Patterico's Pontifications

8/19/2014

Pushing Back Against The Narrative

Filed under: General — Dana @ 5:36 pm

[guest post by Dana]

WSJ’s Jason Riley took the president to task over his recent comments about Ferguson:

Riley was happy that Obama brought up black crime, “but then he attributed that black criminality — he suggested it stems from poverty or a racist criminal justice system, which is nonsense.”

“The black crime rate in 1960 was lower than it is today,” he said. “Was there less racism or less poverty than in 1960? This is about black behavior. It needs to be addressed head-on. It’s about attitudes toward the criminal justice system in these neighborhoods, where young black men have no sense of what it means to be a male or what it means to be black.”

“And he needs to talk about that head-on,” Riley repeated, “not dismiss it as a product of poverty or racism, which is a dodge.”

Riley also rebuked “hustlers” like Michael Eric Dyson and Sharpton who are pushing what Riley refers to as the false narrative that “black men live in fear of being shot by cops in those neighborhoods.” He disagrees:

I know something about growing up black and male in the inner city,” Riley explained, “and it’s not that hard to avoid getting shot by a cop. They pull you over, you answer their questions. you’re on your way.”

“The real difficulty is not getting shot by other black people, if you are a young black man in these neighborhoods!” Riley continued. “And again, that is something we need to talk about more! Cops are not the problem.”

“Cops are not producing these black bodies in the morgues every weekend in Chicago, in New York and Detroit and so forth,” he concluded. “That’s not cops. Those are black people shooting black people.”

Sharing his unique perspective, which dovetails with Riley’s comments, a 17-year veteran with the LAPD wrote today:

Even though it might sound harsh and impolitic, here is the bottom line: if you don’t want to get shot, tased, pepper-sprayed, struck with a baton or thrown to the ground, just do what I tell you. Don’t argue with me, don’t call me names, don’t tell me that I can’t stop you, don’t say I’m a racist pig, don’t threaten that you’ll sue me and take away my badge. Don’t scream at me that you pay my salary, and don’t even think of aggressively walking towards me. Most field stops are complete in minutes. How difficult is it to cooperate for that long?

[If] you believe (or know) that the cop stopping you is violating your rights or is acting like a bully, I guarantee that the situation will not become easier if you show your anger and resentment. Worse, initiating a physical confrontation is a sure recipe for getting hurt. Police are legally permitted to use deadly force when they assess a serious threat to their or someone else’s life. Save your anger for later, and channel it appropriately. Do what the officer tells you to and it will end safely for both of you. We have a justice system in which you are presumed innocent; if a cop can do his or her job unmolested, that system can run its course. Later, you can ask for a supervisor, lodge a complaint or contact civil rights organizations if you believe your rights were violated. Feel free to sue the police! Just don’t challenge a cop during a stop.

–Dana

63 Responses to “Pushing Back Against The Narrative”

  1. Hello.

    Dana (4dbf62)

  2. Oh, my. The officer, sadly, is correct, but he seems to misunderstand the consequences of reporting or suing. Understandable, since he’s had little to no experience of doing that.

    htom (412a17)

  3. The problem with the “do what the nice officer says” advice is that todays police can’t be counted on to act with any reasonable restraint. Make cops answerable for their misbehavior, up to and including execution for murder, and then let that sink in, and THEN it will be sound advice.

    BTW I don’t say that the cops,in times past didn’t behave just as badly. I don’t know. It seems likely. But we can say with some certainty that,they do so now.

    C. S. P. Schofield (e8b801)

  4. america’s police are trashy corrupt uneducated thuggy little pension whores with fat wives and even fatter rolls of cash stuffed in a shoebox in their closet

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  5. Jason Riley and David Webb are two lonely voices of truth in the wilderness. They truly have the interest of good people -whatever the color of their skin – at heart.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  6. Happyfeet
    You say fat wives and even fatter dollars likes that’s a bad thing?

    MSl (5f601f)

  7. Happyfeet, instead of tarnishing America’s police officers, you might want to read the linked to article in full.

    In part,

    I know it is scary for people to be stopped by cops. I also understand the anger and frustration if people believe they have been stopped unjustly or without a reason. I am aware that corrupt and bully cops exist. When it comes to police misconduct, I side with the ACLU: Having worked as an internal affairs investigator, I know that some officers engage in unprofessional and arrogant behavior; sometimes they behave like criminals themselves. I also believe every cop should use a body camera to record interactions with the community at all times. Every police car should have a video recorder. (This will prevent a situation like Mike Brown’s shooting, about which conflicting and self-serving statements allow people to believe what they want.) And you don’t have to submit to an illegal stop or search. You can refuse consent to search your car or home if there’s no warrant (though a pat-down is still allowed if there is cause for suspicion). Always ask the officer whether you are under detention or are free to leave. Unless the officer has a legal basis to stop and search you, he or she must let you go. Finally, cops are legally prohibited from using excessive force: The moment a suspect submits and stops resisting, the officers must cease use of force.

    Dana (4dbf62)

  8. I watched as Jason Riley made those points, and I watched as Kirsten Powers (Anthony Weiner’s ex-girlfriend) angrily tried to talk over him and blame society or poverty or past injustice, anyone and anything rather than the lawbreaking rioters. Then, this evening I watched as Missouri’s Democrat Governor Jay Nixon all but called for justice for Michael Brown and his family without even mentioning that Officer Wilson and his family were also entitled to a fair hearing.

    The organized left is all-in on the murdering racist cop narrative and they don’t care if the shooting was justified or not. They want the blood of a scapegoat, nothing but Wilson’s head on a stick will do. The left lost the show trial against George Zimmerman and they’re determined not to let that happen again, even if an innocent man has to die to slake their blood thirst.

    ropelight (b5fb75)

  9. Totally OT but I posted Rick Perry’s mugshot on the Jonathan Chait thread in case you haven’t seen it yet.

    elissa (360489)

  10. Perry smiled, but it should’ve been bigger.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  11. i’m just pushing back against the narrative is all Dana

    but yeah i like that part more better, what you excerpted in your comment

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  12. Oh noes, but, but, but what about teh militarization which frightens and confuses me?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  13. elissa,

    Post up with Perry’s mug shot. Thanks.

    Dana (4dbf62)


  14. [If] you believe (or know) that the cop stopping you is violating your rights or is acting like a bully, I guarantee that the situation will not become easier if you show your anger and resentment. Worse, initiating a physical confrontation is a sure recipe for getting hurt. Police are legally permitted to use deadly force when they assess a serious threat to their or someone else’s life. Save your anger for later, and channel it appropriately. Do what the officer tells you to and it will end safely for both of you. We have a justice system in which you are presumed innocent; if a cop can do his or her job unmolested, that system can run its course. Later, you can ask for a supervisor, lodge a complaint or contact civil rights organizations if you believe your rights were violated. Feel free to sue the police! Just don’t challenge a cop during a stop.

    I’m not sure I’m going to agree with the officer here. Let’s say you are dining at your private golf club, and the President of the United States, a non-member, arrives for a round of golf (as he is wont to do). And let’s further say that the Secret Service — a law enforcement agency not unlike the police — comes into the dining room of your private club and insists that you be subject to a pat down. Our officer quoted above would say that you meekly submit to the pat-down* and then lodge a formal complaint after the Secret Service agent has had his way with you. Phooey on that! Way too may people are meekly surrendering to unreasonable and even unlawful orders from government authority, for example the border patrol’s ridiculous assertion that they can arrest someone for taking pictures at a border station.

    Hey, I like and admire cops. When I encounter one in my community I almost always greet them and wish them a safe and productive day. As everyone says, the vast majority of them are good men and women working in a tough job that often finds them in dangerous situations. But I don’t like it when any authority figure, whether a cop or judge or bureaucrat or whoever, starts bullying people and I think it is my duty as an American to stand up for what I think is right. The whole idea of waiting to file a complaint later is that they hope you either cool down after your initial anger and maybe even decide just to forego the whole thing. Even if you do lodge the complaint, no doubt most police departments have a very personable and polite community outreach coordinator whose job is to placate you and assure you it was all one big mistake that won’t even happen again (“we are providing additional training to the officer”). This way they don’t ever have to be held accountable for the minor slights and inconveniences.

    * Yes, I know that the quoted officer also mentioned that people “don’t have to submit to an illegal stop or search” but for the life of me I can’t imagine a cop who supposedly goes to Def Con 5 when a citizen gets belligerent is suddenly going to be totally chill if the citizen attempts to assert his or her Constitutionally protected rights. I think a bully cop is going to bully no matter what, so you might as well let them know that you think they are full of crap.

    JVW (638245)

  15. Could you translate that to ebonics, please ?

    Mike_K (90dfdc)

  16. Oh, America’s police departments don’t need happyfeet. They do a rather effective job of tarnishing themselves without anyone else helping them.

    radar (6a1728)

  17. I read the rest of Dutta’s piece, and he still comes off as an arrogant pig. No, Mr Dutta, I do not have to do what you tell me. You are not my boss. You have no authority over me. I will call you whatever I damn well like, and you will stand there and take it, because this is America, and you are my servant, not I yours. I won’t “think of aggressively walking towards” you, or do anything else to make you legitimately afraid of me, but that’s the only part of your rant that makes any sense. Is it difficult to cooperate with you for a few minutes? Probably not, but that’s no reason why I should have to do so, and the day everyone does so, because they’re afraid of getting “shot, tased, pepper-sprayed, struck with a baton or thrown to the ground” this will no longer be America. You may politely request my cooperation, but you must accept that it is my God-given right to rudely refuse, if the mood should happen to take me. If you think you have the right to order me around, then you are the corrupt and bully cop whom you denounce in the next paragraph.

    You say I can refuse consent to a search. How can I do that if you’ve just exhorted me to do what you tell me and not to argue?

    Milhouse (9d71c3)

  18. Let’s say you are dining at your private golf club, and the President of the United States, a non-member, arrives for a round of golf (as he is wont to do). And let’s further say that the Secret Service — a law enforcement agency not unlike the police — comes into the dining room of your private club and insists that you be subject to a pat down.

    During the Clinton years, David Boaz wrote about the time he was sitting at the movies, and a secret service person asked him to move because the Vice President was coming and they wanted those seats for him and his retinue, and Boaz said no, he was there first and he liked his seat, and he wasn’t moving for anyone, Vice President or no. And of course there was nothing they could do, and that’s what makes this America. He didn’t mention anything about a pat-down but I can’t imagine him consenting to one, so I guess once he wouldn’t give up his seat they didn’t bother asking.

    Milhouse (9d71c3)

  19. “And let’s further say that the Secret Service — a law enforcement agency not unlike the police — comes into the dining room of your private club and insists that you be subject to a pat down.”

    Let’s see, I’m might try to appreciate that the president travels with a security detail for a reason and try not to make the situation all about me, even though I am a super important person who belongs to exclusive private golf clubs on Martha’s Vineyard. Don’t you know who I think I am!!!!!!!!!!!

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  20. Let’s see, I’m might try to appreciate that the president travels with a security detail for a reason and try not to make the situation all about me, even though I am a super important person who belongs to exclusive private golf clubs on Martha’s Vineyard. Don’t you know who I think I am!!!!!!!!!!!

    Well, daleyrocks, you either take your rights as a citizen seriously or you don’t. If you want to meekly acquiesce to everyone with a shiny badge then by all means do so, but don’t expect the rest of us to bend over on command. If that makes me self-centered then so be it.

    If Obama was driving down your street and the Secret Service demanded to sweep through your house to make sure you didn’t have any snipers in the bedroom would you invite them in, put on the coffee pot, and open up the package of really good Pepperridge Farm cookies for them?

    JVW (638245)

  21. I listened to an extended version of Riley’s Meet The Press appearance on Larry Elder’s KABC program the other day. Andrea Mitchell interrupted constantly. She was not going to allow this guy to refute the narrative, despite the facts he brought to the table.

    Dirty Old Man (023086)

  22. Let’s see, I’m might try to appreciate that the president travels with a security detail for a reason

    I don’t give a damn. He is not more important than me. If I had hired some bodyguards to walk me around, because I was afraid of someone harming me, would he let them pat him down?! Of course not. So why should I let his bodyguards pat me down? If he doesn’t feel safe around me, let him not come.

    Milhouse (9d71c3)

  23. He doesn’t have a right to order you about. He has the power to do so, and your right is good only in court.

    htom (412a17)

  24. He’s claiming the right. He says if I don’t want to get hurt I should obey. That’s fascism right there.

    Milhouse (9d71c3)

  25. “Well, daleyrocks, you either take your rights as a citizen seriously or you don’t.”

    “I don’t give a damn. He is not more important than me.”

    JVW and Milhouse – Sorry, but you are idiots if you think the president of the United States is not more important than either of you. Where do you even come up with those ideas? At least I was taught early on in civics to respect the office of the presidency, remember the Kennedy assassination and the Nixon resignation and understand what turmoil an unplanned transition can create. You two bozos don’t matter no matter how indignant you get.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  26. the president of the United States is sort of something we all agree to respect like meryl streep or oprah

    but for reals he’s just a whore

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  27. R.I.P. Charles M. Young, Rolling Stone Magazine music writer

    Icy (7ba3ca)

  28. http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/08/mo-governor-calls-police-armed-instigators-demands-officer-darren-wilson-be-prosecuted-video/

    This strikes me as exceedingly inappropriate. The state attorney-general has stated explicitly that the discretion in the matter rests with the public prosecutor in St. Louis County and he cannot be involuntarily removed from the case. So why is the Governor attempting to taint the local prosecutor’s decision should he elect to regard it a justifiable homicide? The St. Louis County Democratic Party has intramural rivalries (in which the county executive and the public prosecutor are antagonists), and if the Governor is doing this to jab the prosecutor in these circumstances, it’s another indication that Missouri voters must have the nation’s biggest gubernatorial turkey on their hands (manifest also in the incapacity of the state police and Missouri Guard to suppress the disorder – presumably due to the Governors’ rules of engagement).

    Art Deco (ee8de5)

  29. I am the son of a police officer. In 1950, when I turned twelve, my father taught me the facts of life. No, not the birds & bees, the really important facts of life. First, he had me stand before a mirror. He asked me to point out my halo. When I said I did not have a halo, he asked me to point out the sign that said “Good Person.” I looked at him and considered calling for my mother but just said I didn’t see such a sign. “Good!” he said, “Remember that!” “Neither you, I or any other living person has either a halo or a “Good Guy” sign. So, no police officer can know, in advance, that you are a good, lawbiding citizen or a homicidal maniac.” Remember that and behave accordingly in any situation with the police. As a night-working teenager, I was stopped, at least once a week, by patrol cars. After answering a few questions, I was left to go about my business. Unfortunately, too many people, including some who comment here, believe that police officers should see their halos or “Good Guy” signs. You do not know the situation as seen by the police officer – this may be a simple stop to inform you that you can’t do something or you may fit, to a “T,” the discription of a multiple murder suspect. So, be polite not hostile and answer the questions. Do not assume that the police officer is just out to give you a hard time.

    Michael M. Keohane (84948f)

  30. Art – Gov Nixon is just following Obama’s habit of inserting himself inappropriately

    JD (d7747e)

  31. Let’s see, I’m might try to appreciate that the president travels with a security detail for a reason

    Michael Kinsley offered an amusing commentary on this subject a generation ago which is still relevant. The hook was the appearance of the then vp at a restaurant across the street visible from Kinsley’s office window. The vehicular and security paraphenalia made it clear who it was. Kinsley offered that he himself had adequate time to go and procure a cream pie. “I’d have had a pretty good shot at him, even with all the security present”. He noted that the prime minister of Israel travels with a much smaller security cordon because his public movements are not broadcast in advance.

    The Washington Monthly did an article a number of years later on the security cordon and limousine service surrounding Clinton cabinet secretaries. There was huge variation. The agriculture secretary (a former member of Congress) had portal-to-portal limo service and a squad of goons. The FBI director and the Secretary of Health and Human Services were shlepping around town with no security at all; you recall that HHS was run by Donna Shalala, who’s about 5′ tall and fat.

    You’ll recall also that one former President voluntarily declined Secret Service protection about a dozen years after leaving office: Richard Nixon. Harry Truman, subject to assassination attempt in 1950 in which a police officer was killed, was accorded no protection for a dozen years after he left office (and I’m not sure he did not decline protection when statutes permitted it).

    Kinsley’s remark: “The brutal truth of the matter is that even if Lady Bird Johnson’s life were in danger, the functioning of democracy would not be impaired”. If I’m not mistaken, Mrs. Johnson had Secret Service agents trailing her for 33 years after her husband died. Jacqueline Onassis and her children had no security cordon after 1975 (and any she herself had after 1968 was provided by her husband).

    The President has that security cordon in large measure because he’s bathed in public relations fanfare and ballyhoo. As for the rest, it’s likely a mix of anxiety and a liking of domestic service, something the more introverted types like Pat Nixon and Jacqueline Onassis are willing to forego.

    Art Deco (ee8de5)

  32. a racist criminal justice system,

    Yes, there is a close to racist criminal justice system.

    They punish blacks less; let them get away more with serious crimes and for longer; and, earlier, commit more school violence before they get suspended or expelled; and, especially, are not as diligent in investigating crimes against blacks that take place in minority communities as they are in places where other people reside.

    And Al Sharpton is sorry that a lot of that has changed – not enough – there are still places left out – and wants to go back to the bad old days of the 1980s, so some people can make money, and black political incumbents can be assured of all black districts (no matter how many people vote with their feet, thanks to the Voting Rights Act as interpreted to affect redistricting)

    When crime goes down, you get….white people moving in for the cheap housing! Gentrification!! Horrors!!!

    Sammy Finkelman (3ba0b7)

  33. Al Sharpton (and others) are quote openly for less law enforcement.

    First they pretty much killed “Stop-question-and frisk”

    Now they are going after “broken windows.”

    A racist criminal justice system. Indeed. And they want it to be more racist.

    Sammy Finkelman (3ba0b7)

  34. There was a story in the newspaper of someone who was arrested after filming two cops arresting someone or something like that (it turns out they had been in other trouble before)

    They confiscated or erased his recording.

    They told him he could sue the city and get $5 million and get rich. They didn’t care.

    The lawsuit was just settled for $125,000.

    Sammy Finkelman (3ba0b7)

  35. JVW and Milhouse – Sorry, but you are idiots if you think the president of the United States is not more important than either of you. Where do you even come up with those ideas? At least I was taught early on in civics to respect the office of the presidency, remember the Kennedy assassination and the Nixon resignation and understand what turmoil an unplanned transition can create. You two bozos don’t matter no matter how indignant you get.

    Well thanks for attributing an argument to me that I never made, daleyrocks. Was yesterday your day to makes some sort of specious defense of authority just to burnish your credentials as a law and order conservative?

    My argument is pretty easy here with respect to the golf club. If I am a member of a private golf club and I see a notice that President Obama is coming to play a round of golf next Thursday at the invitation of my club and that the Secret Service has asked that everyone who enters the club that day (including members) pass through a security checkpoint and be subject to a search then I have the option of saying, “fine, I won’t go to the club on Thursday because I don’t want to deal with that.” But if Obama suddenly drops in unannounced to my club (which seems to be the case here) while I was already there, and if his SS detail decides that they are going to go through my private club and search each member, then I think they can go pound sand and I would not hesitate to tell them so. For what it’s worth, daleyrocks, Glenn Reynolds points out that the SS has absolutely no authority to conduct these searches, but silly little things like the law apparently don’t matter much to you since your civics teacher taught you that protection of the President (even for his whimsical and capricious golf outings) is paramount and trumps our rights even when we are in private dwellings.

    You do realize that Barack Obama is eligible for lifetime Secret Service protection once he leaves office, right? So private citizens like the ones at the Martha’s Vineyard Golf Club might be dealing with this b.s. for the next 40 years.

    JVW (638245)

  36. “Well thanks for attributing an argument to me that I never made, daleyrocks. Was yesterday your day to makes some sort of specious defense of authority just to burnish your credentials as a law and order conservative?”

    JVW – I excerpted the part of your comment applicable to what I said in my comment, which applied to taking my rights as a citizen seriously or not. Nice try. It’s fine by me that you and Glenn Reynolds doesn’t believe the SS has the right to conduct body searches of people when the president drops in unannounced to an exclusive private golf club on Martha’s Vineyard since neither of you are telling that to the SS or telling them what constitutional rights they are violating.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  37. You do realize that Barack Obama is eligible for lifetime Secret Service protection once he leaves office, right?

    If I am not mistaken, the revised statute has it that Secret Service protection is due to cease 10 years after the President leaves office. This does not apply to Presidents holding office prior to 2001, for whom the old rules continue to apply.

    Art Deco (ee8de5)

  38. neither of you are telling that to the SS or telling them what constitutional rights they are violating

    Maybe the stuff about ‘unreasonable searches and seizures’.

    Art Deco (ee8de5)

  39. JVW and Milhouse – Sorry, but you are idiots if you think the president of the United States is not more important than either of you.

    For the record, daleyrocks, it was Milhouse who said that the President is no more important than he is. I never made that argument. I’m willing to accommodate the Secret Service’s desire to protect the President to a point: if I go and see the President in a public place then I understand that I have to deal with certain inconveniences and that to a certain degree I agree to waive my Fourth Amendment rights, Second Amendment rights, etc. But when the President comes to me, unannounced, as a guest, then f*** him if he thinks he and his detail can bully me around.

    Let me give you another example to see what you think. Back in fall 2008 candidate Obama came to my hometown to give a speech. It was September, so he gave an outdoor speech on a Saturday afternoon in the historic part of my town where there was a nice scenic backdrop. The visit had been announced a week earlier, so a big crowd was expected. It turns out on Friday afternoon that the Secret Service started showing up at some small shops on the street near where Obama was going to speak, and informing the proprietors that they would not be allowed to open for business at all on Saturday, even though the President wasn’t going to be speaking until the mid-afternoon. Naturally, security reasons were cited. It wasn’t until an article appeared in the local newspaper — after the event had already occurred — that the DNC or the Obama campaign quietly wrote checks to each of the business who had been forced to forego business on a Saturday when tens of thousands people were going to be downtown. And had my home state not been a swing state, one wonders if the DNC or Obama would have cared at all. It’s these types of thuggish “inconveniences” that the ruling class likes to impose upon us that I think have no business in a democratic republic, even though keeping our elected officials safe ought to be important to all of us.

    JVW (638245)

  40. I am really uncomfortable with the President just “dropping by” a golf club. I like the idea of people being informed, because of the necessary security arrangements.

    The days of Harry Truman just walking around DC chatting with people are long gone.

    I grow increasingly uncomfortable with imperial trappings of our political elite. We have created our own aristocracy, and it makes me sad.

    Simon Jester (e04c55)

  41. If I am not mistaken, the revised statute has it that Secret Service protection is due to cease 10 years after the President leaves office. This does not apply to Presidents holding office prior to 2001, for whom the old rules continue to apply.

    I thought that as part of the War on Terror we quietly struck that clause and agreed to grant them lifetime protection, since ex-Presidents and their families would be a nice target for terrorists. Also because it would lead to an expansion of a government program, and who in their right mind could be opposed to that?

    JVW (638245)

  42. An if the SS boys want to have their way with the beer-cart gal, what’s that to you, plebe?

    gary gulrud (46ca75)

  43. JVW—that almost sounds like a Huey Long event.

    “To those of you who contribute early, a big slice of the pie. To those of you who contribute later, a smaller slice of pie. And to those of you who do not contribute, why, you will get good government.”

    Simon Jester (e04c55)

  44. Liberals often deride Ronald Reagan as a phony Christian, but in his autobiography Reagan said that the reason he was not a regular churchgoer is because after the assassination attempt by Hinckley the Secret Service told the Reagans that if they wanted to attend Sunday services the SS would have to require the congregation to pass through metal detectors and be subject to bag inspections. The Reagans didn’t want to inconvenience their fellow citizens like that, so they just didn’t regularly go to church. Imagine a President being unwilling to inconvenience their fellow citizen; why it’s downright republican (small “r”)!

    JVW (638245)

  45. “I’m willing to accommodate the Secret Service’s desire to protect the President to a point: if I go and see the President in a public place then I understand that I have to deal with certain inconveniences and that to a certain degree I agree to waive my Fourth Amendment rights, Second Amendment rights, etc. But when the President comes to me, unannounced, as a guest, then f*** him if he thinks he and his detail can bully me around.”

    JVW – This is completely my point. I think the country has a duty to protect the president from threats whether on public property or on private property. That alone makes him more important than other citizens and may create temporary inconveniences for others. That’s why it’s not a question of valuing my rights, its more of understanding the situation. The are plenty of times the president may not want to telegraph his schedule in advance, particularly regarding a location which is difficult to secure such as a golf course. That’s freaking common sense.

    I’ll tell you a story as well which I’ve mentioned before several times here. In the early 1980s I lived in the same low rise collection of apartment buildings as Jimmy Carter’s son. Jimmy used to come visit a few times a year. My roommates and I would see these men and women dressed in suits with sunglasses and ear plugs and cords hanging around in the parking lot who looked completely out of place. We’d just go about our business drinking beer occasionally sparking up some agricultural products, no problem. Eventually we started talking to them found out who they were and over the course of several trips gave them restaurant recommendations for Chicago pizza, lent them plates and silverware, and listened to them gripe about Jimmah. We were a pretty disreputable looking group of characters and had engaged in illegal activity right in front of them. We got no searches, no questions. I even got sent an autographed picture of Jimmah later. We were not the kind of people they we worried about.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  46. I thought that as part of the War on Terror we quietly struck that clause and agreed to grant them lifetime protection,

    No. The rule has been lifetime protection since 1965. The statute was amended about 15 years ago (IIRC) and term-limited protection was instituted going forward. Not all Presidents elected to have the Secret Service around. I’m not sure Truman and Eisenhower ever did. Richard Nixon & his wife relinquished their SS detail ca. 1988. The situation has varied for 1st degree relations. Jacqueline Onassis had to relinquish her own detail when she remarried. John Kennedy Jr. ran away from his guards in Central Park in 1973 and his detail was relinquished. The non-juvenile children lose their detail immediately. Steve Ford had a funny story he told on C-Span of playing chess with his guards out in California on 20 January 1977; at precisely noon, they all got up and left, leaving him alone for the first time in over two years.

    Nixon’s experience suggests lifetime protection is unnecessary, particularly for presidential widows. That Mrs. Onassis was able to go about her business, commuting to and from work every weekday for 19 years, suggests that papparazzi are not such a problem either. Ronald Reagan needed home health aides or a berth in a memory care unit, not a mess of federal police officers.

    Art Deco (ee8de5)

  47. “An if the SS boys want to have their way with the beer-cart gal, what’s that to you, plebe?”

    gg – It all depends on how hawt she is.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  48. Eventually we started talking to them found out who they were and over the course of several trips gave them restaurant recommendations for Chicago pizza, lent them plates and silverware, and listened to them gripe about Jimmah.

    Other sources have said that Carter had frosty relations with his guards while in office, in contrast to Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan. If I understand correctly, Mr. and Mrs. Carter still have a detail, 33 years after leaving office. Which is just royalist nonsense, along with the wretched ‘presidential libraries’. At least Mr. Carter’s not charging $189,000 plus expenses for 50 minutes of boilerplate.

    Art Deco (ee8de5)

  49. The days of Harry Truman just walking around DC chatting with people are long gone.

    The homicide rate isn’t much different from what it was in 1948, at least nationwide; not sure about the capital. Keep in mind that both Truman and Roosevelt had been subject to assassination attempts and that someone took a bullet for them each time. I’ll wager you men of their generation were bred to be less risk averse and anxious then men are today.

    Art Deco (ee8de5)

  50. We got no searches, no questions. I even got sent an autographed picture of Jimmah later. We were not the kind of people they we worried about.

    OK, daleyrocks, perhaps we agree more than we disagree, but what about the guy at the Martha’s Vineyard Golf Club who is enjoying his lunch in the dining room when a SS agent comes in and demands to wand him down? Was this guy the “kind of people that they were worried about”? You will probably never get me to agree that this is appropriate or even necessary in protection of the President. And if you did get me to agree that it was proper and necessary, then I would argue that as a matter of decorum the President simply should not inconvenience the club members by playing a round at that course. And if I were a member of that club, I would be fighting for a rule that says anyone who requires a security detail to play a round of golf shouldn’t be allowed on the course. Let the President do all his golfing in Maryland and Virginia.

    JVW (638245)

  51. even though the President wasn’t going

    That would be the candidate, not the President. Security details for candidates are a residue from the crazy years. Two of three candidates subject to assassination attempts since 1820 were so between 1962 and 1979. However, the marginal utility of the protection is something to consider. George Wallace was cut down in spite of Secret Service protection; the arresting officer was not a federal policeman but a Prince George’s County, Md. cop.

    Art Deco (ee8de5)

  52. “OK, daleyrocks, perhaps we agree more than we disagree, but what about the guy at the Martha’s Vineyard Golf Club who is enjoying his lunch in the dining room when a SS agent comes in and demands to wand him down? Was this guy the “kind of people that they were worried about”? You will probably never get me to agree that this is appropriate or even necessary in protection of the President.”

    JVW – I have no idea whether the guy eating lunch was the type the SS was looking for, but to me it would a question of thoroughness in checking the room. I would not choose to be the chowderhead in a room full of people who objected to a pat down by the president’s security detail. To me that does not seem like the hill worth dying over.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  53. “We have a justice system in which you are presumed innocent; if a cop can do his or her job unmolested, that system can run its course. Later, you can ask for a supervisor, lodge a complaint or contact civil rights organizations if you believe your rights were violated.”

    Picking a fight with the police is a bad idea in general and not something to do on a whim, but this is just nonsense. The vast majority of complaints disappear into a black hole.

    This is the awkward truth that officers who are working in good faith don’t seem to understand – their peers are not being held accountable.

    Anony (bcba0e)

  54. Art Deco (ee8de5) — 8/20/2014 @ 9:22 am

    If I am not mistaken, the revised statute has it that Secret Service protection is due to cease 10 years after the President leaves office. This does not apply to Presidents holding office prior to 2001, for whom the old rules continue to apply.

    You can’t make general rules. Certain people are at more risk than others. Robert F. Kennedy was probably attacked more because he was a Kennedy than because he was a candidate, although that was a factor, too.

    Sammy Finkelman (3ba0b7)

  55. Milhouse – Sorry, but you are idiots if you think the president of the United States is not more important than either of you. Where do you even come up with those ideas?

    From everything that makes up America, from the Declaration of Independence down. This is America; we have no kings, and the president is nothing but a public servant, exactly like the counter staff at the DMV. The American spirit is that the president puts on his pants one leg at a time just like anyone else, and any claim that he is better than anyone else is profoundly un-American. Your so-called “civics” teacher was, in spirit, a traitor to America, and poisoned you with monarchist propaganda. (Nor do true Americans venerate a flag; that’s Bellamy’s poison, which has succesfully infected at least five generations of public school students.)

    It’s fine by me that you and Glenn Reynolds doesn’t believe the SS has the right to conduct body searches of people when the president drops in unannounced to an exclusive private golf club on Martha’s Vineyard since neither of you are telling that to the SS or telling them what constitutional rights they are violating.

    I think Reynolds has a lot more credibility than you. He certainly knows a lot more about the subject than you do. Which constitutional right? How about the fourth amendment? They have no authority to search anyone without consent, and I’ll be damned if I consent. If the president doesn’t feel safe around me, tough luck. Let him go somewhere else if he’s that nervous.

    I think the country has a duty to protect the president from threats whether on public property or on private property. That alone makes him more important than other citizens and may create temporary inconveniences for others.

    Why should I care what duties “the country” has, if any? “The country” doesn’t own me, and its supposed duties can’t make someone more important than he is. I have my right not to be searched, and “the country’s” first duty is to respect that right, regardless of any other consideration. If it doesn’t, then it will no longer have any right to exist, and the president will deserve to be assassinated.

    Milhouse (9d71c3)

  56. You can’t make general rules.

    Somehow, Sammy, I think the federal legislature will likely be unimpressed with your admonitions.

    Art Deco (ee8de5)

  57. Robert F. Kennedy was probably attacked more because he was a Kennedy than because he was a candidate, although that was a factor, too

    The assailants of Franklin Roosevelt (and Anton Cermak), Robert Kennedy, and George Wallace all had one thing in common: they were nucking futs. No plumbing their motives, really.

    Art Deco (ee8de5)

  58. Art Deco (ee8de5) — 8/21/2014 @ 8:58 am

    I think the federal legislature will likely be unimpressed with your admonitions.

    I meant you can’t make general rules that are good

    It’ll either capture too much or too little.

    Sammy Finkelman (3ba0b7)

  59. Joseph P. Kennedy was still alive in 1968. He had a wife, five other children, 28 grandchildren who survived infancy, four daughters-in-law, and two sons-in-law (in addition to Peter Lawford). Assassinations and abductions from July 1968 to the present total zero.

    Art Deco (ee8de5)

  60. “From everything that makes up America, from the Declaration of Independence down. This is America; we have no kings, and the president is nothing but a public servant, exactly like the counter staff at the DMV.”

    Milhouse – You consistently miss the point so at least you have that going for you, which is nice.

    How large is your Secret Service detail and how often do you use your taxpayer provided jet and helicopter?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  61. Youze guys are all just pickin’ fights with each other for the sport of it. Some of you are clearly focused on the practical necessity of protecting any U.S. president, and others seem more focused on the philosophical aspects– (we all Americans with rights here, weighed against the appearance of increasingly obvious presidential royalty/privilege/intrusion). Some seem more interested in the costs/reasons for lifetime ss protection; some notice and appreciate when presidents have been more humble and personally involved in making appearance and leisure time decisions that will not so greatly impact regular citizens going about their daily lives than our current one is. And I think almost everybody has made good points and observations worth considering and keeping in mind.

    Many people including me think our current White House occupant gets sorta jazzed by all the entourages, motorcades, blocked traffic, airport closedowns, inconveniences and special situations he causes, rather than being aware of the inconveniences to others or embarrassed by them.

    But Milhouse, oh, Milhouse. Statements that suggest since they are both “just public servants” you would compare the violent loss of any sitting U.S. president and the resultant national upheaval and societal uncertainty to the loss of any individual DMV clerk and its effective non-impact to the nation, just makes you look silly.

    elissa (e9e9a1)

  62. Art Deco (ee8de5) — 8/21/2014 @ 9:00 am

    The assailants of Franklin Roosevelt (and Anton Cermak), Robert Kennedy, and George Wallace all had one thing in common: they were nucking futs. No plumbing their motives, really.

    But I think there is one thing that is related pretty much universally to the probability of a threat: How famous somebody is.

    And I think RFK was attacked more because he was so famous than becuase he was a candidate (although perhaps it is that his fame caused Sirhan Sirhan to overrate the probable sucess of his candidacy, but anyway the more widely known someone is, the more that person may become a target.)

    Any president of the United States is probably at the highest level of risk, but for someone not president it may depend more on who they are.

    Sammy Finkelman (3ba0b7)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2483 secs.