Thread. Have you ever heard of "civil asset forfeiture"? You're never going to think about the police the same way again. (1)
A few years ago, when I was at the public defender's office, my very poor clients kept telling me the same story: they would be walking down the street and DC police would stop them, search them at gunpoint, tell them to open their wallets, and take all the cash they had. (2)
The wildest part? The DC police would then send them a letter saying that, if they wanted to challenge the police taking of their cash, they would need to pay either $250 or 10% of the amount taken, whichever was more! (3)
So, if police took $10 or $20 from someone, the person would need to pay $250 to even have the right to challenge the cops in court. If you couldn't pay, the cops kept your money. (4)
If you challenged them in court, you'd have to prove that your property was *not* somehow connected to a crime. Think about how hard that is. (5)
If you still wanted to challenge the DC police, they'd send a lawyer to litigate an entire civil asset forfeiture case against you, and you aren't entitled to a lawyer if you're poor because the cops call it a civil case not a criminal case. You have to fight them alone. (6)
Sure enough, when I examined the DC records, the cops had taken cash from thousands of people, almost entirely Black people. They'd also taken hundreds of cars from people, mostly older women of color. I couldn't find a single example of a person successfully challenging it. (7)
A lot of the time, cops were taking $5 and $30 from extremely poor people who were struggling to meet the basic necessities of life for their children, like buying food and diapers and shoes. (7)
In most places, there is no need for the cops to arrest you with civil forfeiture. There's no need for a conviction. They can just allege that your property is connected to a crime and take it. Then they can keep most of it for fancy weapons and corrupt travel junkets. (8)
To understand the scope of this problem, you should know that cops take more money from people in civil asset forfeiture than all burglaries combined in the U.S. (9) washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2…
The cops at the local, state, and federal levels across the country have taken almost $70 billion in civil forfeiture in the past 20 years! (10) ij.org/press-release/…
When cops ask you for more funding, remember that only 4% of all cop time is spent on what they call "violent crime." Next time they ask for money, remember the kafkaesque abuses at every U.S. police department and ask if cops actually care about safety for everyone. (end)
THREAD. Something important is happening in U.S. media that I think is getting insufficient attention, and the controversy around the Los Angeles Times refusing to endorse Kamala Harris amidst her support of an ongoing genocide gets at it.
As background, a lot of uproar ensued in mainstream media circles after @nikasoonshiong’s thread stated that she supported the decision of the paper owned by her father to refuse to endorse Harris and adding that, for her, genocide is a red line:
The mainstream media is, absurdly, attempting to equate WaPo’s refusal to endorse Harris with LA Times, even though they were done for different reasons. Subscriber numbers show normal people get that, with WaPo losing far more readers. Reasons matter:
Thread. Today’s front page in the New York Times is a good lesson in two of the most important tactics in propaganda.
First, notice the euphemism “pragmatism.” The idea that people who support enormous injustice and terrible policies are “pragmatic” is one of the most subtly ideological and dangerous characteristics of corporate news. This trope is used for decades.
People become unable to distinguish between someone who supports lofty values but who is wisely playing 4D chess by pretending not to support them for years versus someone who actually doesn’t support, say, universal health care, social security, peace, economic equality, etc
THREAD. Something very weird is going on at ProPublica. It's hard to tell whether a few well-meaning people are getting lost or whether there is a Copaganda sleeper cell inside the non-profit newsroom.
First, ProPublica is a public charity supposedly dedicated to "Investigative Journalism in the Public Interest." But in recent years, its reporters have peddled some of the most nefarious copaganda: fearmongering about not enough spending on prosecution supposedly causing crime.
In 2022, ProPublica journalist Alec MacGillis published one of the most shoddy articles of the post-George Floyd, early pandemic era. He claimed "the cause" of "the" violent crime "wave" were court backlogs. I explained how incoherent/dangerous this was: equalityalec.substack.com/p/when-good-jo…
A problem in our society is that people fail to draw inferences from facts. For example, it requires depravity to do what the Democratic Michigan Attorney General just did—make up a lie for the purpose of deceiving ordinary people on one of the most important topics of our time.
But the way the lie is reported and discussed by many people is not a serious effort to grapple with what it means for a person to intentionally try to distort other people’s experience of our world in support of violence and inequality.
A rule of thumb is to think hard about what kind of person thinks to themselves: I’m going to use my access to mass media to lie right now. And think about what kinds of reasons they have for the lie and who benefits—and tragically, whose lives are on the line because of it.
THREAD. One persistent form of propaganda is the refusal of corporate media to report critical context about judges when it reports on legal cases. Today's reporting on the TikTok case is a good example.
The entire New York Times article on the TikTok case is based on the supposed skepticism of two federal judges to TikTok's arguments, but the paper omits they are two of the most right-wing judges in the appellate judiciary, appointed by Trump and Reagan. nytimes.com/2024/09/16/tec…
The paper hides the political backgrounds and prior controversial positions and rulings of the two judges. It's as if "the law" is something neutral, that it doesn't matter who the judges are or who appoints them, that this is not a space where power is contested, etc.
THREAD. A brief story about California judges openly refusing to comply with the law tells you a lot of what you need to know about "the rule of law" in the United States.
Over the last few years, there have been three (3) major court rulings--two federal courts and a state court--finding the cash bail practices in San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Sacramento unconstitutional. A fourth case, from California Supreme Court, upheld the same principles.
The court cases all said something simple: it's unconstitutional to jail people away from their families after arrest solely because their families cannot access a cash payment for money bail. (Only U.S. and Philippines have for-profit bail industry.)