I wrote about that viral video of a cop supposedly overdosing by touching fentanyl—a medically impossible feat—& the perils of media regurgitating state claims without scrutiny.
Recycling a police press release is not journalism.
What most every publication left out: You cannot overdose on fentanyl by touching it.
What about airborne transmission? It takes 200 minutes for unmasked workers who produce fentanyl to register a dose of 100 mcg, which is still not an overdose. reason.com/2021/08/09/san…
This isn't the first time this narrative has taken shape in the media—both locally & nationally—despite scientists screaming from the mountaintops that it's literally not possible.
There are a few possible explanations for the phenomenon. One is the "nocebo effect," the opposite of a placebo, where you panic over a drug bc you know it *could* be dangerous.
Copying and pasting a press release from the gov't is not good reporting. And it has real-world effects.
Fentanyl hysteria has contributed to extremely punitive punishments in connection with the drug. We've expanded the drug war based on a fantasy. reason.com/2021/08/09/san…
Media critics zero in on journalists for sensationalizing police stories & having a bias against cops.
There's some truth to those claims. But the reverse—media giving deference to cops without question—is also a problem, & it largely goes unnoticed. reason.com/2021/08/09/san…
It's not exclusive to faux drug overdoses.
Here's a @MiamiHerald headline from Nov about cops busting a "human trafficking" operation. The piece reads like an ad for the Tallahassee Police Dept. One problem: The actual police report shows a bunch of arrests for...prostitution.
Yet the @MiamiHerald glossed over that disconnect. The piece was written by their breaking news team—which has won several Pulitzers. Yet it's not unlike the journalism we saw this weekend.
This is an absolute horror story. These 3 Missouri men are serving life sentences for separate crimes that the government concedes they *did not commit*.
In a sane country, you'd be able to sue cops who violate your rights. A local legislature in NY wants to make sure that cops can sue you—potentially violating your rights in the process.
Nassau County legislators passed a bill allowing cops to sue people for a list of things, including "harassment," which would merit damages & an additional penalty of up to $50,000.
This isn't the first bill of its kind. Just last week, I wrote about a FL bill that would criminalize "indirect harassment" against cops if someone gets closer than 30 feet—effectively making it illegal to film them.
This bill would let cops sue protesters for *harassment*. And yet these same people say the public shouldn’t be able to sue cops who steal, destroy property, shoot children, & set people on fire. See the problem?
This is a wild story & a crash course in the powers police can so easily abuse: from the drug war, to surveillance, to botched warrants, to no-knock raids.
Texas cops raided the wrong home. They kept searching anyway.
Police got a warrant to raid Lucil Basco's home for drugs based on a confidential informant who told them the residence had meth.
She did not, in fact, have meth, but the police failed to do a basic investigation. reason.com/2021/07/30/qua…
They *did* surveil her thoroughly, however.
Officers conducted a traffic stop where "they searched her vehicle and learned that she is a nurse." And they watched her home where she lives with her small child. reason.com/2021/07/30/qua…
Gabriel Olivas was having a mental health crisis when police came to help. They knew he was doused in gas—and one warned that tasing him would set him on fire.
The other cops did it anyway. He was burned alive, & his family’s home burned along with him. reason.com/2021/06/28/qua…
Here’s where it gets rich. The 5th Circuit said the officers didn’t violate Olivas’ rights—when they set him & the home ablaze—because he posed a threat.
But the fire that endangered others was set in motion *because* of the cops…not in spite of them. reason.com/2021/06/28/qua…
An autopsy ruled it homicide by asphyxiation. The court was tasked with deciding whether or not it was "clearly established" that cops cannot apply such extreme force to a subject who isn't resisting.
Is there anything more ridiculous than qualified immunity?
What's most amazing is that the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the original ruling.
This is the same court that gave qualified immunity to prison guards who locked a naked inmate in cells covered in human feces & raw sewage. reason.com/2020/06/25/qua…