It’s become a rite of the losers to decry the influence of money on politics, and it’s a legitimate complaint. As a portable form of power, money is going to immediately be corrupting to any system you can inject it into.
The law must not only be just, it must not be seen to be a mass of corruption, run by snakes, for lice: [ebx]
Alameda County District Attorney Nancy O’Malley accepted a $10,000 campaign donation from the Fremont police union just months before her office cleared Fremont police officers of any wrongdoing in the fatal shooting of pregnant teen, Elena Mondragon. In addition, the president of the Fremont police union – Sgt. Jeremy Miskella – is one of the cops that shot Mondragon to death one year ago and was subsequently cleared by O’Malley’s office.
It’s a little hard to put together the timing but it’s basically:
- Shooting
- Donation
- Cleared
The rest is coincidence.
In case you’ve forgotten how the killing went down: [guard]
In March 2017, a group of men wearing street clothes and carrying AR-15s ambushed a car full of teenagers at an apartment complex in Hayward, a suburb of San Francisco. The driver of the car thought he was being robbed, and tried to drive away. The men opened fire with semi-automatic rifles, killing Elena Mondragon, a pregnant 16-year-old who was in the passenger seat.
The men who fired the shots were undercover police officers. They claimed they fired in self-defense, though the car was driving away from them and they did not turned on their body cameras. The officers were never charged in the shooting, a decision made by Alameda County District Attorney Nancy O’Malley.
Say her name: Elena Mondragon
Go back and read that again, slowly. So, you’ve got a bunch of teenagers sitting in a car. Suddenly a bunch of guys dressed in street clothes and carrying military weapons jump out at them. One of the teenagers puts the car in drive and tries to get out of there, so the guys with guns shoot up the car and kill one of the passengers. That sounds like something out of drug cartel stereotypes, doesn’t it? Or, like gameplay from Grand Theft Auto 5.
Now that you’ve digested that, let’s scroll back to our intrepid law enforcement officers. They’re in civilian clothes, so they can blend in, except for the part where they’re carrying military style rifles. They’re dressed for the occasion. They are ready to go do some serious copping stuff!
A district attorney’s report clearing two Fremont police officers in the shooting death of a pregnant 16-year-old reveals that two officers involved in the incident had not turned on their body cameras and three others weren’t wearing them.
Oh, noes! They forgot their cop cams! They remembered their guns but not their cameras. And in a horrible coincidence the two that did have their cameras forgot to turn them on.
So, the conclusion by O’Malley was: since we don’t have any video of the incident, we can’t tell what happened, therefore case closed.
The term “fragrant grease” is the Mandarin expression for a bribe. [r]
In America we kill suspects if they try to leave when you try to arrest them. Because nothing says “innocent until proven guilty” like a death-sentence carried out on the spot by a cop.
Fragrant . . . and flagrant.
You better be a white woman if you want your cop killer charged.
Wow, that’s cheap. With prices like these, even I (despite my mediocre earnings) could afford to buy these people.
I like this one.
Latvian word for a bribe kukulis means literally “a loaf” (as in “a loaf of bread”). And the Latvian phrase dot kukuli that literally translates as “to give a loaf” means “to bribe.” I don’t know about the etymological origins of this word. Basically, there are two options—either it was used as a euphemism for money, or public officials were so cheap that you could, literally, bribe them with a piece of bread.
In German the word is Schmiergeld. In German schmieren means “to smear, to lubricate, to oil, to grease” and Geld means money. Therefore, Schmiergeld means, literally, “greasing money.”
What does a police officer have to do to get charged in the USA? Shoot the mayor’s daughter?
As a thought, you were probably safer if you were black and living in South Africa during the apartheid era than in the USA.
What was this police job supposed to be about?
@ 3 Ieva Skrebele
Wow, that’s cheap.
US (and Canadian, though we don’t have as many documented cases) are surprisingly inexpensive. It is as if they have no idea of their value or are too stupid to charge a decent price. Probably both.
jrkrideau@#4:
What does a police officer have to do to get charged in the USA? Shoot the mayor’s daughter?
Avoid paying your union dues, you’re probably dead. Testify against another cop, you are dead.
To get charged? I suspect you have to miss a payoff.
I’ve been meaning to write a bit about it but someone in the commentariat suggested Don Winslow’s The Force. It’s a fun – albeit depressing – read. Lots of cop corruption, and it sounds like a documentary. Unfortunately, all the crimes and scams that the cops are doing in the book, are real-life incidents.
As a thought, you were probably safer if you were black and living in South Africa during the apartheid era than in the USA.
It always seemed to me that South Africa was worse. Worse, even, than the US under Jim Crow. But they’re both on a spectrum of horribleness.
(PS – to your comment over at Mano’s blog, re: Saudi Arabian crime and punishment. They have a professional martial artist use a saber to cut your hand off at the wrist if you steal. Publicly. That’s really fucked up.)
lumipuna@#6:
What was this police job supposed to be about?
They thought they were going to bust some car thieves. Hence the heavy artillery and surprise attack.
They fired 7 shots and hit her with 5 of them. This was because she was the passenger in a car where the driver was trying to get away from a bunch of dudes who jumped out and pointed guns at them.
jrkrideau@#7:
US (and Canadian, though we don’t have as many documented cases) are surprisingly inexpensive.
“The surprise thing we learned from ABSCAM is not that congressmen are for sale, it’s that you and I can afford one.” – Robert Morris Sr.
And yet another story to put in the WHAT KIND OF “JUSTICE” SYSTEM HAS ELECTED OFFICIALS??!?! files.
Seriously, I have no understanding why anyone thinks elected DAs, judges, and sheriffs are a good idea. There is potential for corruption in any system, but having people who rely on getting money to run for election just makes it so much worse.
And that’s not even counting how they have to show how they’re “tough on crime”. The most mind-blowing ad I ever saw was a judge proclaiming his great conviction rate. THAT’S NOT YOUR DAMNED JOB! Then there are all the stories about DAs – who do have the job to convict – doing all sorts of broken shit to get those conviction rates up.
“Freest country in the world” my ass.
Tabby Lavalamp@#11:
I have no understanding why anyone thinks elected DAs, judges, and sheriffs are a good idea.
Agreed. The alternative is having them be political appointees, which is pretty bad, too. Although, if they were politically appointed then that’d help people understand that there are serious consequences for electing fuckwits.
T
OK, that makes perfect nonsense…
I was once suspected to be a car thief on foot-run in a park here in Helsinki. That’s the impression I got, not that the two cops explained me anything. However, the procedure itself was very decent considering the highly unfortunate circumstances, and the officers apologized after they’d decided (after about 15 mins) that I wasn’t their guy. This is a nice country, although it helps to be white with middle class speech manners and basic trust/obedience.
I learned you can quite effectively restrain someone with one hand if you hold their thumbs together behind back, and it doesn’t feel much physically invasive to the subject.
@Marcus
No, the alternative is for them to be employees of the state, just like clarks etc. Chosen based on qualifications and experience and bound only by their contract.
Alas this alternative is seldomly employed and courts are beholden not to law but political whims all around the world.
Charly@#14:
No, the alternative is for them to be employees of the state, just like clarks etc. Chosen based on qualifications and experience and bound only by their contract.
I imagine that the office would get politicized right away. In the US where we try to have non-politicized positions (like Supreme Court Justice) it is politicized in spite of itself.
Most developed countries have law enforcement as regular state employees, and seem perfectly capable of keeping it apolitical. Don’t assume that just because the US sucks, it *has* to suck.
@18 Ketil Tveiten
Exactly, in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the UK they are career civil servants.
PS – to your comment over at Mano’s blog, re: Saudi Arabian crime and punishment. hey have a professional martial artist use a saber to cut your hand off at the wrist if you steal. Publicly. That’s really fucked up.
They used to have public beheadings in the market after the midmorning Friday prayers too. Not sure if they still do.
Ketil Tveiten@#16:
Don’t assume that just because the US sucks, it *has* to suck.
Nope. I’m just sitting here hoping for “regime change.”
Not that it will make any difference, but there is no statute of limitations on murder.
In my opinion, risking your career and jail time seems stupid if the amount of money gained is equal to a month’s worth of salary. That’s not enough to be worth the risk. I can understand people who take huge bribes. Yes, there’s the risk, but you can at least gain a lot of cash. But accepting small bribes. . . That’s just stupid.
One of the benefits of not having elected judges is that there are no election campaigns and no donations. Where I live, it is impossible for a judge to ask for or accept donations. They cannot just take the cash and, after getting caught, proclaim that it was just a coincidence that somebody got out of jail right after a campaign contribution was made. There is no legal excuse that would allow judges to accept money, therefore, if they get caught taking money from somebody, there is no doubt that it was a bribe.
Yeah, that’s how it is where I live. Unfortunately, that doesn’t mean corruption is nonexistent here. I have read about plenty of cases where Latvian judges got caught taking bribes. And that’s happening despite the fact that getting caught taking (or even asking for) a bribe ends your career and may result in actual jail time.
And it’s not just judges. Got caught speeding? Just give a bribe to the police officer and they will let you go (although, if the police officer who caught you happens to be honest, you will get into huge trouble, because offering a bribe is a crime in itself). You need a sick leave? Just give a bribe to a doctor. By the way, this one actually happens to be safe and cheap. Before retiring, my mother used to pay her doctor 20€ for a week long “vacation.” This one was so cheap, only because there was no risk for the doctor. If you give your patient a week long sick leave saying that they have a cold, nobody’s going to catch you. However, when patients want months long “vacations,” prices increase a lot, because there the risk of getting caught is significant (cases of serious illnesses often get reviewed by multiple doctors).
The lesson here is that shooting first when you see a cop is not enough. Clearly you need to shoot first when you think there might be a cop. What a country. I look forward to the first homicide defendant pleading not guilty on the grounds that his victim might have been a cop and it was self-defence. A valid argument, given that they feared for their life, which seems to work well as an excuse for uniformed killers. (What? Tthe justice system is biased in favour of cops? Damn it all!)
Regarding cheap officials, I assume their business model is to make their “services” available to the widest possible customer base. In other words it must be fairly cheap so it remains affordable to those most in need. People drawing cop salaries, for example. I have no idea how much a US cop makes but expect that whenever the need for bribery arises they’re already spending a lot on legal counsel, which limits their spending power.
And regarding the issue of cameras: Surgically implant camera modules into the chest and skull of every cop, front and back. Any tampering would likely result in damage to vital organs. The modules should also include microphones, GPS and other tracking methods, a vitals monitor and a small explosive or shock device. All the data is uplinked to a database and continuously monitored by an AI trained to distrust and despise cops. If the cop does something stupid the AI can trigger the deterrence device, thus preventing damage to normal human beings. It’s the only way to be sure! (Perhaps other public servants might also benefit from “in vivo monitoring”)
Plan B: Fit everyone else with bodycams. At least it’ll give their families the evidence they’ll need in court. Again, what a country.
Some interesting information on what judges in the USA are elected that I fell over reading another blog: https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/leadership/fact_sheet.authcheckdam.pdf
And as Tabby Lavalamp @11 puts it, “WHAT KIND OF “JUSTICE” SYSTEM HAS ELECTED OFFICIALS??!?!”.
@ 22 komarov
I look forward to the first homicide defendant pleading not guilty on the grounds that his victim might have been a cop and it was self-defence.
Novel defence but it sounds reasonable to me.
*Pipes in*
I still like the system where the victims, or the families of the victims, get first opportunity to press criminal charges, and nominate an attorney of their choosing to be the prosecutor. It’s novel to many people, but it happens in some part in some countries in the world, in various aspects, and it used to happen historically a lot more. I think it’s totally workable, and it nicely bypasses the inherent corruption between cops and government prosecutor.
Having said that, what the US really needs is a culture change. We need to drop this pernicious myth that cops are the thin blue line standing between us an anarchy, and it’s a war (on crime), and they need every tool at their disposal and they need to be above the law in order to stop armageddon itself.
EnlightenmentLiberal@#24: One solid objection to a private prosecution system is that it does not work at all for victims with no means (or no surviving relatives, for that matter).
To cvoinescu
I didn’t say only private. I just said offer the victims the first opportunity. Then, if they decline, or if they or their attorney fails to meet a basic competency standard, then give it to a government prosecutor.
My understanding is that private prosecution is still an option in England and Wales. The Crown Prosecution Service can take over a private prosecution if they want to (and either carry it on, or, in some cases, discontinue it). I don’t think it makes much of a difference, but it seems like a reasonable idea for the option to exist.
To cvoinescu
Imagine a country where cops regularly kill people unlawfully, e.g. murder, and they never face murder charges for it, because they’re in cahoots with the government criminal prosecutors, and only government criminal prosecutors can press murder charges. That’s the condition of the United States.
I admit that the system seems to work ok for other countries, and that’s why I suspect the major problem is a cultural problem specific to the United States, but I’m trying to think of system changes that don’t require cultural changes, because changing culture is hard, and in my fevered mind, changing systems is easy (easier). And maybe because just talking about changing systems can bring about a culture change.
To cvoinescu
In other words, what do you do when government prosecutors do not prosecute cops for murder when they murder people?
Saying “elect better prosecutors” and/or “elect better representatives to appoint better prosecutors” is IMHO not a good answer. Generally, we should structure our government so that there are other ways to get justice than simply at the election booth. We shouldn’t have to rely on the mercies of our elected reps to solve a breech of contract, and we shouldn’t have to rely on them either for a simple murder. The system should be more robust.
The problem is that the government prosecutors don’t want to prosecute, and/or the prosecutions that they do are half-hearted and weak. The obvious solution seems to be to let the persons who are going to pursue the most vigorous prosecution do the prosecution, and the people who are going to most vigorously prosecute are the victims and the families and friends of the victims. This sort of adversarial system of justice works out pretty well for breech of contract and other civil offenses, and I see no reason why it wouldn’t work out as well for criminal offenses. If the victim believes that the government prosecutor can do a better job, then they can always delegate the case to the government prosecutor. If the victim believes that the government prosecutor will do a bad job, or not prosecute at all, then the victim has the chance to do a proper prosecution.
EL: Really interesting concept (private prosecutions)
To bmiller
One other thing: Historically, circa 1800, in America and England, most, and maybe practically all, criminal prosecutions were indeed done by the victim or family of the victim. That’s a big part of why I think my plan has merit. In my system, I expect that most criminal prosecutions will be done by a government prosecutor, but if the victim feels that the government prosecutor won’t do a good job, then the victim, if they have enough money, can get justice themselves (such as by hiring an attorney of their choosing to do the prosecution), and while it’s not perfect, I believe it’s better than what we have now.
Breaking News
I have discovered what a police officer have to do to get charged in the USA
All you have to do is be a Black Muslim police officer who shoots and kills a White female foreigner. The “foreigner” may be optional given the normal American attitude to killing foreigners.
Police officer charged with murder in killing of Australian woman in Minnesota
http://abcnews.go.com/US/police-officer-charged-murder-killing-australian-woman-minnesota/story?id=53882129
To jrkrideau
Charging is one thing. I’ll believe it when the prosecutor performs a competent prosecution, e.g. doesn’t throw.
@ 33 EnlightenmentLiberal
Agreed, it is quite possible that the prosecutor will throw the game but this is one step up from complete exoneration which is what we normally seem to see in a police shooting in the US.
I wish I thought it was more an attempt at justice rather than a display of racism and islamophobia.
To jrkrideau
Touché.