Thursday, August 14, 2008

Is it your fault when they shoot you? Every time we have a drug war shooting of innocent people (or even of those whose only fault is to break drug laws), we inevitably hear the litany of apologists for these unconscionable drug war tactics blaming the death on the intended recipient of the raid. In the Calvo case, Prince George's County police blamed the drug ring who never approached the mayor's house (and probably never would have) for the bloody scene of dead dogs and terrified family. In the Tarika Wilson case, we heard time and time again that Anthony Terry (the boyfriend) was responsible for her death, despite the fact that he was in cuffs watching the dogs get shot well before police shot Tarika to death and maimed her son. Or worse, they blamed Tarika for being a "n***er crack whore" who deserved what she and her children got for letting a drug dealer live with her. Anthony Terry is having a hard time understanding how he is at fault. The boyfriend of a Lima woman shot and killed by a police officer during a drug raid says he doesn't understand why police waited until he was at her house to go after him. Anthony Terry was the target of the raid. He says officers could have him arrested on the street instead of waiting until he was inside the house with his girlfriend and her children. Good question. Why didn't they? Police say doing that would have put officers at risk and jeopardized their investigation. Can someone explain this to me? Does that make sense to anyone with a brain? Further exploration in the Toledo Blade... By executing a no-knock warrant at night, they said, they are able to take the occupants by surprise, detain the suspects, and secure the house with the least risk of injury. Um... no. And police even knew that Terry was small fish: Terry, [Lima Police Chief Greg Garlock] said, was "not a major player, but I think he's connected to the major players and certainly has an ongoing history in the drug trade in our community. That type of offender in many cases is where we've been successful moving up the chain." And that, apparently, justifies setting up a situation where mothers and children can be shot. After all, they can always blame the drug dealer. Can you imagine this in any other aspect of enforcement? What if police decided to shoot out the tires of cars exceeding the speed limit, for example? And if a car ended up overturning and killing the mother and maiming her child, they could just say it was her fault for riding with someone who drove over 55. She had it coming. 7:48:41 PM | drug policy | Related  | permalink | comment []

A juror tries to question the legitimacy of drug laws Via Tim Lynch at Cato blog comes the story of a juror in a cocaine case. Shortly after deliberations began, the jury sent a note to the judge saying that one of the jurors was concerned about the legitimacy of the law in question. When the judge questioned him, the juror explained (this from the 40 page explanation (pdf) by Judge D.J. Young to justify his own actions): My question was where, if, . . . as every schoolboy knows, the highest law in the land is the United States Constitution, and if [C]ongress had to go to amend the [C]onstitution in, actually it was ratified in 1919, the 18th Amendment, in order to have the power to ban not interstate commerce but mere possession, where is [Congress' authority to ban mere possession of drugs] in the [C]onstitution[?] Congress is empowered by Article I, in a list of about 17 specific empowerments, I'm unaware, and it was never made clear to me, where [banning mere possession of drugs] is authorized in the Constitution. The judge explained that the juror needed to follow the instructions as to the law provided by the court and apply it to the case. When the juror continued to have difficulty, the judge replaced him. The defendant was then promptly convicted. Is this a legitimate reason to remove a juror? Because of his view that drug laws are not constitutional? The judge went on for pages and pages as to why it was important not to have someone like him on a jury. Here's the part that made me laugh out loud: If Taken Seriously, Jury Nullification Threatens to Undermine the Democratic Process and the Rule of Law If it were taken seriously by mainstream Americans, jury nullification would threaten to unravel the fabric of our democracy. The impropriety of nullification emanates from the notion that ours is "a government of laws and not of men." ... This means simply that no citizen is above the law, and none is free to make his own law. And the judge then goes off the deep end. The notion that nullification will change the law is drivel. Those who would characterize it as a noble form of civil disobedience are deeply delusional. The judge needs some lessons on the sickness in our democratic process already extant that nullification could potentially cure. 6:03:39 PM | drug policy | Related  | permalink | comment []