determined that the facts and circumstances supported the DPA’s findings.  

“More specifically, we reviewed your letter dated December 5, 2018. The DPA strongly recommends that you call and make an appointment with your investigator in your case at (415) ###-#### to discuss our finding(s).

“We understand that you may not agree with our finding(s), but it may be of some use to contact the investigator for better clarity and understanding in this matter.  

“Your Request for Investigative Hearing is therefore denied. Thank you for the time you took to ensure that the DPA understood your concerns. We view this as a positive step in keeping with the goals of the DPA.”

And it was signed by Paul David Henderson, the agency’s executive director.

READY TO END GUN MASSACRES? HERE’S HOW.

In Bureaucracy, Business, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Politics, Social commentary on August 6, 2019 at 12:05 am

The victims of the violence are black and white, rich and poor, young and old, famous and unknown. They are, most important of all, human beings whom other human beings loved and needed. No one—no matter where he lives or what he does—can be certain who will suffer from some senseless act of bloodshed. And yet it goes on and on.

–Robert F. Kennedy, April 4, 1968

Senator Robert F. Kennedy announcing the murder of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

What should the surviving victims of gun massacres do to seek redress?

And how can the relatives and friends of those who didn’t survive seek justice for those they loved?

Two things:

First, don’t count on politicians to support a ban on assault weapons.

Politicians—with rare exceptions—have only two goals:

  1. Get elected to office, and
  2. Stay in office.

And too many of them fear the economic and voting clout of the NRA to risk its wrath.

Consider Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama.

Both rushed to offer condolences to the surviving victims of the massacre at the Century 16 Theater in Aurora, Colorado, on July 20, 2012.

And both steadfastly refused to even discuss gun control—let alone support a ban on the type of assault weapons used by James Holmes, leaving 12 dead and 58 wounded.

Second, those who survived the massacre–and the relatives and friends of those who didn’t–should file wrongful death, class-action lawsuits against the NRA.

There is sound, legal precedent for this.

  • For decades, the American tobacco industry peddled death and disability to millions and reaped billions of dollars in profits.
  • The industry vigorously claimed there was no evidence that smoking caused cancer, heart disease, emphysema or any other ailment.

  • Tobacco companies spent billions on slick advertising campaigns to win new smokers and attack medical warnings about the dangers of smoking.
  • Tobacco companies spent millions to elect compliant politicians and block anti-smoking legislation.
  • From 1954 to 1994, over 800 private lawsuits were filed against tobacco companies in state courts. But only two plaintiffs prevailed, and both of those decisions were reversed on appeal.
  • In 1994, amidst great pessimism, Mississippi Attorney General Mike Moore filed a lawsuit against the tobacco industry. But other states soon followed, ultimately growing to 46.
  • Their goal: To seek monetary, equitable and injunctive relief under various consumer-protection and anti-trust laws.
  • The theory underlying these lawsuits was: Cigarettes produced by the tobacco industry created health problems among the population, which badly strained the states’ public healthcare systems.
  • In 1998, the states settled their Medicaid lawsuits against the tobacco industry for recovery of their tobacco-related, health-care costs. In return, they exempted the companies from private lawsuits for tobacco-related injuries.
  • The companies agreed to curtail or cease certain marketing practices. They also agreed to pay, forever, annual payments to the states to compensate some of the medical costs for patients with smoking-related illnesses.

The parallels with the NRA are obvious:

  • For decades, the NRA has peddled deadly weapons to millions, reaped billions of dollars in profits and refused to admit the carnage those weapons have produced: “Guns don’t kill people.  People kill people.”  With guns.

  • The NRA has bitterly fought background checks on gun-buyers, in effect granting even criminals and the mentally ill the right to own arsenals of death-dealing weaponry.
  • The NRA has spent millions on slick advertising campaigns to win new members and frighten them into buying guns.

  • The NRA has spent millions on political contributions to block gun-control legislation.
  • The NRA has spent millions attacking political candidates and elected officials who warned about the dangers of unrestricted access to assault and/or concealed weapons.

  • The NRA has spent millions pushing “Stand Your Ground” laws in more than half the states, which potentially give every citizen a “license to kill.”
  • The NRA receives millions of dollars from online sales of ammunition, high-capacity ammunition magazines, and other accessories through its point-of-sale Round-Up Program—thus directly profiting by selling a product that kills about 30,288 people a year.

  • Firearms made indiscriminately available through NRA lobbying have filled hospitals with casualties, and have thus badly strained the states’ public healthcare systems.

It will take a series of highly expensive and well-publicized lawsuits to significantly weaken the NRA, financially and politically.

The first ones will have to be brought by the surviving victims of gun violence—and by the friends and families of those who did not survive it. Only they will have the courage and motivation to take such a risk.

As with the cases first brought against tobacco companies, there will be losses.  And the NRA will rejoice with each one.

But, in time, state Attorneys General will see the clear parallels between lawsuits filed against those who peddle death by cigarette and those who peddle death by armor-piercing bullet.

And then the NRA—like the tobacco industry—will face an adversary wealthy enough to stand up for the rights of the gun industry’s own victims.

Only then will those politicians supporting reasonable gun controls dare to stand up for the victims of these  needless tragedies.

JUDGMENT DAY FOR AMERICA’S DEATH-DEALERS: PART THREE (END)

In Bureaucracy, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Military, Politics, Social commentary on March 27, 2019 at 12:13 am

“The victims of the violence are black and white, rich and poor, young and old, famous and unknown. They are, most important of all, human beings whom other human beings loved and needed. No one—no matter where he lives or what he does— can be certain who will suffer from some senseless act of bloodshed. And yet it goes on and on.”

–Robert F. Kennedy, April 4, 1968

Senator Robert F. Kennedy announcing the murder of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

What should the surviving victims of gun massacres do to seek redress?

And how can the relatives and friends of those who didn’t survive seek justice for those they loved?

As far back as 2012, this writer posed those questions. And offered the following solution.

But only now has a court—the Connecticut Supreme Court—made this remedy possible.

First, don’t count on politicians to support a ban on assault weapons.

Politicians—with rare exceptions—have only two goals:

  1. Get elected to office, and
  2. Stay in office.

And too many of them fear the economic and voting clout of the National Rifle Association (NRA) to risk its wrath.

Consider Republican Presidential Nominee Mitt Romney and then-President Barack Obama.

Both rushed to offer condolences to the surviving victims of the massacre at the Century 16 Theater in Aurora, Colorado, on July 20, 2012.

And both steadfastly refused to even discuss gun control—let alone support a ban on the type of assault weapons used by James Holmes, leaving 12 dead and 58 wounded.

Second, those who survived the massacre—and the relatives and friends of those who didn’t—should file wrongful death, class-action lawsuits against the NRA.

There is sound, legal precedent for this.

  • For decades, the American tobacco industry peddled death and disability to millions and reaped billions of dollars in profits.
  • The industry vigorously claimed there was no evidence that smoking caused cancer, heart disease, emphysema or any other ailment.

  • Tobacco companies spent billions on slick advertising campaigns to win new smokers and attack medical warnings about the dangers of smoking.
  • Tobacco companies spent millions to elect compliant politicians and block anti-smoking legislation.
  • From 1954 to 1994, over 800 private lawsuits were filed against tobacco companies in state courts. But only two plaintiffs prevailed, and both of those decisions were reversed on appeal.
  • In 1994, amidst great pessimism, Mississippi Attorney General Mike Moore filed a lawsuit against the tobacco industry. But other states soon followed, ultimately growing to 46.
  • Their goal: To seek monetary, equitable and injunctive relief under various consumer-protection and anti-trust laws.
  • The theory underlying these lawsuits was: Cigarettes produced by the tobacco industry created health problems among the population, which badly strained the states’ public healthcare systems.
  • In 1998, the states settled their Medicaid lawsuits against the tobacco industry for recovery of their tobacco-related, health-care costs. In return, they exempted the companies from private lawsuits for tobacco-related injuries.
  • The companies agreed to curtail or cease certain marketing practices. They also agreed to pay, forever, annual payments to the states to compensate some of the medical costs for patients with smoking-related illnesses.

The parallels with the NRA are obvious:

  • For decades, the NRA has peddled deadly weapons to millions, reaped billions of dollars in profits and refused to admit the carnage those weapons have produced: “Guns don’t kill people.  People kill people.”  With guns.

  • The NRA has bitterly fought background checks on gun-buyers, in effect granting even criminals and the mentally ill the right to own arsenals of death-dealing weaponry.
  • The NRA has spent millions on slick advertising campaigns to win new members and frighten them into buying guns.

  • The NRA has spent millions on political contributions to block gun-control legislation.
  • The NRA has spent millions attacking political candidates and elected officials who warned about the dangers of unrestricted access to assault and/or concealed weapons.

  • The NRA has spent millions pushing “Stand Your Ground” laws in more than half the states, which potentially give every citizen a “license to kill.”
  • The NRA receives millions of dollars from online sales of ammunition, high-capacity ammunition magazines, and other accessories through its point-of-sale Round-Up Program—thus directly profiting by selling a product that kills about 30,288 people a year.

  • Firearms made indiscriminately available through NRA lobbying have filled hospitals with casualties, and have thus badly strained the states’ public healthcare systems.

It will take a series of highly expensive and well-publicized lawsuits to significantly weaken the NRA, financially and politically.

The first ones will have to be brought by the surviving victims of gun violence—and by the friends and families of those who did not survive it. Only they will have the courage and motivation to take such a risk.

As with the cases first brought against tobacco companies, there will be losses.  And the NRA will rejoice with each one.

But, in time, state Attorneys General will see the clear parallels between lawsuits filed against those who peddle death by cigarette and those who peddle death by armor-piercing bullet.

And then the NRA—like the tobacco industry—will face an adversary wealthy enough to stand up for the rights of the gun industry’s own victims.

Only then will those politicians supporting reasonable gun controls dare to stand up for the victims of these needless tragedies.

JUDGMENT DAY FOR AMERICA’S DEATH-DEALERS: PART TWO (OF THREE)

In Bureaucracy, History, Law, Military, Politics, Social commentary on March 26, 2019 at 12:11 am

Weapons manufacturers are the only companies in the United States that cannot be sued for the deaths and injuries their products cause.

This is because The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, or PLCAA, immunizes the American firearms industry against lawsuits by victims of mass shootings and gun violence.

Rammed through a Republican-dominated Congress in 2005 by the National Rifle Association (NRA), it was signed into law by President George W. Bush. 

But on March 15, 2019, the Supreme Court of Connecticut ruled that families of schoolchildren gunned down in the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre could sue Remington Outdoor Co Inc., over its marketing of military-style Bushmaster weapons to civilians.

The Court ruled that the victims’ families had the right to sue Remington under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA).

Among the ads that Remington ran to promote its military-style AR-15 Bushmaster rifle: 

  • “Truly the most versatile and adaptive rifle ever conceived, it was born of a collaborative effort between Bushmaster, Magpul and Remington to create the ultimate military combat weapons system.”
  • A photo of a Bushmaster with its barrel facing the reader, with the caption: “CONSIDER YOUR MAN CARD REISSUED.” 
  • A photo of a Bushmaster, alongside the slogan: “Forces of opposition, bow down. You are single-handedly outnumbered.”
  • “ONE RIFLE. MANY MISSIONS. THE REVOLUTIONARY, FULLY MODULAR REMINGTON ACR (ADAPTIVE COMBAT RIFLE).”

Image result for Images of Remington AR-15 Bushmaster rifle

Remington AR-15 Bushmaster

“The defendants knowingly marketed, advertised, and promoted the XM15-E2S for civilians to use to carry out offensive, military style combat missions against their perceived enemies,” alleges the Newtown lawsuit.

And the Justices ruled that, “such use of the XM15-E2S, or any weapon for that matter, would be illegal, and Connecticut law does not permit advertisements that promote or encourage violent, criminal behavior.

“We are confident… that, if there were credible allegations that a firearms seller had run explicit advertisements depicting and glorifying school shootings, and promoted its products in video games, such as ‘School Shooting,’ that glorify and reward such unlawful conduct, and if a troubled young man who watched those advertisements and played those games were inspired thereby to commit a terrible crime like the ones involved in the Sandy Hook massacre, then even the most ardent sponsors of PLCAA would not have wanted to bar a consumer protection lawsuit seeking to hold the supplier accountable for the injuries wrought by such unscrupulous marketing practices.”

Image result for Images of Connecticut Supreme Court Building

Connecticut Supreme Court Building

Said David Wheeler, father of a Sandy Hook victim: “There is a reason why this particular consumer product is the one that is used by people who want to inflict the most damage, and we have seen it time and time again since my son and his classmates were killed. That reason very likely potentially resides in the documents that we have been unable to look at until now.”

“The families’ goal has always been to shed light on Remington’s calculated and profit-driven strategy to expand the AR-15 market and court high-risk users, all at the expense of Americans’ safety,” said Josh Koskoff, one of the lawyers for the victims’ families, “Today’s decision is a critical step toward achieving that goal.” 

“This is a landmark and potentially historic ruling,” said Adam Winkler, a UCLA Law School professor who specializes in constitutional law. “While all this decision does is allow a case to go forward, in broader terms it really opens up a new avenue for holding gunmakers responsible.”

More importantly, the ruling could spur similar suits in other states. “This could prompt further such suits not only for cases of mass shootings, but individual ones as well,” Winkler said.

The decision by the Connecticut Supreme Court wasn’t unanimous. Three of its seven justices dissented.

The case now goes back to the lower court for further proceedings and a possible trial.

Opinion remains divided over its chances for success.

According to National Public Radio: “The suit is a high-stakes challenge to gun companies, which have rarely been held liable for crimes committed with their products, and could mark a new front in the battle over gun regulations and corporate accountability.

“An eventual ruling against Remington could establish legal precedent, opening doors for more lawsuits against gun manufacturers, and expose the company’s communications about its marketing plans.” 

Noted The Root: “While federal judges remain split on which laws apply to firearm manufacturers, Connecticut judges have drawn a line in the sand. While U.S. Supreme Court intervention on behalf of Remington is a distinct possibility, Connecticut’s decision could inspire lawmakers and lawyers to take a hard look at PLCAA.”  

“The larger implications of this are that the Connecticut Supreme Court has just blown a giant hole in the PLCAA and in federal immunity for firearms manufacturers,” said Timothy Lytton, a law professor at Georgia State University.

Lytton predicted that the United States Supreme Court would be likely to take up the case: “What we’re talking about here is the interpretation of a federal statute and that falls squarely in the jurisdiction of the [United States] Supreme Court.”

A spokeswoman for the National Rifle Association declined to comment. 

%d bloggers like this: