Mediaboss Marketing

In an era when movements like Black Lives Matter and Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women are calling attention to the life-and-death issues facing communities of color, its easy to overlook the impact day-to-day interactions can have on police-community relations.

But experts on bias and policing say when a racial or ethnic group is over-policed, which can include being searched at a higher rate than other groups, it can breed a mutual disrespect and distrust that becomes the basis for bigger problems.

That kind of treatment expands that divide between you and law enforcement, who are people that are tasked to protect and serve you, said Katrina Johnson, a Seattle criminal-justice activist. Theyre causing trauma, because youre continually getting harassed or pulled over or whatever for nothing. Youre not doing anything. Who wouldnt get tired of getting in trouble without actually being in trouble?

An analysis of millions of traffic stops released this week by InvestigateWest found that Washington State Patrol troopers search Native Americans at a rate more than five times higher than white motorists. Black drivers were twice as likely to be searched as white drivers, and Latinos and Pacific Islanders were about 80 percent more likely to be searched. Yet white drivers were most likely to be found with drugs or other contraband. A similar analysis by Stanford University earlier this year that focused on black and Latino drivers found the same is true nationwide.

Nationwide, Native Americans are one of the groups most likely to be killed by police.

Theyre more likely to be victims of violent crime than any other race and theyre more likely to be the victims of a crime committed by another race.

Its no coincidence that Native people suffer from both the highest rate of police violence nationwide and over-policing in Washington State, Jesse Phelps, spokesman for the Lakota Peoples Law Project, wrote in an email. Its all too obvious that racial profiling is alive and well throughout the U.S.

Until we see more activism from the populace, better protections from elected officials and increased oversight from law enforcement authorities, people of color will no doubt continue to suffer disproportionately.

There are steps police departments can take to address overpolicing and one of its underlying causes, implicit bias. They include:

Johnson knows firsthand about the rift that over-policing can cause with communities of color. As a leader in the fight to prevent more deaths like that of her cousin Charleena Lyles, who was killed by Seattle police in 2017, Johnson still felt disconnected from and distrustful of the people who were supposed to be protecting and patrolling her neighborhood. Months after Lyless killing, when her own home was burglarized, Johnson said, she was afraid to call the police.

When Johnson in August 2018 started her work with the Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion program, which refers low-level drug offenders to treatment instead of prosecution, she probably did not believe that there was a possibility that officers were good, she said.

As an activist, she traveled the country speaking with other activists and police leaders. But it wasnt until she began working for the LEAD program last year, Johnson said, that she got to know rank-and-file officers. The work has helped her realize that some prejudices are unconscious, but police officers need to be able to openly address their biases, she said. Being in personal contact with police changed her, too.

I just waved at a police officer. How weird was that? she said during an interview at her office. Theyre not all bad. So I want a greater understanding of whats happening during these interactions.

Bias and cultural competency training starts to humanize people, Johnson said. And it will make you think differently.

The State Patrol offers a 50-minute anti-bias class to cadets in training, and officials said bias is addressed in other parts of training, including refreshers. They also said new curriculum, mandated by the I-940 ballot initiative that was approved by Washington voters last year, should be in place when the March cadet class begins next year.

Activists say if police officers are more reflective of the communities they represent, and live in those communities, it can improve relations.

To know whether training is working, academics who study bias say, police agencies need to set goals and have a way to measure improvements. A State Patrol collaboration with Washington State University showed that there were disparities in how often some drivers were being searched and would have allowed officials to track improvements, but those studies ceased in 2007.

Clayton Mosher, one of the WSU professors involved in the studies, said he believes they could be restarted for about $50,000.

I think it is important, Mosher said. Of course, this seems to be the case nationally while there, of course, has been some focus post-Ferguson, etc., the kind of work we did with the (State Patrol) does not seem to be occurring, he said. Oregon has just released its first report of this kind and could prove a model for routine analysis of similar data.

There are more immediate policy changes agencies can make that take officers out of situations where their biases might play out.

Chris Burbank, who served as the chief of police for Salt Lake City from 2006 to 2015, said traffic stops and minor citations sometimes become a form of stop and frisk, the infamous New York City policy from the early 2000s that encouraged police to question and search people based on a low level of suspicion. Officers were found to have disproportionately targeted black and Latino men and a federal judge in New York eventually ruled that the city was violating the Constitution.

In Salt Lake City, Burbank said, officers were issuing jaywalking tickets almost exclusively near a homeless shelter and were using the citations as an excuse to conduct searches, or as he put it get in their pockets. To address the problem, Burbank simply put a moratorium on jaywalking citations. Using minor citations as pretexts for searches is shortcutting the police work and wastes resources on frivolous searches, he said.

In October, the Los Angeles Police Department announced it was dropping a controversial policy, derided as stop and frisk in a car, of using traffic stops to look for contraband in high-crime areas. The department ended the policy after a Los Angeles Times analysis found the unit was disproportionately stopping black drivers. Last month, the Oregon Supreme Court ruled that questions unrelated to an officers reason for stopping someone violated the states constitution. Civil libertarians hailed the ruling, saying it would protect people of color who are disproportionately targeted for searches.

The Washington State Patrol regulations say troopers are required to get clear and explicit consent and give drivers a written explanation of their rights where practical.

Burbank suggested that police agencies can address racial disparities in searches by informing drivers of their rights before asking consent to search a vehicle or pat someone down or by eliminating those so-called consent searches altogether, and requiring troopers to have probable cause before searching a vehicle. Or, Burbank said, agencies could go so far as to reduce or eliminate traffic citations.

These are small steps you can take, and most of these can be done at the police department level by an administrator, Burbank said. Youre just holding the cops to a higher standard than what the law says.

For its part, the Washington State Patrol says its considering once again partnering with an organization like Washington State University to conduct analyses like InvestigateWests. The State Patrol agrees there is a disparity in the search rate among blacks, whites, Latinos and Native Americans and that is not acceptable, said spokesman Chris Loftis. The agency is expanding its recruitment for diversity and recently hired a tribal liaison, with plans to hire another, Loftis said. He said the agency is committed to addressing the disparity InvestigateWest found, but said it will take time. The change that comes from new training programs and diverse hires is more of a process than an event, he said.

This story was supported in part by a grant from the Fund for Investigative Journalism.

More here:
How can police minimize racial profiling of Native Americans, others? - InvestigateWest

Formed in 1992 in New York, Wu-Tang Clan have sold over 40 million records worldwide to become one of the most influential hip hop groups of all time.

Euronews spoke with them backstage in their dressing room moments before they hit the stage at Dubais Sole DXB Festival.

It was the bands first time in Dubai, and they were finding it a lot more relaxed than their usual turf, New York City's Staten Island.

Raekwon told Euronews they had received a friendly welcome. We've been running around going to the mall and just meeting people and they been extra humble and you know, that's what I love is that you could go somewhere and, like if I dropped my wallet, you get your wallet back. You get your wallet back. So to me when you see people like that, it's like, it's a blessing.

U-God felt he felt he could let his guard down in the emirate.

I like the fact there's no guns really, no gun violence, he said. The laws are different and a little bit more strict. Theres certain things that need to be done.

Looking back on their 28-year career, Cappadonna described themselves as pioneers.

We paved the way and made it, you know, more possible for the upcoming artist struggling to get in there, and be creative, and make their own way too. But you know, at the same time, it's like we are still the kings of this right here.

Raekwon said their success was proof that dreams come true.

You know, you work hard and people see your work ethic is good and they know that you come from a history of poverty. And we did a lot. And like you say, we opened the doors for a lot of these youngsters, you know, and they look at us, they look at us in a godly fashion. And that comes from us knowing our struggle, knowing where we came from. But also knowing where we are going? And the music has been that vessel.

The group would not be drawn on politics and the Black Lives Matter movement.

All lives matter, Cappadonna said, while Raekwon said he believed US politics was starting to become like comedy.

Despite their success, the group says they still find inspiration in their daily lives.

U-God said: Keeping it real for me is just paying my bills and taking care of my babies and staying out of trouble, harm's way.

I'm trying to live and write stuff I still go through, because Im still going through drama. The drama never stops.

Follow this link:
The beat goes on: Wu-Tang Clan reflect on rap, racism and keeping it real. - Euronews

There are eras in history, like the 1950s, when older people set the cultural and moral terms for the young. And there are eras, like the 1960s, when its the other way around.

The current decade has been in the latter mold. Its true beginning was Dec. 17, 2010, when a 26-year-old street vendor in Tunisia, Mohamed Bouazizi, set himself on fire, setting off protests that quickly toppled governments across the region. Now it approaches its end with the 16-year-old Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg named Times Person of the Year.

In between, the decade has been fundamentally shaped by the technological creations of the young, in the form of social media and mobile apps; by the mass migrations of the young, from Africa and the Middle East to Europe and from Latin America to the U.S.; by the diseases of the (mostly) young, notably addiction and mental illness; and by the moral convictions of the young, from the #MeToo and Black Lives Matter movements in the U.S. to mass demonstrations from Cairo to Hong Kong.

Why and how did the young dominate the decade? Lets narrow the focus to America.

Demography first. What history usually thinks of as the sixties (beginning around 1964 with the Civil Rights Act and the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution) coincided, in the United States, with the coming-of-age of the baby boomers, roughly 75 million strong. Our current decade coincides with the coming-of-age of millennials, another generation of about 80 million. More people, more power or at least more influence. By comparison, my generation, the underwhelming Generation X, numbers only 65 million.

Next, anger. History is often a series of reactions and counterreactions. We remember the nonconformism of the 60s as a response to the conformism of the 50s. This decade, too, has been a reaction to the last: to two wars that began in moral fervors and ended in strategic fizzles; and to a financial crisis whose victims numbered in the millions and for which nobody accepted blame.

Not surprisingly, this decade has been marked by the intense hostility of the young toward truisms that once governed our thinking. As they saw it, the liberal international order didnt uphold the peace it bled us dry. Capitalism didnt make the country rich it made the rich richer. Silicon Valley didnt innovate technology it mined our data. The Church didnt save souls it raped children. The cops didnt serve and protect they profiled and killed. The media didnt tell the news they spun it.

This hostility isnt manifest just on the progressive left. It also accounts for the rise of the populist right.

As for tech, not only did the young invent and shape social media, social media shaped and reinvented the young. This was the decade when algorithms meant to cater to our tastes succeeded mainly in narrowing those tastes; when the creation of online communities led to our Balkanization into online tribes and the dissemination of disinformation and hate; when digital connection deepened our personal isolation, vulnerability and suggestibility; and when the ubiquity of portable screens with infinite data meant there was always something more interesting to do than interact with the person before us.

One result has been a kind of shallowing of our inner life: of time spent wondering, wandering, reading, daydreaming and just thinking things over. Another result has been a shallowing of our political life via the replacement of wit with snark and of reasoned arguments with rapid-fire tweets and hot takes.

Technology had another effect: It vastly accelerated the speed with which previously outlying ideas became, in the hands of their mainly youthful advocates, moral certitudes.

Some of those ideas, like marriage equality (the single greatest moral victory of the decade) were long overdue. Others, like intersectionality, gender fluidity, new standards of sexual consent or the purported centrality of racism to American identity, are much more debatable. Moral certitude isnt the exclusive posture of the young. But it is an easier one to hold when life hasnt yet given you sufficient time to leaven idealism with experience, second-guess yourself and learn that the things you once thought were most true arent quite so.

As with any decade, this one contains paradoxes and countercurrents. One paradox is the election of the oldest president in history. Yet Donald Trump, a baby boomer, embodies the spirit of the time as much as he rejects it, not least in his mastery of social media and the cynical, suspicious and angry nature of his politics.

One countercurrent is that some movements that have animated the decade are, at bottom, old-fashioned. So-called third-wave feminism contains a powerful streak of Victorianism. Similarly, the resistance to Trump is partly founded on the belief that moral character matters to presidential fitness, and that this president falls radically short.

Pedantic readers of this column will note that the decade wont really end until Dec. 31, 2020. Theyre right. We have a year to go before we can render a more final judgment on this decade of disillusion, and to begin to sense what comes next.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. Wed like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And heres our email: letters@nytimes.com.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.

Link:
This Decade of Disillusion - The New York Times

A conservative judge changes his mind

When John Roberts was nominated to the Supreme Court in 2005, he assured the nation that his decisions would be guided by something loftier than his own whims or predilections. I will decide every case based on the record, according to the rule of law, without fear or favor, to the best of my ability, he told the Senate. And I will remember that its my job to call balls and strikes and not to pitch or bat. It all sounded very reasonable, and its a fiction deeply embedded in our judicial system. Most legal opinions are written as if the conclusion is so apparent, so free of personal bias, so certain, as to be almost inevitable. You dont often see an opinion that begins, This one was a really close call; it could have gone either way! Instead they read as if no reasonable person could have concluded anything else.

All of which makes this weeks opinion from Fifth Circuit Judge Don R. Willett a refreshing surprise. Willett changed his mind. And he reversed himself on one of the more troubling decisions weve seen recently, which is saying quite a bit.

The case, whichThe Daily Appealdiscussedlast week, was based on a lawsuit thata federal judgesaid bordered on the delusional. A Louisiana police officer injured in a protest tried to sue the hashtag#BlackLivesMatter, which amounted, wrote JudgeBrian A. Jacksonof the Federal District Court in Baton Rouge, to picking a fight with an idea,wrote Adam Liptakfor the New York Times. The officer also sued Black Lives Matter, which the judge said was also a nonstarter A third part of the lawsuitseeking to hold a leader of the movement [DeRay Mckesson] liable for the officers injuriesreached the Supreme Court on Friday. Judge Jackson had dismissed that part of the case on First Amendment grounds, but an appeals court revived it, alarming civil rights lawyers and experts on free speech.

The principles outlined in this decision put civil disobedience at risk, Alanah Odoms Hebert, the head of the ACLU of Louisiana, toldThe Atlantic. If this doctrine had existed during the civil rights movement there would not have been a civil rights movement.Othersnoted the irony that officers are allowed to commit acts of violence with near impunity because of qualified immunity, while protest organizers can be sued for the acts of others, if they injure police.

But Willett, a Trump appointee, changed his mind. I have had a judicial change of heart, Willett wrote inhis new opinion. Admittedly, judges arent naturals at backtracking or about-facing. But I do so forthrightly. Consistency is a cardinal judicial virtue, but not the only virtue. In my judgment, earnest rethinking should underscore, rather than undermine, faith in the judicial process. As Justice Frankfurter elegantly put it 70 years ago, Wisdom too often never comes, and so one ought not to reject it merely because it comes late.

In this case, reexamination led Willett to see two gaping holes in the majoritys case. First, he pointed out, despite the panels earlier decision, its not clear that even Louisiana tort law would support a lawsuit against Mckesson,writeslaw professor Garrett Epps for The Atlantic. Willett further wrote that, having insisted on reaching the free-speech issue, the panel botched that as well. Does complaint alleged that Mckesson incited the violence that led to Does injuries. But Does lawyer didnt even bother to explain how.

Epps writesthat even though the original opinion still stands, Willetts change of heart is a sign of life for old First Amendment precedents. But it is also a sign of life for judicial humility, and the idea that our legal system ought to be guided by accuracy and justice, not expediency. When, recently, the issue of convictions by nonunanimous juries camebefore the Supreme Court, those arguing to preserve this practice posited that any ruling to the contrary would be too great an administrative burden on state courts. The same arguments were made when it came to reviewing life without parole sentences for those convicted as children. The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1966 might be the starkest example of how our system favors administrative ease over fairness. It was designed to limit the avenues for people on death row to challenge their convictions, anda study showedthat it reduced the success rate for federal habeas petitions to levels about a fifth of what they previously were, and at the time of the studys publication, those numbers were continuing to decline.

One case in Missouriexemplifies the dominance of administrative ease over serious concerns about fairness and justice. Lamar Johnson was convicted of killing Marcus Boyd in 1995. He was sentenced to life. But years after the killing, the states only witness recanted his identification of Johnson as the shooter, and two other men have confessed to Boyds killing and said Johnson was not involved. And Johnson has gained the support of the prosecutor, Kim Gardner, whose office was responsible for his conviction nearly 25 years ago. After looking into his case with lawyers at the Midwest Innocence Project, Gardner asked for a new trial in July saying she believes her office engaged in serious misconduct, including secret payments to the witness, falsified police reports, and perjured testimony.

Gardner believes that she is duty bound to correct past wrongs, but in a case thatone commentator saidshowed just how much the criminal justice system favors form and finality over substance, a judge disagreed. Judge Elizabeth B. Hogan based her decision on a statute that requires the relevant motion be made within 15 days of the conviction. She told prosecutors they were late by approximately 24 years. But in so doing, the judge seems to have ignored case law that allows the motion to be heard beyond the 15-day deadline in extraordinary circumstances and in the interests of justice. A 1984 Missouri appeals court ruled that a perversion of justice would occur if we were to close our eyes to the existence of the newly discovered evidence solely because of a missed deadline. In herdecision, Hogan seems eager to find reasons to reject Gardners attempt to right a possible wrong.

Advocates for Johnson, including professors from law schools across the country, have appealed to Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt to drop his opposition to Gardners efforts. The circuit attorney needs to have a means to correct that injustice, Gardners attorney, Daniel Harawa, told the appeals court. But Schmitt has steadfastly opposed. His offices reasoning is not exactly lofty. Assistant Attorney General Shaun Mackelprang said in court that the courts jurisdiction over Johnsons case expired when he was convicted and sentenced in 1995. Why turn a blind eye to a possible wrongful conviction? Our laws have meaning and our rules have meaning, and for people to operate within those boundaries,Mackelprang said.

Original post:
A conservative judge changes his mind - The Appeal

The Editorial Board, USA TODAY Published 5:45 p.m. ET Dec. 19, 2019 | Updated 12:35 p.m. ET Dec. 20, 2019

Russia is still trying to exploit divisions in America. USA TODAY is trying to heal the nations wounds and identify areas of agreement: Our view

Russias information warfare campaign against the United States began with the goal, in the words of the Mueller report, of sowing discord in the U.S. political system.

In a bid to exploit divisions in American society, Russian hackers posed as, among other things, anti-immigration groups, Tea Party activists and Black Lives Matter protesters.

The Russians undoubtedly see their continuing campaign as a spectacular success, judging by the way Americans are at each others throats these days, on impeachment and a variety of other topics.

In an effort to help heal the nations wounds and identify areas of agreement on major issues, USA TODAY and the nonprofit group Public Agenda are partnering on a yearlong project called Hidden Common Ground.

The commentary portion of the project includes columns by centrist voices who tend to get drowned out by the partisan extremes, and by people with widely divergent views who are nevertheless working together to fix a problem.

Voting in 2016.(Photo: Eugene Garcia/epa)

You wouldnt know it from watching cable news, but in the last presidential election 39% of voters described themselves as moderate (versus 35% as conservative and 26% as liberal). In the initial Public Agenda/USA TODAY/Ipsos survey for the project, more than nine of 10said its important to reduce divisiveness.

So far, criticism of Hidden Common Groundhas focused on two questions:

Isn't it ludicrous to talk about bipartisan compromise when my side is 100% right and the other side is 100% wrong?

Isnt it hypocritical for the Editorial Board to support common ground solutions while endorsing the polarizing act of impeaching President Donald Trump?

The short answers are noand no.

Its true that agreementis difficult when one side won't accept basic facts. It's also truethat certain issues involving basic moral beliefs or human rights dont lend themselves to split-the-difference solutions. But many others do.

On immigration, for example, theres clearly common ground to be found between open borders on one side and mass deportations on the other. The long-obvious deal would pair better border security with a pathway to legality for millions of undocumented immigrants already interwoven in American society.

On health care, theres common ground between mandatory "Medicare for All" and repealing Obamacare. One idea is to preserve private insurance but improve the Affordable Care Act by adding a public option or letting certain people under 65 buyMedicare coverage.

On climate change, theres common ground between do-nothing denialism and a Green New Deal that unrealistically attempts to remake the entire economy. A tax on carbon emissions, with the proceeds refunded to consumers, would make green energy more competitive; a more robust research and development program could unearth technological fixes.

On these and other public policy questions, to see compromise as a dirty word simply ensures that nothing gets done and problems fester.

As for impeachment, it can be argued that Trump with his constant name-calling, erratic edicts and dismissal of scienceis himself the biggest impediment to finding common ground at the federal level. (In our tradition of giving readers more than one side of an issue, our editorial endorsing the two articles of impeachment was accompanied by an opposing view from the top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee.)

Senate acquittal appears assured, but even ifTrump were to be removed from office for his abuseof power and stonewalling of Congress, does anyone doubt that incoming President Mike Pence would improve the tone in Washington while continuing to champion conservative causes?

In fact, impeachment and deal-making arent incompatible. Conditions are ripe for successful negotiations because both sides have an interest in demonstrating cooperation.

Heading into an election year, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi wants to showthat congressional Democrats can do more than impeach. President Trump wants to show that hes not paralyzed or consumed by that process.

Just in the past week, Democrats and Republicans have reached agreement on a major trade deal, passed in the House on Thursday,and an array of thorny budget issues, including $425 million to help states improve election security. Imagine how much better off the nation would be if they could manage to keep it up.

By Bill Sternberg for the Editorial Board

Autoplay

Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

Read or Share this story: https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/12/19/impeachment-donald-trump-need-hidden-common-ground-editorials-debates/2680857001/

Visit link:
Impeachment of Donald Trump doesn't remove the need for common ground - USA TODAY