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. For over a decade, I've been working across the country to challenge unconstitutional cash bail. So, why is Trump trying to entrench it?
The for-profit cash bail industry exists only in U.S. and Philippines. Even though you're presumed innocent, you're stuck in a jail cell while you wait for your day in court if your family doesn't have cash to pay a private company to secure your release.
Basing bodily liberty on a person's access to cash destroys millions of lives. It makes us all less safe. It's unconstitutional. But it makes a lot of people a lot of money, and it gives huge leverage to prosecutors and police to force people to plead guilty in low-level cases.
THREAD. Today's article by New York Times reporter Devlin Barrett is a good example of how bad journalism can normalize authoritarianism. Let's look at a particularly egregious example.
These two paragraphs tell you a lot about the failures of contemporary journalism. Among many problems here, and with the article generally, I will highlight two huge ones for now.
First, through its choice of sources, lack of skepticism, and failure to provide contrary evidence or context, the article suggests that not letting stormtroopers illegally search and brutalize ordinary people "could hamper crime-fighting efforts for years to come."
THREAD. A subtle but pervasive propaganda technique is when the news adopts as the *actual* motive the *stated* motive of people in power.
Nobody with any knowledge or experience thinks Trump is in good faith taking over the DC police and mobilizing the military to “fight crime.” Indeed crime is at historic lows and “violent crime” is down 26% in DC from last year. So, why is the New York Times doing this?
Laundering the real reasons people in power do things by adopting their lies as assumed truth is among the most interesting and dangerous contemporary copaganda techniques. I devote almost entire chapter in the Copaganda book to it.
THREAD. Today's orders by Trump federalizing D.C. police and deploying National Guard in D.C. in response to "out of control" crime are authoritarian. But I want to comment on something subtle lurking beneath the surface.
As with most media/politician talk about "crime," it is completely divorced from reality. D.C. crime is at historic lows. What police call "violent crime" is down 26% since last year. More broadly, it's been at multi-decade, historic lows for years.
So, how is this possible? What lays the groundwork for such ludicrous claims? The news media has been fear-mongering for years. Indeed, in my Copaganda book, I have a very interesting section about prominent Washington Post journalists using this same "out of control" language.
THREAD. A recent poll shows that people in the United States suffer from mass delusion about crime. The results are alarming for Democrats. It should be a massive scandal for mainstream news, and it's a pillar of the authoritarian zeitgeist.
Only 9% of respondents correctly answered that murder rates in the U.S. have decreased a lot since 1990. today.yougov.com/topics/politic…
This is just simple "flat-earther" stuff. But it continues the broader fear-based delusion that has been gripping the population for years across a range of crime issues.
The level of ignorance among liberal pundits about surveillance technology, police violence, and authoritarianism is astonishing. Just no effort to understand important issues before commenting on them.
The idea that the problem with what ICE is doing now is that it lacks hundreds of millions of dollars for surveillance technology is utterly a wild thing for someone to utter in public. Just an incredible thing to focus liberal energy on.