In this Manhattan Institute piece, @RAVerBruggen says I tweeted, “murders are surging because an
entire profession would rather let people die than hold their colleagues accountable . . .
This is true! However, I was summarizing this article, which claimed cops have been quitting and de-policing because of the Chauvin fallout. That article was published by . . . the Manhattan Institute!
I actually *don't* think de-policing caused the murder surge.
(To be fair, I mistakenly failed to thread the quoted tweet to my previous tweet, which linked to the article. So it's entirely understandable why VerBruggen would mistakenly assume I was expressing my own opinion.)
One other correction: VerBruggen also writes that in the post below, I refer to de-policing as the "I’m-too-big-a-pansy-to-do-my-job meme."
This too is not quite right. As is pretty clear from the post . . .
. . .that phrase appears in a blockquote of Scott Henson, which I used as a jumping off point to discuss de-policing.
I *do* think the de-policing argument is a strange defense of law enforcement. But I wouldn't have put it quite the way Henson did. (No offense to Henson!)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
This @saletan piece indirectly hits on a big misunderstanding in how we interpret polling data about black attitudes toward police. It's true that when asked generically, black people express . . .
. . . more concern about crime, and say they want more police, and more funding to fight it.
However. The tradeoff in the "more cops, less crime" argument is that the approach to policing proponents claim reduces crime is the same type of policing that brings more ...
... encounters and low-level arrests -- and that black people specifically tell pollsters they *don't* want.
You can say, "But this time we'll hold them accountable!" You can say, "But they'll practice community-oriented policing, not stop & frisk!"
... served as jurors or witnesses. Our teacher was well-intentioned, not at all a Confederate sympathizer, and one of the better teachers at the school. His aim was to facilitate critical thinking. It worked. It got us all interested. We couldn't wait for our ...
... own turn to hold a slave trial, and we talked about it for years afterward.
But the trials typically involved a lot of Lost Cause-ism, and could degenerate into some ugly stuff. A common tactic on the pro side, for example, was to call "Charles Darwin" as an expert witness.
I'm on vacation, but I'll answer the @popehat challenge, here. I've been on the @FedSoc speaking list for about 10 years. In the mid-2000s, I'd estimate I spoke to about 4-5 law schools per semester, on topics from police militarization, to ...
... forensics, to prosecutor misconduct, to asset forfeiture, to wrongful convictions. I've always thought this was a credit to the group, since most (though certainly not all) of its members probably disagreed with me on those topics. Sometimes these were debates, but often ...
... it was just me speaking. And often, those talks were co-sponsored by the ACLU, black law student groups, the American Constitution Society, or other left-leaning groups. Which, again, I've always thought was a credit to both FedSoc and those groups.
The 10th Circuit just issued a new AEDPA opinion. The case isn't about innocence. Instead, it deals with a Wyoming law that allows for a lighter kidnapping sentence if the offender released the victim peacefully.
But the AEDPA discussion applies to innocence cases too, so it's worth looking at.
At issue is whether the burden should have been on the defendant or the state to show if the victim had been released peacefully. The dissent believes the state was wrong here.
Thing is, the majority doesn't even necessarily disagree. It's that it doesn't matter. Even if the state court is wrong, under SCOTUS AEDPA jurisprudence, a federal court can only overturn on a constitutional issue if “there is no possibility" that ...