Rand Paul vs. The Cop Lovers
People see Paul as a nut but his positions are consistent -- and Sullum makes that point in an op-ed.
Jacob Sullum writes in the New York Post:
Running for the US Senate in 2010, Rand Paul became known as that crazy right-winger who expressed reservations about the Civil Rights Act of 1964.But in the past two years, the Kentucky Republican has emerged as his party's most passionate voice on criminal justice reform, explicitly decrying the system's disproportionate impact on African Americans.
You might assume that Paul, widely seen as a contender for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination, is trying to redeem himself with black voters who were alienated by his criticism of the Civil Rights Act.
Yet both positions spring from the same wariness of state power, as illustrated by the senator's recent comments on the over-the-top police response to the unrest that followed the fatal shooting of an unarmed black teenager in Ferguson, Mo.
...He is challenging members of his own party to rethink their reflexive support of law enforcement and tough-on-crime policies.
''There is a legitimate role for the police to keep the peace, but there should be a difference between a police response and a military response," Paul wrote in Time last week.
"There is a systemic problem with today's law enforcement," he added, and "big government has been at the heart of the problem," fostering the militarization of police equipment and tactics.
Yes, yes, and yes.
And essential points from Sullum's piece:
The point is not whether Officer Darren Wilson committed a crime when he shot Michael Brown, a question that has yet to be resolved amid conflicting accounts of the incident.The point is that black residents of Ferguson had ample reason to suspect the shooting was not justified and to worry that the official investigation would be rigged in Wilson's favor.
People see Paul as a nut but his positions are consistent
The word "but" is out of place here. People see Paul as a nut because his positions are consistent. Same with his dad, only more so.
Rex Little at August 20, 2014 7:40 AM
And so what now? If the grand jury doesn't return with a true bill, and murder charges against the officer, we get more rioting?
This is the same sort of racial spoils system that operates in the TSA.
You don't get many elderly white women terrorists trying to bring down airplanes.
Likewise you also don't see them charging police officers, or committing strong arm robberies.
If you like the way the non profiling TSA operates, you will love a reformed justice system, the operates with the same rules.
I like many things about Rand Paul. This philosophical dick headedness, about how to make things less biased is not one of them.
Isab at August 20, 2014 7:43 AM
What Isab said.
But in the past two years, the Kentucky Republican has emerged as his party's most passionate voice on criminal justice reform, explicitly decrying the system's disproportionate impact on African Americans.
Decrying the system is just pandering.
He acts like reform would put fewer Af.Ams. in prison.
From what I see, true reform would put more Af.Ams. in prison.
doombuggy at August 20, 2014 7:58 AM
Also, the original shooting had nothing to do with the militarization of police.
It was not a no knock raid by a swat team. (That I could see rioting about)
To paint the original incident as somehow caused by the fact that the Ferguson police have riot gear, is absurd.
Isab at August 20, 2014 8:05 AM
An unfortunate effect of the Ferguson fiasco is that it's easy for an ordinary, working middle-class person (of any race) to look at the situation and conclude, "I have no dog in this fight". The increasingly likely possibility that that Officer Wilson was subject to a minimally-provoked assult by Brown does not invalidate the issue of police militarization in the larger context. It doesn't take a whole lot of paranoia to suggest that the media and powers-that-be are playing Ferguson up, to the exclusion of more cut-and-dried cases, precisely to be a red herring.
Cousin Dave at August 20, 2014 11:34 AM
Meant for this to be a continuation of the above, but I got distracted and clicked on the wrong button...
"From what I see, true reform would put more Af.Ams. in prison."
That may very well be true, but I don't think it's inconsistent with Paul's position. It does seem to be the case that middle-class black people, who don't seem to be any more prone to ghetto culture than whites are generally, get lit up more often for petty offenses, e.g., marijuana possession, and more police harassment generally. I've had the experience of being in a car with a black driver and getting pulled over for a trivial thing (failure to use a turn signal), for which I've never been pulled over when I was in a car by myself. Yes, young urban black males are far more likely statistically to commit violent felonies, but let's start separating wheat from chaff here.
Cousin Dave at August 20, 2014 11:40 AM
An unfortunate effect of the Ferguson fiasco is that it's easy for an ordinary, working middle-class person (of any race) to look at the situation and conclude, "I have no dog in this fight". The increasingly likely possibility that that Officer Wilson was subject to a minimally-provoked assult by Brown does not invalidate the issue of police militarization in the larger context. It doesn't take a whole lot of paranoia to suggest that the media and powers-that-be are playing Ferguson up, to the exclusion of more cut-and-dried cases, precisely to be a red herring.
Posted by: Cousin Dave at August 20, 2014 11:34 AM
I agree, but think you are misinterpreting the reasons for the excessive media coverage.
Just like Treyvon Martin purported to be about gun laws and stand your ground,
I think it is the dems trying to gin up the base in order to increase outrage and turnout for the off year elections.
If the Lamestream media didn't think it would help the dems turn out the black vote, we wouldn't be hearing about it.
Isab at August 20, 2014 11:45 AM
"That may very well be true, but I don't think it's inconsistent with Paul's position. It does seem to be the case that middle-class black people, who don't seem to be any more prone to ghetto culture than whites are generally, get lit up more often for petty offenses, e.g., marijuana possession, and more police harassment generally. I've had the experience of being in a car with a black driver and getting pulled over for a trivial thing (failure to use a turn signal)"
It is a fishing expedition. The police not only profile minority drivers, they profile those of us driving older vehicles, whom they perceive as less wealthy, and possible easy tickets for no insurance, expired tags, drivers license expired etc.
I live in an almost all white town, and have been pulled over several times on these fishing expeditions.
My guess is Cousin Dave, you look like a prosperous engineer type white guy driving a late model nice vehicle, amiright?
Personally I like the Japanese policing model. No traffic enforcement at all unless there is an accident at which point they arrive at the scene of the mess, and assign blame. Arrest for drunk driving, etc.
Isab at August 20, 2014 11:58 AM
Oh and Cousin Dave? The only thing worse than activist policing with profiling, is activist policing with no profiling, which is what the TSA does.
It requires spending most of your time checking out people who will never be any threat to anyone, in the name of fairness.
Isab at August 20, 2014 12:05 PM
I don't know. I think there's something to be said for stopping the drunk driver before he runs over grandma.
Conan the Grammarian at August 20, 2014 12:06 PM
Goldwater was often criticized for the same belief that government power should be limited, even if it meant being politically incorrect.
Conan the Grammarian at August 20, 2014 12:09 PM
I don't know. I think there's something to be said for stopping the drunk driver before he runs over grandma.
Posted by: Conan the Grammarian at August 20, 2014 12:06 PM
How often do you think the police actually pull someone over for reckless driving, and find that they are drunk?
And how many of those drunk driving arrests are people barely over the limit, whom the police followed out of the bar, in order to make their stats look better, and generate revenue?
The lower the BAC, the more frivolous arrests are going to be made.
But the prosecutors, and the criminal defense lawyers love it, because the minorities and lower income whites are going to plead out because they cant afford a defense, keeping the jails, the police, and the community service organizations in business. Protecting us all from those people who could have killed us, but somehow miraculously don't, most of the time.
Then when you get a real drunk driver, who kills six people when they are blotto, they more often than not, end up with a slap on the wrist.
The injustice works both ways against the middle,
Isab at August 20, 2014 12:37 PM
Isab, until a year ago, I was driving a '98 Altima with faded paint and the headliner falling out in the back. However, your point is taken -- driving a car in poor condition is more likely to get you pulled over, I've observed.
As for the media coverage, I have no delusions. It's (1) the usual pandering, and (2) a safari for trendy hipster journalists. I did my own safari in East St. Louis several years ago (and I've written about it here), but I don't claim that it in any way made me a better person. In some ways, it made me worse.
Cousin Dave at August 20, 2014 8:56 PM
I was recently pulled over for "not signalling a full 100 feet before making a turn" and I am as white as they get and driver a early 2000s vehicle in good shape.
The enforcement in Japan must vary. I (as a passenger) went through a checkpoint where absolutely every car was and talked to. My friend who lives there says they are quite strict and has a couple of big fines yet has never been in accident there.I think all but one have been paperwork related.
Going back a few years now when there was a group trying to get the state level reduced to 0.08 the states stats were published. Almost al the DUI arrests for levels significantly higher that the then 0.1 - I think around 0.15 was were most of the started.
The Former Banker at August 20, 2014 9:14 PM
"The enforcement in Japan must vary. I (as a passenger) went through a checkpoint where absolutely every car was and talked to. My friend who lives there says they are quite strict and has a couple of big fines yet has never been in accident there.I think all but one have been paperwork related."
Going through checkpoints is quite common. At toll booths and such.
They are strict on insurance and taxes.
I have seen a couple of fender benders, but have never seen a car pulled over for a moving infraction, with no accident.
My husband has been working and driving in Japan for almost two years now.
I drive there also, but have only spent about six months on the road.
I think you would be surprised how many states have,lowered their drunk driving to .08, and how many people are prosecuted for barely above the limit.
It is all just revenue generation.
Isab at August 21, 2014 7:39 AM
Yep, the whole drunk-driving thing really got hijacked. I don't know if any states ever did it, but five or six years ago there was talk about lowering limits to .05 or lower. At that point, it's not anti-drunk-driving; it's a temperance movement, full of earnest busybodies who know what's good for everyone else.
Cousin Dave at August 21, 2014 10:04 AM
"But in the past two years, the Kentucky Republican has emerged as his party's most passionate voice on criminal justice reform, explicitly decrying the system's disproportionate impact on African Americans."
Check the Bureau of Justice's stats.
~13% of the population commits about 1/3rd of ALL crime - and even if a Klansman is banging the gavel, this is not diminished. In some categories the ratio for black-on-others crime is over TEN TIMES that of other ethnic groups!
DON'T LIE. There is a REASON even Jesse Jackson is relieved to find a group of youths following him on the street is white!
Radwaste at August 22, 2014 9:18 AM
Leave a comment