John Jay College student's killer get life without parole

"Brooklyn Supreme Court Justice Abraham Gerges called Littlejohn, 44, an unrepentant 'predator' who should never taste freedom again."

The story in the Daily News

The Idea of "Juvenile"

The state has an archaic system in which we operate under the misimpression that everyone under 18 can be rehabilitated for repeatedly committing violent crimes. We must find a way to provide rehabilitation, but also accountability and punishment.

That's kind of hardcore coming from, of all places, the office of Baltimore State's Attorney Patricia Jessamy. Her office, as I write about in my book, is often at odds with police officers.

I'm not against the concept of "juvenile justice." I do think that kids who commit crimes should be treated differently than adults. But 17-year-olds? Especially when they're fathers, murderers, and drug dealers? They're no longer kids. I can't tell you how many times I had to treat an arrested 16 or 17-year-old as a "juvenile" only to find no adults who could or were willing to deal with this violent man anymore.

These so-called kids certainly don't see themselves as kids. They don't look like kids. They certainly don't play like kids. Why treat them like kids? How many times does somebody have to locked up for violent crimes before they're kept off the street and away from other?

Maybe lowering the adult age to 16 would be good start. Given the environments some kids grow up in, childhood is an unfortunately idealistic concept as best. But at some point, for some kids, we simply gotta put them away. If you disagree, and it's touching if you do, I recommend you go to the juvie home and work on adopting an unloved teenager. But whatever problems have developed need to be headed off long before the teen years.

The issue here is Lamont Davis. He's been arrested 15 times since he was ten. Lamont is a very bad boy. In the past year and a half since Davis has been in custody of juvenile services, he's been arrested and charged in five incidents. God only knows how many times he hurt people and didn't get caught.

Recently Davis yoked (robbed and beat) a woman. He was arrested and plead guilty on July 1st.

On July 2nd, soon after Davis cut off his home monitoring bracelet, a five-year-old girl apparently got in the path of one of his bullets. She may not make it. Two other guys were hit as well.

Justin Fenton has the story in the Sun.

Willie Bosket comes to mind. I'm not a fan of prison. But some people need to be put away for a long time. I nominate Davis. And then let's come up with some ideas and be willing to spend some money to prevent such cases from happening again.

Mexican Immigration Problems

Mexico Builds Border Wall To Keep Out US Assholes

Life Without Daddy

At any given moment, more than 1.5 million children have a parent, usually their father, in prison.
...
Among those born in 1990, one in four black children, compared with one in 25 white children, had a father in prison by age 14. Risk is concentrated among black children whose parents are high-school dropouts; half of those children had a father in prison, compared with one in 14 white children with dropout parents.
...
In some cases children may benefit from a parent’s forced removal, especially when a father is a sexual predator or violent at home. But more often, the harm outweighs any benefits.

The whole story by Erik Eckholm in the New York Times.

I like making fun of the "think of the children" line. But in this case, shouldn't we? What's the answer?

Marion Barry: set up again?

Mr. Marrion "that-goddamn-bitch-set-me-up" Barry has been arrested... yet again. Except for the crack, the not filing his tax returns thing, and the alleged stalking, he sure is a great elected representative for his people.

Here's the story about his latest arrest. It's complicated, of course. Who knows what really happened? Who cares?

But does anybody out there have the AUDIO from the famous video of his arrest for crack? I can find the video, but not with sound. I want to show it in my class as an example of entrapment. Make fun of hizonnor all you want, but in that case that g*dd*mn b*tch really did set him up!

Amsterdam Party People

This account of the party scene in Amsterdam is from a person who enjoys such things. He’s lived in Amsterdam for the past 17 years.

The Sensation dance party, Wicked Wonderland, held in the city’s largest football stadium. The dress code was all white. The party goes from 10pm to 6am. Tickets cost about $100 (69 euros).


The placed is filled with thousands--probably tens of thousands people--dancing. [Update: there were 40,000 people on each of the two sold-out nights. Public transportation was excellent, night train schedules were posted in the bathrooms, and special free busses were running between 1 and 5am when the metro is shut down] Top DJs spin. It’s an upscale rave. Does that mean people are taking drugs? Of course.

Nobody overdoses. Nobody dies. A good time is had by all. Many if not most of the people are high on marijuana and/or ecstasy. There’s also a full bar.

[click on the picture to get an idea of the scale of this event. It is HUGE.]
Because of our war on drugs, there’s no equivalent to this DJ-music party scene in the US. It's actually illegal. Nobody can make money on such a large scale event because they all get shut down by police. It would be like closing down Yankee Stadium in the 1920s because people were drinking at baseball games.

In Europe, this party scene is a job-creating industry. This one sounded like fun.

Sensation White was the best or at least the most impressive dance music party I have even been to. It was at the Arena, but they did it up really nicely. The stage was in the center with four thrust parts going into the four corners. That meant that your section of the audience was broken up and smaller and there was stuff close to you.

They did the place up so well with details and hiring hundred’ of models to work there. Everyone was actually dressed all in white, and the atmosphere was superb. And so many hot 20 somethings. Mmmmm. And 30 somethings and 40 somethings too. It was an exciting mix actually. And it sounded good. There, it’s official, a stadium set-up can sound perfect. I want nothing less in the future, please.

Unlike two years ago where police in plainclothes were harassing party goers and arresting joint smokers (for what I’m not sure), this year they were present, helpful and in the background.

It should be noted that two years ago the Amsterdam police were not actually going so far as to take people to jail for drug use. But they were taking people out of the party and giving them citations. Taking any action for marijuana in Amsterdam is pretty much unheard of. Much less "harassing" people who otherwise were not causing trouble. This year was more laid back.

We did one e before getting on the metro and I had two more in my shoe. In the other shoe I had a joint and left a decoy joint in my pockets. When I took it out at the frisking, they said it wasn’t allowed. "Why?" I asked.

You are allowed to have 5 grams [about 1/5 of an ounce] of weed in a bag and roll your own. But not a pre-rolled joint because, “We don’t know what is in it.”

“You can go outside and smoke it right now if you want,” a second security helpfully offered.

I thought that was very reasonable, but let them take it. I smoked the secret one over the evening in their classy, not stuffed, not smoky smoking room. The football stadium had windows the opened!

I wrote back and said I was shocked that anybody in Amsterdam would have to resort to a “decoy joint.” It's "just not mokum," I said. His reply:

On one hand it is ridiculous that I would bring a decoy roach. And it’s not Amsterdam. On the other hand, I think it’s still nice that I can bring a decoy roach just to see what the police/security will do and not be worried that anything bad will happen. Of course I know they are not going to make me take off my shoes, so drugs get in.

Is this man a blight on society? A junkie? A long-haired hippy freak? Quite the contrary. This man, who may or may not be my brother, is a husband, a father, and employees lots of people. He is a businessman.

Were it not for the permissive and successful drug policy of the Netherlands, he would not be in Amsterdam providing jobs and paying taxes. He never would have visited in the first place.

Happy 4th of July

Especially thinking of everybody stuck working it. Here's to you!

$12,500 in Seattle Taser Settlement

A homeless felon in Seattle gets $12,500 for being tased twice simultaneously by two officers. That's just what I don't like my tax dollars going to. I'm not saying the cops didn't follow procedure and their training. I am saying that procedure and training are wrong.

[A] judge ruled that the two officers ... were too quick to use their Tasers after confronting Releford outside a Tukwila convenience store to arrest him on outstanding misdemeanor warrants.
...
Both officers ordered him to turn around. When he hesitated at the conflicting commands, the officers fired their stun guns simultaneously, knocking him to the ground with a combined 100,000 volts, the documents say.
...
She said the officers didn't adequately consider their other options before resorting to the use of Tasers.
...
"He didn't resist," she said. "They just didn't give him time to comply."
...
Releford — despite his size and a long history of run-ins with the law — had never been violent toward officers. In fact, she said, records showed that Vivet had arrested Releford six times in the eight months before the incident, all without incident.

The story by Mike Carter in the Seattle Times.

Bicycle Patrol

I love the idea of cops on bikes. Nothing beats the speed and stealth. But I haven't really considered the benefits of paramedics on bikes. A couple of those saved a life in Chicago.

The rescue might not have been possible if not for the paramedics' bicycle team, which can weave in and out of crowded spaces like the Taste with life-saving defibrillators and other medical supplies in tow.
...
"You can't beat them. They're just invaluable," he said of the team, which is also used to patrol busy downtown areas.

The whole story by Monifa Thomas in the Chicago Sun Times.

New Haven Firefighters

Interesting story in the New York Times about Ben Vargas, the lone Hispanic firefighter on the winning side of Ricci v. DeStafano.

Police Blogs

Here's a police blogs that seem, at least at first glace, to be pretty interesting.Beat and Release:

To new supervisors, I have the following the advice: Dedication to your troops is what engenders respect. Willingness to back them engenders respect. Putting paper on them and chastising them for very minor infractions shows them you are a company man with no discretion and can't be trusted. Don't break the law or lie for them, but consider the totality of the circumstances in any given situation. I heard one of my guys trying to recruit another officer for the team. His selling point was, "I know he won't go to jail for us, but he will put his ass and his job on the line to keep you from getting screwed over."

And this post: Old Versus New.

Taxed Marijuana In Rhode Island?

There's yet more rationality in the news today!

Let's stop quibbling about decriminalized marijuana for dying people and get to the heart of the matter: legalize, regulate, and tax. That's what they're looking into in Rhode Island. Katherine Gregg reports in the Providence Journal:

The measure poses a number of specific questions for study, among them: “Whether and to what extent Rhode Island youth have access to marijuana despite current laws prohibiting its use. ... Whether adults’ use of marijuana has decreased since marijuana became illegal in Rhode Island in 1918. ... Whether the current system of marijuana prohibition has created violence in the state of Rhode Island against users or among those who sell marijuana. ... Whether the proceeds from the sales of marijuana are funding organized crime, including drug cartels. ... Whether those who sell marijuana on the criminal market may also sell other drugs, thus increasing the chances that youth will use other illegal substances.”

The resolution also cites questions about the “dangers associated with marijuana resulting from it being sold on the criminal market, including if it is ever contaminated or laced with other drugs.”

The panel has until Jan. 31, 2010, to report its findings and recommendations to the Senate.

Man Burned at Burning Man Assumed Risk of Being Burned by Burning Man

Sometimes the courts actual make the right decision.

It seems that if you go to Burning Man and get burned by the actual burning man by walking in fire, you can't sue.

Fair enough.

Lowering the Bar brought this important legal decision to my attention.

I went to burning man once. There's some incredibly cool art and ideas there (and no, it's not just topless women riding bikes--though you'll see that, too).

It's kind of amazing that more people don't get hurt, given the Mad Max artistic chaos and fire and drug fueled ambiance.

Given all the things Burning Man could have trouble with--drugs come to mind... and the fact there are tens of thousands of people congregate on what might be the least hospitable place on earth--it's nice that at least they're safe from this frivolous lawsuit.

But I still cringe just at the thought of all that gypsum dust.

[update: My wife said she thought the headline was an onion story. She adds, "I think when it says on the ticket that they're not responsible if you _die_, you pretty much have no case.]

Help Wanted

There's a Craigslist help wanted ad for chief of the BPD's Criminal Investigations Division. Normally you would expect this position to be in internal promotion. Justin Fenton writes about this in the Sun.

Rain Prevents Crime

Duh. All cops know that. Rain keeps all the sh*ts inside. But apparently it's breaking news to the New York Times.
But I also think, despite what the article says, that rain reduces domestics as well. I don't have the stats to back that up, but it's certainly what I saw. Domestics don't start because two people are cooped up all day. Somebody gets cut when somebody returns home. People fight because one person is out getting drunk and maybe a little "suh'um suh'um" and then comes home.

We it rained in Baltimore, not only would we not like getting wet, we didn't want our cars to get wet. And then you can't keep the windows open and talk. So we would move from 800 Chester to under the Amtrak tracks on Broadway and enjoy the quiet.

Raiding Gay Bars

40 Years after Stonewall police are still raiding gay bars? Really?!

And looking for... er... drunk people? If you can't be drunk in bar, my God, where can you be drunk? Apparently some police were looking for gay men to beat up.

The Fort Worth police chief said, "You're touched and advanced in certain ways by people inside the bar, that's offensive.... I'm happy with the restraint used when they were contacted like that." Can you imagine if women started using that excuse? Meanwhile one guy was put in intensive care with a serious brain injury.

Dan Savage makes a good point related to the "Gay Panic Defense": "Gay men don't grope police officers when they enter gay bars."

I'll go a step further and say that gay men don't grope non-police officers when they enter gay bars.

I have a close gay friend I know from being a boat captain in Amsterdam. Zora and I have have made a little tradition of spending Thanksgiving with him and his boyfriend in Savannah. And then maybe once every other year Bob comes up to New York to visit me.

When Bob and I see each other we often end up in gay bars because 1) he likes gay bars, 2) I like bars, and 3) we both like pinball. Many gay bars still have pinball. So we end up at some place called Ramrod or Rawhide and drink cheap drinks. We talk and play pinball. I've never been groped.

I'm sure a lot of women wished straight men behaved so well.

Civil Service and Affirmative Action

The Supreme Court ruled in Ricci v. DeStafano that a particularly bizarre form of affirmative action is unconstitutional. You can't just throw out a test because you don't like the results. In 2003 a firefighter’s promotional exam produced no black candidates. The city of New Haven threw out the whole exam and promoted no one.

I’m against racial discrimination and that includes many if not most forms of affirmative action. I think affirmative action does more harm than good.

But while I think affirmative action is generally wrong, I’m not willing to say it’s always wrong. Obama or not, we’re not living in a race-blind society. We notice race and we have to take account of race. I do think diversity is good there are some cases where race-based approaches are needed.

White people often say, “I didn’t get no benefits because of my race.” But you have. We all have.

Take college admissions. There are plenty of affirmative-action-like systems out there that benefits white folk. Having a parent who went to a college or held a certain job gives you a benefit. But often that college or job wasn’t open to non-whites a generation or two ago.

Should unqualified blacks get in over whites or Asians? No. But race should be one factor of many.

Athletes get affirmative action. And though some poor blacks benefit from this, it really benefits people who go to rich prep-schools bloated sports programs. Did your school have a lacrosse team and a swimming pool? Well a lot of schools don’t.

I went to the same college my father did. Did I get into college because my dad went there? I don’t know. Maybe. Maybe not. I certainly didn’t hurt my chances. And my father got in on affirmative action because he was from the state of New Mexico. That's geographic affirmation action. Colleges like Princeton want one student from each and every state. My dad was the token New Mexican. Perhaps, 37 years later, my wife was, too.

But race-based affirmative action is supposed to address historic discrimination in the US. And if that is all it were, I would approve. Legal racial discrimination wasn’t that long ago. Even slavery wasn’t that long ago. To argue that centuries of racism had no lasting negative impact is crazy. And to push people to the bottom and then ask why they can’t lift themselves up is disingenuous at best.

But... I think affirmative action should only be for black people who can trace their roots back to Slavery. Immigrants should never get affirmative action. Period. The idea that a Spanish sounding last name would give you any benefit at all is simply absurd. And women aren't “minorities” (though a good argument could be an argument made for affirmative action for women based on historical discrimination).

Affirmative action, when it is practiced, has become so broad that it no longer helps those people for whom it was designed. Simply being biased against white men isn't the answer. And of course this creates resentment. Significant, real resentment.

But when it comes to civil-service hiring and promotions, I think there are other issues. Civil-service promotional exams are as dumb if not dumber than affirmative action programs. To say that affirmative action isn’t fair somehow implies that civil-service exams are themselves fair. I don’t buy it.

Civil service exams are a horrible way to decide, say, who should be a police sergeant (or a police officer. If you study hard for a civil-service exam you’ll do better. But does doing better on a test mean you’re a better worker? I don’t think so.

A written exam tells you nothing what kind of cop or firefighter you will be when lives are on the line. These tests test nothing about leadership potential or collegial respect. I don’t think it matters one damn bit, in term of your competence to do the job of police officer, whether you score a 96 or a 98 on a civil service exam.

Perhaps hiring and firing in the police and fire department should be done more like normal businesses do it. Let the bosses decide. Or ask the coworkers. While nobody is liked by everybody, if somebody is disliked by everybody, there is probably a problem there. People on the workforce tend to know who is good worker and who isn’t.

In the meantime, I’m happy with the court’s decision. Picking on people because of their race is simply wrong. There has to be a better way.

[update: very interesting story in the New York Times about Ben Vargas, the lone Hispanic firefighter on the winning side of Ricci v. DeStafano.]

I've been Pepper Sprayed

There are probably hundreds of police blogs out there. Too much chaff and not enough wheat. The only police blog I actually read is Pepper Spray Me. Each post is interesting and it's all very well written and professionally presented. I hope and assume a book is on the way. Remember the equation: police book = movie-rights staring Denzel Washington = $$$ (except of course, like in my case, when it doesn't).

I'm sure there are some other gems of law enforcement blogging out there, but I don't have the patience to find them. If you know other good police blogs--not too many posts, not too few, not predictable, tells me something I don't already know--let me know!

Anyway, the author of pepper spray is a bit like Bat Man to me. We run into each other every now and then in the comments section, but I don't know who he is or where he works. But I know he's on the side of good.

He wrote an excellent (dare I say even touching) review of my book. Thanks, One Time! I'm glad you liked it. Keep up the good writing and stay safe.

In 1999, Peter Moskos was a graduate student at Harvard University. He wanted to study cops, and figured the best way to do that was to cross the Thin Blue Line.
...
Moskos proclaims the War on Drugs a messy failure. He tells why, from his front line experience as a grunt in the war, we’re losing the fight.

Cops and sociologists alike can be difficult people to understand. This might lead you to believe that Cop in the Hood will be twice as hard to follow. Not so. Moskos strips away hard to decipher copspeak and sociological mumbo jumbo and presents something easily digestible by the average reader.

Whether you agree or disagree with Moskos’ views on the War on Drugs, he cannot be dismissed as your average know-nothing academic. Moskos is a veteran of a war he disagrees with. But he has walked the walk, respects the brotherhood and, as far as I’m concerned, still bleeds blue.

Read the whole review here.

C.I. vs. Criminal Bribery: Ethics

In answer to the comment section on the ethics of not helping law enforcement, my friend writes:

1. We expect that a customer has the same right to privacy that he enjoys in his home. It's that simple. Plus, heck from a transaction perspective... it is the same as renting an apt or an office.

2. We actually do screen our customers more closely than any hotel (for example) in this city.

3. We do ask customers to sign a form that, basically, states that they're going to comply with any and all laws.

4. If the authorities want access to any information about a customer at all... they need a warrant/subpoena. It's that simple. No gray. I don't care if it's just your address or video footage of you in our building.

5. Most often the 'man' wants us to provide access to a customer's room... which we can't do. We don't have keys. They want this done without a warrant.

6. Or, they want to provide a name and then want us to acknowledge if the person is renting and then provide the person's contact information, visitation information, etc. We typically will acknowledge if someone's a customer, in particular if the 'man' has something that links the person to us... but that's it.

7. Or, they want to bring a K9 unit to sniff outside the person's unit so they can try to get a warrant that way. Again, my answer is no.

Testifying Crime Lab Techs

In the Supreme Court round up, I'm happy that 13-year-olds can't be forced to strip for suspicion of carrying ibuprofen. Clarence Thomas once again comes out as the dufus court jester in the 8-1 decision: “Preservation of order, discipline and safety in public schools is simply not the domain of the Constitution.” No, Sir. But strip searches are.

What is shocking (really) is the decision, overturning 90 years of precedent, that lab analysis must testify in court. Leaving aside the constitutional issues for now, this is a huge decision. And the court broke down in a very unusual way in its 5-4 decision.

According to the New York Times 500 employees of the FBI laboratory in Quantico conduct more than a million tests a year. Justice Kennedy wrote in dissent: “The court’s decision means that before any of those million tests reaches a jury, at least one of the laboratory’s analysts must board a plane, find his or her way to an unfamiliar courthouse and sit there waiting to read aloud notes made months ago.” Just like a cop. And then the will be postponed.

Constitutionally, from my amateur perspective, it seems like a sound decision (Remember that just because you don't like something doesn't mean the constitution is or should be on your side).

For the majority, Scalia writes, "the best indication that the sky will not fall after today’s decision is that it has not done so already. Many States have already adopted the constitutional rule we announce today." I hope he's right. But the sky really may fall, at least at bit.

How from the lab is supposed to testify? One person? Everybody?

On this I believe the dissent when they say, “Requiring even one of these individuals to testify threatens to disrupt if not end many prosecutions where guilt is clear but a newly found formalism now holds sway.”

Compare that with the majority opinion, “Nor will defense attorneys want to antagonize the judge or jury by wasting their time with the appearance of a witness whose testimony defense counsel does not intend to rebut in any fashion.” Really? That ain’t how it is in the Eastside District Court.

Regardless, the court writes:

The Confrontation Clause [of the 6th Amendment] may make the prosecution of criminals more burdensome, but that is equally true of the right to trial by jury and the privilege against self-incrimination. The Confrontation Clause--like those other constitutional provisions--is binding, and we may not disregard it at our convenience.

I wish he was just as strict in interpreting the Fourth Amendment. I'm not a fan of the Confrontation Clause in the U.S. It makes it too hard to convict and thus contributes to a system plea bargains where innocent people plea guilty and guilty people go free. It would be better if a signed affidavit counted as an officer's appearance. If there were need to question the officer's report, then call in the officer.

In other countries, like the Netherlands, police generally don't go to court (unless something is very wrong). For this (and many other reasons) their court system works much better than ours, both to convict the guilty and protect the innocent.

But we do have the 6th Amendment and now the Confrontation Clause is stronger than ever.

So what might happen? Somehow, of course, the system will adapt.

More than 95% of prosecuted cases never go to trial. So perhaps for them, nothing. But even for plea-bargained cases, the state might have to be ready to go for two or three appearances before the plea bargain is accepted. Now, along with having an officer present, a lab tech will have to be present. This will cost money and further slow down justice.

There might be more smaller labs doing work closer to the court. And there might be the need for a lot more crime lab techs who suddenly discover the wonders of court overtime pay. And you'd hate to think of overtime pay influencing their work. But remember that this whole case came about because of bad lab tech work.

Maybe a lot more people will be charged with offenses related to drug. Maybe a lot more cases will be dropped. Maybe more defendants will demand jury trials and the whole system will grind to inglorious halt. Or maybe, just maybe, the sham that passes for criminal justice will continue without pause, no matter what the Supreme Court says the Constitution means, in theory.

A dysfunctional justice system benefits nobody.

Right-Wing Talk Radio

I want to listen to right-wing radio more. To hear what you guys are saying. But it's hard. Public radio is better. And doesn't have all those damn commercials.

I don't mind listening to people I disagree with. Actually I love it. It's boring to preach to the choir. Give me a William Buckley or a Milt Rosenberg or an Andrew Sullivan or a Pat Buchanan. They're all too conservative for me, but they're smart and their intellectual discussions make the world a better place.

My problem isn't with conservatives. It's with conservatives who make things up and then rally against it. I don't like listening to idiot liberals. So why do some conservatives like to listen to idiot conservatives?

I listed to a bit of Michael Savage yesterday but I just can't take him. Not because he's crazy. But because he's full of sh*t.

I'm all for free speech. Let Limbaugh and Savage speak all they want. But it's the listeners I worry about. If you listen, do you really believe what they say or is it pure entertainment? I'm sure Father Charles Coughlin was entertaining too. But he was also scary.

Many hate filled people and groups are entertaining. Just think of the Illinois Nazis in The Blue Brothers.



A laugh riot.... Man I love that movie. But real people who spew hate and lies should be called out, dismissed, and then ignored as best as possible.

Specifically, for starters, Obama is not a fan of Stalin and Nancy Polesi is not trying to turn the U.S. into the old Soviet Union. And I'd be, well, genuinely shocked if global cooling was a bigger problem than global warming (but I can't vouch for that one personally).

But the part of Savage that was really off the deep end of the deep end was when he came out against Michael Jackson lying in state in the capitol rotunda. What?!

Savage was so disgusted with the idea that he promised that if that ever came to be, he would leave the country. I mean, can you believe those communists might honor that pederast in the capitol. Disgusting! Except, of course, nobody has ever proposed that Michael Jackson should be honored by congress.

You can't make sh*t up and then come out against it! Did I miss something?

I'm against Michael Savage torturing puppies and selling their mutilated genitals online. It's horrible. Disgusting. Just perverted. And I'm sure that crap wouldn't be allowed in the old Soviet Union!

C.I. Payments vs. Criminal Bribery [continued]

I’ve still very curious about all this and your comments make it all the more interesting.

Here’s the law again:

BRIBERY NOT INVOLVING PUBLIC SERVANTS

S 180.00 Commercial bribing in the second degree.

A person is guilty of commercial bribing in the second degree when he confers, or offers or agrees to confer, any benefit upon any employee, agent or fiduciary without the consent of the latter`s employer or principal, with intent to influence his conduct in relation to his employer`s or principal`s affairs.

Commercial bribing in the second degree is a class A misdemeanor.

S 180.03 Commercial bribing in the first degree.

...and when the value of the benefit conferred or offered or agreed to be conferred exceeds one thousand dollars and causes economic harm to the employer or principal in an amount exceeding two hundred fifty dollars.

Commercial bribing in the first degree is a class E felony.

There's a similar law for the person receiving such a bribe.

Here are some comments I’ve gotten:

I ran this by narco rangers and they said it's pretty common practice. Same in the Intel division re: terrorists. Vetted by lawyers, those people we depend on for moral rectitude. ... I'd be genuinely shocked if the people who make a living defending criminals haven't already challenged this. It's as old as the hills.

I’m rarely shocked, at least not genuinely. (Did you hear that Michael Jackson died!? I mean, he looked so healthy.)

And this:

The DEA is not attempting in any way to alter or influence the firm's business transactions, only learn about them in order to build a case against a criminal. ... Compensating a low-level employee for providing the info seems like a sound move, providing it doesn't circumvent 4th Amendment requirements, which is a different concern than bribery.

Of course in the past police have also threatened these employees with arrest if they don't "help" the investigation.... But let's ignore that bullying behavior for now and just focus on the use of paying employees as C.I.s to turn over business information they have access to.

There is not debate about "benefit" being offered and the lack of the employer's consent. It all comes down to the last part of the law: “With intent to influence his conduct in relation to his employer`s or principal`s affairs.”

Many businesses--from the phone company to apartment rental agencies to car rentals to self-storage to banks--depend on both implicit and explicit (legal) guarantees or trust and privacy. If a bank or any business was known for low-level employees telling me, after I paid $1,000, about what was going on in the business--information I could not find out simply by standing outside the place, information only an employee has access to--how could that not be "in relation" to the employer’s "affairs"?!

Would it not be a bribe if you had stocks and somebody in the firm managing your stocks, against firm policy, sold your information to a third party? If the owner of the firm wanted to give it, or even be paid for it, that might be his or her right. But it's not a right of the employee. And in the case I'm actually talking about, the owner doesn't want to give the information because turning over customer's information would violate trust and hurt business.

Besides, given past experience, he or she simply doesn't trust the police to snoop around on their whim. That is what we have search warrants for.

Or take this scenario:

What if we asked the liquor store worker the contents of Stone Killa's special orders, because we know when he gets the VSOP it means a party that Friday night where all the local Killas are invited? So we pay the worker and he calls us each week with the special orders, and pay him $50 a week for this. When we collar. The Killas at the party, the liquor store loses all Killa's business for the next eight years...

Personally, I think it's clever but also straight-up commercial bribery. Why wouldn't it be? Just because you caught the Killa doesn't really matter with regards to the bribery.

Let’s say you’re the patrol officer responding to a call for commercial bribery (as if). After going, “commercial what!?” you find the entire district down and your supervisor not be disturbed (screwing his mistress or something).

You arrive at the Kim’s Liquor and Kim says his employee was paid money by a private citizen, let’s say me, Peter Moskos, to turn over a list of all the delivery orders or the names on credit cards of something. Let’s say I want this because I’m curious if my wife is spending all my money here. Or I run a rival liquor store and want the database. Or I’m doing academic research. Or I want Stone Killa’s address. Whatever my motives, I don’t think they matter one bit for the legal debate.

The point is I am there, have the business information in my pocket, and confess to giving the employee $1,000 plus one penny for the information. The employee confesses, too. Mr. Kim presents a letter from an angry customer canceling a $251 order (thus meeting both monetary requirements for felony Commercial Bribing in the First Degree).

Mr. Kim, unmoved by our remorse and tears, wants us both locked up. What do you as the responding officer do? Make two easy felony arrests. Case closed.

And if it would be a crime for a private citizen, why would it not be a crime for law enforcement?

[Of course if somebody said, "give me money so I can buy illegal drugs and then use them," it would be considered a crime for most people--but not narcs in the C.I. business--to give money.]

If you dig deeper I am confident you will see that this is law enforcement practice that has been approved of and indemnified by government counsel, and that there is probably even case law that makes this clear.

Maybe. I am trying to dig deeper. I just can't see how this wouldn't be commercial bribery. It is against both the letter and the spirit of the law.

Not so fine a line after all

Looks like the line between paying a C.I. and criminal bribery isn't so fine after all. Thanks to Marc S. for commenting on this post and informing me that what the DEA agent did is in fact a crime. It's called commercial bribing in the second degree and in New York State it's a class A misdemeanor. Had the $1,000 offer been one cent higher, it would have been a felony. That makes me think that the guy offering the bribe knew the law a lot better than I did.

A person is guilty of commercial bribing in the second degree when he confers, or offers or agrees to confer, any benefit upon any employee, agent or fiduciary without the consent of the latter`s employer or principal, with intent to influence his conduct in relation to his employer`s or principal`s affairs.

God's Middle Finger

One of the nice thing about school being out and traveling a bit is it gives me more time to read books for fun. My favorite genre is probably the travelogue. Mark Twain, P.J. O’Rourke, Paul Theroux? I love them all. And I’ll even define travelogue broadly to include historical fiction, like my favorite books by Louis de Bernières. Even New Jack by Ted Conover is a travelogue of sorts, since it took me to Sing Sing, a place I’ve never been. Hmmm, I guess by this logic Cop in the Hood could be called a travelogue. But I don’t think it is. But I do like my book.

In the past month, along David Sedaris’s When You Are Engulfed In Flames, I’ve been able to read Gerald Brennan’s South From Granada, which is a very good anthropological-like account of 1920s life in a Spanish village. But perhaps you might only care about life in Yegan if you happen to be hiking through the Spanish Alpujarras.

Chris Stewart writes about the same region in present times in a much more light-hearted and readable way. I read the third of his trilogy, The Almond Blossom Appreciation Society. Good stuff. And I've told myself, somewhat unconvincingly, that I'll buy and read the first two.

In a different genre, I was not Swayed by Sway. It does not succeed at being the Malcolm Gladwell book it wants to be. Some of Sway was interesting, but I don’t need a rehash of one dumb psych experiment after another to tell me that economic rational-choice theory doesn’t have all life's answers. I wanted more discussion and relevance to the real-world.

So maybe I should stick with travelogues. For some reason I think the British are the best at this genre. Maybe it’s the old colonialist in them. Maybe they’re don't mind being culturally chauvinistic. They're certainly less concerned with style killing political correctness. Perhaps these attitudes are no way to rule an empire, but it makes for good reading.

Most travelogues either start happy and end happy ("what a wonderful trip with great people and food!"), start unhappy and end unhappy ("oh, my woeful journey into the heart of darkness... and I would kill for a good cup of tea!"), or start unhappy and end happy ("I just couldn't be happy until I learned to let go of my neurotic hang-ups and be at one with these wonderful if somewhat simple people!").

It's the rare travelogue that starts happy and ends unhappy. And this brings me to the best book I’ve read since Maximum City: Richard Grant's God’s Middle Finger: Into the Lawless Heart of the Sierra Madre.


Talk about unhappy! This book ends--and I don't think I'm spoiling anything because the book starts with a sort of flash forward so you know where it's going, but skip the next paragraph if you don't want to read the last line in the book:

I never wanted to set foot in the Sierra Madre again. The mean drunken hillbillies who lived up there could all feud themselves into extinction and burn in hell. I was out of courage, out of patience, out of compassion. They were sons of their whoring mothers, who had been fornicating with dogs.

The first line of the book is, "So this is what it feels like to be hunted." Why does this man, Richard Grant, travel into the lawless, wild, and narco-controlled Mexican Sierra Madre mountains? Well, for some of the same reasons that many sociologists enjoy research and some of the reasons I enjoyed policing:

We drank four or five gourds each and got nicely buzzed there on the rim of Sinforosa Canyon and it occurred to me that this was more or less the moment I had been looking for when I set out on this journey. Here I was in the heart of the Sierra Madre, about as far from consumer capitalism and the comfortably familiar as I could get, drinking tesguino with a wizened old Tarahumara and feeling that edgy, excited pleasure in being alive that follows a bad scare. It was an uncomfortable realization. To put it another way, here I was getting my kicks and curing my ennui in a place full of poverty and suffering, environmental and cultural destruction, widows and orphans from a slow-motion massacre. I tried to persuade myself that I was going to write something that would make a difference and help these people, but my capacity for self-delusion refused to stretch in that direction.

God's Middle Finger needs no rationalization to read, but I could justify my time reading because I wanted to learn about drug production in Mexico. It's not a pretty picture. And it closely resembles the destructive prohibition-caused drug culture I saw as a cop in Baltimore's Eastern District.

Why did drug cultivation increase the murder rate? “Because drugs give people money to buy gun, alcohol, and cocaine,” said Isidro.

He didn’t think that statement required any elaboration but I asked him to elaborate anyway. “People get more aggressive and paranoid. They kill more easily and then the dead man’s family has to avenge the killings.

I was reading a fascinating book with a similar thesis. Its title translates as The Sierra Tarahumara, A Wounded Land, The Culture of Violence in the Drug-Producing Zones. Its author, a professor in Jaurez called Carlos Mario Alvarado Licon, based his ideas on prison interviews conducted with convicted murderers from the Sierra. He found that they were nearly all model prisoners, with no prior criminal record, and no remorse or regret for what they had done. ... They told of their crimes “serenely” and were convinced they had done the right thing.

In the Sierra homicide is no dishonor. Killing is a part of life, a circumstantial action, generally vengeance for another killing. However, on occasion it is a symbol of pride, when vengeance was done and the law taken into one’s own hands.... Homicide is a form of maintaining the social order where the official authority is absent, unjust or corrupt, and particularly where it fails to punish aggression or offense to the family.

...
When Isidro’s father was killed, his mother implored him to take vengeance. “It was very hard, but I decided not to because if I avenged my father, I would end up losing my brothers and maybe my uncles. It wouldn’t bring back my father and would bring more sorrow into my family. My mother didn’t understand. She never really forgave me.”

Don't go thinking that drug decriminalization in Mexico for personal possession is going solve this. The problem isn't possession. It's wholesale prohibition of drug production, distribution, and sales.

The fine line between confidential informant and bribe

A friend of mine, who only wants to be broadly identified as being in a form of "real estate business" in New York City, routinely complains to me about police trying, without a search warrant, to bully and threaten his employees in order to gain access to clients' private property or information on someone or something.

My friend is more than happy, even eager, to work legally with law enforcement. In the same law-abiding spirit, he has a very healthy respect for the Bill of Rights, the 4th Amendment in particular.

Well I get this email today:

Yesterday, a DEA agent tried to bribe one of my employees to provide him with access to customer information and to provide tips in the future.

I was pretty pissed. We always cooperate on this stuff to the letter of the law. Then the agent asked to speak to the employee in private and pulled this stunt.

$1,000 was the amount offered, probably dependent on future information.

It's dirty, but as long as the employee was properly signed up as a confidential informant and there was paperwork for it all, it could all be legal and by the book.

I asked why he thought the employee didn't take the money. My friend said three reasons: "1. He's a good guy; 2. He knows we always follow the law; 3. He knows we'd fire him if we found out."

The state of sociology

I'm sure that just like me, you all are browsing the latest issue of Sociological Forum, the quarterly publication of the Eastern Sociological Society.

Hmmm, here's an article called "Anomie Among European Adolescents: Conceptual and Empirical Clarification of a Multilevel Sociological Concept." The "results lend strong support to the theoretical construct of anomie as exteriority and constraint."

O-kay... I'll think I'll skip that one. Actually, I usually skip most of the articles in sociology journals. So does the rest of the world.

But in this issues there's a series of short pieces relating to Sudhir Venkatesh's Gang Leader For a Day, probably the best selling sociology book in decades. But Venkatesh has gotten some flack from the Ivory Tower because the book exposes weaknesses in ethnographic methodology and is, well, a memoir.

I've mentioned Venkatesh a fair amount about on this blog because our research and writing has a fair amount in common (not in sales, alas). I think we need more intellectuals like Venkatesh.

The point of writing is to be read (though Venkatesh points out that 90% of those interviewing him about his book haven't read his book). The point of sociology is to understand (and hopefully improve) the world around us. Venkatesh succeeds because he is interesting, insightful, and writes in a language we can all understand. There's no crime in that.

In the Gang Leader exchange in Sociological Forum, one author asks, "What does America want of sociology?" Venkatesh answers quite frankly: "I don't think America cares about sociology. And, unless we change our conventions, our writing, and our relationship to the public, I'm not sure they should."

I wonder what the fancy sociological term is for, "Oh, snap!"

Police Corruption

Maurice Punch has written another excellent book on policing: Police Corruption: deviance, accountability and reform in policing.

More than anybody else, Maurice Punch inspired my policing career (well, maybe Punch and John Van Maanen share top prize). Punch's wonderful and classic study of the Amsterdam Police, Policing the Inner City inspired me into the whole police business, especially my research in Amsterdam.

Not only can Punch write, but we was always very helpful to me and willing to meet with me whenever I was in Amsterdam. Our semi-annual meetings were always the highlight of my trip to Amsterdam (and Amsterdam has some pretty tough competition when it comes to highlights). And Punch was helpful to me when I was just a young egg-head whipper-snapper with no research or writing or real work to my name. Without a doubt, were it not for Maurice Punch, I would not be where I am today as a professor, former police officer, or published author.

Now if all this sounds like shameless promotion for a friend... well it is. But I'd also be promoting this book even I didn't know Maurice. It's an excellent book and really does delve, smartly and with respect, into the complicated world of police corruption.

Punch's short Zero-Tolerance Policing is also a gem that highlights the impact and transition of broken-windows policing in the U.S. to zero-tolerance policing in the U.K. and the Netherlands.

Come to think of it, I think I still owe Maurice a review of Zero Tolerance Policing. Luckily for me, not only is Punch very smart and a good writer... he's very forgiving.

P.G. County Sheriff Clears Itself In Calvo Raid

Imagine that.

The Agitator pretty much sums it up.

And here's the story in the Washington Post.

The best line is: "In the sense that we kept these drugs from reaching our streets, this operation was a success." But, uh, you already had the drugs, remember? Then instead of taking them off the streets you gave them to the Calvos.

They really have no shame.

Drug Decriminalization in Mexico

The Mexican legislature has voted to decriminalize possession of up to 5 grams of marijuana, 1/2 gram of cocaine, 40 milligrams of methamphetamine, and 50 milligrams of heroin.

From the story by Tracy Wilkinson in the LA Times:

The battle between law enforcement authorities and drug suspects has claimed more than 11,000 lives since he took office in late 2006.
...
In May 2006, then-President Vicente Fox ... backed down only under pressure from the Bush administration, which complained that decriminalization for even small amounts could increase use.

But with about two weeks to go before crucial mid-term elections in which his party is struggling to maintain control of Congress, Calderon cannot afford to be seen as bowing to the United States, analysts say.

Already under intense criticism for the drug-related violence, Calderon needs to maintain good relations with his nation's Congress, where much of the opposition voted in favor of the decriminalization bill.

And so, political observers say, he probably will sign it into law.

Court Dress Code

My friend used to joke that the local criminals would come to court "dressed in their best sweat pants."

I was reading a David Sedaris book, When You Are Engulfed in Flames, on my flight back from Chicago and came across this passage:

There were plenty of things that should have concerned me--the blood-spatter evidence, the trajectory of the bullets--but all I could concentrate on was the defendant's mother, who'd come to court wearing cutoff jeans and a Ghostbusters T-shirt. It couldn't have been easy for her, but still you had to wonder: what would she consider a dress-up occasion?

Shirley's Honey Hole Turns Bloody

Generally, the bars in the Eastern aren't a source of trouble. The yo-boys are too cool to drink in a bar and stay on the corner drinking bottles of malt liquor. Many of them aren't old enough to be served in a bar, either. The bars are for those willing to pay a dollar or two for a mere twelve ounce can of beer.

The bars, like Shirley's Honey Hole, are where the older heads hang out, listen to old R & B, and complain about kids these days. At these places, everybody does indeed know your name; cocktails are served with a heavy pour in those small, heavy duty, short, thick, stemmed glassware; and on holidays you know there's always a good spread to enjoy. Father's Day is a always a great time to do business checks on bars in the Eastern.


According to Annie Linskey in the Sun, two men "walked up to the bar on the 2300 block of E. Oliver St. from North Patterson Park Avenue and fired without warning." Six were shot, one fatally.

Homicides and Race

The New York Times has a nice map of homicides in the city. You can select by various variables, but unfortunately not more than one at a time.

The Baltimore Sun has a similar but better map.

I'm always a bit surprised by just how few white homicide victims there are. Or, conversely, how many of the victims are minority. In NYC since 2003 there are about 43 white homicide victims per year out of a population of about 3,700,000. That's a very low homicide rate of 1.16 per 100,000. That's a lower rate than Canada!

Among blacks in NYC, there are about 329 homicide victims a year and 2,240,000 people. That's a homicide rate of 14.7.

Meanwhile in Baltimore, in 2007, there were 14 white homicide victims (a rate of about 7) and 252 black victims (a rate of about 60).

Update: I crunched a few more numbers because, well, I'm curious.

Overall in the U.S. rate is about 5.6 per 100,000. It's about 3.3 for whites and 20 for blacks.

Many other countries have homicide rates under 1. Most civilized countries have rates under 2. We don't even come close. But America has always been a violent place. I guess the real question is why is white New York City so non-homicidal?

And in talking about race and crime, I feel compelled to mention gender and crime. Murder really is a guy thing. In NYC just 8% of murderers (and 17% of victims) are women. And most of those are domestic situations. What is it about men? Can't we all just get along?

Boston Dispands Mounted Police

The nation's oldest (1870) mounted unit was disbanded in Boston this month. I know police on horses are of limited use, but what they do do cannot be done by other police. It's just eleven horses and about the same number of officers. Seems like a bad way to save money. How about shutting down a few patrol cars instead?

The story by Michele McPhee in the Boston Herald.

Baltimore Crime Stats

Peter Hermann writes about playing with the numbers and the problem of accurate reporting.

"I would suspect this goes on in most police departments," Busnuk told me. "Others don't have the crime problem that we do and don't have the political pressure. But this kind of reporting is built into the DNA of the police system."

Kind of like how Detroit accidentally forgot to tell the FBI about 117 murders last year. Oh... those 117 murders!

Those 117 Detroit killings are significant in that they push Balto from the not-so-coveted big-city homicide winner's circle. Once again, Baltimore is number two and, in the words of some police, "shooting for number ones."

Off-duty action

I was required to carry my gun off duty within the city limits and permitted to carry (and did) within the State of Maryland. So yes, I carried my Glock 17 when I went jogging and when I took out the trash.

Generally it's strongly discouraged for police to take action off-duty (in the next post there are some comments on the subject). But deep down the city seems to like the idea of off-duty cops being like plain-clothes cops working for free. It's one of the reason many police don't like to live in the city they work.

Outside of people pissing in my alley (which happened to be the only way I could enter my apartment), I rarely if ever took police action off-duty.

One time I parked outside Whitey’s Newsstand on Broadway--I had a little side-business buying and selling vintage 1960s “adult” books (ie: smut paperbacks)--and a well-dressed hispanic guy came up to me offering to sell me weed. I think it was something about the TransAm I drove that made people think I was a good target.

I politely showed him my badge and gun and in no uncertain terms told him how that was very bad idea. But I didn’t take any police action. I didn't want the hassle. But it sure would have been an easy lockup. He apologized and explained how he “didn’t mean any disrespect.”

And one time in Brooklyn, New York, I badged a bum harassing a female bartender. That is the type of situation you don’t want to escalate, because I was unarmed and without any police power. But the bluff worked and he quickly left the bar.

But I think the highlight of my off-duty police action was taking a beer away from some crazy belligerent fat lady on the bus.

When I was about to get on the bus a lady got off and said, “Hallelujah! It’s a zoo in there.” The Number 10 bus often was. In the back of the bus, a woman was going on and on, shouting and yelling about everything in general and white people in particular. She would end a few comments by saying: “Bet that scared all you white people!”

She asked a lady she seemed to know for $2 but didn’t get it. Then she popped a 40. I was dressed for court downtown. Without a word, I went up to her, showed my badge, took her bottle and deposited it outside the bus.

"I knew he was police!” she shouted, almost with glee.

I thought with the smug satisfaction that came from knowing she didn’t have money to buy another: “Oh, no, you di’int!”

I'm Back

I'm back from two weeks in Spain... but I'll spare you the details except to say there was hiking in the Alpujarras involved. And very sore feet. And lots of pork.

Meanwhile, I was just quoted in a widely read article (the AP is great for that) about dirty narcs in NYC. Though I don't condone it, I don't have a lot of sympathy for criminals when they get framed. But there really is nothing worse than framing an innocent man.

And an off-duty black NYPD officer, Omar Edwards, was killed by fellow police officers.

Do white officers ever get killed in similar circumstances? Rarely. I know of only one case, in Florida, when a white officer was shot and killed accidentally by police. He was undercover and busting a group of (gasp) underage college tailgaters.

Part of the problem is that as a police officer chasing a criminal, when you hear police shouting, you don't think they're shouting at you. You know you're police. You feel it. You're used to hearing commands to show your hands and drop the gun. You shout such commands. You're a cop. You don't drop your gun. But you can't see yourself and see you're out of uniform and holding a gun. I don't know what the answer is.


In other news, Nicholas Kristof wrote a powerful piece in the New York Times, Drugs Won the War. He mentions LEAP prominently.

And on Friday I'll be in Chicago for an interview on WGN's Milt Rosenberg show. 9 - 11 pm Chicago time. I'm very excited about that. You can listen here.

On Vacation

I'll be gone till the middle of June.

Check back then.

Daughter Dearest

More police lore in the making. Not quite a turkey drumstick, but similar:

Police have arrested a 42-year-old woman who said a dispute over a dinner roll led to a fatal fight with her father.
...
The woman reportedly told investigators she ate a dinner roll her father had been saving for later, even though it had a note telling her not to. Police said she also fired a gun, but apparently didn't hit her father.

The story in Grand Haven (Michigan) Tribune.

Beyond Hope?

The glorious genre of Cop Lit has many notable contributors. The writing ranges from the driest academic tome to the cheesiest pulp fiction. There a pretty extensive list of police books at police-writers.com. A lot of them are crap. But many are good.

Two of the best older police books are Jonathan Rubinstein's City Police and Joe Poss and Joe Poss and Henry Schlesinger's Brooklyn Bounce. The former was an academic who went native (nobody knows whatever happened to Rubinstein--rumor was he retired and ran a liquor store in Philadelphia). Poss and Schlesinger are doing just fine, living in NYC.

Bad Cop and Badges, Bullets & Bars are two more good police books.

(And of course there's my book, soon to come out in paperback with a brand new chapter.)

Now add veteran police officer Michael East's Beyond Hope? to the list. It's good. Very good.

The best police books, whether academic or pop, have a few things in common: a confidence in the writing, a good voice, an awareness of one's surroundings, humility in knowing one's limitations, the ability to link the personal observation to greater truths, courage to face uncomfortable truths, and the ability to tell a good yarn. In other words, a good police book needs many of the same qualities of a good police officer. But most cops don't write good books.

Michael East has written a good book. Beyond Hope? is his story policing Saginaw, Michigan. I've never been to Saginaw, but it sounds grim. Kind of like a smaller, poorer, f**ked-up Baltimore.

Beyond Hope? is finally for sale. I was able to read an advanced copy so that's how I know it's good. Buy it today! If you like cop stories (and if you're reading this you do) or have a thing for cities in decline, this is a book for you.

Crime Down in Baltimore

Justin Fenton writes in the Sun.

It all goes back to the war on drugs

I'm supposed to grading papers so I'll keep this short. But what does the police beating in Birmingham and the foiled terrorist plot in New York have in common?

Neither would have happened were it not for the war on drugs.

Three of the four bad guys in New York were in prison... for drug offenses. In prison they "converted" and hatched their little plan.

And the guy who tried to kill a cop in Birmingham was fleeing... because of drugs.

We need to legalize drugs not because drugs are good, but because locking people up for drugs makes them worse.

Corrupt Defense Attorney

You don't usually hear about this too much. He sounds like a very bad man.

Good job, FBI & NYPD

Plot foiled. The story in the Post.

Get tough on black-on-black crime

Bealefeld, Baltimore's police commish, says:

Those guys got fairly nominal sentences for some heinous stuff that they did to these kids, and if it happened in a white neighborhood in any other community in this state, we'd still be talking about it, and people would be talking about life sentences.... And these people get out essentially with a slap on the wrist. People need to be speaking out about this.

True dat.

The background and more in Justin Felton's story in the Sun.

Babies in the Big House

The story by Suzanne Smalley in Newsweek:

A prison may not seem like the best place to raise infants. But researchers are finding that it's better than the alternative. Joseph Carlson, a criminal-justice professor at the University of Nebraska at Kearney who recently completed a 10-year study, says he thought such programs were "strange" when he began his research. Now he thinks they're "a win-win situation" for mothers and babies—and reduce crime by helping inmates to reform.

You've been warned, New Yorkers

New York City Police Department advises all Shield members regarding a military aircraft flyover that will occur on May 20, 2009 at 11:45 a.m. The flyover is part of the Fleet Week festivities and will include four military planes flying over New York City at a low altitude.

At approximately 11:45 a.m., four F-18 Hornets will pass over the Verrazano Narrows Bridge at an altitude of 2000 feet. The aircrafts will then turn and follow the Hudson River north over the assembled fleet while decreasing their altitude to 1000 feet. When the F-18s reach Pier 90, they will climb to 2500 feet and higher, exiting New York City airspace over the George Washington Bridge.

Fallout from Oakland police killings

The Oakland police captain who runs the department's SWAT unit has asked to be reassigned because of the team's resentment over his decision to console the families of two officers slain by a parolee rather than lead what became an ill-fated raid for the killer.

Jaxon Van Derbeken reports in the San Francisco Chronicle.

Eewww!

Teen killed by dad was carrying his baby. The story in the NY Daily News.

Quota Busting: NYPD makes record number of stops

Christine Hauser reports in the New York Times that the NYPD made 171,094 stops in the first three months of 2009.

Unlike many, I don't think stop and frisks are inherently bad (not all that were stopped were frisked, though I'm sure many were). I'm willing to concede that aggressive stop and frisks most likely contributed to making New York a much less violent city.

BUT... there's a big difference between a smart officer with reasonable suspicion making a stop because he or she is suspicious and a lazy officer making a stop because he or she needs to meet an arrest quota and can kind of B.S. the reasonable suspicion needed to justify the stop. You stop enough people and one will eventually be wanted on a warrant.

We can (and should) debate if stop and frisks are necessary and effective. But I don't think that even the NYPD would argue that bad stop and frisks are good. If an officer can't naturally make an arrest and write a few citations a month in a high-crime district, it's probably better to have that officer do not much at all.

A quota doesn't teach officers to police smarter. Quotas don't make good officers work more. Quotas don't effect good police. Quotas make not-so-good police officers police more. They make lazy or bad officers do more lazy or bad things. And bad stop and frisks piss people off who should and otherwise would be supporting police.

Instead of worrying about the number of stop and frisks, we should worry about the quality of stop and frisks. That's harder to quantify. But deemphasizing "productivity stats" is a good place to start.

Guns don't always prevent crimes

It sounds like a gun-lover's crime-free dream world: an army of professional and well-trained armed men and women with extensive knowledge of firearms and firearm safety. Everybody has a gun. This will keep the crazy murders at bay!

Then on a military base in Iraq, a soldier shot and killed five other soldiers. If an army with guns can't prevent a crazy killer, what chance do the rest of us have? This, my gun-loving friends, illustrates the basic position of my gun-hating friends: guns don't keep you safe. An unarmed world is safer than an armed world.