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)
Not a single word in unanimous Supreme Court opinion mentioned the primary reason TikTok ban passed. The real reason was content-based, triggering a legal standard that would have struck it down. Very interesting dynamics on why TikTok decided not to press its strongest argument.
Leaders in both parties were extremely clear that it was motivated by the view that TikTok was making young people too pro-Palestine and genocide-aware. Now, of course, both parties are sounding very different after Gaza was destroyed and the news is talking about a ceasefire.
For many reasons, TikTok does not want to be seen as a place that spreads left ideas. Would be really interesting to learn more about who made the decision not to press the strongest legal arguments and how much the lawyers explained to the decision makers.
THREAD. It's important for all people of good will to understand the Laken Riley Act before the Senate votes on it tomorrow. It’s unconstitutional. It’s horrific in every word and clause. But there is a deeper, more imminent violence lurking beneath its hate-filled text.
First the background. The Laken Riley Act is unprecedented in modern U.S. history. It requires federal DHS bureaucracy to build billions in new infrastructure to cage any undocumented person *even accused* of petty theft, shoplifting, or several other property crimes.
A key aspect of the law is people are rounded up and put into mass caging facilities (built and usually run for profit) for a mere *accusation.* A person (even a child) need not be convicted, and they are taken from their families and jobs and churches and schools immediately.
THREAD. On Monday the New York Times let a reporter do something dishonest and unethical. It's important to unpack what happened.
First, background: NYT published an article about 2024 NYC crime rates, which went down significantly, including most important/reliable crime stat: murder. But NYT did something I call "the old switcheroo" in my Copaganda book.
In the above headline and in the very first paragraph, the paper emphasized assaults and rape as having increased, even though the crimes it most fearmongered about for years (murder, robbery, shootings, burglary, theft, etc.) went down a lot. But that's when things get weird.
Thread. The Atlantic reporter below reveals a particular kind of ignorance that is common among liberal people but important to see clearly.
His post is ludicrous in other ways many have pointed out: (1) role of U.S. media, gov, and corporate institutions is such that **this** genocide could have been/could be ended asap. (2) It's weird during genocide to criticize someone for not calling out other genocides.
Can you imagine choosing that your role as a journalist in an ongoing genocide funded and armed by the U.S. and repeatedly supported by your own magazine is to try to increase the social costs on those who are trying to get the attention of the world to stop it? It's depraved.
THREAD. There is a group of reporters at the New York Times who are intent on peddling copaganda whatever the consequences. The paper's Christmas Day crime article was one for the ages. It's a smorgasbord of propaganda tactics that I've covered, with some amusing new flourishes.
The premise is that New Mexico has a maverick Democratic governor who is fighting against all odds to expand policing, prosecution, and prisons. She's doing this, we are told, out of a genuine, laudable commitment to being "tough on crime" because she cares about our safety.
The villains in the article? Other Democrats in New Mexico who have dared to question (based on mountains of evidence) whether more police, prosecutors, and prisons will help address problems of housing, medical care, inequality, precarity, and safety. Enter the New York Times.
Thread. The New York Times coverage of the police search for the killer of the health insurance CEO is getting weird. One aspect of it is pretty dark.
A key feature of copaganda is that police and the news media attempt to use crises to increase the size, power, and profit of the punishment and surveillance bureaucracies. This has long been one of the creepiest things about it. They don’t let a good crisis go to waste.
In today’s fawning tribute to the NYPD’s surveillance system, the paper celebrates surveillance and even laments that New York does not have enough. That’s the thrust of the entire article.