Here’s a candidate rule: any time you see an organization trying to enforce its own system of justice and discipline it is because:
- They have a discipline problem
- They are corrupt and want to hide the discipline problem where they can whitewash it privately
The most obvious example that immediately springs to mind is the catholic church, but I’m going to use it a a general rule; see also: power is only valuable if you abuse it, therefore anyone who wants unconstrained power should be immediately suspect.
So, that means that any kind of “internal affairs” investigative capability is not really for investigation so much as to determine whether there’s a situation that needs a bucket of whitewash. After all, we have the Federal Bureau of Investigation to, um, investigate. They’re not my favorite people, by a long shot, and I am not particularly in awe of their competence and I think they have often broken the law and been dishonest – but that puts them head and shoulders above the catholic church in terms of honesty and effectiveness at investigating. They also appear to be ahead of congress, the white house, every local police department, ever, the boy scouts, university sports establishments, etc. We should assume, I think, that “why wouldn’t you want to be exonerated in a real court?” is the question. The question answers itself, doesn’t it?
It depresses me how thoroughly Americans have consumed the propaganda put out by law enforcement in the 1950s and 60s: they are uncorruptible G-men, etc. The propaganda campaign was necessary because American society has also ideologized its people with an absurd “frontier mentality” and a pseudo-antigovernment gloss that keeps them hanging on to guns “in case the government turns oppressive” – as if it hadn’t been oppressive all along. The results of that propaganda manifest themselves in the absurd idea that a policeman’s testimony is expected to count absolutely more than a citizens, no matter what – and that also produces a tiered system of justice. The cops get a system of justice that is very, very different from the one they inflict on the citizens. And the citizens tolerate this state of affairs because they have been convinced that having heavily armed goons in SWAT gear kicking in doors and shooting people is how a justice system is supposed to work; instead of being greeted by a hail of bullets, cops are patted on the back for having an unpleasantly dangerous job and therefore they are heroes.
Cops enjoy a system of separate justice that allows them to shoot and kill people, kick in doors, kick in teeth – pretty much whatever they want to do – and the main downside risk to getting caught is that they might have to move to a different
diocese police department. It’s the ultimate form of “you have a friend in high places”: someone is going to deliberately fumble the case or bury the evidence, if that’s what it takes.
I don’t know if I’m unusually paranoid, or if it’s just healthy skepticism, but it seems to me as though the timing of this was such that it was intended not to invite notice: [intercept]
On Wednesday, the Brooklyn district attorney tasked with prosecuting the former officers dropped all the rape charges, as well as those for other sexual crimes. That means the cops, Hall and Martins, will face trial only for official misconduct and bribery for the rape of Anna Chambers. Following the flawed letter of an outdated penal code, the prosecutors chose police impunity over justice.
In case you’ve forgotten who Anna Chambers is, she’s the 17 year-old who was in a car with some friends, who were pulled over and busted for there being some grains of marijuana in a cup holder. Cops then took Anna into an unmarked cop-van and raped her.
Surely, that’s not the first and only time that has happened.
But, because New York wanted to pretend that it was the first and only time that’s happened, the laws allegedly forgot to specify something or other about cops not being able to extort sex from suspects. Got that? We are expected to believe that because cops haven’t been explicitly told that raping an under-aged, handcuffed suspect is not a consensual situation, apparently it’s just harsh dating, cop-style, or something. So prosecutors drop the case.
Let me tell you why I think it happened that way: I think it happened that way because New York couldn’t figure out how to “lose” the DNA sample of the cop’s semen that was swabbed out of the victim. When rape victims are told to get to an ER, get a swab, call the police – New York has just put the lie to all that; it’s useless unless your attacker is someone who hasn’t got top-cover.
This is everywhere – Jeffrey Epstein and Alan Dershowitz [crim] (and possibly Bill Clinton and who knows who else rode Epstein’s flying seraglio) can count on a friendly judge who can apply a carefully calibrated slap on the wrist. So can Paul Manafort, and Roger Stone and every other paid-in-full member of the power elite.
In the case of Anna Chambers, the bullshit level of the prosecutor’s misconduct is hard to believe. It is already illegal to rape people. It is already illegal to extort sex. It is already illegal for a cop to offer quid pro quo to a suspect – it is already illegal for cops to do all the things that they did in that particular situation, but the prosecutor dropped the case because there’s no specific law saying that cops can’t “date” a suspect when she’s handcuffed in the back of a van – because the consent in the situation was not clear, the cops get to walk; they have a friend in high places and it’s the prosecutor. I don’t consider the Daily Mail to be a particularly credible source but it may be that the prosecutor “had an affair with” one of the cops (whatever that means) – presumably she wasn’t handcuffed in the back of a van, though. [dm]
So the charges go from first degree rape to “apparently we forgot to tell cops not to do that, so these two get a pass.”
Also: I did not want to do a separate posting about this, because it would force me to stop studiously ignoring superhero movies, but: [guard] James Gunn has been quietly reinstated as the director of Guardians of The Galaxy because it’s all about the benjamins, baby! The Guardians of The Galaxy movies have raked in nearly $2bn worldwide, so Gunn can say anything he likes.