Indeed, last year, the paper reports, “a Tampa Bay Times investigation revealed that the Sheriff’s Office creates lists of people it considers likely to break the law based on criminal histories, social networks and other unspecified intelligence. The agency sends deputies to their homes repeatedly, often without a search warrant or probable cause for an arrest.” In addition, there’s “a separate program that uses schoolchildren’s grades, attendance records and abuse histories to label them potential future criminals.”
To rub salt in the wound, the Sheriff’s Office has a video telling the program’s victims of increased harassment that inclusion is “good news” because it will give them opportunities to receive “assistance”. A hint of what that looks like comes in its letter to the surveilled, which warns, “Our desire to help you will not hinder us from holding you fully accountable for your choices and actions,” and promises that recipients’ names and criminal histories with get sent to local, state and federal law enforcement agencies to ensure “the highest level of accountability” for any future crimes they commit.
It got a lot of news coverage the day it happened. The story was that federal agents shot and killed a person who brandished a weapon; U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement was involved in what was described as “part of a large scale financial investigation.”
A large-scale financial investigation? Homeland Security/ICE involved? Someone in quiet Coral Gables being shot for (allegedly) ‘brandishing’ a weapon? It all sounded like there would be lots more to report. But then … at last as far as I know .. nothing? Did I miss the follow-up story on what happened (always possible, but nothing seems to turn up on search engines either)? If not, why the silence for more than a month?
In a Florida suburb Friday afternoon, local law enforcement received a call from a man confessing to hoarding explosives and killing his wife after seeing her cheat on him. Seemingly distraught, he gave them a play-by-play of the chaos unraveling. However, the crime didn’t happen. The call was made by someone who hacked into his Ring surveillance camera.
When authorities arrived at Courtney’s home, they found her unharmed and couldn’t decipher who the incognito caller was. Then the Ring camera started calling them names. It had been hacked and then used in a version of a swatting prank …
Whichever they are, the fundamental idea is so broken that it almost seems pointless to look at its entrails, but after explaining why this is nuts in general, I’ll explain why it’s nuts in particular.
The idea is nuts in general, because it’s an almost inevitable rule that shows of force against generally peaceful protestors end in tears and tragedy. Similarly, even a degree of restraint against an ugly mob throwing the occasional rock can pay off handsomly in saved lives and long-run peace. That doesn’t, however, mean police should, if they have the numbers, permit looting and arson, as those too have bad long-run consequences. The problem with a lot of police presences around the country is that they’ve been too violent, not that they’ve been too ‘weak’. We have the videos to prove it. And those are officers who, in theory at least, are trained to deal with citizens who are innocent until proven guilty.
Contrast that (desired) mind-set with the role of officers in the Prisons. Prisons are places where the inmates have radically reduced rights. I recall working on a pro se prisoner case as a law clerk more than 30 years ago. The prisoner had alleged that during a prison riot he lay on the ground unmoving, but that an officer nonetheless came along and shot him in the back. It turned out that circuit law precluded almost any claim a prisoner might make in a riot: for example if he had been standing, or hiding, or moving, his claim might be barred. But claiming a constitutional violation for being shot in the back while lying face down unmoving in the open was not then precluded by 7th circuit precedent. (I’d be unsurprised to hear that the 7th Circuit has filled that narrow gap by now.) So we let the case proceed past the government’s motion to dismiss and set it for discovery. That is the mindset that Bureau of Prison riot control officers bring to a confrontation. Is that what we want to unleash on our citizens? There’s no reason at all to think people habituated to treating anyone breathing as a target will be the least bit discriminating.
The idea of bringing people who for better or worse are trained at a particular kind of potentially indiscriminate violence onto our streets and unleashing them on our citizens would be madness in any but the most authoritarian regime. Yet, this is only early June, who knows how deep rock bottom may lie.
In that context, speculating about why Miami and Washington, DC, are specially blessed seems almost besides the point. But since I live just south of Miami, indeed in a county that outsiders often call Miami (it’s Miami-Dade), I have some interest in that question.
Let me start by saying I’ve paid a lot more attention to the news about developments here than in DC. My sense, though, is that in Miami, and maybe to a very slightly lesser degree in DC, the police have behaved really well. (And here in Coral Gables, both police and protestors had a very civil event.) There was some protester or opportunist violence in Miami: five police cars were attacked, some destroyed, and a handful of business in the fancy Bayside Mall got looted. But overall, given the scale of the protests, the primary disruptions were to transit and to traffic on I-95, which was blocked for hours. The police by and large seem to have handled all this with aplomb.
It being the nation’s capital, and there being some fear running around in the White House, one can perhaps understand why someone there wants reinforcements. But, why Miami of all places? It’s not been perfect here, but it’s been a lot better than many other places.
So here’s some wild speculation:
Theory 1: The real goal is to create more violence. Team Trump is betting it’s 1970 all over again, and they want their Kent State to rally the base. Thus, picking towns where there hasn’t been ‘enough’ violence makes sense.
Theory 2: DC gets the nod because it’s DC. Miami because it’s close to Mar-a-Lago.
Theory 2A: The cities are close to where the relevant units are based (NB: I have no idea where they are actually based….)
Theory 3: DC is DC; Florida is an essential swing state and it’s suddenly slipping away. The elderly vote has started to turn against Trump; playing the law-and-order card against ‘radicals’ (and those people), might win them back.
I’m open to other, better, explanations. Bring them on, please. Because right now it looks like cynicism overlaying evil.
There’s a petition campaign being conducted by Make it Legal Florida to amend the Florida state Constitution to make possession and use of small quantities of marijuana legal under Florida law.
I strongly support this change: the war on pot has criminalized too many people, disproportionately poor. The pot war also creates contempt for the law among an ever-larger population, one that thinks the ban is ridiculous and which thinks nothing of flouting the marijuana laws routinely. Also pernicious is the excuse, real or feigned, of ‘smelling marijuana’ that has justified a large number of law enforcement searches that would otherwise be illegal and, in poorer areas, would otherwise be seen as the discriminatory and coercive actions they are. (Wait until we have driverless cars and the ‘erratic lane change’ and ‘failure to signal’ excuses go out the window….)
While pot use may not be totally safe, and has little appeal for me, it doesn’t seem as dangerous or addictive as alcohol, which is legal for adults, nor for that matter (as far as we know) tobacco, which is still legal for the moment. Bans on pot, and arguably other drugs also, not only motivate and finance organized crime, they divert police resources from more important public safety issues. The large profits available in the illicit drug trade is a major source of potential corruption in law enforcement — although to be fair this is likely more true of harder drugs where the public health consequences of legalization would be more fraught.
Normally, you would expect this sort of change by legislation. But Florida is a 50/50 state which has a large gerrymandered Republican majority in the legislature. As a result, state constitutional amendments are often the only way to get progressive proposals adopted, even when they have as wide popular support as this one. Thus, in Florida purism about what does and doesn’t belong in a Constitution needs to be relaxed considerably from the ideal.
Crassly, putting a pot amendment on the 2020 ballot should also motivate increased turnout from younger voters, something which is usually good for progressive candidates. So that’s another reason for registered Florida voters (only) to download, sign, and mail the petition.