Category: reason

Four District of Columbia police officers were injured and two patrol cars were totaled after the officers engaged in a drag race while on duty. “They decided to drag race each other on Anacostia Avenue at 5 p.m. in the evening,” said Sixth District Commander Durriyyah Habeebullah. The officers have been placed on leave pending a full investigation of the incident.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3eXZFdP
via IFTTT

From Christie BB. v. Isaiah CC., No. 527802, decided today by a New York intermediate appellate court (Judge Stan Pritzker, joined by Judges John Egan Jr., Sharon Aarons, Molly Reynolds Fitzgerald & John Colangelo):

[The parties] are the unmarried parents of a mixed race daughter (born in 2014). When the child was approximately three months old, the father acknowledged paternity. Pursuant to a July 2017 order, the parties stipulated that they would share joint legal and physical custody of the child, with the child alternating weeks with each parent. The mother commenced the first proceeding seeking to modify the prior order by, among other things, awarding her primary placement of the child, with alternating weekend parenting time to the father. The father answered and filed a counter petition seeking to modify the prior order by awarding him sole custody of the child….

We agree with Family Court that the testimony revealed that “little has changed” since the prior order was entered. Thus, only a minor modification of the prior order was needed in the form of providing, among other things, that the mother’s home shall be the child’s primary residence for the purpose of where the child attends school. Although testimony revealed that the mother had relocated multiple times, the court found, and the record supports, that the mother currently has stable housing. Additionally, although the mother has moved around, testimony established that the father was planning to move as well.

Furthermore, although the factor of fidelity to prior orders weighs in favor of the father, as the mother failed to attend a required parenting class, this is only one factor. Family Court clearly appreciated and addressed this concern, as evidenced by the fact that the court explicitly ordered that the mother contact the administrator of a parenting class program within one week of the issuance of the order.

Moreover, although communication between the parents is not ideal, it is not so poor as to render a joint custodial arrangement unworkable. In this regard, both parties have the goal of getting back to a place where they work well together. There may come a point in the future where joint custody proves entirely unworkable, but, at this stage, we defer to Family Court’s determination that the parties’ relationship “is not so acrimonious as to render the award unworkable.” It is also noted that this decision to maintain joint custody was supported by the attorney for the child. According due deference to Family Court’s credibility determinations and the evidence presented at the hearing, we find that it was in the child’s best interests to continue the joint custody arrangement….

Finally, although not addressed by Family Court or the attorney for the child, the mother’s testimony at the hearing, as well as an exhibit admitted into evidence, reveal that she has a small confederate flag painted on a rock near her driveway. Given that the child is of mixed race, it would seem apparent that the presence of the flag is not in the child’s best interests, as the mother must encourage and teach the child to embrace her mixed race identity, rather than thrust her into a world that only makes sense through the tortured lens of cognitive dissonance. Further, and viewed pragmatically, the presence of the confederate flag is a symbol inflaming the already strained relationship between the parties.

As such, while recognizing that the First Amendment protects the mother’s right to display the flag, if it is not removed by June 1, 2021, its continued presence shall constitute a change in circumstances and Family Court shall factor this into any future best interests analysis.

I think such restrictions on parents’ political or religious speech—including courts factoring the parents’ speech into a best-interests-of-the-child analysis—generally violate the First Amendment; see my Parent-Child Speech and Child Custody Speech Restrictions. And of course there’s nothing constitutionally special about Confederate flags: If courts can pressure parents to stop displaying such symbols, they can pressure parents to likewise stop conveying any other political messages that the court conjectures will be indirectly harmful to the child or inflaming to the other parent.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3b8meLF
via IFTTT

Bobby Sneed had his parole granted a few months ago, after serving nearly 47 years behind bars. The 74-year-old man’s release date was set for March 29—an exciting day for his four children and many grandchildren, who readied themselves to help him readjust to life outside prison walls.

But Sneed has not yet left the Louisiana State Penitentiary, widely known as Angola. Four days prior to his scheduled release, he collapsed and had to be hospitalized. During his infirmary stay, he allegedly tested positive for amphetamines and methamphetamines, according to his disciplinary records.

Prison officials subsequently refused to let him leave and threatened to rescind the parole board’s decision altogether. But their evidence was flimsy, and it took just 10 to 15 minutes for the disciplinary committee to judge him not guilty of the contraband charge. “They didn’t have a complete chain of custody, so there ended up being no proof that the urine samples that tested positive for drugs actually was Bobby’s,” says Thomas Frampton, Sneed’s attorney.

Unfortunately for Sneed—who has been in solitary confinement for more than a month now—the story didn’t end there. The committee then pivoted and charged him with being in the wrong dorm when he collapsed. “If he is convicted of that charge, he’ll be facing the same parole revocation,” says Frampton. “It feels like we’ve gone from tragedy to farce now.”

The parole board unanimously agrees that Sneed is no longer a risk to society. But now he could die in prison because of a petty infraction—and taxpayers will shell out tens of thousands of dollars each year to keep him there.

His status is still in flux. “I have not received any information concerning the disposition of Offender Sneed’s disciplinary hearing from Louisiana State Penitentiary,” Francis Abbott, the executive director of the Louisiana Board of Pardons & Parole, told me today via email.

Sneed was originally arrested in 1974 for standing guard two blocks outside a home while his accomplices burglarized it, during which time they killed one of the residents. Though Sneed didn’t take part directly in the killing, he was charged with principal to commit second-degree murder and sentenced to life in prison. Sneed filed for the court to vacate the decision, and his application succeeded. But in 1987, after a second jury heard the case, he was convicted again.

“Of the six men originally arrested for this crime, Mr. Sneed is the only one who is still incarcerated,” reads his parole file. “Two of Mr. Sneed’s co-defendants agreed to testify and served no time. One co-defendant struck a deal with the state at the time of Mr. Sneed’s second trial and received a reduced sentence. One co-defendant died in prison and [another one] was released on parole.”

Meanwhile, Sneed accumulated a record of good behavior behind bars. “While in prison Sneed has gained the status of Class B ‘trusty’—a status that grants a certain amount of freedom within the prison, and is given to prisoners with a history of good behavior,” writes Nicholas Chrastil at The Lens. “He coached sports, taught music theory, and worked as an inmate counsel, helping other prisoners with their cases.”

No one disputes that Sneed’s initial crime was bad. But how is public safety served by keeping him behind bars now? “Let’s assume that Bobby is using drugs,” says Frampton. “He’s buying that from guards, and it’s very, very clear that after 47 years, the Angola prison has not been an environment to get sober….He’s not actually a danger to anyone. Nobody’s alleging he’s a danger to anyone. Yet nevertheless, he’s still stuck in prison long after he should have been released.”

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3y11AHl
via IFTTT

From a Justice Department press release yesterday:

A St. Paul man was sentenced yesterday to 41 months in prison for his role in the arsons at the Minneapolis Police Department’s Third Precinct building.

According to court documents, on the night of May 28, 2020, Branden Michael Wolfe, 23, went to the Third Precinct where a crowd of hundreds had gathered. At one point, the crowd began shouting, “Burn it down, burn it down.” Soon after, a fence that was designed to keep trespassers out of the Third Precinct was torn down. Wolfe pushed a barrel into a fire located in the entrance of the Third Precinct headquarters, which had been set by other unidentified co-conspirators, with the intent to accelerate the existing fire.

Wolfe also entered the Third Precinct building and stole several items, including a police vest, duty belt, handcuffs, earpiece, baton, knife, riot helmet, pistol magazine, police radio, police overdose kit, uniform name plates, and ammunition. Wolfe was arrested on June 3, 2020, wearing the police vest, the duty belt and carrying the tactical baton.

“Mr. Wolfe furthered the destruction that took place in Minneapolis last summer by literally adding fuel to the fire. In addition to the arson, Mr. Wolfe stole body armor, weapons, and ammunition belonging to the Minneapolis Police Department,” said Acting U.S. Attorney Anders Folk. “This sentence underscores the seriousness of Mr. Wolfe’s actions and holds him to account.”

“ATF is committed to investigating the civil unrest arsons of 2020 that occurred throughout the Twin Cities,” said Special Agent in Charge Terry Henderson, of the ATF St. Paul Field Division. “Arson, being inherently violent, is a serious crime that puts our community members and first responders at risk, and it cannot be tolerated.”

“The FBI’s mission is to uphold the Constitution, which includes freedom of speech and the right to assemble,” said Michael Paul, special agent in charge of the FBI’s Minneapolis field office. “Branden Wolfe crossed the line and engaged in criminal activity during the evening the Third Precinct building was burned down last May. People who choose to engage in violent activity during protests may believe they are anonymous, but they are mistaken and will be held accountable for their crimes.”

On December 21, 2020, Wolfe pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit arson. As part of his sentencing, Wolfe was ordered to serve two years of supervised release and pay $12 million in restitution.

Co-conspirators Bryce Michael Williams, 27, and Davon De-Andre Turner, 25, have all pleaded guilty to one count each of conspiracy to commit arson for their roles in the arson at the Third Precinct building. They will be sentenced at a later date.

This case was the result of an investigation conducted jointly by the ATF, the FBI, the Minneapolis Police Department, and the Minnesota State Fire Marshal Division. This case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Harry M. Jacobs and David P. Steinkamp.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3nXvqI6
via IFTTT

Democratic governance is in high demand, according to the 2021 edition of the annual Democracy Perception Index, a poll of more than 50,000 people in 53 nations. But it’s also perceived to be threatened—by economic inequality, by suppression of free speech, by big tech companies, by unfair or corrupted elections, and by the United States of America.

44 percent of the respondents are worried the United States threatens democracy in their home countries. By contrast, 38 percent said that about China and 28 percent about Russia. The U.S. was deemed the biggest threat of the three in free and unfree nations alike. It was the top pick in Europe and Latin America, and it nearly tied with China for this dishonor in Asia. Only a few African nations were polled, not enough for a regional average, but the U.S. was the most widely selected threat there, too.

For a country that thinks of itself as the “leader of the free world,” a global beacon of democracy, this is a difficult message. But it is one Washington needs to hear. U.S. foreign policy should not be dictated by global perceptions, but neither should such perceptions be ignored.

Perhaps the United States is seen as a threat to other nations’ democracy because our government is often less an exemplar of liberty than a belligerent global meddler. Perhaps it’s because Washington has spent the past two decades invading and occupying large swaths of the Middle East and North Africa. Perhaps it’s because our leaders’ diplomacy is frequently ham-fisted, hubristic, and naïve. Perhaps it’s because Washington has literally overthrown democratic governments and has a unique—and risky—network of hundreds of military bases worldwide.

But why does the U.S. get the worst marks? The governments of China and Russia are far less democratic domestically than that of the United States—it’s not even close. Russia has a few foreign military bases in its near abroad, ongoing intervention in Syria, and conflict with Ukraine following the 2014 Russian annexation of Crimea. Moscow also inserts itself into other countries’ elections, often by social media campaigns but sometimes via more direct approaches. Beijing, meanwhile, is suppressing promised freedoms in Hong Kong, perpetually threatening Taiwan’s tenuous independence, supporting the brutal regime in North Korea, and committing genocide against ethnic and religious minorities (such as the Uighurs) inside its borders. So why is the United States perceived as the more serious threat?

The survey doesn’t directly answer that question, but it does provide some useful hints. While many see the United States as a threat to democracy now, “more countries say the U.S. has a positive than negative impact on democracy (49 percent positive vs. 35 percent negative).” This may mean that Washington’s more recent behavior, in the post-9/11 era, has been negatively received, while a longer timeline produces more positive feelings.

Another hint is the uptick in positive views of the U.S. since Joe Biden became president. “The perception of the U.S.’s global influence on democracy has increased significantly around the world since the spring of 2020,” the report says, “from a net opinion of +6 to a net opinion of +14.”

Biden has yet to make significant changes to most of the global engagement he inherited. By and large, the wars, sanctions, and tariffs his predecessor left behind remain intact. But he is set to preside over the end of the U.S. war in Afghanistan, has slightly scaled down U.S. cooperation with (extremely undemocratic) Saudi Arabia, and has either rejoined or began negotiations to rejoin multiple major diplomatic agreements the Trump administration jettisoned. Some of this uptick may simply be a honeymoon period for Biden and/or opposition to former President Donald Trump. Next year’s data will be more instructive, but for now this positive shift suggests moving away from military interventionism and toward diplomacy—abiding by the “rules-based order” that Secretary of State Antony Blinken has spoken of enforcing on China—would improve our global reputation.

It would be better for the United States in other ways as well. The policies that have caused other nations to perceive Washington as a threat to democracy have been harmful here too, making us less prosperous, less safe, and less free. Whether or not they threaten democratic governance abroad, they threaten it here.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3h7NyNV
via IFTTT