Debate of police militarization hosted by @FedSocPhoenix to include @radleybalko

Radley Balko

“Are cops constitutional?”

With that opening and follow-up sentences just as damning, Radley Balko has caused a furor among U.S. experts in policing and the Constitution. And this Friday, Balko will be in Arizona to make his controversial arguments.

That opening sentence was the first line in an impressive ABA Journal article last July. Titled “How did America’s police become a military force on the streets?” it is definitely worth your time. I know, I know, it’s crazy long, and we’ve all been trained (said the blogger) to read little snippets of thought and snark. Well, get over it. Pour yourself a cup of coffee, tea, wine or whisky (depending on the time and your inclination) and settle in. It will reward your time investment.

What Balko does is deconstruct the path of military dollars as it has been funneled into many police agencies, probably in your very own community. And the trickle-down effect of the global war on drugs (which is where this money is targeted) has been to transform your local constables into a highly trained, armed-to-the-teeth platoon of peace-keepers—who to the casual observer may be indistinguishable from U.S. military.

We are used to noting in politics that money has a certain corrupting influence, but many folks resist observing the same effect when it comes to our police departments. Balko has no such hesitation.

Example of policing monies, from Radley Balko ABA Journal article.

So why is the well-known Washington Post journalist coming to Arizona? To debate Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery.

Having read a fair amount of Balko’s work, I have to admire Bill’s willingness to jump into this fight. I look forward to seeing the two men spar.

The event will be on Friday, February 21, at 11:30. The sponsor is the Phoenix Federalist Society Lawyers Chapter. The debate will be at Kincaid’s, 2 S. 3^rd St., Phoenix 85004.

Here is how they describe the combatants—I mean speakers:

“Radley Balko is a senior writer and investigative reporter for the Huffington Post and a former senior editor for Reason magazine. He is the author of Rise of the Warrior Cop, which argues that politicians’ ill-considered policies and relentless declarations of war against vague enemies like crime, drugs, and terror have blurred the distinction between cop and soldier.”

“Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery was first elected to his position in a Special Election in 2010 and re-elected in 2012 on a pledge to fight crime, honor victims’ rights, and protect and strengthen our community. As a West Point Graduate, decorated Gulf War Veteran, former Deputy County Attorney and a professional prosecutor, he has dedicated his personal and professional life to serving others.”

Interested? You should be. Register here.

I may write a follow-up post. But if you’re moved to do the same, contact me about a possible guest post.

Follow @azatty

 

Maricopa County Attorney Forum Today at @phxlaw

Event images have been added to the bottom of this post.

At 11:15 this morning, the one and only forum of candidates for Maricopa County Attorney will occur. I encourage you to attend.

First of all, I have to divulge: I will be moderating the forum. But as we know, the moderator’s main job is to speak little and to let the candidates do most all the talking. Though that may not always work well (yo, Jim Lehrer), that is my plan and I’m stickin’ to it.

The more important reason to attend is that this is an incredibly important elected office. Even if there is little doubt about the race’s outcome between Libertarian Michael Kielsky and Republican Bill Montgomery (no Democratic candidate was fielded), I still think that hearing what people stand for counts for a lot.

The topics themselves are some of the most noteworthy in our communities: charging, sentencing, immigration, drug use, medical marijuana, campaign finance, prison alternatives, capital punishment, identity theft. And those are just a few of the things we may cover.

You and others may participate in a few ways. First, of course, you can come to the forum. It’s from 11:15 a.m. until 12:15 p.m., at the Phoenix School of Law, One N. Central Ave., Room 1715. Your questions will be welcomed at the end of the hour.

The other way to be a part of the process: Send me a suggested question. You can post it below, or email it to me at arizona.attorney@azbar.org. I will check my email right up until we begin at 11:15, so fire away.

I hope to see you there.

Here are some images from the debate panel:

L to R: Candidate Bill Montgomery, Phoenix School of Law Professor Keith Swisher, candidate Michael Kielsky

L to R: Candidate Bill Montgomery, Phoenix School of Law Professor Keith Swisher, candidate Michael Kielsky

Follow @azatty

 

Andrew Thomas, Muse

What is it about Andrew Thomas that causes arbiters to wax poetic? How powerful must his creative aura be that it extends beyond his own case, and lends its suggestive ability to those who encounter cases merely related to his own?

Andrew Thomas

The songs of the former county attorney were melodic enough to lure some of his deputies onto the rocky beach alongside him. But the tuneful prosecutor has planted the poesy plant in those now charged with reviewing the evidence of matters arising from his administration.

I wrote before about Harold Merkow, the man condemned to serve who served as the hearing officer in the Lisa Aubuchon merit commission matter. As he took testimony and reviewed evidence regarding Andrew Thomas’s chief deputy, he weathered a very long and contentious hearing. But when it came time to write his report, he definitely got jiggy with it.

The events of the Thomas matter had driven Merkow to levels of rhetoric typically reserved for battlefield proclamations and Bible-thumping church services.

Now, it’s Judge Bill O’Neil’s turn to put the blush on the rose. Ah, poetic justice!

O’Neil, the state’s Presiding Disciplinary Judge, released a series of orders yesterday pertaining to the disciplinary charges filed against Thomas, Aubuchon and Rachel Alexander.

They are all worth reading, but the one in which he deconstructs the respondents’ arguments demanding that electronic media not be permitted to cover their trial—that’s a keeper.

Below is a PDF of the order (as named by the court). Settle in and enjoy some reading.

JudgeO’Neil’sRulingonMedia’sRequestedCameraCoveragefiled5-02-2011

But in case you can’t get to it right away, a few snippets:

“Respondents speculate that the media may frame or prejudge the public through its power of an editorial disguised as reporting. If members of the press choose to wrongly prejudge, however, they will likely one day discover they cannot do wrong without suffering wrong. Biased reporting assures a tree without bloom or fruit and tragically assures a public’s lack of trust in the very institution of a free press. But this judge does not believe that will occur beyond a few.

“… The refusal to report pertinent news and the preclusion of an ability to report pertinent news are thorns of similar thistles.

“Despairing of the few who may be irresponsible cannot be a reason for drawing a shade on these proceedings.

“Few things are more certain to trigger an increase in public distrust than the removal of proceedings from public scrutiny. The best clarification to dark allegations is not more darkness but rather the light of informed reasoning.”

Here comes the light.