DOJ, Trump Decide The Federal Government Needs To Give Chicago The Police Department It Doesn't Want

from the Judge-Dredd-appointed-to-advisory-role dept

In a move that’s tone deaf if nothing else, the DOJ is going to court to block a consent decree put in place to overhaul Chicago’s unconstitutional policing. This announcement comes days after a jury convicted Chicago police officer Jason Van Dyke of second-degree murder for killing 17-year-old Laquan McDonald. He was also convicted of 16 counts of aggravated battery — one count for each bullet he fired at the teen as the teen walked away from him.

This also follows more tone-deafness from the “law and order” presidency. Trump’s speech to a law enforcement convention contained several comments about Chicago and its perceived police problem. But the problem Trump sees is police not policing hard enough. Trump wants stop-and-frisk brought back — one of the key modifications contained in the consent decree.

Stop-and-frisk programs encourage unconstitutional stops. Just ask the NYPD, which saw its program changed drastically following a lawsuit brought against the city. Police officials and then-mayor Mike Bloomberg promised a dramatic spike in crime if officers weren’t allowed to engage in suspicionless stops/frisks. This never materialized. Crime went down across the board.

Trump thinks a return to unconstitutional practices will solve Chicago’s violent crime problem, but there’s no evidence out there that provides a basis for this belief. Violent crime is already declining in Chicago, even without unconstitutional stops. What Trump wants is something people in Chicago don’t want. And that includes the people who matter — like Mayor Rahm Emanuel.

Mayor Rahm Emanuel said he welcomes federal reinforcements — in the form of more ATF, DEA and FBI agents — to “take down gang leadership” and stop the “drug trade.”

But that’s not the kind of help Donald Trump is offering. Returning to the more intensive “stop-and-frisk” procedures would run contrary to Chicago’s ongoing effort to repair shattered public trust between citizens and police, the mayor said.

“The failed policies he’s talking about have no place for a city that’s working together with communities about how to build — not only trust, but a collaborative and cooperative relationship,” the mayor said Monday.

“So, while resources are always welcome, the idea of what President Trump is talking about is not only not welcome — it’s antithetical to what we’re working on, and that is about a strong, pro-active, professional police department.”

Nonetheless, the DOJ will try to block the consent decree that might rebuild some of the trust the Chicago PD has thoroughly destroyed over the past several years. Why? Because the president said so.

Following an order from President Trump, Attorney General Jeff Sessions today announced that he is providing more resources for law enforcement in Chicago and filing a brief opposing a proposed consent decree on Chicago police.

The rationale is even worse. According to AG Jeff Sessions, the spike in violent crime in Chicago (which, again, has declined 20% over the last year) is due to police being hampered by the Constitution and not enough respect being shown by the general public.

There is one government institution, and one alone, that has the ability to make Chicago safer—that is the Chicago Police Department. Our goal should be to empower it to fulfill its duties, not to restrict its proper functioning or excessively demean the entire Department for the errors of a few. Make no mistake: unjustified restrictions on proper policing and disrespect for our officers directly led to this tragic murder surge in Chicago.

At a fundamental level, there is a misperception that police are the problem and that their failures, their lack of training, and their abuses create crime. But the truth is the police are the solution to crime, and criminals are the problem. The results of the ACLU settlement in November 2015, as revealed by Judge Cassel’s study, established this fact dramatically, conclusively, and most painfully for the City of Chicago. When police are restrained from using lawfully established policies of community engagement, when arrests went down, and when their work and character were disrespected, crime surged. There must never be another consent decree that continues the folly of the ACLU settlement.

“Unjustified restrictions on proper policing” apparently includes the Fourth Amendment. That’s just the beginning of this garbage. From there, Sessions moves on to cite the only study on policing he agrees with — one that decides correlation equals causation and ties increases in violent crime to a civil rights lawsuit settlement. The study has nothing to say about similar cities undergoing similar modifications to police programs that have not experienced violent crime increases. It’s almost as if its authors started from their conclusion and worked backwards.

Sessions loves this faulty study and thinks it provides some sort of scientific basis for encroaching on civil liberties under the guise of making the city safer. But he’s wrong about this, just like he’s wrong about everything else in his statement.

Zachary Fardon, a former US attorney working in Chicago, says the DOJ’s plan to block the consent decree will make things worse for the city and the Chicago PD. The problem isn’t Constitutional restraints on policing. The problem is the relationship the PD has with the people it’s supposed to protect.

What’s at stake here is not just constitutional policing. Lives are at stake. People are dying. Children are dying. Our city suffers, year after year.

Law enforcement is not the entire solution, but it’s a big part. A consent decree will give our cops support, training and the credibility they need to engage in effective and constitutional policing. A consent decree will give our South and West side citizens greater trust in our officers and institutions, and greater safety in their neighborhoods.

If Sessions spent more time in violence-afflicted neighborhoods, he would know that we still have kids who are growing up more afraid of police than of gangs. When that changes, we mark the beginning of a new Chicago.

The Chicago Tribune’s editorial board is even more scathing in its assessment of Jeff Sessions’ bumptious interloping:

Thank you for your interest in Chicago’s police consent decree, now in its final stages of development. We are confident your “statement of interest” will be given due consideration by U.S. District Judge Robert M. Dow Jr., who will hold public hearings on the draft agreement later this month.

We have just one question: Where were you in early 2017, when Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel pledged to follow through on the consent decree prescribed by the U.S. Department of Justice you took over when the White House changed hands?

Oh, now we remember: You wanted no part of it. You believed then, as you do now, that worrying about the civil rights of suspects gets in the way of fighting crime. Instead of doubling down on the hard work that had been done in Chicago, you tried (unsuccessfully) to torpedo Baltimore’s consent decree, which was then at this same public hearing stage.

If citizens don’t trust the police, they won’t report crimes, provide testimony, or supply evidence. All of this exacerbates the city’s violent crime problem. When they see officers unwilling to do their jobs at all, let alone Constitutionally, they see there’s no point in asking them for help. And when they see officers routinely escape punishment for misconduct and excessive force deployment, they begin to believe the cure might be at least as bad as the disease.

As the editorial points out, if Sessions really wanted to solve Chicago’s problems, he wouldn’t be trying to block a consent decree crafted with an eye on rebuilding destroyed trust. It ends with this extended middle finger.

Chicago doesn’t need or appreciate your drive-by assessment.

Trump and Sessions both believe the problem with American policing is that officers aren’t being given the respect that is their God-given right. That’s the beginning and end of it. The Constitution is just standing in the way of enforcing the law. Both are telling law enforcement agencies what they want to hear: that they’re persecuted and misunderstood. Not a single member of this administration is willing to tell them what they need to hear: that destroyed trust takes time to rebuild and it can never be restored by engaging in the same behavior that destroyed it.

Filed Under: , , , , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “DOJ, Trump Decide The Federal Government Needs To Give Chicago The Police Department It Doesn't Want”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
98 Comments
That One Guy (profile) says:

Beatings will continue until moral improves

Sounds like a self-fulfilling prophecy to me.

‘People don’t respect the police, this causes an increase in crime, therefore we need to make them respect the police!’

Several months pass.

‘Look, people still don’t respect the police, and in fact they respect and trust them even less after our generous treatment of them, and now crime is even higher! Clearly we need to bring the fist down even harder until they give us the respect we deserve!’

If they actually cared about reducing crime they would be all for trying to patch up the relationship between the public and police, yet I strongly suspect that most if not all of those involved are of the mindset that respect is owed(in particular by anyone with a badge) rather than earned, and as such they see a lack of respect as a fault entirely on the public’s side.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Help

The problem, Digi, is that Trump’s “something” is a counter-productive “something.”

If he was ordering something useful, he would likely be given (grudging) praise, as it would be a pleasant surprise.

Instead he’s doubling down on unconstitutional idiocy.

So in this case, yes, it’s his fault for doing something, when the something he’s doing is actually worse than nothing.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Help

The number of bodybags filled will be lower if the police are trusted and well-liked by the community.

The number of bodybags filled will be higher if the police are not trusted and not liked by the community.

Trump and the DOJ wish to return unconstitutional, trust-breaking practices to a police force that sorely needs to rebuild trust in order to operate effectively, thereby further breaking community trust in police.

It would seem that Trump and the DOJ love a high bodybag count.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Help

Correct – at the current moment, it is quite high, and he had nothing to do with it.

Now, he’s order his DOJ to interfere with something that would, in the long term, reduce body count.

So now that he’s actively intefering, he has something to do with it. His current actions indicate he would like the bodybag count to remain high.

Doing something counter-productive is worse than doing nothing.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5

Right now it’s quite high and President Trump has nothing to do with it and you say this is better.

Why must you lie about someone’s position to make your own “argument” look superior?

They said nothing about the current situation being “better”; if they even so much as implied it, they did so in comparison to what could be the situation if Trump and the DOJ manage to roll back that consent decree and give Chicago police even more unaccountable power than they already have. The police already have trouble doing their jobs in Chicago because few people there trust the police to do anything but violate civil rights and commit extrajudicial executions in the streets. The federal government coming in and saying “yeah, sure, all that sounds good to us” would only worsen that distrust.

The policing issues facing Chicago right now are not a situation for which Donald Trump or Jeff Sessions should be blamed for making. That much, I will grant you. But if they continue to interfere as they are doing now—and if their interference provides Chicago cops with more unaccountable power—they should receive the blame if the cops were to pull off another murder like that of Laquan McDonald and manage to get off scot-free.

James Burkhardt (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7 Re:

The phrase “could be worse” does not appear in the comment you replied to. The word “could” does not appear. You Lie.

Your choice to strawman a reasonable argument born of an understanding of the role trust plays in police work expresses a lack of understanding of the topic, and an unwillingness to engage the arguement.

Good day sir.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:9 Re:

Ignoring the portion of his comment that quoted yours:

1: Why must you lie about someone’s position to make your own “argument” look superior?

2: They said nothing about the current situation being “better”; if they even so much as implied it, they did so in comparison to what could be the situation if Trump and the DOJ manage to roll back that consent decree and give Chicago police even more unaccountable power than they already have.

3: The police already have trouble doing their jobs in Chicago because few people there trust the police to do anything but violate civil rights and commit extrajudicial executions in the streets.

4: The federal government coming in and saying “yeah, sure, all that sounds good to us” would only worsen that distrust.

The phrase “could be worse” does not appear in sentence 4. Sentence states that the action by the federal government will worsen distrust between the public and police.

Do you have a rebuttal to this specific statement, or will you continue with misrepresentation of the arguments of those you are speaking to?

James Burkhardt (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:9 Re:

“Would only worsen” =/= “Could be worse”. You used quotes, said “your own words”. But you didn’t quote, and didn’t use his own words. You LIED.

“Would only worsen” notes the situation is bad, and the proposed solution would make things worse. It condemns the proposed action while simultaneously not giving the current situation a pass.

“Could be worse” excuses the horrible current situation as ok because it isn’t some hypothetically worse situation, leading to your general claims that those condemning the DOJ action are calling for ‘inaction’, ignoring that we are calling for a change to police policy, while the DOJ action calls for status quo, AKA doing more of the same.

Your intentional change in verbiage changes the tone and creates a straw man you then fight against, rather than engage in the actual substansive arguments.

So try again. Where does the would “could” appear in Stephen’s comment? You Lied, numbnuts.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:7 Re:

I’ll explain using small words.

  1. Chicago has lots of murders. This is bad.
  2. CPD has been ignoring people’s rights. This is bad.
  3. CPD officers have not been held responsible for #2. This is bad.
  4. Because of #2 and #3, people have not been helping CPD solve the murders. This is bad.
  5. The courts are trying to stop #2 and #3. This is good.
  6. If #5 succeeds, it will help stop #4, which will, in turn, help stop #1. This is good.
  7. The DOJ is interfering, not to stop any of items #1-#4, but item #5, which will also stop #6. They are stopping the good things, without helping stop the bad things. So, this is BAD.

If they wanted to actually help — even if it’s just to help with #1 by loaning the CPD some resources — then that would be good. Instead, they just want to double down on what isn’t working (trampling on the rights of the citizenry), so… how is that helping?

James Burkhardt (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:9 Re:

Agreed. But we had shootings under the old system, so the old system isn’t panacea. And the police can’t fix that – Law enforcement in the US is trained to escalate and intimidate. Their purpose is to enforce the law, but are relatively powerless before a crime. Nothing in the old way of doing things changes that.

Experts studying policing methods in areas with less violent crime note differences in policing methods that are not obvious but have long reaching effects. When a community trusts law enforcement, they work with law enforcement. That results in easier, more rapid, more substantial investigations leading to better legal convictions when crime happens. That produces a deterrent effect on future crime, and makes repeat crimes less likely, further fostering trust in Law Enforcement.

The consent decree is designed by experts to help foster the base trust necessary for this kind of community policing to bear fruit.

By contrast, you suggest the police keep on keeping on and hope eventually the brutality eventually makes up for all the extra work they have to do, because aint no one snitchin if it means getting shot in the back.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7

So,

Thanks for otherwording my argument and proving you misunderstand my point, likely on purpose so as to make my argument look bad. I always like to know the kind of person I am dealing with in these discussions.

"could be worse" So, it "could be better"

Two things.

  1. As comments above pointed out, I never said “could be worse”—and that would be excusing the current situation in Chicago besides, something I did not (nor would ever) do.
  2. Yes, the situation in Chicago could be better. That is why I would prefer to see the DOJ stay out of the way in re: the consent decree and everything else being done to restore the trust between Chicago citizens and CPD.

you do not know other than Trump = bad

The situation in Chicago is bad. Donald Trump and the DOJ are intentionally interfering with that situation in a way that will only make it worse. No one but Trump and Jeff Sessions seems to want it—and you have yet to offer any reason why anyone should want it.

I didn’t make any personal attack

Well, see, I view otherwording as a personal attack, so…

Anonymous Coward says:

(anecdotal evidence warning) I find it telling in my personal experience that many right leaning older people (retired or close to retiring) are starting to come around to how bad cops are these days.

As cops get more and more into crazy town they are bullying older people more and more, screaming at them, degrading them… and older people are in that shocked state of “When I supported the tigers-eating-faces party I didn’t realize they meant my face too!”

It’s great to see Chicago realizing the real issue is breaking the social contract between police and community and trying to take steps to repair it, but until we get rid of these facists that somehow got voted in they are going to be fighting an uphill battle to repair the rift with a federal government that wants to increase it.

Uriel-238 (profile) says:

Re: Police overreach and brutality are like purges that way...

…the immune group in the center is very small, and assuredly does not include you.

When we have a population of tens of thousands (let alone millions) society will always feel like a plurality of degenerates. Even if everyone looks the same and goes to the same church, we’d look for causes to thin the ranks.

Traitors.

People who must be spies because they’re too perfect.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Cure?

My questioning of the term "cure" was sardonic. The intent of the author was entirely clear. Your Captain Obvious reply was insightful only if truncated during upload, a la, "In the context of that quote, the ‘disease’ is crime, and the ‘cure’ is police, violating the Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights of citizens in the absence of any justifiable suspicion of crime."

Anonymous Coward says:

About time someone showed some spine in one of the most
gun regulated cities in the country with high gun crimes and murder rates .
Is this the great democratic wave you want sprawled across America come Nov 6 ?
The great democratic dystopia where only the criminals and privileged elite who hide behind gated communities and armed guards while the rest live in a unicorn land of the great gun free zone .{which with all those murders sure isn’t working too well}
All you living in the greatest democratic strong hold , get off the plantation they keep you in and live a free life where you get to decide that being a victim is a choice not a forced option by others

Anonymous Coward says:

States Rights?

Where are all of the “States Rights” bloviators? Why are we not seeing every single “States rights” GOP person in Congress on every news channel denouncing government outreach into a state’s business?

Or just like the debt and “running the government like a business”, do they only care about that stuff when someone else does it?

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: States Rights?

Returning to the more intensive “stop-and-frisk” procedures would run contrary to Chicago’s ongoing effort to repair shattered public trust between citizens and police, the mayor said.

That does not sound like he is “ignoring” the concerns of citizens who believe CPD only ever violates the civil rights of Chicago citizens.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 States Rights?

Chicago is currently attempting to do something to increase trust in police, and therefore ensure that people will actually go to police when a bodybag situation happens, and therefore lead to a reduction in bodybag filling.

Trump and DOJ are attempting to stop this attempt. The something they are doing will, if successful, create less trust in the police, and continue the current trend of the citizenry being just as afraid of the police as they are of the criminals, if not more afraid, and thus lead to people not going to police when a body situation happens, and therefore either maintain the current bodybag rate, or lead to an increase.

Trump and the DOJ would be better off doing nothing, as the something they are doing is strictly to interfere with the something that is already being done.

(Yes, I copied this from my comment elsewhere.)

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 States Rights?

So do more of nothing while the bodybags get stacked higher.

That’s right.

Sometimes doing nothing is better than executing a shitty not-well-thought out plan, hoping for the best. Case in point – Iraq.

I have little to no confidence that Donald Trump or Jeff Sessions know a goddamn thing about crime in Chicago, and I see nothing on their resumes suggesting otherwise. Trump lived in a high-rise in Manhattan while Sessions was from fucking Alabama. Tell me – how do those qualifications add up to someone who knows any actual fucking thing about inner-city Chicago?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 States Rights?

Do you have a rebuttal to the actual argument made, re: Trump and Session’s competence in the challenges of managing police and community relations in the Chicago area?

Or will you continue with irrelevant sidelining towards attacking someone’s choice to use profanity to provide emphasis?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 States Rights?

I see no evidence you have any grasp of debte without cursing, therefore anthing you say can be ignored.

Nor do I see any evidence of yours. So I should also conclude that your "do something, anything" argument is equally bullshit.

So now we’re right back at doing nothing and being fine with it. See how this works now?

Listen, I know being on the side of a shitty argument must suck for you. But lashing out at me with this bullshit "rebuttal" isn’t going to help your position.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6

Sorry was channeling my Democrat side, you are right enough with the "feels"

You say this as if Donald Trump did not run on a platform of making White people feel like victims (in a country where they still hold the overwhelming majority of power and influence) who needed to take “their” country back from all the brown-skinned people. Going for “the feels” is not a partisan trick just because you agree with your “side” when they do it to you.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:6 States Rights?

Sorry was channeling my Democrat side

No you weren’t. You’ve got a shit "argument" that doing something even if it’s wrong must be better than doing nothing.

When called on that, you complained about profanity, like it’s something you’ve never heard before (reread your comments above before spouting off self-righteous indignation bullshit).

Since you want to bring left/right into it, let me remind you that Obamacare is still the law of the land, Hillary Clinton still isn’t locked up, there’s no wall, and Mexico isn’t sending any check.

My liberal tears are from laughing at such an obvious display of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Let me know when you want to rebut my argument that doing something stupid isn’t better than doing nothing, dumbass (profanity clearly intended).

The Wanderer (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

You might want to be careful with you phrase that. Although on a few moments’ consideration I see why there’s enough of a difference to warrant distinguishing the two, my immediate reaction to that argument stated that way was to think of your own recurring remarks about otherwording – and not everyone is going to bother taking those few moments’ consideration.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re:

For the record: When I accuse someone of otherwording, I do not attack the language used, but rather the tactic of putting words in someone’s mouth that did not first come out of it. The otherwording itself can be phrased as nice and polite as possible, yet that makes no difference in terms of making it a non-shitty thing to do.

The Wanderer (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7 Re:

Although I do think that some things which would seem to fit the definition of otherwording you seem to be using can sometimes be helpful. I not infrequently find it helpful to rephrase the other person’s argument in my own words, in an attempt to make sure I’ve understood it correctly and/or convey to the other person what I (mis?)understood it as (in hopes of reaching a better mutual understanding); even if I end up disagreeing with that argument, I think it’s better to do so with confidence that I understand what it was.

I do tend to express such rephrasings slightly differently from what I’ve seen you react to as otherwording (“So if I’m understanding you correctly,”, that sort of thing), but not always, and I’m not at all certain that the way I’d say it wouldn’t trip your otherwording sensors.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:8

I do tend to express such rephrasings slightly differently from what I’ve seen you react to as otherwording ("So if I’m understanding you correctly,", that sort of thing)

While I would be wary of that particular phrasing (the word “so” being at the start of the sentence is the primary trigger there), so long as you did not try to misrepresent their argument, you would be free and clear. Otherwording is a deliberate attempt to misrepresent someone’s argument—a form of a strawman, really—to make the otherworder’s argument appear stronger. Think about, for example, a discussion on the civil rights of transgender people:

Person 1 (P1): Do you support trans rights?

Person 2 (P2): Yes, I do.

In a case where P1 was not trying to otherword P2, the conversation might continue like so…

P1: Which specific rights do you support?

…and that could lead to fruitful discussion. (In my experience, asking open-ended questions and doing everything possible to avoid “why” questions/questions about motivations are good for fostering such discussion.)

But if P1 was trying to otherword P2 to make them sound like a bastard, well…

P1: In other words, you support men in women’s bathrooms!

…you see how that song-and-dance goes.

Rephrasing an argument to avoid otherwording requires as much accuracy as you can possibly deliver. If the originating argument is unclear to you and rephrasing could create further misunderstanding between you and the other person, ask for clarity from them first. Tackle their exact argument instead of an imagined version of it.

…unless they’re a troll, in which case feel free to fuck with them all you like. ????

The Wanderer (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:9 Re:

My concern is that “genuinely misunderstood the argument, and rephrased it in order to convey that (misunderstood) idea of what the argument is” might in some cases not be distinguishable – to either a third party, or the interlocutor – from “understood the argument, and disingenuously attempted to misrepresent that argument”. Asking for clarification doesn’t help if the other person doesn’t understand what isn’t clear, and often enough, the best way to convey that is to rephrase in exactly the way I’m talking about.

Yes, being careful about how the rephrasing is phrased (which is a good idea, and arguably necessary, regardless) might help avoid that lack of distinguishability, but I don’t think it would necessarily do so in all cases.

I can’t think of a time when I’ve wanted to use the rephrasing-for-clarity-and-mutual-understanding tactic in a discussion with you (and that’s probably a compliment to your own ability to express things clearly – or at least an indication of how much alike we think), but I could easily see myself deciding to refrain from engaging in such a discussion at all, on the basis that the risk of getting mired in sincere accusations of otherwording vs. sincere misunderstanding is not worth the potential benefit.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:10

You make a fair point. To that end, you’ll likely notice that I rarely accuse people here of otherwording, and the only people who tend to receive that accusation are the troll brigade. They are the ones who try more often than not to strengthen their arguments by weakening someone else’s. And really, that is the entire point of otherwording: When your ideas cannot “win” on their own merits, you can at least try to make the other person’s ideas “lose” by making them sound as if they have no merit.

bob says:

Re: Re: Re:3 States Rights?

More cases of point:

The separating of families at the border,
The racial based travel bans,
Putting tariffs on goods,
Meeting with dictators,
Isolationism,
Requiring regulations be removed regardless of their merit,
Putting non-politicians but unqualified people into Gov positions
Trump running for president.

All of those things were done or championed by this current presidency but not well implemented or planned. As a result it would be better if they hadn’t been implemented in the first place.

The list can keep going because Trump doesn’t seem to care or think of the consequences of his actions.

JMT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 States Rights?

"So do more of nothing while the bodybags get stacked higher. Awesome solution!!"

Again with this? Are you actually only capable of this extremely simplistic thinking? Nobody is saying "do nothing", only pointing out that doing nothing is by definition better than doing something known to be counterproductive. The consent decree is part of the something that is being done. Improving police behavior will result in a public willing to help the police do their jobs.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: States Rights?

I find it hard to believe that the citizens are asking for a return to violations of rights on the part of the police, but if they are then the city/state is absolutely correct in ignoring them while they focus on something that actually stands to work.

As several people have pointed out ‘doing nothing’ is a much better option than doing something counter-productive/wrong.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 States Rights?

Nah, Chicago is currently attempting to do something to increase trust in police, and therefore ensure that people will actually go to police when a bodybag situation happens, and therefore lead to a reduction in bodybag filling.

Trump and DOJ are attempting to stop this attempt. The something they are doing will, if successful, create less trust in the police, and continue the current trend of the citizenry being just as afraid of the police as they are of the criminals, if not more afraid, and thus lead to people not going to police when a body situation happens, and therefore either maintain the current bodybag rate, or lead to an increase.

Trump and the DOJ would be better off doing nothing, as the something they are doing is strictly to interfere with the something that is already being done.

James Burkhardt (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 States Rights?

I mean, id think maintaining the status quo as requested by the DOJ (refusing the consent decree and returning to the practices in place when murder rates were high) would best be described as ‘doing nothing’, by definition.

Whereas establishing a consent decree based in community policing standards to increase trust and community involvement in anti-crime efforts of the police seems like trying to do something different.

Christenson says:

M A C A

It’s Trump. Make America Cruel Again!

Note that if I didn’t know correlation and causation are distinct, it looks like the doubling of Chicago’s murder rate was *caused* by stop and frisk and other trust destroying practices. Cops too busy running a racket, so no consequences if I off you for stepping in my drug dealing turf!

Christenson says:

M A C A

It’s Trump. Make America Cruel Again!

Note that if I didn’t know correlation and causation are distinct, it looks like the doubling of Chicago’s murder rate was *caused* by stop and frisk and other trust destroying practices. Cops too busy running a racket, so no consequences if I off you for stepping in my drug dealing turf! Or are those the words of a bad cop, protected by the department?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: M A C A

First three links via Google search:

1.
https://www.aclu-il.org/en/campaigns/stop-and-frisk

Refers to report by ACLU and the agreement to reform the practice.

2.
https://www.chicagoreporter.com/chicago-tried-stop-and-frisk-it-didnt-work/
News article from 2016 about this same issue. Includes a bonus link in the article … to the ACLU report:
http://www.aclu-il.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/ACLU_StopandFrisk_6.pdf

3.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-chicago-stop-and-frisk_us_5bbc79afe4b028e1fe412545
News article about the same thing the TechDirt article is about.

There are additional results in the search.

I understand that search engines can be confusing. The key is to use appropriate words, such as, in this case “chicago stop and frisk” – you do want to make sure you aren’t putting a minus sign in front of words, because that will tell the search engine that you don’t want to include results that include that word.

I can only assume you were using the minus sign operator, given how quickly I found these results. It’s an easy mistake to make, I guess. You might want to look for an instruction manual … though with your track record…

Here, maybe this will help: https://computer.howstuffworks.com/internet/basics/search-engine.htm

G Ang-Busters says:

Chicago has long had corrupt police and administration.

Was near completely taken over, including the city offices, by criminal gangs in the 1930s. The only way to control gangs is with ruthless use of force. The current situation is trending bad — just look at the figures someone listed, and then consider that the minion LIES in claiming an unacceptable level of violence is okay because temporarily decreasing. It’s again time for Federal intervention.

Techdirt would rather let gang violence — and drug dealing — go on while letting the freedoms of law-abiding persons be subject to increasing gang violence. Techdirt ALWAYS ends up favoring criminals while claiming that the rest of us must strictly obey its notions of "law". — But no, the Constitution will survive just fine, HAS BEFORE, so long as current criminals are the main ones hampered. And the police know WHO’s a criminal. But when the police and politicians are paid off, some external less-corrupted agency is required.

Your fears of Federal take-over won’t be realized.

James Burkhardt (profile) says:

Re: Chicago has long had corrupt police and administration.

I mean, they had ruthless force for decades – but crime in chicago has generally been high.

the 2016 spike is noted to have many causes – including a fracturing of the factions within gangs leading to a lots of territory disputes. Cops used to respond to gang fights. Now, between community distrust and a quicker tendency to resort to gun violence, cops respond to shots fired. But I mean they couldn’t have learned that response from police who ever more readily jump to gun violence themselves.

Uriel-238 (profile) says:

Re: Ruthless use of force

That’s what the gangs of prohibition taught you? When the gangs get tough, get tough back?

If that were the case, we wouldn’t have had to convict Capone for tax evasion (on a dubious ruling).

No, the police then were too busy beating up blacks and taking bribes from the mob. Civilians were paying protection because the police wasn’t doing its job and was part of the racket. That’s why Eliot Ness had pull together a special task force that couldn’t be bought.

Universally, whenever ruthless use of force is advocated, it doesn’t go towards the gangsters, it goes towards the impoverished and marginalized public, which forces the public to bargain with the gangsters against the police.

It’s been that way since the middle ages.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...