Yet There Is Method In It

Recounting events from Nov 2006,

Officer’s account: Officers where informed by staff that a UCLA library user would not show ID and refused to leave. A police officer approaches the library user and tell him he must leave the library. Two officers escort the library user towards the exit. The library user throws himself to the ground and shouts at the officers. Other students gather around and the officers feel threatened. The officers repeatedly tell the library user to stand up or get tased. He refuses and the officers taser him three times, handcuff him and drag him out of the library.

Student’s account: Mostafa Tabatabainejad, a student at UCLA, claims he was being asked for ID by staff due to racial profiling. He had his ID with him but refused to show it. Although he refused to leave when instructed by staff, he was leaving when the police officers arrived. While escorting him out of the library, Mostafa throws himself to the ground claiming he is passively resisting. The police use excessive force to remove him from the library. The third use of the taser was applied while he was handcuffed.

Note that my account does not capture the true complexity of many witness accounts and the camera phone video. The PARC report of their investigation is very interesting but reads like Rashomon – there are many contradictions between witnesses.

The issue to my mind: how readily should officers initiate physical contact? how readily should initiate taser use? what alternatives to force are there?

My current view is, although the student was rather paranoid, the police did nothing to defuse the situation. The first officer grabbed the library users arm after 4 seconds of making verbal contact with him. Secondly, another officer draws a taser and presses it against the library user’s back while escorting him out of the library. Thirdly, use of a taser on a passive resistor and use on a handcuffed person. All these actions are rash and unjustified by the situation. The officers should have first attempted a verbal method of achieving compliance. This would clearly take more than 4 seconds.

I am concerned with the potential for officers to resort to taser use first without attempting to verbally defuse the situation – especially if the suspect is not physically threatening before the police initiate force. There is also concern on the safety record of taser use on people who are often agitated. Safety testing has been done in controlled environments which do not reflect their practical use in law enforcement.

AC1

A teenager is facing prosecution for using the word “cult” to describe the Church of Scientology.

The unnamed 15-year-old was served the summons by City of London police when he took part in a peaceful demonstration opposite the London headquarters of the controversial religion.
…
Writing on an anti-Scientology website, the teenager facing court said: “I brought a sign to the May 10th protest that said: ‘Scientology is not a religion, it is a dangerous cult.’ The Guardian

The mind boggles. Under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1985, “a person is guilty of an offense if they [...] display any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby”. The word cult, in this context, is a critical term but also it is the central point of the protest. Does that mean all criticism of “new religious movements” (the non-perjorative term) is illegal? Based on the police action, the answer seems to be YES.

The police clearly over stepped their bounds and authority – the teenager has something known in subversive circles as “legal rights” under the “European Convention on Human Rights” (section 10 if you are interested). Secondly, criticism as part of a peaceful protest is not “threatening, abusive or insulting”.

The police should ask for the prosecution to be dropped and issue guidance to all officers as to what is “threatening, abusive or insulting” to prevent this happening in future. Remember tolerance does not mean refraining from criticism.

Anti Citizen One

I attended an interesting debate on surveillance and privacy. Interestingly they presented both sides of the argument: that surveillance can have positive, as well as negative, effects – easy access to medical records, shopping reward schemes, more efficient government services, etc. The fact is our current life style is dependent on the surveillance infrastructure that has been established by governments and companies.

On the other hand, are the risks of identity fraud, personal details appearing the public domain, espionage or state suppression of dissidents. The defenders of surveillance often mention is maxim: “If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.” That may be true as far as it goes but who does not have something to hide?

One of the panellists mentioned a few items that some people have a need to hide: their contact details if they are escaping from an abusive relationship, their address if they work in animal testing or abortion clinic, if they have suffered from a health problem that carries a social stigma (for example mental health), if they have suffered from a crime that carries a social stigma (for example rape). Other ideas that were mentioned were: the food that your purchase (which might be interesting if you want private medical insurance or life insurance), your driving habits (car insurance), your friends and group associations (which can be profiled, with debatable accuracy, to show personality traits, sexual characteristics, political tendencies). Just look at the Jeremy Clarkson fraud incident.

If you don’t have anything to hide that is fine. But it is extremely arrogant to extend that principle to the whole of the population. There are currently at least two UK government committees looking at the impact of surveillance on society with their reports due this summer and autumn.

A recent government report cast doubt on the effectiveness of CCTV. One self admitted post-modern panellist said that he still supports CCTV as it comforts the public even if it does not reduce crime. I would agree that crime and the public perception of crime are distinct but interrelated issues, but I would prefer to use resources on measures that actually reduce crime rather than just make everyone else feel secure. (I don’t feel safer since I know its a placebo!)

Anti Citizen One

PS I am reading Kafka’s The Castle which shares some similar themes. And who could forget the movie Brazil?

The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs(ACMD) yesterday delivered its report to the Home Office. The group of 23 scientists have been investigating the classification of cannabis since September 2007. It was specifically asked to consider its supposed impact on mental health, particularly schizophrenia. The committee found that reported cases of schizophrenia actually fell between 1998 and 2005 suggesting little link to cannabis use which has increased in the last two decades. The Register

Why is the UK government increasing restrictions on cannabis? Because of the alleged harmful effects? Supported by what evidence?

Reminds me of a certain basis for preemptive war… Unless there is a reliable causal link between two events, they would be treated as independent factors. And beware of confusing the effect with the cause. As always, we need to focus of preventative action rather than gestures – especially gestures aimed at the media and the population at large.

Update: Where is the evidence to link this policy and a reduction in whatever it is meant to be reducing? Remember prohibition did not reduce criminality associated with alcohol – prohibition increased organized crime. The new London mayor is to ban alcohol on the underground tube network. Is drinking alcohol on the tube a source of crime? I don’t think it is. (If you disagree, evidence please?) It is again the state trying to target criminal behavior, not by addressing the cause, but by addressing the effect.

Anti Citizen One

Again on my recent theme of cause and effect:

Grand Theft Auto 4 queue man stabbed in head

A hooded male stabbed another man in the head and neck yesterday as they both queued to buy copies of Grand Theft Auto IV from a Croydon Gamestation store. The Register

Considering the people had not had an opportunity to play the game, we can hardly blame the game’s content for this incident. And I was not serious in suggesting that queueing causes violence. In this case, violent people chose to stand in line to buy a computer game.

Banning the game is like bolting the stable door after the horse has bolted.

AC1

A bill outlawing the possession of “extreme pornography” is set to become law next week. But many fear it has been rushed through and will criminalise innocent people with a harmless taste for unconventional sex. BBC

They appear to be saying “Cause: violence in pornography/TV/movie/culture causes violent actions”. Ummmmmm… evidence, please? (and anacdotal evidence is not going to be sufficient.) It is more likely that:

Religion and morality say: “A people or a society are destroyed by license and luxury.” My revalued reason says: when a people degenerates physiologically, when it approaches destruction, then the result is license and luxury… Nietzsche, Twilight of the Idols

Therefore banning is pointless and in fact harmful.

Anti Citizen One

A change in the law could mean mediums, psychics and healers face prosecution if they cannot justify their claims. Spiritualists are delivering a mass petition to Downing Street and complaining that a genuine religion is being discriminated against. BBC

Although I am not a fan of state intervention in this manner, I have a greater desire to see certain cults hindered that that charge their followers for access to their “truth”.

AC1

After the arrest of Salvatore Lo Piccolo, allegedly of the Sicilian Mafia, the following list of commandments were discovered:

1. No-one can present himself directly to another of our friends. There must be a third person to do it.
2. Never look at the wives of friends.
3. Never be seen with cops.
4. Don’t go to pubs and clubs.
5. Always being available for Cosa Nostra is a duty – even if your wife’s about to give birth.
6. Appointments must absolutely be respected.
7. Wives must be treated with respect.
8. When asked for any information, the answer must be the truth.
9. Money cannot be appropriated if it belongs to others or to other families.
10. People who can’t be part of Cosa Nostra: anyone who has a close relative in the police, anyone with a two-timing relative in the family, anyone who behaves badly and doesn’t hold to moral values.

The best one is the last line: you can’t be part of the Mafia if you are immoral. The point is that they are putting forward a system of morals that they are capable of following and holding it up as an example of “morality”. Almost everyone else would not be able to follow their moral code. Conclusion: just because people going around calling things “good” does not mean anything more than “I approve of you”.

Anti Citizen One

I heard an interesting debate in the ol’ radio (Law in Action) about legalising all drugs. Both arguments are strong in my opinion.

To Maintain Prohibition (aka War on Drugs):
Harmful drug use will rise, increasing the burden on social services (ok, this is the big one)

To Legalize (but have some regulation presumably):
Drugs are fun (allegedly) and many users don’t have problems.
We can monitor the users for ill effects through the official channels of drug supply.
Law enforcement focused on more harmful crime (users will not clog the courts, police time and prisons)
Less crime (since drugs would be affordable, crime to feed drug habits would be unnecessary. Also organised crime would be reduced since there is no need to import and distribute drugs illegally.)
Quality of drugs will be regulated and reducing risks for users.
Some people currently self medicate for legitimate illnesses – they could do so legally.
“Narco” states could be stabilized because illegal drug production would be replaced by regulated production.

Observations:
It is inconsistent that alcohol (and tobacco smoking) are legal and drugs are illegal. Many people die due to alcohol, so harmfulness is not the deciding issue?
Many people use recreational drugs (approximately 10% of the UK population in the last year), so banning is criminalizing a common behavior. If enough people do any activity, we should question laws that ban that activity.
Some drugs are linked with mental illness.
Most arguments on both sides have little evidence to support them.

Tricky one.

Anti Citizen One

“Britain is a nation of petty criminals in which nearly two-thirds of people regularly break the law if they think they can get away with it, research shows.

And the middle classes are the most guilty, committing a range of offences that could land them with a criminal record against business, the Government and their employers. A study found that of those who admitted an offence, nearly two-thirds (62 per cent) committed up to three, and 10 per cent owned up to nine or more offences.”

The Independent

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/article2705315.ece