Search

Professional Troublemaker

 Jonathan Corbett, Civil Rights Advocate

Is It *Really* Impossible To Get A Gun License in NYC? (Part VII — Corruption? You Can’t Prove It!)

This is the seventh installment of a series documenting an ordinary New Yorker attempting to exercise his Second Amendment rights: Part I (license application), Part II (application rejected), Part III (the lawsuit), Part IV (appeal filed), Part V (appellate briefing complete), Part VI (N.Y. Appeals Court Not Interested in Ending NYPD Corruption).


Appellate Division: Affirmed.Yesterday the Appellate Division of the N.Y. Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s ruling dismissing my challenge to New York’s corrupt practice of issuing gun licenses only to those whom the NYPD feels have a “good reason” to have a gun — a practice that has resulted in corruption for a century now.  This result is, of course, not surprising: as the landmark case District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), approaches its 10 year anniversary, New York courts still petulantly resist the mandate that firearm ownership is a right — not a privilege, and not requiring membership in a “militia” — subject to intermediate scrutiny or higher.

In this case, the Appellate Division has finally used “intermediate scrutiny” by name, which is a slow step towards acceptance of Heller.  Intermediate scrutiny is the lowest level of scrutiny that the U.S. Supreme Court has allowed for gun laws since Heller, and it requires that a regulation be: 1) substantially tailored, 2) to an important government interest.

As should be obvious, that’s a 2-part test, and while the “important government interest” part is easily satisfied (it’s certainly reasonable for the government to want to protect its citizens from gun violence), the Appellate Division has plugged their ears to the second part of the test.  During oral arguments, I specifically asked the judges to require that the most vague, invasive, and irrelevant questions on the gun license application, all of which ask if you have ever done something (e.g., taken a prescription painkiller under doctor supervision) be narrowed by temporal or other boundaries:

Justice Sweeny: “[The disputed questions are] not the be all and end all.  It could very well be the basis for further investigation.  Why is that not relevant?”

Jon: “Right, because they could narrowly tailor it.  They could say, ‘have you used [prescription painkillers] for more than a week?’  Have you done it within the last 5 years?  Any of these things would allow them to more narrowly tailor it.”

[Watch Oral Arguments] [More Details About Oral Arguments]

Their decision, of course, is silent on the matter, stating that the rules “are justified because they serve to promote the government’s” interest without any thought to tailoring.  In affirming the court below, the Appellate Division has made it clear that they refuse to set any boundaries whatsoever on gun license restrictions in this state.

Further, the court continues to ignore the persistent corruption in the NYPD Licensing Division:

“Petitioner has not established that the denial of his application was the result of corruption or other impropriety”

This ignores the fact that my original case in the lower court was dismissed before I had a chance to gather or present any such facts.  I got no period of “discovery” or any other procedure by which I could demand the turning over evidence.  Meanwhile, officers literally in the office where and when I submitted my gun license application have pled guilty to federal corruption charges, admitting they accepted cash in exchange for approval of gun licenses.  Under these circumstances, due process is lacking whether I can prove that my individual case was affected or not.

I look forward to petitioning New York’s highest court, the Court of Appeals, to hear this case.

Microsoft Bans “Offensive Language” from Skype

Update to the Microsoft Services Agreement E-mailThis morning, I got the kind of e-mail that most of us ignore: “Update to our terms of service” from Microsoft.  But I love waking up to read a good contract in the morning, so I had a look at the summary of changes to the “Microsoft Services Agreement,” which applies to things like Skype, Office 365, OneDrive, and a whole list of other services.  The summary turned out to be a 27 bullet point document of mostly bland changes — except for point 5:

5. In the Code of Conduct section, we’ve clarified that use of offensive language and fraudulent activity is prohibited. We’ve also clarified that violation of the Code of Conduct through Xbox Services may result in suspensions or bans from participation in Xbox Services, including forfeiture of content licenses, Xbox Gold Membership time, and Microsoft account balances associated with the account.

Looking through the full text of the new agreement, I found the relevant change in Section 3(a)(iv):

Don’t publicly display or use the Services to share inappropriate content or material (involving, for example, nudity, bestiality, pornography, offensive language, graphic violence, or criminal activity).

So wait a sec: I can’t use Skype to have an adult video call with my girlfriend?  I can’t use OneDrive to back up a document that says “fuck” in it?  If I call someone a mean name in Xbox Live, not only will they cancel my account, but also confiscate any funds I’ve deposited in my account?  (And are we no longer allowed to shoot people in Call of Duty?  Animated violence doesn’t really get any more “graphic” than this Microsoft-approved video game offers.)

And how are they going to enforce this ban?  Are they going to be looking through my Skype sessions?  Section 3(b):

When investigating alleged violations of these Terms, Microsoft reserves the right to review Your Content in order to resolve the issue.

Got it.

What’s clear here is that Microsoft is reserving the right to cancel your account whenever they feel like it.  They do nothing to define “offensive language” (or “graphic violence,” for that matter) and in 2018 when anyone can be offended by anything, these terms allow Microsoft staff to play unrestrained censor if and when they choose.  Given that Google’s YouTube uses that power to remove politically “sensitive” videos (like those on legal firearm modifications), should we expect that Microsoft will also be removing content and users to earn PR points with the politically correct movement du jour?

What’s also clear is that they reserve the right to go through your private data, and these terms seem to pretty clearly allow them to watch and listen to your Skype calls, so long as they are “investigating” something.  The terms don’t appear to require any complaint to be filed against you — just that an employee decide that they want to “investigate.”

I’ll be setting my Skype account not to renew itself.

[Update 1 – Welcome to those new to the blog!  Professional Troublemaker primarily focuses on civil rights issues, especially privacy rights, and you may recall my work publicly embarrassing the TSA for their flawed body scanners and other failures.  If keeping our government — and occasionally large corporations — in check when they refuse to check themselves interests you, please hit that Follow button at the bottom of the page or follow on Twitter!]

[Update 2 – I’ve been banned from Reddit’s /r/Microsoft for sharing this story…

Banned from /r/Microsoft

Is It *Really* Impossible To Get A Gun License in NYC? (Part VI — N.Y. Appeals Court Not Interested in Ending NYPD Corruption)

This is the sixth installment of a series documenting an ordinary New Yorker attempting to exercise his Second Amendment rights: Part I (license application), Part II (application rejected), Part III (the lawsuit), Part IV (appeal filed), Part V (appellate briefing complete).


 

Courtroom at N.Y. Appellate Division, First Department
This is seriously the courtroom. Budget for stained glass dome? Yep. Budget to notify litigants when their cases are scheduled for oral arguments? Eh, that sounds pricey.

A few weeks ago, I checked the calendar of the N.Y. Appellate Division, First Department, and noticed my gun licensing case — challenging the constitutionality of allowing the NYPD to decline licenses for failing to provide a “good reason” to grant them amid a plague of cash-for-licenses corruption scandals — was scheduled for oral arguments.  In any other court, I’d have received an e-mail or a letter noting the request for my presence, but apparently the First Department doesn’t roll that way.

Oral arguments in appeals are a fun exercise.  Appeals are 95% done in writing (“briefs”), and oral arguments are usually at the discretion of the court.  By the time oral arguments, if granted, come around, both sides have had their full say on paper.  And, in theory you come prepared with an argument, but about 15 seconds after you open your mouth in front of the group of judges looking down on you, you’ll hear, “Counselor, …” followed by continuous questions for the rest of your allotted time.  And, these questions are no softballs: they almost exclusively ask you about the parts of your brief that they feel were, well, less than convincing.

So, while it is a surprise that the court has the technical capacity to live stream the arguments, it’s no surprise that they didn’t go easy on me.  But one thing I did find a bit unusual: the judges had no interest in hearing the corruption aspect of the case:

Jon: I’m asking for two things in this case: number one, for the court to end a 100-year tradition of corruption in the NYPD licensing division…

Justice Gesmer: I don’t see how that issue is before us.

Jon: Your Honor, the issue was thoroughly briefed.  Essentially…

Justice Gesmer: Well I understand it’s briefed, but there’s no factual record before us.

There’s no “factual record” — that is, evidence presented in the lower court — at all, because the lower court dismissed my petition before any fact gathering could take place.  The record from the court below is literally just the City’s motion to dismiss, my opposition to that, and the rubber-stamping of that motion in one of the most poorly written opinions I’ve personally had issued against me in nearly a decade of litigating civil rights issues.

The correct decision for the Appellate Division would be to remand my case to the lower court to develop that factual record.  I’ve properly alleged a denial of due process (an official who takes bribes clearly cannot adjudicate fairly), and I should be entitled to prove it, via a period of discovery where I can depose the officers of the licensing division.  But realistically, I don’t expect any relief from this court.  The decision from this court may take a couple of months, and then in all probability it’s on to New York’s highest court, the Court of Appeals.

Cancun Airport Attempts “Man-in-the-Middle Attack” On Web Connection

Warning: This post is technical.  The non-technical tl;dr is that the airport lounge network in Cancun attempted to hack my Internet connection to work.


Mera Business Lounge @ CUN AirportIf my flight is in the evening on a weekday, I’ll often show up at the airport early, work from the airport lounge, and catch my flight.  They tend to have reliable Internet, I get to spend the day eating and drinking for free, and I don’t have to worry about traffic or making my flight on time.

I sat down in the “Mera Business Lounge” in CUN’s Terminal 3 last week and went to log into my work server via “SSH” — a secure protocol commonly used to interact with Linux computers — and was somewhat surprised to see this:

$ ssh -i xxxxx jon@127.0.0.1 (not the actual address)
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@ WARNING: REMOTE HOST IDENTIFICATION HAS CHANGED! @
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
IT IS POSSIBLE THAT SOMEONE IS DOING SOMETHING NASTY!
Someone could be eavesdropping on you right now (man-in-the-middle attack)!
It is also possible that a host key has just been changed.
The fingerprint for the RSA key sent by the remote host is
SHA:256:wS09c2yexsr6pbxFdUUJBSsYykAbo02oDxfGV4ctD1Q…

No big deal — I assume someone at work has just changed around something on the server, like the message suggests after the scary warning part.  But, nonetheless, my standard practice is to connect to a VPN and repeat the attempt.  This mitigates any man-in-the-middle attack on the local side of the network, because although an attacker might be between Cancun and my work, if I have a VPN provider attempt the connection for me, the attacker no longer sits in the middle.  If the VPN attempt reports the same key mismatch, it’s probably not an attack.

Well, with VPN enganged…

$ ssh -i xxxxx jon@127.0.0.1
Welcome to Ubuntu 16.04.3 LTS…

I actually couldn’t believe it, so I disconnected from VPN, repeated, re-connected to VPN, repeated.  Same result: fingerprint mismatch, no fingerprint mismatch.

A lookup of the external IP address of the lounge showed the network was run by an ISP called “G TEL” —

% Joint Whois – whois.lacnic.net
% This server accepts single ASN, IPv4 or IPv6 queries

inetnum: 148.243.37/24
status: reallocated
owner: G TEL Comunicacion, S.A.P.I. de C.V.
ownerid: MX-GTCS-LACNIC
responsible: Sergio Antonio Bravo Garcia
address: DR. ATL, 2084, Int. 606, Zona Urbana Rio Tijuana
address: 22010 – Tijuana – BC
country: MX

I attempted contacting their LACNIC point of contact and the standard “abuse” e-mail address, but received no reply as of the date of this article.  It’s unclear whether the attacker had access only to the airport lounge local network, or was at G TEL, or somewhere else on the Internet. I also have no reason to assume that I was targeted specifically (instead of, say, targeting everyone who was on the network). But it’s clear that my connection was indeed attacked.

Watch yourself out there!  While “sophisticated” attacks like MitM are uncommon for the everyday Internet user, they apparently happen.  If you ever see those “certificate not valid/trusted” warnings, take them seriously, and understand that if you proceed, any credentials that you’ve put into that Web site — in the future or in the past, as they’ll be taking your authentication cookies — are now in someone else’s hands.

Full session…

MitM Attack @ CUN

$50K Judgment Awarded Against NYC Nightclub Security Firm for Groping During “Security Search”

Default Judgment against Ward Security Inc.A year ago yesterday, I filed suit against now-defunct New York nightclub “Flash Factory” and their security firm “Ward Security Inc.” (of New York, no apparent relation to same-name security firms in Florida and England) for an invasive door search policy that involved full-hand grabbing of the genitals of male attendees and inside-the-bra searches for female attendees, all with no advanced warning of the nature of the search.  A girlfriend and I were shocked to encounter their “actually worse than TSA” pat-down on the way into a music event in December 2016 and were groped before we had a chance to refuse consent.  A search of the Internet showed at least a dozen complaints about this by others and they refused our attempts to try and settle the matter with a policy change, so we took it to the courthouse.

Last week, N.Y. Supreme Court Judge Gerald Lebovits awarded my co-plaintiff and I a default judgment of $50,000 against Ward Security after they refused to show up in court despite repeated service and notice.  The order, dated January 11th, 2018 but entered on February 8th, 2018, thanks to the efficiency of the New York court system, further orders that the case continue against Flash Factory itself, which has shown up to court and appears to be using the, “it’s not our fault what our own security did” defense.  As I previously posted, this defense simply doesn’t work, even if you call your security “independent contractors” and shut your eyes to what they do.  It doubly doesn’t work when you’re on notice that a dozen other people have complained about the same thing.

Our goal is to get these practices to stop, and the only tool at our disposal is a request for money damages, as an order requiring them to stop would require us to show potential future harm to us.  But, money damages have the same effect, as once one party gets a judgment, the company knows that if it doesn’t stop, it will have more of the same.

“I’m thankful for this partial victory. It’s good to know that someone is listening to us, but we’re not done fighting by any means. These practices have to change, and venues like Flash Factory need to know that.”

~ Elise Domyan, Co-Plaintiff

A word to the wise: if your business gets sued and has any assets, including accounts receivable (that is, it’s still doing any business whatsoever), ignoring a lawsuit is a bad way to go.  New York law allows a process for collection against businesses similar to the garnishment of wages against individuals, whereby I can require Ward Security’s clients to withhold payment for services, but the process against a business requires them to withhold 100% of the pay instead of a fraction as they do in wage garnishment.  Security firms are also required to post a surety bond at the time they apply for a license — I’ll be taking that, thank you very much.

Corbett & Domyan v. Flash Factory – Default Judgment Granted against Ward Security, Inc. (.pdf)

Is It *Really* Impossible To Get A Gun License in NYC? (Part V — Filings Complete in Appeal in N.Y. Supreme Court, Appellate Division)

This is the fifth installment of a series documenting an ordinary New Yorker attempting to exercise his Second Amendment rights: Part I (license application), Part II (application rejected), Part III (the lawsuit), Part IV (appeal filed).


Opposition to Corbett Gun License AppealWe’re now at 15 months from the date I — just an ordinary citizen with no criminal record — applied for a license to carry a handgun in New York.  My application was filed in December 2016, denied in April 2017, and the NYPD denied my administrative appeal in May 2017.  My petition to have a lower court review the denial was filed in September 2016 and rubber-stamped by a judge in February 2017 who decided that the NYPD’s denial of the license was “rational” because I didn’t give them a good reason to approve it.

The appellate process in New York is a bit clunky.  This is partially owing to the hodgepodge of trial courts — from local town courts that hear small matters, to city courts that hear more significant matters, to county courts that are the highest trial courts.  It’s perhaps also partially owing to the odd naming system in place in this state: the original petition was filed in the “Supreme Court,” the appellate court I’m in now is called the “Supreme Court, Appellate Division,” and the next and last court it can go to is the “Court of Appeals.”  There’s also the “Supreme Court, Appellate Term,” which is somewhere in between “Supreme Court” and “Supreme Court, Appellate Division,” which was skipped here.  Compare this to California, for example, where there are Superior Courts for the trials, Courts of Appeals for the appeals, and their Supreme Court to appeal an appeal — and that’s it.  It really shouldn’t take an hour of research just to figure out which court will hear your case.

It’s also clunky because they have very strict, archaic rules about how they want their documents.  You can’t electronically file, unlike virtually every other court in the state.  But you also must e-mail them a PDF copy, after you “bookmark” each section and subsection in the file (Have you ever used the bookmark feature in Adobe Acrobat?  I hadn’t either!).  You have to file 8 copies of everything, but you probably can’t just staple the hundreds of pages required per copy.  Oh no, you must bind them, but not with comb-binding like you can find at Kinko’s — they only accept binding with metal fasteners or glue binding.  If your fasteners are visible from the outside, you have to put tape over them, because we wouldn’t want any sharp edges in the judge’s chambers.  Some documents must be double-sided while other documents must be single-sided.  You also must use recycled paper for all your printing, because let’s be environmentally-friendly while failing to allow e-filing and requiring 8 copies.  And finally, don’t even think about attaching exhibits to your brief (if you want to, say, cite a government document or a news article and provide the court with a copy), because that’s simply not allowed.

That aside, let’s take a walk through what the City says about my appeal (the contents of what they were responding to — my original appellate brief — are discussed in the previous post):

NYPD is tasked with the grave responsibility of protecting New York City’s 8.5 million residents and over 50 million annual visitors from senseless gun violence and accidental shootings.

Well that does sound like a very important task, but how many people are killed each year in New York with legally-owned handguns?  They omit that statistic, but I’d bet more people are killed by the NYPD each year than by the 88,000 current license holders in New York.

“But if we increase the number of license holders, then there will be more victims!”  Well, the State of Texas has 1.2 million licensees out of 28 million residents (4.3%) and they study how law-abiding those licensees are each year.  Not surprisingly, Texas license holders in 2016 committed 0.35% of crimes in total and 0.40% of assaults with a deadly weapon despite being 4.3% of the population.

NYPD rationally denied Corbett’s application for an unrestricted permit to carry a concealed handgun. That determination is due considerable deference and should be affirmed.

In what sane world is a police department due “deference” when evaluating their decision to deny a constitutional right to the citizens?  We don’t allow them “deference” when they violate 4th Amendment rights by arresting someone without probable cause — they have to prove that they did, indeed, have probable cause.

NYPD’s requirement that applicants complete a minimally invasive background
questionnaire is part of a presumptively lawful regulatory measure that
does not substantially burden Corbett’s right to bear arms.

The background check asks you to go through your prescription medication history, which I refused to do (no, it’s not limited to “prescriptions that get prescribed to crazy people”).  They ask you to tell them any time you’ve ever lost a job.  They ask you for everywhere you’ve lived so that they can talk to your neighbors.  That’s not “minimally invasive” to me — that’s more like the background check one goes through for a government security clearance (unless you’re Jared Kushner, in which case you can flat-out lie and keep your job).   And for those of you who don’t think it’s a big deal, the NYPD admits they would have denied my application even if I had bent over for the background check because I still don’t have a “good reason” for which I “need” a gun.

Corbett was disqualified from carrying a concealed handgun because he obstructed NYPD’s mandatory background investigation [by refusing to answer the most invasive questions]. … His belief that these questions were constitutionally impermissible reflects an absolutist view of the Second Amendment that is not grounded in the law.

In the NYPD’s view, challenging them on the constitutionality of their questions is “obstruction” and “an absolutist view of the Second Amendment.”  Sorry, NYPD, the citizens do have a right to challenge you in the courts, nor is my view that there should be a procedure for an ordinary citizen to carry a gun “absolutist.”  Keep in mind that I completed an application that contained several dozen pages, came in for an in-person interview, submitted to fingerprinting, and paid over $400 (original app process described here).  “The Second Amendment is my gun license” is absolutist.  Challenging their most invasive 3 questions and their “good reason” requirement is simply asking for reasonable access to my rights.

But the government’s opposition to my appeal was strangely silent on one issue: the continuing corruption within the NYPD Licensing Division which resulted in several arrests of police officers in 2016 and 2017 and the transfer of the commanding officer who denied my application to another unit.  Apparently, the fact that one can buy a “good reason” from the NYPD was not an important enough issue to address.

Here’s hoping that the Court doesn’t ignore the elephant in the room like the City did in their opposition.  From here, the Court may order oral arguments, or it may not.  Either way, it will then rule on the appeal (sometime this year), which will either result in the case being sent back to the lower court to do something differently, or will result in the appeal being dismissed and my next appeal to New York’s highest court.

Corbett v. City of New York – Appellate Brief (.pdf – 7MB)

Corbett v. City of New York – Opposition Brief (.pdf)

Corbett v. City of New York – Reply Brief (Bookmarked) (.pdf)

Turkey, Poland Compete To See Who Can Fuck Free Speech Harder in 2018

Let’s meet our contestants in this race to the bottom!

ByLock
Only terrorists would use this!

Weighing in at 83 million residents, Turkey has decided to make the downloading of a messaging app illegal, with possession of it subjecting the thought criminal to prison time, loss of employment, and social scorn for being a terrorist.  The app is called ByLock, and it’s basically a watered-down version of WhatsApp that has now reached over a million downloads (wow, that’s a lot of terrorists!).  The reason this app earned contraband status was because an opposition political party movement called Gülen allegedly liked to use the app to communicate.

Weighing in at 38 million residents, Poland has a pet peeve.  You see, some people have been referring to Nazi concentration camps that existed in Poland during World War II as “Polish death camps.”  Poland takes umbrage at this depiction because, while there were indisputably death camps in Poland, they were not “Polish;” they were German.  So the correct way to handle this situation is not to educate the public but to criminalize the stringing of 3 words together.  Those who use the term “Polish death camps” instead of “death camps in Poland” will be subject to a 3 year term in a Polish death camp — er, I mean, prison.

Polish Death Camp
This is a Polish death camp

The scoreboard stands as follows:

Turkey’s measure is specifically intended to stifle political dissent, which earns them 12 points.  They also earn 5 points for futility, since there’s no special technology behind ByLock and dissidents could simply switch to virtually any messaging app.  They earn 3 more points for accidentally arresting over a thousand people who were mistakenly thought to have downloaded the app.  They earn 1 more point for being ignored by the mainstream media until they accidentally arrested the wrong people (apparently it wasn’t enough of a story when they arrested actual users of an innocent messaging app to silence political dissidents).  And they earn 2 more points because Turkey’s President, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, smells of bad döner.

Poland gets 6 points for the stiff prison sentence for such a subtle linguistic nuance.  They get 2 points for criminalizing the saying of something for no other reason than that it embarrasses them.  They get 5 points for using the Holocaust as an excuse to be authoritarian.  They get 2 more points for criminalizing something Barack Obama once did.  And, I give them 3 points for being a secular, democratic nation from which we should be able to expect better.  But, I deduct 2 points for pissing off Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who puzzlingly equates this with Holocaust denial (no Ben, it’s not Holocaust denial, it’s just stupidity and thuggery).

That’s 23 points for Turkey and 16 points for Poland so far.  Let’s see if Poland can catch up, or perhaps another country will join the battle, which is traditionally initiated by having the country’s leader get on Twitter and announce their candidacy using the hashtag #HoldMyBeer.

Nassar Judge Wishes She Could Sentence Defendant To Be Raped In Prison

Judge Rosemarie AquilinaLarry Nassar, the infamous USA Gymnastics doctor recently convicted of sexual assault upon children and possession of child pornography (some of which he made himself), is, to say the least, not a likable guy.  Considering that he is now 54 years old and was sentenced to 60 years on the federal child pornography charge last month, he already had an effective life sentence before today’s sentencing on the state sex assault charges.

At today’s sentencing, Michigan Circuit Court Judge Rosemarie Aquilina decided on a sentence of 40 to 175 years for the sexual assault charges.  Considering he plead guilty to assaulting 10 children and nearly 200 others have accused him of the same, that sentence isn’t at all surprising.  What did surprise me, however, were the comments coming from Judge Aquilina:

“It is my honor to sentence you because, sir, you do not deserve to walk outside of a prison ever again. Anywhere you walk, destruction would occur to those most vulnerable. I just signed your death warrant.”

Perhaps it’s just because I’m preparing for a law school ethics exam, but this immediately suggested judicial bias to me.  A judge has a duty to recuse his or herself in the event of either personal bias or the appearance of the same.  By itself, this probably would not be enough to prove judicial misconduct, but was enough for me to read through coverage of earlier proceedings, where Judge Aquilina stated as follows:

“Our Constitution does not allow for cruel and unusual punishment. If it did, I have to say, I might allow what he did to all of these beautiful souls, these young women in their childhood, I would allow some or many people to do to him what he did to others.”

Did she seriously just say that, if not restrained by the Constitution, she would hand out sentences that ordered the sexual assault of a convict?  This makes me question not just her personal bias but her fitness to be a judge.  Rape is not acceptable in our society, it’s not “funny” or “cool” or “tough” to wish it on someone, and that doesn’t change if it takes place in a prison or if the victim is an evil person.

If our goal is to dismantle the “rape culture,” Judge Aquilina’s comments are not helpful in moving us forward.  Mr. Nassar’s victims deserved justice, and in order to best deliver that justice and ensure no possibility of appeal for judicial misconduct, comments like the above should be omitted from the courtroom.

NYPD Upset That They Will Have Fewer “Get Out of Jail Free” Cards to Give to Family in 2018

Many years ago, I was hanging out with a police officer friend of mine at a bar.  One of her police friends said he was about to drive home, and I asked if he was good to drive.  He chuckled a bit and said, “Of course, what are they going to do, arrest me?”  He then left the bar, far more intoxicated than I would prefer to be behind the wheel, and presumably drove home.

He was right, of course: assuming he didn’t get into an accident thus forcing a report to be made, while you may be shocked by his attitude, you probably know that police officers will not cite or arrest each other for pretty much anything that doesn’t have a complaining civilian witness, and sometimes not even then.  This “professional courtesy” is also often extended to their families by providing the family member business cards with little notes on them.  Having such a card is not a license to kill, but it is probably going to get you out of a minor speeding ticket.

It takes special audacity, however, to be the largest police union in the country and to take this to the next level by printing up plastic credit-card like “get out of jail free” cards, and giving each officer 32 of these cards every year.  It takes even more audacity to complain to the media when the union reduces that number down to 20:

“They are treating active members like shit, and retired members even worse than shit,” griped an NYPD cop who retired on disability. “All the cops I spoke to were . . . very disappointed they couldn’t hand them out as Christmas gifts.”

A few points.

First, it’s clear that these cards are expected to grant special privileges upon the holder, to wit: that they will receive leniency upon being stopped for committing a crime.  Otherwise, they’d make pretty lousy gifts.  “Oh, thanks, Dad, a 2018 edition of a worthless card from your former employer!”  Of course not.

Second, this is corruption.  It’s not major, “let’s get a law passed in exchange for cash” corruption.  But all are entitled to be treated equally under the law, and if some are treated “more equally than others,” we end up with nonsense like NYC’s gun licensing scheme, where for a full century, anyone from literal mobsters to random rich people are entitled to their Second Amendment rights where the people as a whole are not.

NYPD Get Out of Jail Free Card
Yes, seriously.

Third, the reason cops want 32 of these cards is not because they have 32 family members to give them to, but because they are literally selling them on eBay.  For a $50 donation to your local corrupt cop, you too can have a get-out-of-jail-free card.  For a bit more, you can get one signed by an actual cop.

It’s a problem that it’s long time we address, and the first step in fixing that problem is treating this like the corruption that it is.  NYPD rank-and-file cops simply see this as a perk of the job — as “professional courtesy.”  But there’s nothing courteous about it to the general public, who is deprived of the public safety benefit they are paying for when people think they no longer have to follow the law.  Police officers and their family should be setting the example when it comes to lawfulness — not seeking to be above the law.

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑