Missing My Brother

   It was about this time seventeen years ago that my brother, Richard, then age 63, went out to shovel snow and died suddenly.  Four years older than I, he was always a huge presence in my life. A fascinating conversationalist he was always thinking about something and loved to discuss his thoughts while listening attentively to my opinions.
   Joanne, Lisa and I were in Hanoi, Vietnam when we received the news.  This was in the infancy of the internet and we were not then online.  We returned to our hotel after dinner and the proprietor broke the news to us...in a very gracious and caring manner.
   It is one of those griefs for which there is no "closure".  The best we can do is learn to live with it.
   Now he is being remembered with a memorial in the county  museum of the county where he was living at the time of his death.  The following article from The Volga Tribune attests to his unusual gifts of leadership.

"Don't Shoot" part 4

     The editorial in today's Minneapolis StarTibune was entitled 'LAW AND ORDER WITHOUT THE USE OF FORCE'.  The authors are Ian Ayres and Daniel Markovitse  who teach in the Yale Law School.  It made so much sense to me that I wished I would have thought of it.  With the country roiled in the fallout of police shootings. i.e., both doing the shooting and being shot, they propose a reasonable solution to much of the violence.
     They say "When the police arrest someone based on nothing more than possible cause of a minor crime, they can treat the wrongdoer more severely than the punishment that would be imposed by a court of law, even after a full trial.  We believe that the New York City Police Department violated current law when Officer Daniel Pantaleo placed Eric Garner in a chokehold.  But under current rules of engagement, Garner's saying "don't touch me" unquestionably authorized the police to initiate the use of force-nonlethal force, but still force-to subdue him.  That's wrong.  An arrest should not impose a greater burden than a conviction.  When it does, the arrest amounts to police oppression."
    They then contend that in many cases the police should just issue a ticket.  If it is necessary to bring someone to the station and the suspect resists they should be warned that their refusal to come peaceably constitutes a separate offense.
     Many years ago, when I lived in North Dakota, I had a chance to see how this might work.  Our country sheriff, Roman Shabel, was a small,,,perhaps 5'8" and slightly built...man.  I never saw him carry a gun.  When sent out to bring in a suspect he went unarmed.  If he was threatened he'd say "You can beat me up if you like but when it's all over you'll just be in more trouble."  Suspects would see the reason and come peaceably.  At the same time we had a big, burly town constable (here he'll be unnamed) who loved to confront suspects.  While we lived there he was involved in several violent confrontations with suspects.  Observing the difference between these two approaches makes me think that Ayres and Markovitse are on the right track.  Why should a man be hauled  to a station for selling cigarette's without a license?
   The article in its entirety is reprinted below.

• Article by: IAN AYRES and DANIEL MARKOVITSE 
• Updated: December 26, 2014 - 6:57 PM

Current practices invite police to initiate a physical detainment. The rules of engagement must be changed. Here’s how.

•  

Recent deaths at the hands of police in Ferguson, Mo., and on Staten Island in New York have rightly raised questions about illegal force and racial bias in law enforcement. But a more basic question also needs to be weighed: Should police be permitted to initiate force when confronting misdemeanors and other nonserious crimes? The answer should be no.

The existing rules of engagement for police in the United States invite violence, not just when officers act abusively but also when their conduct falls clearly within the limits of the law. There is no question that police in the United States can lawfully arrest anyone they see jaywalking or selling single cigarettes. And there is equally no question that any American who refuses a police order to come to the station can be forced by violence to comply.

But should police be permitted to initiate force in such cases?

Consider what arrests are for. An arrest is not punishment: After all, there has been no conviction at that point. The purpose of an arrest is to prevent crime and to aid in prosecution by establishing identity, gathering evidence and preventing flight. The steps taken to secure arrests therefore must, at every point, be proportional to the suspected crimes that underlie the arrests.

The current police rules of engagement violate these basic principles at every turn. Convictions for jaywalking and selling single cigarettes — the predicate offenses in Ferguson and Staten Island, respectively — effectively never carry jail sentences, and nobody thinks that they should. Fines are the proper punishments for these minor crimes.

But under current law, when the police arrest someone based on nothing more than probable cause of a minor crime, they can treat the wrongdoer more severely than the punishment that would ordinarily be imposed by a court of law, even after a full trial. We believe that the New York City Police Department violated current law when Officer Daniel Pantaleo placed Eric Garner in a chokehold. But under current rules of engagement, Garner’s saying “don’t touch me” unquestionably authorized the police to initiate the use of force — nonlethal force, but still force — to subdue him.

That’s wrong. An arrest should not impose a burden greater than a conviction. When it does, the arrest amounts to police oppression.

To fix the wrong, we should change the rules of engagement. A police officer confronting someone suspected of only a minor crime should not be permitted to arrest the suspect by force. In most cases, the police should simply issue a ticket. If the police wish to take someone into custody, they should not use force but instead issue a warning, like the Miranda warning, backed by a sanction. The text might say something like: “I am placing you under arrest. You must come with me to the station. If you don’t come, you’re committing a separate crime, for which you may be punished.” If the person complies upon hearing the warning, that ends the matter. If not, then the police can obtain a warrant from a judge and make a forcible arrest for both the old crime and the new. Similar rules of engagement should govern searches based on suspicion of petty crimes.

Such rules would not only protect the public’s rights but also promote law and order. Many critics rightly doubt that maximally aggressive “broken windows” public-order policing works. And other countries marry nonviolent rules of engagement with effective law enforcement; Germany, for example, imposes strict limits on the use of force to arrest petty offenders, and the entire German police, governing a population of 80 million, fired only 85 bullets in 2011. Moreover, nonviolent rules of engagement would also protect the police. Officers must of course retain the right to defend themselves when subject to attack. But by inviting police to initiate force, current practices require officers to control a naturally escalating dynamic that can quickly endanger all concerned.

Garner’s tragic death illustrates the drawbacks of policies that permit but seek to limit police use of force. In the heat of the moment, Officer Pantaleo violated the long-standing New York police policy against chokeholds. The current rules of engagement make such excesses inevitable. Once the police initiate force, limits on escalation stand in tension with the goal of convincing the subject that resistance is futile. A policy restricting when an officer may initiate force at all draws a coherent, bright line that is much more likely to be observed.

Finally, new rules of engagement would also promote racial equality. Outraged citizens properly emphasize that police disproportionately harm and kill black men. But these racial disparities are, once again, not simply products of illegal police conduct but rather are invited by the existing rules of engagement. Police discretion is greatest for minor offenses, and racial discrepancies follow discretion. By allowing the police forcibly to arrest people for these offenses, the current rules place communities of color at disproportionate risk of police violence. Reforms that aim merely to increase police compliance with existing rules of engagement cannot undo the disproportion.

If the police in Ferguson or Staten Island had employed our rules, two men who are now dead might instead have been safely placed in voluntary custody, admitted their crimes and paid a small fine. At worst, they would now face an orderly and fair judicial process for defying the law.

In either event, rights would be respected, order maintained and justice served.

 Ian Ayres and Daniel Markovitse teach at Yale Law School.

Mai Drops Out Of School.

     Thailand's troubles (see a previous post) have hit their tourist industry hard.  Now Russia's troubles have compounded the problem.  Thailand was a a very popular vacation destinations for Russians. With the drastic devaluation of the Ruble, most Russians have cancelled their planned trips to Thailand.
    The situation has become so difficult for Gai and Mai, the Tuk-Tuk, drivers, that their 16 year old daughter,  also named Mai, has had to drop out of school and go to work.  When times were better Gai would accompany her husband Mai in the Tuk-Tuk.  Her English was better so she could  play host/interpreter.  She left the Tuk-Tuk work last spring to take another job to boost income.  But, even that has not been enough to enable daughter Mai to stay in school.
    The political situation will not be resolved soon and very likely will get worse before it gets better,

Mai, now working.

Mai and Gai with their Tuk-Tuk.

"Don't Shoot" part 3

    The local paper, The Minneapolis Star/Tribune, recently reported on shootings by police officers that resulted in fatalities.  The report stated that there had been 83 such fatalities in Minnesota in the last 10 years.  In 82 of the cases no charges were brought against the officer.
    This confirms my impression that officers were seldom charged.  I still have questions...only one out of 83?

Good Summary of Thailand's travails.

Thailand’s Twelve Turbulent Months

Democracy in Thailand took about 12 steps backwards in 2014.

By Mong Palatino

December 21, 2014

 298

 44

 0

 1

 

343 Shares

1 Comment

Thailand is coming to the end of very difficult year, which brought violent street protests, an election boycott, martial law, a coup, media censorship, the appointment of a new military-backed government, and a royal divorce. Here, we look back at what has transpired over the past 12 months.

January: Tens of thousands of protesters flood the major intersections of Bangkok as opposition groups intensify their bid to topple the government of then Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra. The protest, led by former lawmaker Suthep Thaugsuban, aims to “shut down“ Bangkok for several days or until Yingluck is removed from power. Despite the planned shutdown, Bangkok is not entirely paralyzed. But the protest loudly echoes the demands of the opposition to call of the February election and instead create a so-called People’s Council to replace the government.

February: Despite the anti-government rallies and the boycott campaign of the opposition, Thailand is able to hold a “peaceful” election. But many Thais are unable to vote or are prevented from approaching polling centers because of the protests. The number of disenfranchised voters is estimated at 12 million.

March: Thailand’s Constitutional Court annuls the February elections by declaring it unconstitutional because voting failed to take place on the same day around the country. Subsequently, the Election Commission announces that the next poll would be scheduled for July.

April: Street protests continue to call for the removal of the caretaker government headed by Yingluck. She will be eventually be forced to step down after the Court rules the following month that she abused her power in 2011 when she replaced the national security chief with one of her relatives.

May: Two days after declaring martial law and failing to mediate between rival political forces, the Royal Thai Army launches a coup on May 22, suspends the 2007 Constitution (except for the provisions on the monarchy), seizes control of major media stations, and imposes a nighttime curfew. This was Thailand’s 12th successful coup in the past century, although the number rises to more than 20 if unsuccessful coup attempts are counted.

June: One of the early directives of the coup regime is a ban on public gatherings of five or more people. Although this doesn’t stop anti-coup protesters from converging on various places, the army becomes increasingly intolerant of the protests by arresting those who defy this law. But protesters find creative ways to express their opposition – like adopting the three-finger salute from the Hollywood film “Hunger Games” to signify their yearning for “liberty, equality, and fraternity.”

July: The Junta issues a new order banning media from reporting news that is critical of the government. Media groups immediately express concern about the broad and vague provisions of the order. They also highlight the severe punishment – legal prosecution, censorship, and shutdown – for violating any part of the order.

August: The National Council for Peace and Order, the name of the junta government, enacts an interim constitution as part of the purported roadmap for democratic reforms in the country. But critics point out that the new charter is designed to perpetuate a military dictatorship. Using this constitution, General Prayuth Chan-ocha is selected by the National Legislative Assembly as Thailand’s 29th prime minister.

September: The murder of British backpackers Hannah Witheridge and David Miller in Koh Tao island beach resort embarrasses the military-backed government. The police are accused of bungling the investigation.

October: For months, students have been ordered to memorize Prayuth’s “12 Core Values,” which focus on discipline and respect for authority. Some students protest this and other curriculum changes which they argue were made without consulting the public. Another reform dubbed as teaching “correct democracy” constitutes a revision to history books, which have apparently already expunged the name of former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra.

November: Additional troubling signs of censorship: The media is asked by Prayuth not to report the activities of Thaksin and Yingluck, a TV host is replaced because the junta doesn’t like her critical comments about the government, and the Hunger Games film was banned in some theaters and protesters are detained for performing the three-finger salute.

December: Crown Prince Maha Vajiralongkron divorces his third wife, Princess Srirasmi, sparking speculation about the royal succession and its impact on local politics.

When will Thailand’s military hand over power to a civilian government? Will it succeed in promoting reconciliation? Will there be an election soon? For how long will the government continue to impose strict media regulations? Will it finally allow protests to resume in the streets? And the most important question: Will democracy triumph in 2015?

Catching up on the classics.

   It was a was a sweet walk with Trygve, my five year old Springer, who's now in his prime.  Perhaps that was the real reason I was out.  It's a shame that the bird population is in the depths when he's so ready.  Kjell, age 12, has retired with back problems so it's all up to Trygve now.
   First we hunted Mary's ditch and it wasn't cold for December, about 30 degrees.  The tire tracks from my truck came in handy...just after the field was tilled I drove the edges of cover,  The wind, 15-20 mph out of the NW  was raw.  Trygve did the hard work in the heavy cover as I walked the edge.  There is little snow cover left and we didn't see a bird...that is until we got back to the road and were walking the quarter mile back to the truck.
  Off to the west in Hellickson's field the birds began to fly.  An entire flock including many hens.  It was strangely comforting to see all those birds.  Though it was land I could not hunt I was pleased to see that there were a number of birds.
   Next we walked Happy Home in the tall Switch Grass and the standing corn planted as a wildlife winter food plot.  Here we flushed many hens, off limits for hunting, but encouraging for the future.  By now the cold wind had worn me down and Trygve had had a good run.
   Repairing to the Little House on the Prairie I looked on the bookshelf for a small book to read.  I'm expecting  delivery of a long biography of Andrew Jackson so wanted one I could finish  quickly. What did I find but Thornton Wilder's THE BRIDGE OF SAN LUIS REY?   Wilder received one of three Pulitzer prizes for the book copyrighted in 1927.  Because I'd never read it I dove into it.
  What a delight.   Five people die when the old Inca Bridge of San Luis Rey, Peru, collapses in 1714. The book, a novel, tells the story of those five.  The elderly Abbess of the Convent in San Luis Rey, who did not die on the bridge says when she learns some of the story of one who did die "Now learn," she commanded herself , "learn at last that anywhere you may expect grace."  Well said Abbess!
   The books ends with this reflection by the Abbess on those who died and those who remember them.
     "'Even now,' she thought, 'almost no one remembers Esteban and Pepita, but myself.  Camila alone remembers her Uncle Pio and her son; this woman her mother.  But soon we shall die and all memory of these five will have left the earth, and we ourselves shall be loved for a while and forgotten.  But the love will will have been enough; all those impulses of love return to the the love that made them. Even memory is not necessary for love.  There is a land of the living and a land of the dead and the bridge is love, the only survival, the only meaning.'"

Al & Trygve on the prairie.

The Little House On the Prairie.

Don't Shoot Part 2

     In my post Don't Shoot  I referenced a quote from A. Scalia  of the U.S. Supreme court.   The quote is contained in this article THINK PROGRESS  by Judd Legum.
"On Monday, Prosecutor Bob McCulloch announced that a grand jury had decided not to indict Darren Wilson, the officer who killed Michael Brown. But that decision was the result of a process that turned the purpose of a grand jury on its head.

Justice Antonin Scalia, in the 1992 Supreme Court case of United States v. Williams, explained what the role of a grand jury has been for hundreds of years."

It is the grand jury’s function not ‘to enquire … upon what foundation [the charge may be] denied,’ or otherwise to try the suspect’s defenses, but only to examine ‘upon what foundation [the charge] is made’ by the prosecutor. Respublica v. Shaffer, 1 Dall. 236 (O. T. Phila. 1788); see also F. Wharton, Criminal Pleading and Practice § 360, pp. 248-249 (8th ed. 1880). As a consequence, neither in this country nor in England has the suspect under investigation by the grand jury ever been thought to have a right to testify or to have exculpatory evidence presented.

 This passage was first highlighted by attorney Ian Samuel, a former clerk to Justice Scalia.

In contrast, McCulloch allowed Wilson to testify for hours before the grand jury and presented them with every scrap of exculpatory evidence available. In his press conference, McCulloch said that the grand jury did not indict because eyewitness testimony that established Wilson was acting in self-defense was contradicted by other exculpatory evidence. What McCulloch didn’t say is that he was under no obligation to present such evidence to the grand jury. The only reason one would present such evidence is to reduce the chances that the grand jury would indict Darren Wilson.

Compare Justice Scalia’s description of the role of the grand jury to what the prosecutors told the Ferguson grand jury before they started their deliberations:

And you must find probable cause to believe that Darren Wilson did not act in lawful self-defense and you must find probable cause to believe that Darren Wilson did not use lawful force in making an arrest. If you find those things, which is kind of like finding a negative, you cannot return an indictment on anything or true bill unless you find both of those things. Because both are complete defenses to any offense and they both have been raised in his, in the evidence.

As Justice Scalia explained the evidence to support these “complete defenses,” including Wilson’s testimony, was only included by McCulloch by ignoring how grand juries historically work.

There were several eyewitness accounts that strongly suggested Wilson did not act in self-defense. McCulloch could have, and his critics say should have, presented that evidence to the grand jury and likely returned an indictment in days, not months. It’s a low bar, which is why virtually all grand juries return indictments.

But McCulloch chose a different path."

"Don't Shoot!"

   The death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, MO and the exoneration of the police officer who shot him has been much in the news.   For a number of years I've read with interest the reports of police officer fatal shootings reported in our local paper.  The same scenario plays out.  The officer is placed on paid leave, there is an internal investigation and eventually the announcement is made that the officer is exonerated.
   The question on my mind is "Isn't the officer ever in the wrong?"   Yes, yes...it's a dangerous job and the officer has to make split second decisions.  And, yes, officers do get killed in the line of duty but the question remains "Isn't the officer ever wrong?"   I'd be of  a different mind about this if, at least occasionally an officer was found to be in the wrong.
   Surfing through Facebook I came on this post from Ron Letnes.

"A friend alerted me to a piece in THE ECONOMIST. It reported on deaths from police shootings in different countries (last available year stats): USA (2013) 409; Germany (2012) 3; Great Britain (2013) O; Japan (2013) O. Granted, there is a back story to all stats which can be debated. Yet, the stats are also revealing and beg questions as well as demand answers. We need to be honest about the numbers, because the numbers represent people."

  It would be very interesting to know the racial composition of those 409 fatalities in America.  What was the race of the officer and the race of the person killed.  My hope is that out of all this turmoil change will come in race relations and police use of deadly force.