• Blood on Many Hands


    Protests have sprung up around the country, indeed the world,in response to the police killings of Michael Brown, Eric Garner, Tamir Rice, John Crawford, Kajieme Powell and many others.  As a result, police executives across the nation spearheaded a conversation with government and the public about how to reform the institution of policing to ensure that such tragedies can be avoided in the future.

    Oh wait, that didn’t happen.

    Instead, a Cleveland police union President was given the spotlight and the microphone to lambast Browns receiver Andrew Hawkins for exercising his First Amendment rights and to declare the shooting of 12-year old Tamir Rice justified.  Since, Jeffrey Follmer has been lampooned on the Daily Show and voted out of his position.

    Follmer’s logic seemed to be that since Cleveland police provide security for the Browns, that Hawkins should not have disrespected them by wearing a t-shirt emblazoned with “Justice for Tamir Rice and John Crawford” onto the field.  As it turns out Follmer is not alone in his disdain for any discourse critical, or even skeptical, of the police interpretation of recent killings, corruption, etc.  Also taking full advantage of the current attention to such matters is Pat Lynch, President of the Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association (PBA) in New York City.  Lynch has accused the NYC mayor of “throwing cops under the bus” and the PBA has recently encouraged officers to sign a waiver that reads, in part: “I, as a New York City police officer, request that Mayor Bill de Blasio and City Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito refrain from attending my funeral services in the event that I am killed in the line of duty.”

    This tension came to a head as officers turned their backs on the mayor and Chief Bratton at a press conference following the fatal shootings of officers Wenjian Liu and Rafael Ramos Saturday.  A statement from Lynch proclaimed that “There is blood on many hands, from those who incited violence under the guise of protest all the way to the mayor’s office at City Hall,” and went on to exclaim how “those who allowed this to happen will be held accountable.”  A further statement allegedly from the PBA declares the NYPD to be a “wartime department,” and asserts that officers are to “act accordingly.”

    In an article for The Guardian, Steven Thrasher uses Mbembe’s concept of “necropolitics,” dealing with who has the power to kill in order to explain the interconnectedness of recent police violence and these recent acts of violence against police.  Police are in a unique position in that their violence is socially sanctioned and legitimated by the state.  The outrage over the grand jury decisions in the deaths of Michael Brown and Eric Garner has challenged the venerated position of police violence, ultimately challenging the institution as a whole in the minds of some.

    These challenges have put police on the defensive.  Decades of militarization, shifts in policing strategy, and a “war on drugs” exacerbated by a “war on terror” have created a culture within the police of combat with the society they are charged with protecting.  It is no wonder then that representatives of the police would rather express rage at their critics than dismay at the culture that fosters citizen outrage.  Police have been “at war” with the public for decades; recently the public has chosen to “fight back” with protests and direct action.  The tragic murder of two police officers as part of one man’s killing spree (let us not forget that his first victim was his ex-girlfriend who is as of this writing in critical condition, but expected to live) doesn’t negate the largely peaceful protests and reasonable demands of police critics.  Nor does the seemingly senseless violence committed by Ismaaiyl Brinsley negate the very real anger and frustration felt by communities of color, people with mental illness, and the poor and working class at their treatment by police in this country.

    As the protesters have tried for months to demonstrate, these issues are bigger than the actions of just one man.  They are systemic and systematic parts of the way in which policing operates in America.  If we are to move beyond this moment, we must make peace despite declarations of war and turn rage into positive action for change.

    Carl Root
    School of Justice Studies
    Eastern Kentucky University

    Stanislav Vysotsky
    Sociology, Criminology & Anthropology Department
    University of Wisconsin – Whitewater

  • Police Violence, Racism, and the State: Essays Related to the Ferguson and Staten Island Grand Jury Decisions and Subsequent Protests

    We’d like to give the first and last word to someone whose voice (and ability to talk right down to earth in a language that everybody here can easily understand) should be remembered in times like these:

    In November, many of us attended the annual American Society of Criminologists conference. This year it took place in San Francisco, California with a theme of “Criminology at the Intersections of Oppression,” which was fitting (or ironic) since San Francisco is one of the most vivid illustrations of inequality and injustice in the United States, indeed the world. Still, we got to converge on the city with some of our favorite criminologists from around the world and it was good.  There were several tributes to the late, great Jock Young and at least through one set of loops and spirals around the program a strong sentiment of “a moment for critical criminology” and of the importance of engaging with some sense of “left realism.”  One of the first panels of the week, entitled “What’s Left?” discussed the renewed relevance of a radical criminology in times like these and alluded to important collaborations between reform and revolution.  One particularly salient line was “we’ve got to realize that it is not counterrevolutionary to support policies that can free 1,000s of people from prisons and jails.”

    In spite of the overwhelming social and political injustice and inequality all around us, or perhaps because of it, there was a strong sense of the optimism of the will almost in spite of the old pessimism of the intellect.  Maybe it was due to this sense that radical and critical perspectives and analysis are crucial in combatting the kinds of social problems we find rapidly increasing all around us?  Einstein said that “those who have the privilege to know have the duty to act, and in that action are the seeds
 of new knowledge.”  We here at Uprooting Criminology certainly believe in planting seeds as much as hacking at the roots. So, in that regard we offer a series of blogs that attempt to apply some of those perspectives and analyses to current collective actions against the state’s role in perpetuating those problems.

    Jock Young encouraged us to revisit C. Wright Mills, and especially the concept of “personal troubles and public issues”.  He called it “the criminological imagination”. When we see thousands (millions?) take to the streets to protest the structural inequalities and injustices embodied in the micro-level interactions between Michael Brown and Darren Wilson, Eric Garner and Daniel Panteleo, Tamir Rice and Timothy Loehmann, and many others we can’t help but think that perhaps the criminological imagination of a nation is slowly, but perhaps surely, reawakening.  Likewise, we can imagine the possibilities should this be the case.

    “Another world is not only possible, she is on her way. On a quiet day, I can hear her breathing.” – Arundhati Roy

    What follows is a summary of the reactions and analysis presented in this blog over the last few weeks.

    In “The Day After: Confronting Political Policing in Ferguson” Carl Root summarizes the relevance of an earlier Critical Essay by Victor Kappeler on the promise and aftermath of the 1960s protest movements.  Carl points out the pattern noted by Kappeler that the hope of the civil rights and antiwar movements were met with increasing state violence and control.  The situation seems to be replaying itself in the aftermath of grand jury decisions in the deaths of Michael Brown and Eric Garner with heavy police presence and the deployment of National Guard troops in Ferguson.

    The raw emotion of the moments before and after the Ferguson grand jury decision is captured beautifully in Deborah Landry’s piece “Flash Bang Policing.”  In place of the often dry material of scholarly analysis, she offers music and the reminder that the “nostalgic notion of the ‘good cop’ never existed.”

    Gary Potter provided a critical summary of the Ferguson grand jury decision in “The Ferguson Grand Jury and the Coercive State.”  He systematically demonstrates the unwillingness of the criminal justice system – in the form of the office of the prosecutor and the Ferguson police – to adequately pursue this case.  The analysis points not to individual failures, but to the systematic (and systemic) use of state violence to uphold white supremacy and a racial order throughout this nation’s history.

    Most recently, Carl Root shared his personal experience with police use of force in “Police Violence and PTSD.”  This highly personal account points to the ease with which police turn to violence in order to achieve compliance and the traumatic effects it has for victims.  His piece also locates his survival and subsequent ability to successfully challenge the state in white privilege.

    Back in September, Richard Thomas dispelled myths about equality in the American criminal justice system and Carl Root offered some supplements to the Ferguson Syllabus. Shortly thereafter, Danielle McDonald urged us to talk about Ferguson, and Kishonna Gray critiqued the way that the “Boogeyman of blackness” is a spectre haunting American policing, and offered suggestions as to how this might be addressed. 

    We invite you to return to this page or the main blog index for our continuing analysis and response to the ongoing issues of police violence and police racism.  There is no better way to end than how we started.

    Carl Root
    School of Justice Studies
    Eastern Kentucky University

    Stanislav Vysotsky
    Sociology, Criminology & Anthropology Department
    University of Wisconsin – Whitewater

  • Police Violence and PTSD

    Uncle Sam image: I want you to care about PTSD.

    In May 2009, I was a victim of police violence.  Initially, my encounter with two officers seemed to be one of a failure to communicate.  Unfortunately, this issue escalated quickly and as more officers arrived I experienced nearly every stage of the “use of force continuum.”  Even after being handcuffed and placed in the backseat of a police car, I continued to be assaulted with fists, pepper spray and a TASER.  The next morning at the county jail, a pretrial officer informed me that I had been charged with 3 misdemeanors: alcohol intoxication, disorderly conduct, and resisting arrest and 1 felony: assaulting a police officer.  Having committed none of these crimes, I “lawyered up” and fought the charges.  The grand jury chose to indict me on only two of the charges, which were then subsequently dismissed by a District Judge with prejudice.

    After the criminal case was over, I brought my own charges against the officers, their supervisor, and the City that gave them authority.  The confidentiality agreement I signed mandates that all I can really say about how that turned out is that “the matter was resolved.”

    Legally speaking, I suppose that is the case.  However to say that “the matter was resolved” still stings a bit to this day.  After the beating, and during both the criminal and civil parts of the case, I was treated for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.  All of the major symptoms were present — fear, bad dreams, flashbacks, hyperarousal, anxiety, anger, the whole bit.  By extension, my family and friends were vicariously traumatized, none more so than my wife who witnessed the whole event all while trying, in vain, to utilize conflict resolution skills learned through her career as a nurse.

    Still, after a few years had passed I was able to look back reflexively on my experience and to think about how it might be similar to, and different from, others’ violent encounters with police.  Drs. Jeff Ferrell of Texas Christian University and Wilson Palacios at the University of South Florida helped me turn this exercise into an autoethnography that became my first peer-reviewed publication.  We called it an exercise in cathartic criminology and cultural victimology and titled it “Brutal Serendipity.”  Part of the article dealt with negotiating the victim identity, and the way many victims of violence find strength by instead claiming a survivor identity.

    It was earlier today while reading Twitter posts associated with the #crimingwhilewhite hashtag that the extent of my serendipitous survival became most evident. I hesitate to call it a privilege because shouldn’t it be a human right to expect not to be beaten, or worse, by those sworn to serve and protect us? Still, when seeing the news surrounding Michael Brown, Eric Garner, Tamir Rice, John Crawford and others, I must admit that I feel quite fortunate to be alive.

    And today, on the anniversary of the murder of Fred Hampton by Chicago Police and in the wake of the non-indictment in the killing of Eric Garner by Officer Daniel Panteleo of the NYPD I think about Dr. King’s statement about how “a riot is the language of the unheard.”  Likewise, I wonder where the social psychologists are with regard to translating this language and interpreting its meaning as it pertains to police legitimacy, or the lack thereof, in communities repeatedly oppressed, silenced, and traumatized by police violence.  I think about the anger, the fear, and the anxiety I felt after a severe beating and for months, even years, afterward and I can relate to Michael Brown’s stepfather’s blurting out “burn this bitch down” and Esaw Garner’s “Hell, no.”

    What I cannot wrap my mind around, no matter how hard I might try, is how much more exponentially traumatic such experiences must be when compounded by generations of systemic and systematic brutality and oppression.  According to the National Institute of Mental Health, “reliving the trauma over and over” is a major symptom of PTSD. “Some people get PTSD after a friend or family member experiences danger or is harmed” and “The sudden, unexpected death of a loved one can also cause PTSD.” Also, “Children and teens can have extreme reactions to trauma” and “Sometimes large numbers of people are affected by the same event.”

    While I would like to believe that current events and their associated protests and proposed reforms will lead to the kind of social change that could give whole populations the possibility of becoming survivors, rather than victims, of state violence…I am hardly optimistic.

    Instead, I think of my own privilege.  My attorney said more than once “if anyone has a chance to win a case like this, it’s you.  You’re not the usual suspects.”

    In America, “the usual suspects” is a phrase chock full of racial and class-based bias.

    In America, “the usual suspects” are 21 times more likely to be killed by police.

    In America, a camera documenting excessive force by departmental standards leading to homicide as declared by a coroner is not sufficient to indict.

    Not when the victim is one of “the usual suspects.”

    Apparently, “the usual suspects” category even includes 12 year olds.  Hell, even 2 year olds.

    I would go on, but I’m feeling that old familiar fear, and like so many others in this traumatized nation right now, #icantbreathe.

    Carl Root
    School of Justice Studies
    Eastern Kentucky University

  • The Ferguson Grand Jury and the Coercive State

    Juxtaposed images of Mike Brown and Darren Wilson

    There are so many obvious things to say about the grand jury investigating the Michael Brown shooting that I was reluctant to write this piece because they are so egregiously apparent. But in the past few days I have been stunned by the amount of confusion among friends for whom I have respect. That confusion was created by the media, the police and the prosecutor. So I am compelled to make a few observations from the Grand Jury report itself.

    First, this was without doubt the strangest presentation of evidence by a prosecutor in the history of grand juries. It is the prosecutor’s responsibility to present the evidence which demonstrates probable cause that a crime was committed, not to present the evidence for the defense nor to prove guilt. In this case the prosecutor:

    1. Allowed the person being investigated to testify, although he did not ask him relevant questions about whether Michael Brown was running away or had his hands up when he shot. He allowed Darren Wilson to comment at great length about his personal fear of large, African American males and asked him leading question after leading question, apparently fearing he would get his story wrong.
    2. Presented contradictory eyewitness testimony. Some might think that fair until you read the grand jury report. He failed to ask relevant questions almost half of the time and he presented evidence from two witnesses who he knew were lying (see below).
    3. He did not present relevant forensic and medical evidence and failed to point out egregious violations of police procedure.

    Let me be clear about that last point. The police investigation was a farce:

    1. Darren Wilson was allowed to drive himself back to the police station alone.
    2. He washed up before being photographed. It is interesting to note that on the police station surveillance video he appears to be unharmed at all. But after “washing up” a small bruise appears on the right side of his face.
    3. Darren Wilson bagged and logged in his own evidence.
    4. Police interrogation of Darren Wilson was not taped.

    To say that all of these are gross violation of police practice is an understatement. But it gets worse. Wilson testified that Brown struck him while he was in his SUV and therefore he feared that he would die from the blows being administered. First of all, the hospital report cites a minor bruise on Wilson’s face. I and many of you have been punched over the years and looked much worse than the police photograph of the alleged injury. Second, if Wilson was sitting in his SUV Michael Brown would have to have been sitting on his lap to strike him on that side of his face. Third, it is possible to throw a jab through the open window of a vehicle but not a haymaker. Fourth, of those six witnesses who were asked whether Brown approached the SUV, two stated it was Wilson who grabbed him and pulled him toward the vehicle. Another five witnesses said it never happened and fourteen eyewitnesses were never asked the question by the prosecutor.

    The prosecutor never pursued the issue of Wilson’s apparent lack of preparation and inept police procedure either. Wilson testified that he couldn’t find his mace. Well, where was it? It goes on his holster where every other police officer carries it. Wilson testified he forgot his Taser. Really? To say that a police officer forgot a weapon is at best an unbelievable anomaly. He was driving an SUV, a very large vehicle with a gas pedal. Are we truly to believe he was defenseless? And finally, when he did shoot he was a considerable distance from Michael Brown. Surely he learned in the police academy how to move out of danger.

    The medical examiner did not even diagram or measure the crime scene because he said “I thought it was obvious what happened.” What?!? As Cyril Wecht, one the best forensic investigators in the country said, the physical evidence actually presented makes the case clearly a homicide. So it appears that what is obvious depends on whether you have the slightest idea of what you are doing.

    To me the eyewitness testimony is relatively clear. I present it below.

    Question Eyewitnesses answering yes Eyewitnesses answering no Eyewitnesses who did not now Eyewitnesses not asked the question by prosecutors
    Was Michael Brown running away from Darren Wilson when fired upon? 15/54% 5/18% 0/0% 8/29%
    Did Michael Brown put hands up when fired open? 16/57% 2/7% 3/11% 7/25%
    Was Michael Brown kneeling when fired upon? 7/25% 6/21% 3/11% 12/43%
    Did Michael Brown charge at police car or police officer? 6/21% 5/18% 3/11% 14/50%

    There are several key points to be made from the eyewitness testimony. First it is clear that Michael Brown was moving away from Darren Wilson and had his hands up. Therefore, he posed no threat to the police officer. Second, the suggestion that Michael Brown charged the officer or his SUV is weak at best. It is actually even weaker than the numbers suggest because a careful reading of the testimony of two of the witnesses answering in the affirmative revealed that one of them wasn’t even there and another admitted that she was suffering from mental illness, had racist beliefs and often believed things that turned out not to be true. In addition, the implication of the question was that Michael Brown was attacking the officer, but two of the witnesses said the opposite, that Darren Wilson grabbed Michael Brown and pulled him to the SUV. Third it is clear that the prosecutor had no interest in determining the truth because he failed to ask relevant questions to eyewitnesses 25-50% of the time. It could be inferred that he knew their answers would not help him avoid an indictment.

    The prosecutor did everything possible to avoid an indictment even though probable cause, which is not guilt, made an indictment a slam dunk.

    But, the real issue here is not Darren Wilson or the grand jury. The point here is state violence. We live in a society in which the only response to social crises is massive state violence and coercion both at home and abroad. We have destroyed the social safety net; we have forced young people, the poor and the unemployed into low wage jobs with little or no job security. Socially excluded and marginalized populations now dominate the social structure, particularly in urban areas. These groups become the targets of the law and the police. Urban areas are segregated into secure, protected “gated” locations and “wild zones,” areas beyond the capacity of the state to control or regulate. Everyday life looks more like the 1850s rather than the 21st Century. A frenzied war on its own population becomes the last gasp of a dying system of state sovereignty. The desperate foraging for short term profit and capital becomes the last gasp of an economic system that can no longer expand, no longer produce, and must therefore consume itself as its only source of wealth. The United States in late modernity has entered an era of “destructive self-reproduction” where it eats itself to sustain its failing life. Crises and economic dislocations have become permanent features of the system, rather than episodic crises like the Great Depression. These crises are spreading across both time and space creating an endemic, permanent crisis. And society’s response is a pervasive fear of the mythical “other” and pervasive state violence under the color of law as the only response. It is virtually impossible for the contemporary American state to respond to the politics of rage with any policy other than repression and the use of coercive state power.

    Gary Potter
    Professor, School of Justice Studies
    Eastern Kentucky University

  • Flash Bang Policing

    Angry and inspired by several cases of senseless violence against youth, I wrote this song as an attempt to critique how we talk about ‘heroes’.

    As I write this blog post about this song, it is 15 minutes before a grand jury in Ferguson will announce if it has decided to lay charges against Darren Wilson in the August shooting of Michael Brown. Although the verdict has been passed down, officials are holding off on the press release until 8pm, prime time viewing: not a coincidence. Flash bang grenades make for better TV in the night time.

    I offer this song to suggest that the nostalgic notion of the “good cop” never existed, except in our cultural imagination. Nostalgic ideals about “good cops” and “bad kids” prevents us from thinking about these undeniable patterns as systematic violence. Yes, it is messy thinking…

    Certainly mass media has changed since the “good old days”: social media and mainstream news accounts circulate, refract, escalate and curate those narratives that burn on the least amount of fumes. And when all this comes to rest, please remember this: “Lyndsay Duncombe@lyndsayd: Hearing first calls of ‘hands up, don’t shoot’ across from #ferguson police station. Still more media than protesters. #cbc.”

    Deborah Landry, PhD
    Department of Criminology
    University of Ottawa

  • Crime and Justice in the South: Considering the Legacy of the Past and the Outlook for the Future

    Klan rally in Gainesville, FL
    Klan rally in Gainesville, FL

    Klan rally in Gainesville, FL

    The above title is the theme for this year’s Southern Criminal Justice Association Conference to be held in Clearwater, Florida.  Just north of Clearwater in Fruitland Park echoes of the legacy of crime and justice in the South are currently making news.  It is there that Deputy Chief David Borst and officer George Hunnewell resigned and were dismissed respectively after an FBI report indicated that they were members of the Ku Klux Klan.  Just a few miles east of Fruitland Park is the city of Sanford made infamous recently when 17-year old Trayvon Martin was shot and killed by George Zimmerman.

    Actually, that’s not true.  It is certainly true that George Zimmerman shot and killed Trayvon Martin.

    However, Sanford, as with much of Florida, has historically had plenty of infamy to go around.  Particularly with regard to racism masked (or hooded) as justice.  In fact, Jackie Robinson was run out of Sanford with threats of violence in 1946.  Five years later, the founder of the local chapter of the NAACP Harry Tyson Moore and his wife Harriette were murdered; their house firebombed on their 25th wedding anniversary. In A Festival of Violence: An Analysis of Southern Lynchings, 1882-1930, Tolnay and Beck reported that the Sunshine State had the highest per capita percentage of lynchings in the nation.

    More recently in 2009, an officer from the Fruitland Park Police Department, James Elkins, resigned after documents surfaced identifying him as a recruiter for the Klan.  The Imperial Wizard of the United Northern and Southern Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, Cole Thornton, explained how their strict standards and moral codes as well as “the fact that we support law enforcement” drew police to the Klan.  Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center says he has no evidence to support Thornton’s claims of extensive police membership in the KKK, but says concerns about immigration and the election of Barack Obama have certainly increased recruitment for hate groups.

    In 1990, Hubert Williams and Patrick V. Murphy published their “Minority View” response to Kelling and Moore’s “Evolving Strategy of Policing.” In so doing, they describe the latter as “disturbingly incomplete” due to the fact that “it fails to take account of how slavery, segregation, discrimination, and racism have affected the development of American police departments—and how these factors have affected the quality of policing in the Nation’s minority communities.”  Three years later, KRS-One provided a hip hop interpretation of this history.

    It will be interesting to see whether or not this is the legacy of the past discussed at this year’s conference in Clearwater.  If so, given recent and current events it may be difficult to avoid the Orwellian outlook for/vision of the future.  If not, that old saying about historical knowledge, repetition and doom seems appropriate.

    Carl Root
    Lecturer at the School of Justice Studies Eastern Kentucky University
    Doctoral Candidate in Criminology and Criminal Justice University of South Florida

  • But, If you Can’t Trust the Police … Statistical Fraud and American Policing

    Whenever the media report on crime they tend to rely on official statistics supplied by the police.  In the 1990s, police agencies took their production of reported crime and arrest statistics to a new level in an attempt to demonstrate that policing was both effective, and new “scientific” analyses of crime reports would make them even more effective.

    By 2000, about 33% of American police agencies were implementing these new forms of statistical alchemy under names like Comp Stat, Citi Stat, Fast Track, and Powertrac.  The new forms of statistical reporting resulted in a flurry of “scholarly” publications using the new data and analyses to tell us what was working in policing.

    The problem is that most thinking criminologists had always been suspicious of police-produced data.  With the advent of Comp Stat, and the other modes of analysis, scholarly skepticism should have been even greater.  Previously, police departments made the crime rate increase or decrease at will depending on how they recorded crime, or if they recorded crime at all.

    Now the opportunity for obfuscation was even greater, and police departments around the country seized the opportunity with unbridled enthusiasm.

    • In 1996, the Atlanta police forgot to include 22,000 reported crimes in their data to help make the city look safer for the Summer Olympics.

    • In 1998, my old friends in the Philadelphia police department faced a Department of Justice investigation for under-reporting crime.  Police commanders admitted that the practice made politicians and department superiors happy and advanced their career prospects.

    • In 2000, the Sex Crimes Unit in Philadelphia simply took no action on thousands of reported rapes and sexual assaults, driving the crime rate down and solving crime by deleting it.

    • In 2003, the New Orleans police department downgraded hundreds of major felonies to “miscellaneous incidents.”

    • In 2005, the Broward County Florida sheriff’s office systematically downgraded crimes, and began a practice of only charging suspects with one offense even if they had been arrested for multiple offenses. This was part of a campaign to convince local, small municipalities to abolish their own police departments and enter into a contract relationship with the sheriff’s department.

    • In 2010, as part of a survey conducted by John Jay over half of the 309 retired NYPD officers interviewed, most of who had been precinct commanders when Comp Stat was initiated, admitted they routinely manipulated their precincts’ crime statistics. They reduced felonies to misdemeanors or simply didn’t report crimes at all to make their “effectiveness” look better than it was.

    • In 2011, it was revealed that in Milwaukee police records clerks had been instructed to change computer codes to reduce the reported violent crime rate.

    Creating phony crime statistics is easy and it is done repeatedly. The methods used are obvious:

    -Crime reports aren’t recorded or filed.

    -Felonies are reclassified as misdemeanors.

    -Property values are downgraded so the crime is not considered a felony.

    -A series of criminal acts are recorded as an isolated single event.

    -Rapes are recorded as “inconclusive incidents.”

    -Unsuccessful assaults with guns where the shooter missed are classified as “criminal mischief.”

    -Domestic violence incidents are downgraded to less serious charges.

    There is really nothing new in all of this. In the 1970s, Richard Nixon convinced Congress to pass in Omnibus Crime Bill as a “trial run” covering only Washington, D.C.  Criminologists for the most part scoffed at the legislation, which most felt would do nothing to reduce crime.

    When D.C. crime rates plummeted, Nixon took credit and Congress took the bait and extended the legislation nationwide.  Of course, what happened was that crime had not declined at all.  Police simply reported the value of property lost in almost every case of theft and larceny as $49, $1 short of the value which would have made those crimes felonies.

    It is also obvious that police can make crime rise at will.  In 2008, the Phoenix police department played on unfounded public fears about immigration and crime when they reported 358 kidnappings in the city.  They claimed there was a kidnapping for ransom every night, and that these crimes would spread to every border town.

    Right-wing commentators like Bill O’Reilly and Lou Dobbs began calling Phoenix the “kidnapping and murder capital of the United States.” The federal government chipped in $2.4 million in grants to fight the kidnapping menace. But, alas, when the Office of the Inspector General looked at the kidnapping numbers they found the real number to be about 190, and most of them were not “kidnappings for ransom.”

    In the end it turned out that the violent crime rate in Phoenix had been plummeting, and it was one of the safest cities in the country.  At the most basic level, virtually all officially produced crime data contains a considerable amount of error and outright fraud. We’ve known that for years.

    What is shocking is when the media and police “scholars” use data they know to be tainted as a measure of either crime or law enforcement effectiveness.  If we were recording that behavior, we could code it as “serial fraud.”

    Gary Potter, PhD
    Professor, School of Justice Studies
    Eastern Kentucky University

  • A Date That Should Live in Infamy


    Last night, on the eve of the 29th anniversary of the event, PBS premiered the documentary film “Let the Fire Burn” by Jason Osder.  The film relies primarily upon archival footage to present a powerful piece of American history often unknown to many Americans.  Like the event itself, Osder’s documentary provokes unsettling questions about issues of police violence particularly at the intersections of race, class, culture and politics.


    Local listings, clips from the film and a link to a discussion thread, “Talkback,” can be found here:



  • Forget the NSA: Police May be a Greater Threat to Privacy

    While revelations of domestic spying by the National Security Administration (NSA) have captured media and public attention, far less coverage has been given to the growing number of invasions of privacy by local and state police agencies. A recent report by the Verizon Corporation (2014) disclosed an unprecedented and growing number of police requests for information about Americans’ private communications. Although the report reveals massive surveillance and information review by police, the report was not met with the same media frenzy afforded disclosures of the NSA metadata collection program. In many ways, however, the growing number of police requests for private communications information can be more consequential and involve more extensive invasions of personal privacy than some NSA activities.

    The Verizon Corporation’s report shows that in the last year alone, American law enforcement officials made at least 321,545 requests for private information about their customers. This is the number of requests police officials made to a single communications company in just one year. These requests for information about Verizon customers were categorized by predication as court orders, warrants, subpoenas and “emergency situations.” The reported number of requests by law enforcement during 2013 and their categorization is presented in the table below:

    Law Enforcement Demands for Customer Data – United States (2013)

    Subpoenas                                                                                    164,184

    Orders                                                                                             70,665

         62,857 General Orders

         6,312 Pen Registers/Trap & Trace Orders

         1,496 Wiretap Orders

    Warrants                                                                                          36,696

    Emergency Requests from Law Enforcement                       50,000 (approx.)

    Total                                                                                               321,545

    National Security Letters (NSL)                                                  1000-1999

    Source: http://transparency.verizon.com/us-data

    Of the 321,545 law enforcement requests made to Verizon, 54,200 of these requests were for “content” or “location” information—not just cell phone numbers or IP addresses. Content information included the actual text of messages, emails and the wiretapping of voice or messaging content in real-time. Location information usually consisted of either information about a customer’s cell phone keying of communications towers or a “cell tower dump” of data that included all of the numbers and names of people who connected to a specific tower during a particular timeframe (AT&T, Verizon and Sprint together gave police more than 9,000 cell tower data dumps in 2012). 

    Verizon also reported they received between 1,000 and 2,000 National Security Letters (NSL). An NSL is a request by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) for information relevant to a national security investigation. These letters often contain non-disclosure directives.  Companies like Verizon are restricted from releasing the actual number of security letters they receive, but can apparently report a range. While it is impossible to determine the actual number of requests made by federal law enforcement officials, it is a safe bet that local and state police, as opposed to national spy agencies and federal law enforcement, made the vast majority of all requests for private customer information.

    To understand the threat to privacy that the Verizon report illustrates, one has to put the company’s disclosures in a broader context. The Verizon report drastically underestimates the massive invasion of privacy by law enforcement, and is silent on how police use the information they obtain from such requests. 

    First, one has to take into account critical information about Verizon and how the company’s disclosure underestimates the magnitude of police invasions of privacy. Verizon is one of America’s largest broadband and telecommunications companies, generating more than 106.6 billion in revenues annually. The company controls about 101.2 million wireless connections in the United States and has more than 94 million wireless customers. According to the CTIA Wireless Association (2013) there are about 326.4 million wireless subscriber connections in the US and more than 290 million wireless users. Although the percentages vary, Verizon’s share of this market represents about 30 percent of all wireless connections and about 32 percent of all wireless users. One must keep in mind that connections are not users, and many people share Internet connections or cell phones. Based on these crude figures, and assuming that law enforcement requests for private information are evenly dispersed across all telecommunication companies, police may be requesting private information on over a million connections every year—and that number is growing annually (see also, Huffington Post 2014).  This, however, is only the tip of the proverbial iceberg because no one knows the actual number of people who have had their privacy invaded, or for that matter the depth of the invasion, based on requests by police.    

    Second, one has to take into account information about law enforcement and the criminal investigative process to illustrate the scope of privacy invasions. While some people may take comfort knowing that many of the requests by police officials for private information were made based on the issuance of a warrant or court order (presumably supported by probable cause), criminal investigations rarely stop at or are limited to reviewing information obtained from judicially approved requests. Also, many communications companies like AT&T will provide police with information without a warrant (see, Huffington Post, 2014) and one should keep in mind that AT&T, Sprint Nextel and Verizon are the very companies Congress gave blanket immunity to for warrantless wiretapping of customers which “covered-up years of deliberate surveillance crimes by the Bush administration and the telecom industry…” (Greenwald, 2008).

    It is not only those individuals suspected of crime who fall under police surveillance when telecommunications companies grant information requests. According to Pew Internet (2011), the typical Internet user has about 634 social ties in their overall communications network. So when police obtain information about an IP address, a cell phone number, or the keying of a cell phone tower, they have access to hundreds of people’s private information. By way of example, if police agencies obtain the records of all cell phones that key a particular tower, depending on the location and time period in question, this could result in hundreds or even thousands of private records coming under some level of police inspection. Just driving in the vicinity of a crime scene, or making a phone call near an investigation site, can bring you under the watchful eye of the police.

    Of course, investigations do not end with the police obtaining a list of the phone numbers that keyed a certain cell tower. Many innocent people can be caught up in the investigative process that comes after law enforcement officials obtain the initial information they seek. Cell phone numbers are matched to names and vehicle information and criminal histories can be obtained by any police officer through the FBI’s National Crime Information Center (NCIC). Likewise, follow-up investigations can be conducted and police may talk to employers, friends and associates of the people they are investigating. Everyone who may have had contact with the investigative target can come under some level of police scrutiny—all this occurring under the aegis of an investigation supposedly targeting a single individual or a small group of suspects. The same process holds true for cases where requests are made for text messages and IP addresses. Everyone who has texted a targeted number, or who has had an exchange with the targeted IP address, may come under some level of police scrutiny.

    Last, we must return to the volume of privacy intrusions. Based on the data that Verizon reported, one can estimate that there are about 1 million official requests made by law enforcement to telecommunications companies every year. If we assume that Americans have only half the social connections reported by Pew Internet, the police could be bringing as many as 317 million social and communicative connections under some level of review each and every year. This level of surveillance represents a dramatic change in the capacity of the police to become involved in the everyday life of American citizens.

    While the public and the more critical sectors of the media are certainly right to see the NSA as a threat to civil liberties, privacy, and personal freedoms, police agencies may be the greater and even more consequential threat to your privacy.

    Victor E. Kappeler, Ph.D.

    Associate Dean and Foundation Professor

    School of Justice Studies

    Eastern Kentucky University











  • Policing Political Upheaval in the 1960s and Today: Which Side Are You On?*

    The 1960s were a time of great change and great contradiction—a time of youthful optimism as well as political failure. Optimism was fueled by the idealism of millions of young people who profoundly shaped the American culture with their hopes of political and social change. Political failure was ensured by a lack of understanding what it takes to bring about meaningful political change and naivety about just how powerful vested interests were in American society.

    These contradictions were perhaps best personified in President John F. Kennedy. President Kennedy tapped into youthful enthusiasm when he challenged an entire generation to “ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.” His new Peace Corps attracted thousands of energetic young people who believed in their collective ability to change the world. If the new Liberal President was to be believed, the eradication of poverty, inequity, sexism, racism and social injustice were all with the nation’s reach.

    However, under the veneer of a new American era of liberalism hid a very sinister geopolitical agenda. Secretly, Kennedy authorized a plan, first developed by President Dwight D. Eisenhower, to have CIA operatives invade and overthrow Cuba (at the Bay of Pigs), he funded the expansion of USAID to give the CIA cover to work in foreign countries training police in the arts of torture and counterinsurgency, and he expanded America’s involvement in the Vietnam War. The contradictions between the political rhetoric and the use of state power out-lived the young president and eventually found expression in domestic clashes between police and activist groups throughout the country.

    Despite Kennedy’s assassination in 1963, his successor, Lyndon B. Johnson, announced his commitment to carry on Kennedy’s civil rights agenda, embodied in the Great Society programs that were supposedly designed to promote equality between Blacks and Whites and narrow the gap between the rich and poor. This was the era when Martin Luther King’s dream of a colorblind society was actively promoted and many hoped, would flourish. It was also a time when Malcolm X was thrust onto the national stage by his public denouncement of the beating of a young Black man at the hands of two NYPD officers as calls for both non-violent and violent acts of resistance against the establishment manifested in the same struggle for change. 

    Rather than achieving the justice so many sought, however, just a few short years following Kennedy’s death, the nation was instead plunged into civil disorder. The political establishment and its policing institution encountered a most formidable challenge—a direct and frontal assault on their legitimacy. The civil rights and Vietnam antiwar movements, as well as the emerging youth culture, effectively merged two groups that had previously been socially and politically separated—minorities, particularly Blacks and Latinos, and urban and suburban middle-class White youth. The convergence of these two powerful social groups constituted a political movement, which confronted policing directly. Talk of revolution filled the air, as cities burned, and crime rates soared. The Civil Rights Movement and decades of racial and economic oppression, especially at the hands of predominately White police, spawned the militant Black Power Movement, which included groups such as the Black Panthers, whose bloody back and forth clashes with police heightened tensions across the country.

    Race riots, often sparked by decades of economic hardship and unthinkable police brutality, erupted summer after summer—in Watts, Newark, Detroit, Chicago, then in cities nationwide in the spring of 1968 when Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated. Meanwhile, protests on college campuses were met with increasing violence by the state, as the focus narrowed to the pressing issues of the Vietnam War and the forced draft of poor and working class people. Returning veterans of the Vietnam War added fuel to the fires by publicly recounting the horrors of the war and denouncing American atrocities in Vietnam. The nightly news was filled with images of students, armed with lists of nonnegotiable demands, taking over university administration buildings only to be met with riot police unleashing dogs and lobbing tear gas into crowds.

    The State’s response was overwhelmingly violent and at times verged on open warfare. The Black Panthers were targeted and often killed by the police; military units were called out to control student protests and at Kent State and Jackson State Universities, national guardsmen killed students. To many it appeared the battle lines were clearly drawn between the left and the right.

    The political upheaval pitted doves against hawks, poor Blacks against establishment Whites, students against the education system and the powerful against the seemingly powerless, in an atmosphere of increasing rage and fury. As representatives of the establishment whose job included maintaining the status quo, the police often found themselves on one side of the barricades facing any one of a number of widely diverse groups collectively known as the “New Left.” The New Left was a loose coalition of groups demanding a variety of social, economic, and political changes, under the overall umbrella term “social justice.” Their unifying slogans were “Power to the People” and “Bring the War Home.” The agenda ranged from free speech to ending the draft, sexual freedom and equality for people of color to rights for women and increasing recognition of the struggles of lesbians and gays. Protests covered the spectrum, from nonviolent sit-ins to bombings conducted by small, ultra-leftist groups like the Weathermen, who had split from Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) over the issue of using violence to bring about political change.

    The police clearly stood with the right on the political divide. To the police, the New Left was made up of mindless hippies, drug users and longhairs, a mix characterized as “spoiled college kids” and “draft-dodgers,” who had turned their backs on the country and culture that had subsidized them, and “murderous Black criminals,” who cloaked their “reverse racism” in rhetoric about equality. Perhaps the most dramatic confrontation occurred in Chicago during the 1968 Democratic National Convention, when TV cameras rolled as then Mayor Richard J. Daley ordered 23,000 police and National Guardsmen to wade into crowds of protesters. Wielding nightsticks and spraying mace, their badge numbers hidden by tape, police cracked heads in what investigative commissions would later call “police riots”—a confirmation of the New Left’s concern that the United States was turning into a police State.

    The optimism for social and political change that marked the 1960s and early 70s was to be thwarted, in no small measure, by the politically directed brute force of the police, rather than progressive political change or reform. Those on the political right issued calls for more “law and order”—which those on the left knew as a euphemism for violent police crackdowns on minorities and students while many on the liberal end of the spectrum tended to wring their hands.

    While the rhetoric of American politics has changed tremendously since the 1960s many of the underlying social tensions that kindled the fires of the “days of rage” continue to smolder, especially today as political leaders dismantle the remnants of the Great Society. The American impulse for foreign intervention persists today; the economic class divides too often marked by race, gender and differences in education as well as the ability to secure meaningful employment have not been bridged; and, the willingness of the state to wield police power to squash domestic dissent remains. 

    Today, on the geopolitical front, while the media obsesses over the flights of terrorist-hunting killer drones, covert CIA operations much like those witnessed in the early days of the Vietnam War flourish. Even as peace talks were carried out in Havana designed to bring an end to the decades old conflict in Colombia, the CIA was covertly assisting the Colombian government’s targeted killings of at least two-dozen leaders of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) providing the government both intelligence and  “smart” weapons used to carry out assassinations. The program was developed under President George W. Bush and continued under President Barack Obama.

    During the Syrian civil conflict, the CIA has provided training and weapons to “rebels” many of whom have direct ties to al-Qaeda terrorists. Taking on projects of his own, Obama, the “hope-change” president has extended the unending War on Terror to Pakistan and Yemen and speculation mounts that his CIA played an active role in the overthrow of the Libyan government. Military “advisors” have been deployed in Somalia. Destabilization efforts still persist in Iran, justified by hopes of a regime change that might foster what the US refers to as democratic ideals but the sectarian violence and the regime in power in neighboring Iraq call this into question.

    On the home front, as dubious talk of an improving economy fills the nightly news, social and economic injustices abound. The unemployment and underemployment rates are both extremely high with the young, women with children and people of color bearing the brunt of this economic hardship. The labor participation rate in the United States has fallen to a 30 year low with nearly 4 out of 10 Americans no longer participating in the work force. People are dropping out of the labor market as structural unemployment takes hold. As the stock market hits new highs, the number of homeless women and children continues to grow and more Americans are slipping into poverty. Economic inequity has reached levels that would make the Robber Barons of the Gilded Age envious.

    The Obama administration meanwhile is waging a domestic war on undocumented people quietly incarcerating and deporting people of color in greater numbers than any previous administration. Universities are under neoliberal assault to mask the reductions in government spending on higher education, making it more difficult for the poor to obtain an opportunity creating education. The people’s Congress has cut long-term unemployment benefits, welfare assistance and food stamps making it even more difficult for the poor to survive. As the nightly news informs us that the inflation rate is low and under control, it fails to inform its viewers that food costs have increased more than 30 percent since the economic down turn, and the media is silent on how this disproportionately affects the working poor and unemployed.  And as the so-called “one percent” prospers and corporations hoard unprecedented levels of cash, the majority of working class Americans has seen their standard of living drop.

    Even in the midst of the greatest economic down turn since the Depression, and while ordinary Americans suffer almost unprecedented economic hardships, we have witnessed an extraordinary and costly expansion of police power. Not only have the number of police officers patrolling the nations streets increased dramatically since the 1960s, but also they have become militarized and unshackled from many of their constitutional constraints. Even the pretense of a liberal legal order has been dropped in many cities. There is no better evidence of the new style of policing in America than the response to the Boston bombings. SWAT teams and armored vehicles occupied an entire community, and officers dressed in battle uniforms went door-to-door making warrantless searches of citizens’ homes.

    In New York City, just up the road, the police tirelessly and without constitutional constraint stop and frisk people of color, touting it as a necessary crime control, even antiterrorism, measure. The symbolic and politically disorganized resistance offered up by the “Occupy Movement” was met with the same coordinated and violent police response that marked the days of rage. News of domestic spying by the NSA has been leaked to the public, as if this were something new, and all the while very openly the state has been building ‘fusion centers’ across the county designed to collect domestic intelligence from local police, integrating the various agencies and blurring the lines of their respective constitutional mandates.

    Likewise, the parade of police killings and brutality goes unabated with the victims of these state crimes bearing marked similarity to those abused in the 1960s and 70s. Even as crime rates have declined to new forty year lows, the United States continues to expand its domestic policing apparatus while dismantling the legal protections from it.

    While police may prefer to see themselves outside all the social upheaval Americans are facing, as public sector workers they have also begun to suffer the harsh effects of our new political economy. In many cities police pensions have been diminished, employee benefits have been cut, and policing has undergone significant privatization and in some cases even outsourcing. Like all workers, police officers are under greater pressure to produce more while being compensated less. Wages for police officers have also been stagnant while the cost of living has increased. Opportunities for officer advancement have been curtailed by organizational changes in rank structures and police are not immune from the divisive political rhetoric that right-wingers use to demean public service workers. The common interests between police and other workers recently played out in Wisconsin where strikers and police joined to protest the state’s outlawing of public service unions.

    While no one knows for certain whether we will revisit the civil unrest that marked the 1960s and 70s, the conditions seem ripe for renewed rounds of domestic conflict. What is certain is that the police institution will play a pivotal role in the outcome of any new meaningful push for social and political change. With attacks on the public sector and municipal governments, police face an uncertain future. What remains to be seen is on which side of the barricades the police will stand the next time around.  

    Victor E. Kappeler, Ph.D.

    Associate Dean and Foundation Professor

    School of Justice Studies

    Eastern Kentucky University

    *The title is a reference to the song, “Which Side Are You On?” written by Florence Reece (1931) which was inspired by violent events surrounding the United Mine Workers Strike in Harlan County, Kentucky where Sheriff J. H. Blair terrorized Reece and her children on behalf of the mine owners in what was later call the Harlan County War.