California's record drought and mandatory water cuts

http://www.democracynow.org/2015/4/2/after_warmest_winter_drought_stricken_california
http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201504020900
http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2015/03/the-misallocation-of-water.html

This week, Gov. Brown mandated non-ag CA homes and businesses need to cut water consumption by 25%, effective immediately. I am not sure what the enforcement mechanisms are. Like the sequester, an x% across-the-board cut is lazy governance and pretty stupid too.

There are smaller households or efficient households that barely use any water - they should be rewarded and not asked to cut even more (which may be very painful on them to achieve). There are also larger, more wasteful households that probably should cut more than 25% (part of that may be tied to landscaping - and I think Brown plans to prohibit lawns as well - which some other Southwest communities have tried). Sacramento and LA consume much more water per capita than SF or Oakland. Likewise, some businesses consume more or less water per employee (or per $revenue) due to the nature of the business.

Why not implement quotas instead? Depending on the severity of the drought in your county, you are allotted x gallons/day per capita. If you remain below the quota, you get a rebate. If you exceed it, you pay a penalty with growing magnitude. Maybe some waivers and exceptions can be put in place for unusual circumstances. Frankly such a system should be in place with or without the presence of drought.

But of course the water cuts ignore the elephant in the room - CA agriculture, which accounts for 80% of state water usage (BTW the energy sector is also exempt, and they use a ton of water for power plants, drilling, etc.). CA farms don't even use drip irrigation like Israel - they just spray water indiscriminately because it's subsidized (which also causes a lot of runoff with harmful fertilizer/pesticide chemicals sickening the locals). CA economy is both high and low tech, but the mix has to evolve to favor high tech. Tech and service industries produce way more GDP per capita and per unit of resources (and often much less environmental impact) vs. farming. The only profitable farming these days (apart from cannabis) is large corporate ag. Profits are concentrated to the owners and execs, and workers are often temporary and poorly-paid with few benefits. I understand that not everyone can be a software engineer or account manager, but if we're in a crisis and we have to pick what parts of our economy/society to protect, and what parts are less critical, I don't think there are many strong arguments in favor of farming. 

Apart from wine grapes, I don't think there are many crops that have to be grown in CA these days. With global trade, we can get produce and other foodstuffs from anywhere. Already many of our fruits and veggies come from south-of-our-border, nuts from the Maghreb/Middle East (CA almonds are a noteworthy culprit), and rice comes from Asia. We might as well go all the way. Maybe there is some risk associated with a dependence on foreign imports, but there's also a lot of risk associated with giving CA farmers the lion's share of our dwindling potable water. And currently, desalinization is very expensive (maybe not quite cost-prohibitive, but close) and harmful to local sea life. Maybe farmers could pay a water tax to help fund desal?

Environmental conditions have caused human migrations and adaptations since the beginning of our history. Just because we settled and farmed the CA Central Valley in the past doesn't mean that we have to always. And it's not like we'd be losing so much - Central Valley communities lead the state in terms of unemployment, some forms of pollution, and crime, significantly contributed to the housing bust, and all their structures are in a flood plain with 100 year old levees. Maybe it's best if we stop the "making the desert bloom" experiment, and stick to the coasts? Just maintain an urban, non-resource-intensive society and economy. Like Dubai, but without the crazy construction projects. Let the Central Valley return to its natural state. Just putting it out there.

---

After discussing this issue with some economists at work, there is of course the libertarian-market approach (for better or worse). Forget quotas and reduction targets - just open up water to market forces and let people decide how much it's worth to them. Of course there are a lot of practical considerations and details that need to be resolved, but "properly priced" water will eliminate the wasteful farmers (using a lot of water on low-profit crops like alfalfa), and people will only buy what they can afford to use. There should also be a water credit for low-income or at-risk persons/groups to ensure that they have fair access to a minimum living supply, no matter the market price. But like most traded products, I can see such a system vulnerable to exploitation/manipulation by certain privileged groups at the expense of the less sophisticated.

---

I think the privileged groups is pretty clearly the farmers. As you note, they use 80% of California's water to produce 2% of California's economy. They pay 1/10th of the consumer rate for water. I think the attached graphic pretty well illustrates it.

Why should consumers go through radical water savings techniques when the real solution is to increase the rate farmers pay? You're pretty much squeezing water from a stone from residential users as it is to get further efficiencies. 

San Diego is spending billions to build a desalinization plant when almond farmers are spraying water like there's no tomorrow. It's a horrendous misallocation of resources. Even if we didn't fully marketize the price of water, even bringing it a little more in line with market forces would go a long way to hitting water reduction targets.

 

---

 

For a seasoned, liberal politician, Brown has proposed and implemented some pretty questionable stuff during his recent tenure. As you said, the 25% residential-business cutback is a complex, unfair way to barely affect the problem - while ignoring the no-brainer, big-impact approach.

I was also surprised how small a % of CA GDP ag was. Anything that consumes 80% of a scarce resource and returns 2% of value should get cut. But they have political clout, so it's much easier to lean on residents/SMBs who can't as easily take collective action. Time to relocate to Oregon? :P

 

---

 

It is interesting to note that in the us there are some things that would be unobtainable if ca stopped producing:

Artichokes 99% of us consumption, broccoli 94%, cauliflower 89%, celery 95%, garlic 95%, almonds 99%, apricots 97%, figs, grapes, kiwi, nectarines, olives, pistachios, plums, and walnuts all over 90%. 

https://motherjones.com/files/2agovstat10_web-1.pdf

So off shoring of our food may be possible but it will be painful for many foods.  But all those pointing at irresponsible California and its water wasting aren't putting their money where there mouth is (literally) and mostly non Californians benefit from the water subsidies.

---

But you have to wonder - why aren't other states growing those crops? It's not like they can't if they really needed to, and other states have more favorable tax/labor/regulatory environments. I know CA soil and climate are pretty good, but I don't think it's such a differentiator. Maybe the economics just don't make sense for the rest of the US? And for scale - CA's ag sector was $34B in revenue in 2009 (with profits of $8.8B), vs. $21B for the runner-up Iowa - a much smaller state. So to normalize for geography, actually CA is not that grand. We just have a diversity of crops, which may not be unique to CA. Ironically if you look at the financials on pg. 24 of the doc, they don't even list water as a cost, so I have no idea what they're paying.

Say we did significantly cut back on CA ag production - we would have shortages of some of those products in stores. Prices would go up for the produce that people really wanted, but suppliers would respond by planting more of those in other states (or we would import more). Maybe they don't taste quite as good or the fruits are a bit smaller, but it would get to market in a season or two. Heck, it's not like CA grows those crops all year either - when CA farms are fallow or those crops are out of season, we get supply from greenhouses (which don't have to be in CA) or foreign farms anyway.  

----

Apparently CA is not the only place where business interests are exacerbating a water crisis:

http://rt.com/news/167012-coca-cola-factory-closed-india/

 

The psychology of police bias and violence

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/between-the-lines/201204/studies-unconscious-bias-racism-not-always-racists

http://rt.com/usa/217239-black-police-racial-profiling/

These were some interesting stories about detrimental police psychology and practices.

Phillip Goff from UCLA studied a sampling of police deadly force incidents (not sure the date range and selection criteria), and over 80% of those incidents involved the shooting victim making direct "threats to the officer's masculinity." So it wasn't just a disrespect for his authority ("F you, pig!"), but a challenge to his manhood. In the case of Ferguson, it was alleged that Brown told Wilson, "You're too much of a [pansy/fag/etc.] to shoot me." If true, obviously that was a bad move on Brown's part, but also reveals the dangerous attitude that some officers feel the need to demonstrate their toughness/masculinity/etc. to the public (like Marty McFly when he's called "chicken"). This is not Tombstone where gunfighters call each other out to defend their names and settle scores in the street. The bigger man is sometime the one who doesn't respond, and cooler heads need to prevail (not to mention cops are legally bound by certain restraints, though it's very hard to prosecute excessive force). Cadets and officers who display this inferiority complex, insecurity, and prideful behavior should never be permitted to have a badge and gun.

This part is a little fluffy - but this behavior could reflect the stereotypical white-black male tensions of more racist eras: white men may feel especially threatened by black strength, black genitalia, black revenge for slavery, black men taking their white women away, etc. Again, this is not evidence-based and mostly the domain of racial humor, but I think these fearful undercurrents may still be alive in the American psyche. How much of an effect they have on police actions is unclear.

Also, incidents of police-on-police violence were also studied. In cases where an on-duty officer shoots an off-duty plain-clothed officer, the victims are overwhelmingly black/brown and the shooters are overwhelmingly white. Sorry that is so vague; Reuters got the data from a police internal study, but did not provide the #s. So it's not just a cops vs. civilians thing - cops are killing each other and it seems that race is a major factor associated with the decision to shoot. Much more numerous than shootings are of course the racial profiling for routing traffic stops, stop-and-frisk, harassment, etc. Again, this is much more of a problem for plain-clothed minority officers than white officers. And these incidents may lead to tempers flaring and a violent incident.

The Horne case with Buffalo PD

Sorry to keep harping on this, but there's a lot of material out there. I guess this was going on all the time, but it's only reaching our eyeballs now due to the media attention and high-profile cases.

https://news.vice.com/article/buffalo-cop-loses-job-and-pension-after-she-intervenes-with-fellow-officer-choking-a-suspect?utm_source=vicenewsfb

I think this episode summarizes what is wrong with police accountability (or lack thereof). According to this Vice report, Cariol Horne, a female black officer with the Buffalo PD (19 years tenure) saw another white male officer striking and choking a suspect who was already in handcuffs. She told him to stop, and may have put her hands on the other officer. The other officer punched her in the face in the presence of 9 other officers. Sounds open and shut, right? She was charged with obstructing an arrest, was fired, and got her pension annulled. Meanwhile, the alleged abusive officer was unpunished.

He later was implicated in 2 violent incidents with other officers (which led to his "forced retirement"), and was recently indicted for past civil rights violations relation to treatment of black youths. Horne is still trying to recover her pension.

So let me get this straight, a violence-prone racist cop gets no discipline and full pension from his department, but the "whistleblower" cop who tried to look out for the rights of a suspect gets fired with no pension? Cops and crooks both seem to espouse the philosophy that "snitches get stitches." Some PDs seem more interested to root out disloyalty/threats rather than actual misconduct. It's a cop's "duty" to look out for each other and cover up crimes if necessary. If they don't, and if they dare go against the blue line, then their career is finished. For the benefit of doubt, there could be more to this story. But still, Horne must not have been that bad if she was on the job for 19 years. As a black female cop, she had a much smaller margin for error on the job. So I don't think this is a case of her just crying wolf.

Obviously, this is not how a public agency (or any org) should function.

2 NYPD officers "executed" by black man, possibly for revenge

This is terrible news: 2 NYPD officers "executed" by black man (motive possibly revenge for Brown, Garner, etc.).

http://news.yahoo.com/two-nypd-officers-shot-in-patrol-car-in-brooklyn-212637751.html

It won't help the "Black lives matter" movement (may turn off the centrist public to their plight), and will probably make the cops even more angry, fearful, and aggressive. The alleged killer (a younger black man) seemed to be a desperate, distressed person who was wanted in connection with another shooting. What he did was abominable. For all we know, those 2 officers were excellent public servants, and totally nonviolent and nonracist (one Asian, one Latino, both with wives and one with kids).

Sadly, it reminds me of the even more terrible recent Pakistan school massacre. Let me repeat - both attacks were totally unjustifiable and barbaric. But for background, the Pakistani Army had been heavy-handedly raiding and bombing Taliban-held villages as part of a crack-down. Women and children were killed without hesitation. The Taliban fighters were obviously upset and wanted to strike back at a soft target, to make the Army "hurt like they were hurt". When a powerful force shows contempt for you and treats you like a subhuman, and you have no channels for peaceful redress and no one seems to care about your pain, there's only so much a human can take. Eventually some unstable members of that community (with training and weapons) will lash out and strike back to try to get even, because they have nothing to lose. Would they rather just die a slow death and fade away in silence? Or would they rather get some satisfaction that they struck fear and suffering in the hearts of their enemy? Oppression breeds desperation, which could be a catalyst for atrocity.

So for urban black America, day in and day out many deal with prejudice, mistreatment, and in some cases violence (murder rate for US blacks is over 4X that of whites). Obama even said that every successful black professional like him has been mistaken for the help at a fancy event. I can't imagine what it feels like to be constantly surrounded by that negativity, disrespect, and hostility - even though you just want to live and let live, and didn't cross anyone. It's just because you exist. Maybe the media inflamed the racially-sensitive situation, but with unpunished killing and beating after unpunished killing and beating, everyone has a breaking point. To be honest, I'm in awe of the restraint that black America has shown this year. But there are just so many guns in America, and so many temporarily or clinically unstable people going through hard times, and so many soft targets, that an incident was bound to happen unless the gov't and law enforcement made a serious effort to empathize, be contrite, communicate honestly, and reform (which they didn't).

This is the first time a NYPD cop has been killed on duty since 2011, which is pretty amazing considering they have a staff of 49K (not sure how many of those are beat cops). I think the # of civilian killings the NYPD has committed over that time span is far greater (at least 19). There will be national coverage, life insurance payouts, and full dress funerals for the slain officers. Far less respect was given to the victims of NYPD violence. It's obviously wrong to kill cops, but America mourns deaths differently and values life differently, which is also wrong. It's wrong to keep your boot on the throats of people and expect them to just take it forever, like dogs. It's a tragedy for all sides. Look, being a cop can be a damn hard job. Being black in America can be a damn hard life too. I wish both sides could understand that and show compassion, to make things easier on each other instead of more and more negativity. Otherwise the cycle of revenge and distrust will just go on forever, with more innocents suffering along the way. Sadly, it's the same for most protracted conflicts like Israel-Palestine, India-Pakistan, etc. But if the Northern Ireland factions could forgive and achieve peace, it's possible elsewhere. But it has to start with the two sides giving a shit about each other's plight. 

---

This is a pretty sobering and effective analysis by The Economist on America's violent law enforcement practices. Actually the NYPD, LAPD, and police from larger cities are not the biggest problem (misconduct per capita is lower). They have made huge reforms since Rodney King, although they still have a way to go (Stop and Frisk, though it was recently suspended). It's the small police forces like Ferguson and Albuquerque that are the problem, where the officers are often far less diverse, less competent, having worse leadership, and under far less public/media scrutiny.

http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21636044-americas-police-kill-too-many-people-some-forces-are-showing-how-smarter-less?fsrc=scn/fb/ed/pe/DontShoot

# of killings by cops last year in Japan, Germany, and the UK combined (pop. ~270MM): 8

# in the US (pop. ~316MM): 458

---

I am not totally surprised, but pretty dismayed by some reactions to the NYPD slayings:

http://www.ijreview.com/2014/12/220614-wake-two-slain-nypd-officers-people-take-twitter-show-disdain-al-sharpton/
http://www.ijreview.com/2014/12/220680-tweet-proves-divide-nypd-mayor-reached-crisis-level-two-cops-die/

Some major sources, like police unions and former NY governor Pataki, are literally blaming Mayor DeBlasio and Al Sharpton for Brinsley's attack on the 2 officers ("Blood is on your hands" - pretty disrespectful stuff). Probably the NYPD have marked DeBlasio as an enemy, and will do what they can to unseat him. While I haven't been following every single statement DeBlasio and Sharpton have made on police violence, I am fairly sure that they did not say anything remotely resembling race-baiting and a call for revenge. And in all of Brinsley's social media posts, I don't believe he mentioned that his actions were motivated by a public figure. But I suppose if you don't declare that you support everything the cops do 100%, and they are always in the right, then you are "anti-cop". That is how Tel Aviv and AIPAC respond to any sort of criticism of Israeli actions and policies (no matter how reasonable and fact-driven). If you're not fully supportive, then you're a vile anti-Semite. There's no place for that rubbish in intelligent conversation.

I suppose that some people want a simple, clear explanation for traumatic events that disturb them. Muslims hate us for our freedom, Marilyn Manson caused Columbine, etc. But that approach is often too reductive, inaccurate, and unhelpful. People are understandably upset and what to focus their anger on someone. But to irresponsibly blame public figures, whose only sins were to show some compassion for the families of police violence and dare to suggest a review of police policies, is not that different from Brinsley lashing out at 2 random beat cops over the Garner and Brown cases. And heaven forbid, but what if an angry, disturbed ex-cop decides to take a shot at DeBlasio or Sharpton over this uproar? Would we be justified to blame the people who called out DeBlasio and Sharpton for inciting violence against them?

What some ex-cops think about police violence

Some perspectives on this issue from ex-cops.

A black man from StLPD who basically felt that most of his peers were racist and quick to violence:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/12/06/i-was-a-st-louis-cop-my-peers-were-racist-and-violent-and-theres-only-one-fix/

His thesis is basically that training won't fix things; there is already a ton of training that officers don't take seriously - because they know there are above punishment (leave with pay is the worst it gets). There has to be independent oversight and real accountability. DAs won't really represent the best interests of the public to investigate and punish police misconduct, as we've seen from the Eric Garner grand jury. Same how the military won't really look into sexual assault within its ranks (so the Senate is trying to pass a law and create an independent investigation office).

A South Asian man from LAPD (who also has a PhD) on why it's the public's job to prevent police use of force:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/08/19/im-a-cop-if-you-dont-want-to-get-hurt-dont-challenge-me/

Heck, the title of his op-ed is "I'm a cop. If you don't want to get hurt, don't challenge me." That demonstrates the power trip, confrontational attitude pervasive in their ranks. I agree with a lot of what he was saying, but not his expectations for the public. Yes, it's true that people will be safer if they just do everything that the cop tells them to do. But what does that make us, slaves? Cops are not our overlords. And what if the cop asks us to take our clothes off, or steals our property (which has happened before in the US)? If we value our lives, we just let it happen and then seek redress later? Well that might work in theory, but the people most likely to be abused by the cops can't afford legal representation and likely don't have the ability to go through these protracted channels of justice (with no guarantee of success at the end). And frankly, "just do everything he says or you'll get hurt" sounds like terrorism to me. We have to be submissive and not provoke a guy with his finger literally on the trigger. And of course the author expects the communities that have the worst history of prejudice and injustice against them to behave like Gandhis through humiliation and aggression, right?

Yes, it's true that cops have to deal with a lot of hate, threats, and other crap too. It's not right, but they knew that coming into the job. If they have thin skins and short tempers, maybe they should have joined a monastery? And statistically these days, being a cop has less chance of death on the job than the average American worker (as we discussed in a previous email). So why are they freaking out? If the anxiety over bodily harm (from minorities) is making them unable to do their jobs and fulfill their obligations to society, then they should be deemed unfit for duty. I wonder if this is like the military - the job sucks so much that they need to relax hiring standards to fill the slots. Is it hard to become a cop? Well it should be a lot harder, obviously. Clearly we need more psych and behavioral exams. And maybe police need higher pay also to attract better candidates.

But all the shootings and beatings can't be just the public's fault.

----

I'm pretty tired of these police unions demanding apologies after pro athletes have made pregame statements about the wave of high profile police killing incidents. If you have such thin skins, don't become cops.

Do you want everyone to love you all the time? Then maybe treat people with respect. And what about all the victims of police misconduct? Apologize to and compensate them first, and then I am sure these athletes will say sorry a hundred times if you like. What's worse: hospitalizations and funerals, or getting your fragile feelings hurt over a t-shirt? These people have no clue, and yet we've given them guns, pensions, and the full power of the justice system behind them.

http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2014/12/15/7397201/andrew-hawkins-browns-statement-shirt-police-demand-apology
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutdown-corner/rams-exec-denies-apology-to-police-chief-over--hands-up--gesture-044001777.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/10/sports/basketball/i-cant-breathe-tshirts-in-the-nba-how-jayz-lebron-james-and-others-made-them-happen.html

Police brutality greatest hits

Police brutality greatest hits: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9u2gjGuwxIk&list=PLeE5ieq-30Chh8qRhezGpzOofiynUTshZ

If ISIS released video like this, we would rightly call them deranged barbarians. I know these incidents may be "taken out of context", but is there a reasonable explanation for all of them (each suspect unarmed and no imminent threat to anyone)? You can see the officers have a predatory/chase mentality - they are hunting prey and need to dominate their suspects (low-brain functions vs. higher reasoning/ethics). It's not about upholding the law and protecting public safety anymore. Heck, it's not even about their own safety, as they are engaging unnecessarily closely with the suspects.  

These people are the menaces to society, not the Oscar Grants and Trayvons of the world. It's also a shame that taxpayers have to fund their salary, equipment, and pension. We are clearly not getting our money's worth. How the laws are written, it's very hard to get an excessive force conviction.

You might say, "there are good cops out there." That is true, and I hope they would be pissed to see some of their comrades behaving like this and hurting the public. I would hope they clean out the rot from within their departments. But they don't, because "the brotherhood in blue" protects its own even when fault is clear (just like other corrupt, opaque orgs like the Catholic Church). And maybe they don't enact tough police conduct laws because they don't want to be the subject of an investigation some day.

----

A coworker who grew up in NYC told me that the NYPD acts like an occupying army at times. This could be a reflection of that.

https://news.vice.com/article/anger-grows-as-nypd-blasts-protesters-with-controversial-and-painful-noise-weapon?utm_source=vicenewsfb

The Pentagon previously commissioned research into "non lethal" mass urban pacification weapons, and I guess LRAD is one of the results. I think it was originally meant for Iraq, but now they are using it against US residents and citizens, some of whom are not breaking any laws and assembling peacefully. Supposedly there are longer-term effects of the weapon, such as headaches and head ringing for up to a week. Who knows if it contributes to mental illness, brain/ear damage, or worse? I suspect the vendor and Pentagon did not really do much safety testing. It reminds me of Agent Orange in Vietnam. The brass just told soldiers to use it, and didn't know about the health risks or didn't care.

"We want to know did they have training? Do they have a written formal policy? A Freedom of Information Law request was done in 2011 and we got the results in 2012. As of then the NYPD claimed not to have any written documents."

Ferguson grand jury decision and police use of force with blacks

http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201411250900

This was a pretty good panel discussion about the Ferguson decision. To be clear, based on how our laws are written, what evidence was available, and how our justice system "works", Zimmerman and Mesherle were not guilty, and there was not enough here to indict Wilson. Whether that is right or acceptable is another story.

No one really expected an indictment of Wilson, however there was some concern about how the process unfolded: the prosecutor seemed to focus on the officer's perspective, the prosecutor's dad was a cop killed by a black suspect (and didn't recuse himself), Brown's family was not called to testify (but Wilson was - highly unusual), the convenience store crime footage was released, and AG Holder was indirectly involved. There is also the over-arching issue of the proximity between law enforcement and the DA's office, and whether impartial oversight of alleged police misconduct is possible. Was this g. jury just a "show trial" as justice theater, to go through the motions when no one really wanted to investigate Wilson. And maybe Wilson in fact broke no laws.

We've spoken about these issues before, but obviously if police were not armed (like in the UK, Norway, and many other places), that precludes the risk of violent altercations. We know that's not going to happen, so maybe police resources could be allocated to community outreach and rules-of-engagement/de-escalation policy analysis and training rather than ridiculous military exercises that they will never (or should never) use domestically. And instead of buying tanks and sniper rifles, maybe law enforcement could invest in officer and vehicle cameras - which have been shown to deter violence and misconduct from both officers and public. Convictions were possible in the Rodney King case because of footage, otherwise we all probably believe that the verdict would have been different.

There are "ambiguous" cases where an officer can rightfully shoot or not shoot - it's up to their discretion. The data show that when the suspect is black or brown, shooting is a lot more likely outcome. Assuming that minority suspects are no more dangerous than white suspects, this may be a manifestation of traditional racism, lack of sensitivity training, and/or unconscious fear (particularly of large black urban men). Ferguson's police force is under 10% black, yet the community is 2/3 black. Why was the actual white cop-killer in PA apprehended with little harm to him (and maybe no shots fired), but kids, mentally challenged, and unarmed/poorly armed minorities are beaten to a pulp or shot 10 times?

Would white America think it was OK if the tables were turned? Imagine if blacks were 60% of the population, had all the wealth/power (and Obama would still be president because he's half white), and most of the guns. Would they be OK with young white man after young white man (unarmed) killed by black cops or black neighborhood watchmen, with no convictions or even indictments? And all of this met the letter of the law?

----

Maybe there has been some sensationalism and race baiting by the media and others over Ferguson, but this crap isn't much better:

https://gma.yahoo.com/exclusive-police-officer-darren-wilson-explains-feared-life-233000976--abc-news-topstories.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/25/darren-wilson-testimony_n_6216620.html

I guess Wilson is on his PR tour, and lucky for him he's the only one left alive to tell the world what happened that day. He took a punch from Brown, and then "feared for his life". He is 6'4" 210 lbs, but he said he was like a boy vs. "Hulk Hogan" - that's how big that "man" was (Brown was 6'4" 292 lbs). Either Wilson's stupid or melodramatic, but it's pretty hard to die from one or two punches. He was in a motor vehicle. If he feared for his life, why not just hit the gas and escape (assuming the car was running)? Only when he went for his gun did it become a "life and death" struggle. During his grand jury testimony (when he was not subject to cross-examination), he said Brown was a "demon". Is that to evoke sympathy and/or an admission of his hysteria?

Wilson's recounting of the incident could be accurate, but it's quite peculiar. I don't know their stories, but I believe that Brown did not have a history of violence, erratic behavior, or aggression. I am not sure about Wilson's record on duty. But the way Wilson described Brown, the kid seemed to be crazy. I'm not saying it's impossible, but why would a teen, when ordered by a cop authority figure to get off the road and then approach the patrol car, suddenly attack the armed officer without provocation? It's like Trayvon - did he suddenly just decide to kill an adult stranger on a whim? Then instead of finishing Wilson off in close quarters, somehow the hulk-demon Brown ends up 35-40 feet away from the police car, turns around, and charges back at Wilson - ostensibly with intent to kill (even though the kid already passed up an easier opportunity to kill Wilson)? At that point, Wilson said that the thought in his mind was, "Legally can I shoot this guy? I have to." If he was attacked by a "demon" and fearing for his life before, it's not likely that Wilson could be so conscientious and analytical in that moment. This makes me really suspicious of his version of events.

Wilson repeated that he has a clear conscience because he followed his training to the letter and did nothing wrong. To me, that's like Bush saying that he can't think of a mistake he made as president. Honest people can always admit they could have done something better - it doesn't require deep introspection and intellect. And if you are truly in the right, that doesn't mean that you are not allowed to be sub-perfect. Any time someone kills someone else, something obviously went wrong. But for Wilson to be so sure and culpability-free, that suggests he is on the defensive and hiding something. Maybe he is (rightfully) worried that if he is open and contrite, his words will be twisted and turned against him. He is not out of the legal woods yet. However, I don't think it's very persuasive to neutrals or skeptics when you show very little to no empathy or remorse, and just keep maintaining that you did everything right and you are actually the victim.

Wilson is the professional peace officer with the firearm and the training. He has the power of life and death, not Brown. Maybe he wielded that power in accordance with the laws of the land, but don't tell us that all this was 100% unavoidable and 100% of the blame is on Brown. Is conflict ever so black and white?

"Is there anything you could have done differently that would have [avoided the killing]?"

"No."

"Nothing?"

"No."

----

When you speak of intellect and police, please keep this in mind:

http://www.mintpressnews.com/can-someone-be-too-smart-to-be-a-cop/192106/

Bottom line:  They're smart enough to know their own limits, which makes them feel inferior.  Give him a gun and that inferiority goes away.  The police are poorly trained and intellectually ill-equipped to do a job like policing.  Police (in a civilized society) need to read a situation and determine the way to de-escalate it to protect everyone, not just themselves.  Instead, they exacerbate and intimidate.

If Brown was a 'demon', a police officer should know how to deal with them.  You cannot tell me that Brown wouldn't understand that if he punched a cop in the face, he'd be killed.    Every black child is told that he is perceived as a threat in society just because the color of his/her skin.  It is the 'talk' black parents have to have with their kids in order to hope they might not land in jail or get killed. 

Once again, it's bullshit cop story and because the american society is so racist, they believe it.

How long ago did we watch Rodney King get beaten?  Same as it ever was.  

----

Yeah, "the talk" is a good point; most black American men know not to do anything remotely aggressive towards the cops. Yet Wilson admitted to firing his gun 12 times at the unarmed Brown. As you said, I am pretty sure Wilson did/said something offensive to provoke Brown, who responded like a testosterone-fueled teen might, and then Wilson probably escalated because he felt that his petty ego/authority was challenge and he wanted to put this punk in his place. Like Jack Reacher said, people join the armed forces either because they're legacy, unable to get a better job, or want to legally kill people. I think some people become cops because they have inferiority complexes and want to wave the gun/badge around and intimidate (like Denzel's depiction in Training Day).

Maybe I'm way off base about Wilson, but I know this applies to some cops over the years based on the long record of misconduct and corruption (and those are only the cases that saw the light of day). Teachers and gov't workers get blasted by the right all the time, but they always apologize for the cops. They are all supposed to be public servants, but yes, there are structural and psychological reasons why they may put their own interests over the public's at times. But when cops do that, people can get hurt and justice suffers.

The way Wilson, Zimmerman, and some in right-wing media/politics describe, young black men are a ticking time bomb of primal rage that can't be reasoned with. That is racism to me, with tragic effects. Same thing with some Muslims - they are accused of embracing a culture of martyrdom and death. "We love life and freedom, they hate it." They're barely human, so they need to be caged and killed like dogs. So sure, when a psychotic 300 lb black guy wants to tear you limb-from-limb, of course you regretfully have to protect yourself with deadly force. Poor Wilson. I acknowledge that some blacks and Muslims fit these descriptions, but the vast majority don't. And plenty of whites exhibit this behavior and worse (the majority of mass murderers in US history were white men, often educated and not that poor). So we're profiling all wrong. But maybe the error stems from, and is reinforcement of, the centuries-old stereotypes about white man's burden and black savages.

One thing I also wanted to comment on was the criticism over the rioting and looting in black neighborhoods in the wake of Ferguson, Rodney King, Watts, Katrina, etc. This is somehow validation for conservatives that blacks are the problem. I am not condoning the behavior, but when people are given no better outlets for redress, and day-after-day subject to mistreatment and negativity all around, they are going to react poorly during times of strife. It is not inherent to blacks - it is what happens when you marginalize people and leave them with no hope/future. The discrimination, harassment, and violence (economic violence too) that some black people face (often from non-blacks) are significant disadvantages that others often dismiss because they haven't experienced it themselves. I also think Obama was too dismissive and unsympathetic of the protesters' perspective in Ferguson (esp. compared to Trayvon), but I assume he is being extra cautious so as to not get blamed/associated with the racial anger/violence.

Please don't let Meg Whitman win

I really, really don't want Meg Whitman to be our next governor (call it anti-CEOism bigotry). How can she blast the "tax and spend" CA liberals in Sacramento, and promise austerity and fiscal discipline, when she's broken campaign spending records in her epic battle to overcome the mighty... Steve... Poizner? She's spent $81M so far, and will at least double that in her fight vs. Jerry Brown. Most of that has been on incessant TV ads, which surveys have shown actually turn off CA voters to her. So she's spent $71M of her private fortune to produce ads which actually hurt her, yet she vows to lay off 40,000 state workers as governor, in order to "trim the fat". The average full time CA state employee made $68k in 2008. So if Whitman cares so much about CA, why doesn't she stop her stupid Spamming and extend 1,000 jobs for a year? Better use of the money to me. Republicans hate government, yet they want to lead it. Well, they use the office not to help the people, but to hook their buddies up. Dems do this too, but less outrageously. Well, at least Whitman isn't a Bible-thumping ideologue, and I doubt she'd get caught in a sex scandal because she makes Hillary Clinton look like a perfect 10. 

During this anti-incumbent/anti-government movement, she does play the outsider with business savvy pretty well. But so did Arnold and Dubya.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/04/meg-whitman-spending-meg-_n_601328.html

Political debate from the other side of the pond

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/election-2010/7596176/Election-debate-Nick-Clegg-emerges-victorious.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newsvideo/uk-politics-video/7596907/Leaders-TV-election-debate-video-highlights.html

This was the UK's first US-style televised PM debate as far as I know, since Britons elect their local Parliamentarians, who in turn nominate the PM, so it's not like the PM candidates have to directly court voters. But as the most visible emissaries of their party's platform, I guess it makes sense. Wow, their speech actually go beyond one-liners and two-syllable words, and they don't have to pause for pointless audience applause! At least the conservative Cameron got pwned while the centrist long shot Clegg shined.

The first debate focused on domestic issues, and subsequent ones will cover foreign affairs and the economy.