On April 24, activists from the around the country converged on Washington for the 10th anniversary march of the FreeHer campaign, a national movement against the prison industrial complex, focused on the release of incarcerated women and girls. Despite campaign promises to free 100 women in his first 100 days in office, the Biden administration’s record on clemency is among the worst in US history, granting clemency only 29 times in nearly four years—with 16 of these given on the day of the FreeHer march alone. Activists also called attention to the epidemic of sexual violence and abuse against prisoners by correctional staff. Rattling the Bars reports from the streets in DC, speaking directly with organizers and movement activists about their demands for Biden and their broader vision for liberation.
The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. A proofread version will be made available as soon as possible.
Speaker 1:
We vote clemency! We vote clemency! And we want it when?
Speaker 2:
Now.
Speaker 1:
We want it now. We want it when?
Speaker 2:
Now.
Speaker 1:
Send those messages to President Biden and say, don’t even look at us again until you’re willing to free these women. And we want everybody to please, when you leave here, take this message with you, hit your governor in the head with it. Hit the President in the head with it, that we vote clemency and we need you to get to work. Tenth anniversary March on Washington. Try to make President Biden understand that freedom must happen.
Pick up your pen. Commute the sentences of our mothers, our grandmothers, our sisters, our aunts and our wives. Enough is enough. Free Michelle West, 30 plus years in prison. Free Lazar Daz, 30 plus years in prison. Free our elders like Ms. Friend. Get these women out of these prisons. Now! We got rap with us releasing aging people in prison. We got legal services for prisoners with children. We got women, and men, and babies here from every single state around the country, and we are demanding enough is enough. President Biden, pick up that pen.
Speaker 2:
We’re building a family. This is a whole community that has been impacted by incarceration from different ways, whether we’ve been formerly incarcerated, or we had loved ones like our mothers incarcerated. And so it’s time that we come together in solidarity, and highlight the harm that the system has caused. And so we can’t do this alone, so we have to come together. And when we come together, that’s a movement.
Speaker 3:
One more time, we’re at Freedom Plaza in Washington D.C. At the Free Her March. I didn’t know what kind of impact it would have on me. We’ve got women that’s coming together to march to abolish the prison industrial complex as it relates to women. We’ve got families. We’ve got their children, we’ve got the grandparents. We’ve got the great-grandparents, generation upon generation. They want the end to the mass incarceration of women, but more importantly, they want to free her.
Speaker 4:
Mississippi, Mississippi, I need you to free her! Indiana, I need you to free her! Georgia, free her! D.C., free her! Alabama, free her!
Speaker 5:
We got Milwaukee in the building. Milwaukee in the building.
Speaker 6:
Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
Speaker 5:
Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
Speaker 3:
Where you from?
Speaker 7:
Washington D.C.
Speaker 3:
Okay. We are from Nation Capital. Why are you here?
Star:
I’m here to free Ms. West, Michelle West, and here to support the women that’s here.
Speaker 3:
Hi, what’s your name?
Star:
My name is Star. How you doing?
Speaker 3:
I’m good. Where you from?
Star:
The Bronx, New York.
Speaker 3:
Okay. We got the Bronx with us today. Why are you here today?
Star:
Because we’re here to petition the President, and everybody else on his team, to grant clemency to Michelle West, and all the other women who deserve it.
Speaker 8:
He told us when we was here four years ago that he was going to free a hundred women within the hundred days of him being in office. And he has not done any of what he said he was going to do. So we’re here today asking for him to free our women, and free them now.
Star:
We are tired of giving the Democrats what they want, and they don’t give us what we need.
Speaker 3:
So what do we want?
Star:
We want freedom for all women and girls. We want rehabilitation, and alternatives to incarceration.
Speaker 9:
We want Michelle West Free!
Miquelle West:
I’m Miquelle West, Michelle West’s daughter. My mom was incarcerated when I was ten years old for a drug conspiracy case. And she’s serving two life sentences and 15 years.
Speaker 9:
I represent the women that want to be free. Let our women be free. Let our women out of [inaudible 00:04:06].
Music:
Music
Group:
Cut it down!
Speaker 10:
[inaudible 00:04:36].
Group:
Cut it down!
Speaker 10:
[inaudible 00:04:39]
Speaker 11:
Stop criminalizing us for poverty, stop criminalizing us for how we cope from this trauma that has been put on us historically, and continues into this present day. Free my sisters.
Speaker 12:
The women get treated badly. The women get raped in jail. All kinds of things. I served federal time, and I know what it’s like to be in there. And I say free women today.
Speaker 13:
We told them to free those women, and they didn’t do it. They’re sending them to other prisons that, guess what? Also are raping our sisters inside of the federal system. So we’ve got a lot of work to do, people.
Speaker 14:
The response is to move all the women at once, all of a sudden to just throw them out into places all over the country with no preparation, no bathroom facilities. They’re being, as one of them said, the men who raped them, should, and are, going to prison. And the women are being punished now because they’re saying that the BOP, which can’t control their own staff, has to close the prison because they can’t manage it. And they take the women. I’ve been walking with different friends of mine who were in Dublin with me.
Speaker 3:
Right.
Speaker 14:
It was not a low-security place at that point. And we’re all having flashbacks of what it was to be transferred in that way, where you’re treated like a sack of laundry, except that you’re chained up. You’re chained at the waist. You can’t use the bathroom for hours, you get no food. They sat on a bus for five hours in the parking lot of the prison. And then at the end of five hours, they were taken back into the prison. They said, “Oh, we don’t know where to take you.” So the way that they’re being treated and then their families… Some people have children and their families are in the Bay Area. So the children were able to visit their moms in the prison, and now the moms have been sent like across country.
Speaker 15:
All this is the remedy for their abusive behavior. The remedy for their abusive behavior become more abusive.
Speaker 14:
Exactly. It’s true abuse, only this time, it’s like it’s standard operating procedures as opposed to rape, which is standard operating procedures, but it’s not written in the book.
Speaker 15:
We have to bring our women home, our children need them. Our black young men lead them. Black men need the nurturing, need the comfort, the caring, and the support that they need for mothers to structure them in the right way, so that we won’t be enslavery into the system. So thank you for everybody. As you see, we’re all out here making the cards.
Speaker 16:
Turn around.
Speaker 17:
They’re here on behalf of their mother. Why you bring the two?
Speaker 16:
Because that’s their mother.
Speaker 17:
Okay.
Speaker 16:
That needs to be released.
Speaker 17:
Okay. How long has she been locked up?
Speaker 16:
She’s been locked up right now for two years.
Speaker 17:
And why haven’t they released her yet?
Speaker 16:
They haven’t released her because they say she’s an activist. She was an activist.
Speaker 17:
What’s her name?
Speaker 16:
Brittany Martin.
Speaker 17:
Brittany Martin. So we got Brittany Martin as an activist and be held-
Speaker 16:
In Illinois.
Speaker 17:
In Illinois State Prison?
Speaker 13:
Yes. Yes, sir.
Speaker 17:
FCI?
Speaker 13:
IDOC.
Speaker 17:
Okay. So what do you want her to know about what’s going on here today?
Speaker 13:
Man, listen, it’s powerful out here, man. There’s people from everywhere and every place, and she is known. Her injustice is known.
Speaker 17:
What do you want to happen for your mother?
Speaker 18:
Bring her home.
Speaker 17:
Bring her home? Bring your mother home?
Speaker 18:
Yeah!
Speaker 17:
What’s your mother’s name?
Speaker 18:
Pretty mama.
Speaker 17:
Okay. And what y’all want? What y’all want?
Speaker 18:
Bring her home!
Speaker 17:
Bring her home. I talked to a friend of mine that was here, the first one. She said it was only maybe a hundred women. This is the indication that we’re building and mobilizing. So how do you feel about that?
Speaker 21:
I think it’s great. I think it’s fantastic. It’s something that’s needed. Women who are getting triple life sentences for things that are… It’s not reasonable. So I like it.
Speaker 20:
I am here because I believe that every woman deserves her peace and her freedom.
Speaker 21:
Who are these people up here that you see?
Speaker 20:
These are women incarcerated in the Georgia Penal system.
Speaker 21:
And how long-
Speaker 20:
They are lifers.
Speaker 21:
They’ve been in prison for a long time.
Speaker 20:
Yes. They’ve been in prison for a long time, and constantly denied parole. So we are here speaking on their behalf.
Speaker 22:
There’s a lot of women that I myself was actually incarcerated with. I’m from Augusta, Georgia, served 12 years out of 20 years of [inaudible 00:09:41] . I was released in 2016. So now I’m advocating for myself and other women. So let’s free them, free her.
Speaker 3:
Briefly tell our audience what happened with your daughter.
Speaker 22:
In February of 2018, she, along with her husband, was indicted on a federal drug indictment along with several others that was named on that indictment. At the beginning of the… there was no… Spock was not mentioned in any of the discoveries or anything, but once they got her to trial, they went ahead with the indictment. Matter of fact, there was three superseding indictments that was made. She ended up being on pretrial release from 2018 to 2021. At which time in July the 26th of 2021, she actually went to trial and was found guilty by a jury. Partly because of the attorney that she had, did not present any of the evidence or anything. Did not put on any type of defense. He just came to court against the federal government with a notepad and a pen.
Speaker 3:
Okay. We already know about… I was locked up. I did 48 years in prison. So I understand. We know about the public pretender. That’s what we call him in the prison system. But how much time did your daughter get?
Speaker 22:
She got 15 years mandatory. She had a mandatory minimum of 15 years.
Speaker 3:
Okay. She got a mandatory minimum of 15 years. Was this her first offense?
Speaker 22:
First offense, Sparkle Hobbs Bryant is a mother of two children. She’s never been in trouble. She was an upstanding citizen before the indictment. She’s been an upstanding system in the jail system as well as in the prison system. And we just want her to come home. This is her daughter who was 14 months old when she left her, and we’re tired of taking her to the prison to see her mother.
Speaker 23:
And not to mention, she’s also been in the military. She served in the Navy.
Speaker 24:
The power of women. They come from all over the country. New York, Nevada, Montana, Kansas to free her. This is the 10th anniversary of women prisoners coming out, organizing to free women prisoners. This is a monumental occasion. This is an example of power to the people. Free her.
Karen Elsima:
I’m Karen Elsima from Alaska. I’m formerly incarcerated. I left three kids at home who also had to live with my felonies. Today, after 13 years out, I have a daughter who also had to sign a seven-year deal, and now is about to celebrate two years in recovery, about to have a baby. But if someone hadn’t invested in me, my children, the restoration would not have been there. We’re still working on it.
Speaker 24:
Right.
Speaker 16:
But it’s just such an example of how many moms and kids and families need to have that restoration be invested in as a people.
Speaker 24:
And that’s one of the things that the Free Her movement is talking about. Invest in people, not in the expansion of prisons that’s going to house people, and dehumanize, and destroy families. Thank you, sis.
Speaker 25:
I think people are going to be more educated. We’re going to continue to come out and rally as needed, and continue to educate others about the movement. But it’s going to be a fight for a while, but we’re going to keep at it.
Speaker 26:
We demand that President Biden and state governors free our mothers. Free them for Mother’s Day. Free her!
Music:
Alleluia Music
Speaker 27:
Oh, that is, you see us out here. We’re out here. We’re stronger in numbers. Like Sashi said. We come together in solidarity. We collectively come up with strategies to free each one of them one by one. We’re trying to tear down the criminal justice system brick by brick, piece by piece. And we know what that looks like, and that’s why we’re out here.
Speaker 3:
And I heard the speaker say collectively, her colleagues, former sisters that was locked up with her, if you did them collectively, they did a thousand years. And I did 48 years before I got out. And I was in the room one time and I asked, had some college students in there. I had like 10 people. I told all the dudes that added up their numbers. So when I told them, I said I launched how many numbers. It was over 500 years in the room of time we had did. So with terms like that, what do you think about the clemency?
Speaker 27:
I think that everyone should get a second chance. And I see that society lately is not giving people a chance. I don’t feel that no one should be locked up for the rest of their life. And who is one person to take somebody’s freedom away, rather it be a six-man, jury, it be a judge or whomever it be? No one has that right. And we’re going to free them all. And they are coming home.
Speaker 28:
And we also want to highlight re-imagining communities. You know, the only reason why we are here is because women have never had a first chance to begin with, and they’ve never had resources. Look at this. This is a crowd of black people. Instead of talking about 500, a thousand, a thousand years, 2000 years, these are years that our family has been stripped away from our loved ones. And that’s not acceptable. So we need to begin to shift and call on not only the President Biden, but all of the governors. Each state, state by state, needs to provide resources to the people so that way we’re not even ending up on a prison bunk to begin with. Not our babies, not our mothers, not us, not none of us. We have the resources, we just have to use them. So, yes to clemency, but also yes to resources immediately. So we don’t have to use tools like clemency.
On April 24, activists from the around the country converged on Washington for the 10th anniversary march of the FreeHer campaign, a national movement against the prison industrial complex, focused on the release of incarcerated women and girls. Despite campaign promises to free 100 women in his first 100 days in office, the Biden administration’s record on clemency is among the worst in US history, granting clemency only 29 times in nearly four years—with 16 of these given on the day of the FreeHer march alone. Activists also called attention to the epidemic of sexual violence and abuse against prisoners by correctional staff. Rattling the Bars reports from the streets in DC, speaking directly with organizers and movement activists about their demands for Biden and their broader vision for liberation.
The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. A proofread version will be made available as soon as possible.
Speaker 1:
We vote clemency! We vote clemency! And we want it when?
Speaker 2:
Now.
Speaker 1:
We want it now. We want it when?
Speaker 2:
Now.
Speaker 1:
Send those messages to President Biden and say, don’t even look at us again until you’re willing to free these women. And we want everybody to please, when you leave here, take this message with you, hit your governor in the head with it. Hit the President in the head with it, that we vote clemency and we need you to get to work. Tenth anniversary March on Washington. Try to make President Biden understand that freedom must happen.
Pick up your pen. Commute the sentences of our mothers, our grandmothers, our sisters, our aunts and our wives. Enough is enough. Free Michelle West, 30 plus years in prison. Free Lazar Daz, 30 plus years in prison. Free our elders like Ms. Friend. Get these women out of these prisons. Now! We got rap with us releasing aging people in prison. We got legal services for prisoners with children. We got women, and men, and babies here from every single state around the country, and we are demanding enough is enough. President Biden, pick up that pen.
Speaker 2:
We’re building a family. This is a whole community that has been impacted by incarceration from different ways, whether we’ve been formerly incarcerated, or we had loved ones like our mothers incarcerated. And so it’s time that we come together in solidarity, and highlight the harm that the system has caused. And so we can’t do this alone, so we have to come together. And when we come together, that’s a movement.
Speaker 3:
One more time, we’re at Freedom Plaza in Washington D.C. At the Free Her March. I didn’t know what kind of impact it would have on me. We’ve got women that’s coming together to march to abolish the prison industrial complex as it relates to women. We’ve got families. We’ve got their children, we’ve got the grandparents. We’ve got the great-grandparents, generation upon generation. They want the end to the mass incarceration of women, but more importantly, they want to free her.
Speaker 4:
Mississippi, Mississippi, I need you to free her! Indiana, I need you to free her! Georgia, free her! D.C., free her! Alabama, free her!
Speaker 5:
We got Milwaukee in the building. Milwaukee in the building.
Speaker 6:
Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
Speaker 5:
Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
Speaker 3:
Where you from?
Speaker 7:
Washington D.C.
Speaker 3:
Okay. We are from Nation Capital. Why are you here?
Star:
I’m here to free Ms. West, Michelle West, and here to support the women that’s here.
Speaker 3:
Hi, what’s your name?
Star:
My name is Star. How you doing?
Speaker 3:
I’m good. Where you from?
Star:
The Bronx, New York.
Speaker 3:
Okay. We got the Bronx with us today. Why are you here today?
Star:
Because we’re here to petition the President, and everybody else on his team, to grant clemency to Michelle West, and all the other women who deserve it.
Speaker 8:
He told us when we was here four years ago that he was going to free a hundred women within the hundred days of him being in office. And he has not done any of what he said he was going to do. So we’re here today asking for him to free our women, and free them now.
Star:
We are tired of giving the Democrats what they want, and they don’t give us what we need.
Speaker 3:
So what do we want?
Star:
We want freedom for all women and girls. We want rehabilitation, and alternatives to incarceration.
Speaker 9:
We want Michelle West Free!
Miquelle West:
I’m Miquelle West, Michelle West’s daughter. My mom was incarcerated when I was ten years old for a drug conspiracy case. And she’s serving two life sentences and 15 years.
Speaker 9:
I represent the women that want to be free. Let our women be free. Let our women out of [inaudible 00:04:06].
Music:
Music
Group:
Cut it down!
Speaker 10:
[inaudible 00:04:36].
Group:
Cut it down!
Speaker 10:
[inaudible 00:04:39]
Speaker 11:
Stop criminalizing us for poverty, stop criminalizing us for how we cope from this trauma that has been put on us historically, and continues into this present day. Free my sisters.
Speaker 12:
The women get treated badly. The women get raped in jail. All kinds of things. I served federal time, and I know what it’s like to be in there. And I say free women today.
Speaker 13:
We told them to free those women, and they didn’t do it. They’re sending them to other prisons that, guess what? Also are raping our sisters inside of the federal system. So we’ve got a lot of work to do, people.
Speaker 14:
The response is to move all the women at once, all of a sudden to just throw them out into places all over the country with no preparation, no bathroom facilities. They’re being, as one of them said, the men who raped them, should, and are, going to prison. And the women are being punished now because they’re saying that the BOP, which can’t control their own staff, has to close the prison because they can’t manage it. And they take the women. I’ve been walking with different friends of mine who were in Dublin with me.
Speaker 3:
Right.
Speaker 14:
It was not a low-security place at that point. And we’re all having flashbacks of what it was to be transferred in that way, where you’re treated like a sack of laundry, except that you’re chained up. You’re chained at the waist. You can’t use the bathroom for hours, you get no food. They sat on a bus for five hours in the parking lot of the prison. And then at the end of five hours, they were taken back into the prison. They said, “Oh, we don’t know where to take you.” So the way that they’re being treated and then their families… Some people have children and their families are in the Bay Area. So the children were able to visit their moms in the prison, and now the moms have been sent like across country.
Speaker 15:
All this is the remedy for their abusive behavior. The remedy for their abusive behavior become more abusive.
Speaker 14:
Exactly. It’s true abuse, only this time, it’s like it’s standard operating procedures as opposed to rape, which is standard operating procedures, but it’s not written in the book.
Speaker 15:
We have to bring our women home, our children need them. Our black young men lead them. Black men need the nurturing, need the comfort, the caring, and the support that they need for mothers to structure them in the right way, so that we won’t be enslavery into the system. So thank you for everybody. As you see, we’re all out here making the cards.
Speaker 16:
Turn around.
Speaker 17:
They’re here on behalf of their mother. Why you bring the two?
Speaker 16:
Because that’s their mother.
Speaker 17:
Okay.
Speaker 16:
That needs to be released.
Speaker 17:
Okay. How long has she been locked up?
Speaker 16:
She’s been locked up right now for two years.
Speaker 17:
And why haven’t they released her yet?
Speaker 16:
They haven’t released her because they say she’s an activist. She was an activist.
Speaker 17:
What’s her name?
Speaker 16:
Brittany Martin.
Speaker 17:
Brittany Martin. So we got Brittany Martin as an activist and be held-
Speaker 16:
In Illinois.
Speaker 17:
In Illinois State Prison?
Speaker 13:
Yes. Yes, sir.
Speaker 17:
FCI?
Speaker 13:
IDOC.
Speaker 17:
Okay. So what do you want her to know about what’s going on here today?
Speaker 13:
Man, listen, it’s powerful out here, man. There’s people from everywhere and every place, and she is known. Her injustice is known.
Speaker 17:
What do you want to happen for your mother?
Speaker 18:
Bring her home.
Speaker 17:
Bring her home? Bring your mother home?
Speaker 18:
Yeah!
Speaker 17:
What’s your mother’s name?
Speaker 18:
Pretty mama.
Speaker 17:
Okay. And what y’all want? What y’all want?
Speaker 18:
Bring her home!
Speaker 17:
Bring her home. I talked to a friend of mine that was here, the first one. She said it was only maybe a hundred women. This is the indication that we’re building and mobilizing. So how do you feel about that?
Speaker 21:
I think it’s great. I think it’s fantastic. It’s something that’s needed. Women who are getting triple life sentences for things that are… It’s not reasonable. So I like it.
Speaker 20:
I am here because I believe that every woman deserves her peace and her freedom.
Speaker 21:
Who are these people up here that you see?
Speaker 20:
These are women incarcerated in the Georgia Penal system.
Speaker 21:
And how long-
Speaker 20:
They are lifers.
Speaker 21:
They’ve been in prison for a long time.
Speaker 20:
Yes. They’ve been in prison for a long time, and constantly denied parole. So we are here speaking on their behalf.
Speaker 22:
There’s a lot of women that I myself was actually incarcerated with. I’m from Augusta, Georgia, served 12 years out of 20 years of [inaudible 00:09:41] . I was released in 2016. So now I’m advocating for myself and other women. So let’s free them, free her.
Speaker 3:
Briefly tell our audience what happened with your daughter.
Speaker 22:
In February of 2018, she, along with her husband, was indicted on a federal drug indictment along with several others that was named on that indictment. At the beginning of the… there was no… Spock was not mentioned in any of the discoveries or anything, but once they got her to trial, they went ahead with the indictment. Matter of fact, there was three superseding indictments that was made. She ended up being on pretrial release from 2018 to 2021. At which time in July the 26th of 2021, she actually went to trial and was found guilty by a jury. Partly because of the attorney that she had, did not present any of the evidence or anything. Did not put on any type of defense. He just came to court against the federal government with a notepad and a pen.
Speaker 3:
Okay. We already know about… I was locked up. I did 48 years in prison. So I understand. We know about the public pretender. That’s what we call him in the prison system. But how much time did your daughter get?
Speaker 22:
She got 15 years mandatory. She had a mandatory minimum of 15 years.
Speaker 3:
Okay. She got a mandatory minimum of 15 years. Was this her first offense?
Speaker 22:
First offense, Sparkle Hobbs Bryant is a mother of two children. She’s never been in trouble. She was an upstanding citizen before the indictment. She’s been an upstanding system in the jail system as well as in the prison system. And we just want her to come home. This is her daughter who was 14 months old when she left her, and we’re tired of taking her to the prison to see her mother.
Speaker 23:
And not to mention, she’s also been in the military. She served in the Navy.
Speaker 24:
The power of women. They come from all over the country. New York, Nevada, Montana, Kansas to free her. This is the 10th anniversary of women prisoners coming out, organizing to free women prisoners. This is a monumental occasion. This is an example of power to the people. Free her.
Karen Elsima:
I’m Karen Elsima from Alaska. I’m formerly incarcerated. I left three kids at home who also had to live with my felonies. Today, after 13 years out, I have a daughter who also had to sign a seven-year deal, and now is about to celebrate two years in recovery, about to have a baby. But if someone hadn’t invested in me, my children, the restoration would not have been there. We’re still working on it.
Speaker 24:
Right.
Speaker 16:
But it’s just such an example of how many moms and kids and families need to have that restoration be invested in as a people.
Speaker 24:
And that’s one of the things that the Free Her movement is talking about. Invest in people, not in the expansion of prisons that’s going to house people, and dehumanize, and destroy families. Thank you, sis.
Speaker 25:
I think people are going to be more educated. We’re going to continue to come out and rally as needed, and continue to educate others about the movement. But it’s going to be a fight for a while, but we’re going to keep at it.
Speaker 26:
We demand that President Biden and state governors free our mothers. Free them for Mother’s Day. Free her!
Music:
Alleluia Music
Speaker 27:
Oh, that is, you see us out here. We’re out here. We’re stronger in numbers. Like Sashi said. We come together in solidarity. We collectively come up with strategies to free each one of them one by one. We’re trying to tear down the criminal justice system brick by brick, piece by piece. And we know what that looks like, and that’s why we’re out here.
Speaker 3:
And I heard the speaker say collectively, her colleagues, former sisters that was locked up with her, if you did them collectively, they did a thousand years. And I did 48 years before I got out. And I was in the room one time and I asked, had some college students in there. I had like 10 people. I told all the dudes that added up their numbers. So when I told them, I said I launched how many numbers. It was over 500 years in the room of time we had did. So with terms like that, what do you think about the clemency?
Speaker 27:
I think that everyone should get a second chance. And I see that society lately is not giving people a chance. I don’t feel that no one should be locked up for the rest of their life. And who is one person to take somebody’s freedom away, rather it be a six-man, jury, it be a judge or whomever it be? No one has that right. And we’re going to free them all. And they are coming home.
Speaker 28:
And we also want to highlight re-imagining communities. You know, the only reason why we are here is because women have never had a first chance to begin with, and they’ve never had resources. Look at this. This is a crowd of black people. Instead of talking about 500, a thousand, a thousand years, 2000 years, these are years that our family has been stripped away from our loved ones. And that’s not acceptable. So we need to begin to shift and call on not only the President Biden, but all of the governors. Each state, state by state, needs to provide resources to the people so that way we’re not even ending up on a prison bunk to begin with. Not our babies, not our mothers, not us, not none of us. We have the resources, we just have to use them. So, yes to clemency, but also yes to resources immediately. So we don’t have to use tools like clemency.
Critics of the prison industrial complex have long noted the system’s failure to properly rehabilitate those who are locked away in its bowels. Christina Merryman and Ameena Deramous return to Rattling the Bars for the second part of a two-part interview on the reality facing prisoners in Maryland’s only women’s correctional facility.
Studio Production: David Hebden Post-Production: Cameron Granadino
Transcript
The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. A proofread version will be made available as soon as possible.
Mansa Musa:
Welcome to Rattling Bars here on The Real News Network. I’m your host, Mansa Musa. Last week, we published part one of our deep dive into the conditions for incarcerated women in the State of Maryland. I spoke with my guests, Christina Merryman and Ameena Deramous, both formerly incarcerated, about life on the inside for incarcerated women in the state.
Today, we’re going to look at part two of that conversation. I spoke with Christina and Ameena about what it is like for women who are returning home or trying to return home from prison. Here’s part two of that conversation.
Welcome back to Rattling the Bars, Christina and Ameena. We was talking about how do we maintain our sanity in the face of the most arduous conditions in prison? And y’all made the observation that in terms of how women’s [inaudible 00:01:11] being ran, it’s almost like it’s a whole nother colony. It’s outside of Maryland. It’s somewhere else in the Third World country, for lack of better description.
But what I want to talk about now is, okay, we recognize that in order to maintain our sanity under those types of conditions, we have to find a purpose. We have to find something to live for, and whatever that is, we have to find it, and we had to make a commitment to that. I was telling y’all I was litigious when I was in the Maryland prison system, and I got so bad with them that I shut down one time, me and another guy shut down the whole… We was up in Hagerstown, which is where they had a correctional facility. And we had found so many inmate grievances complaints that we shut down the whole 8:00 to 4:00 shift and the 4:00 to 12:00 shift because so many witnesses was coming in from them two shifts from doing abusive things towards prisoners. Needless to say that that didn’t sit well with the administration, and ultimately I found myself back in max eventually because of that.
But in terms of that whole experience, it was hard for me to stay focused because I knew… I said, “Well, any day they’re going to come and get me, take me in the hole and beat me,” because that’s how litigious I was, and I knew they were abusive.
But when y’all were describing some of the things that going on in the women’s cut and how the officers are, how did it impact? And y’all talk about how it impacted y’all and how y’all was able to, like you say Kristen, you was a social butterfly, so that was your way of maintaining your sanity to maintain your social skills. And I mean, you was saying in your situation, your thing was to be litigious, that if okay, you ain’t like it, you try to find a way to resolve it through the legal means. Well, not everybody like that. Talk about the impact that this has on the women in general, some of the problems that you see going on in that environment as a result of the way the women’s cut is being ran. We go with you first, Christina.
Christina Merryman:
So the problem starts with the administration. There is none.
Mansa Musa:
At Chippendale [inaudible 00:03:45]?
Christina Merryman:
Chippendale, I don’t believe is there anymore. I don’t even know who the warden is. When I left, I couldn’t tell you who the warden was. They went through four of them within a two-month time period, I believe.
Veronica (Ameena) Deramous:
Yes.
Christina Merryman:
There was no administration at one point. You couldn’t get anything done. I was a peer specialist. So, when I say I was a social butterfly, I helped and spoke with a lot of other sisters within the facility and mentored a bunch of people with education and issues that they were having. And no matter what we tried to accomplish, we hit a wall because we couldn’t go anywhere with it because there was nowhere to go because there’s no administration. There’s no one to help, and it’s impossible.
Mansa Musa:
Talk about that a minute. Talk about why is it that in this environment that we had this type of abuse that’s going on in the State of Maryland, and it seems like nobody’s talking about because… I know about because I’ve been in that space, but you don’t hear the drumbeat of women being abused, women being psychologically traumatized, women being forced into such a insane state that they substance abuse is high, mental illness is high. Talk about these things.
Veronica (Ameena) Deramous:
So what I would like for you to think about is the system. We think that the system is not working, but it’s working exactly that way they would like for it to work.
Mansa Musa:
Come on. Come on.
Veronica (Ameena) Deramous:
It’s supposed to be for rehabilitation, but there is none, right? You have to want that in yourself. Right? I’m grateful that I went in there from the service as an adult because those children or those ladies who have issues bigger than mine, more than mine, just like mine, who aren’t as strong, who don’t have as big of a support, they’re hurting.
Mansa Musa:
Mm-hmm. No chance.
Veronica (Ameena) Deramous:
As if we’re not coming back out here on the streets.
Mansa Musa:
Come on.
Veronica (Ameena) Deramous:
They’re treating us as if we’re not returning. At some point, everybody’s going to realize who’s in charge. We’re coming back out here.
Mansa Musa:
That’s right.
Veronica (Ameena) Deramous:
And we’re either going to be better or we’re going to be worse. And if we’re sitting down and that’s your opportunity to help us get better, help us to get better. Give us the classes. Give us the counseling. Give us what we need. Right? It’s not a… I’m saying it’s not a… It is a moneymaker.
Mansa Musa:
That’s right.
Veronica (Ameena) Deramous:
Right? If those women are in there getting high and none of us leave, how’s it coming in? It’s a moneymaker, right?
Mansa Musa:
Mm-hmm.
Veronica (Ameena) Deramous:
So, then you have someone who has an addiction. We don’t have any programs other than AA and NA. And I’m not saying that those are not good programs.
Mansa Musa:
No, I got you.
Veronica (Ameena) Deramous:
I’m saying we don’t have a program for people who have those issues. We have people that are bringing those things in. And then, when the ladies leave and they die because they’ve tried something real because they have that anti, their body is filled with Suboxone.
Mansa Musa:
Right. Right.
Veronica (Ameena) Deramous:
And then, when you get out there and you get a really good something, what’s going to happen? There are several women who don’t have their GEDs, but if the list is long but the classes are empty, that doesn’t make any sense. If you have to be pre-released to take a class, then you’re not helping everyone. They’re not giving us the help. And that’s intentional.
Mansa Musa:
Yeah.
Veronica (Ameena) Deramous:
That’s not by mistake. That’s intentional. Everything that’s done is intentional.
Mansa Musa:
And I want to beat that point right there because as you said, and I want our audience to understand this here. We’re talking about, and it is important to everybody that listen to this and look at this podcast, it’s important to understand this here. In the Maryland system, correction system, the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Service, you have what we talked about earlier, Code of Maryland regulations. And in the Code of Maryland regulations, it outlines the policies and procedures for how the institutions in the State of Maryland is going to be ran. Now, how the men’s institutions going to be ran versus how the women’s institutions. It’s uniformity associated with the policies and procedures on paper, in theory. It fluctuates, as well, in men’s prison. Only difference is you have different institutions, but it fluctuates, as well. They ignore rules and regulations.
But in this case, I want the audience to understand that as these women sit here, we have two women sitting here. Both of them was in the Maryland House of Corrections. One, both of them at some point in time because of their time supposed to been eligible for a security reduction. Both of them, according to their sentence, supposed to been able to get from medium, if they was medium security when they went in, they’ll go from medium security to minimum security to pre-release prior to being released. And the purpose of that is that to help them acclimate themselves back into society. If I’m in pre-release, and I’m working on the street, and I can save some money, I can get my social skills back up. I can deprogram myself. But in y’all cases, and I think you’ve spoken to this, Christina, and talk about this. You said that you was on work release and that not only was you not allowed with your family, but you had to pay rent.
Christina Merryman:
Yes.
Mansa Musa:
Talk about that.
Christina Merryman:
When I’m on work release, the only contact with any people that I had was the people that I worked with, which was still associated with… I worked for Maryland Correctional Enterprises, and during Maryland Correctional Enterprises during work, which was also, it was a great opportunity, but the officers would come and do their checks to make sure I was at work. They would come and search my desk, pat me down during work hours, which is very degrading, but I would have to pay room and board and transportation fees. I believe it was approximately… It was like 690 to $720 a month depending on how many trips they took me back and forth to work. I had no special privileges.
Mansa Musa:
And let’s start right there. How much money you say? 600? Now, you can go from here to New Orleans on a round-trip ticket for that much money and probably do to Mardi Gras at the same time.
Christina Merryman:
Mm-hmm.
Mansa Musa:
How far was you going?
Christina Merryman:
Three miles to and from.
Mansa Musa:
Six miles. 600 something. And that-
Christina Merryman:
That was also for my housing. I had to pay to live at the institution. No special room. Not guaranteed to have a room by myself. Yes.
Mansa Musa:
And we recognize this. I did an interview with some people from down in Alabama, and they doing outsourcing. They doing convict leasing. But the reality is, in that system, it’s so barbaric that I would prefer to go work in some inhumane conditions than be put in a section of the jail where it’s fight or flight. So, you understand what I’m saying? This is the alternative in your situation. The preference is you prefer to be able to get treated like everybody else, but under the circumstances you would take… And this is an example of the lesser of the [inaudible 00:12:42]. I mean talk about, you just got out.
Christina Merryman:
Mm-hmm.
Mansa Musa:
And talk about the fact that they didn’t give you the opportunity to prepare yourself and God willing, that you have been able to make the adjustment. But how would that have looked if they would’ve gave you the opportunity to get work release, make you some money, have access to your family, hug your mother, kiss your children? How would that, because remember, this ain’t something I’m making up. These are the things that men get.
Everything I just outlined, men get under the same policies and procedures. That’s why I’m so outraged at this. I’m so outraged at it because I’m sitting here looking at you and both of y’all and you have family. And why your children don’t deserve to be hugged and kissed? Why your children don’t deserve to give you the right to be able to have a weekend with your family when the rules and regulations say this, and the State of Maryland is ignoring it when it comes to y’all? Talk about that.
Veronica (Ameena) Deramous:
Intentional. Did I say that already?
Mansa Musa:
Yeah. You can say that a hundred times.
Veronica (Ameena) Deramous:
Intentional. If they don’t want you to do something, you’re not going to be able to do it. If they don’t want you to do it, they’re not following the rules and regulations. Everybody does what they want to do. There is no oversight and… I’m sorry. If the administration acknowledges all of the things that are going on within the institution, then that falls on the admin, right?
Mansa Musa:
Mm-hmm. That’s right.
Veronica (Ameena) Deramous:
So, then why would they admit to the staff members bringing in drugs? Why would they admit to the physical abuse of stuff of law, the young ladies who are transgendering, right? We have male officers that will beat those incarcerated individuals because, “You think you’re a man? You want to be a man? All right, I got something for you.”
Mansa Musa:
Yeah, that’s [inaudible 00:15:13].
Veronica (Ameena) Deramous:
Women get raped, too.
Mansa Musa:
Yeah. Yeah.
Veronica (Ameena) Deramous:
But if you check or if you ask, how many of those have been reported that have gotten outside of the institution, right? It’s intentional. They don’t want us to be that ready. And I am being honest when I tell you that I wasn’t prepared. I wasn’t prepared because I didn’t qualify for any of the classes. I wasn’t prepared because the classes that I could have gotten into, depending on which staff member was the person to put you in those classes, I didn’t get into those classes.
Some of the staff members didn’t like me to the point where I didn’t get my ID when I left. There are certain things that you’re supposed to leave the institution with. You’re supposed to leave the institution with your R card.
Mansa Musa:
Yeah. Yeah.
Veronica (Ameena) Deramous:
I went to go get my state ID. I’ve been covered my entire incarceration, even on my housing unit, I’m covered. I was told, take your [inaudible 00:16:16] off. You got to take that thing off is what I was told. And because I refused to do that and said I was going to talk to the warden, they told me, “Oh, it’s really like a two or three week process. You’re probably not going to be here, so just get yours on the outside.” “Okay, no problem.” When I left, I went to the MVA to get my state ID and they didn’t give me my R card.
So, you get this brown envelope with everything that you’re supposed to have.
Mansa Musa:
Yup. Your Social Security. Yup.
Veronica (Ameena) Deramous:
You get a brown envelope with everything that you are supposed to be given when you leave that institution. And I didn’t leave with everything that I was supposed to leave with.
Mansa Musa:
Intentionally?
Veronica (Ameena) Deramous:
Intentionally.
Mansa Musa:
Yeah.
Veronica (Ameena) Deramous:
Right? So, thank God, one of my friends that works at Prepare came to get me and was able to pull up my file off of her phone and show that I had been accepted into a place, and they were able to use that paperwork to show that I had an address. So, I was able to use paperwork from one of my friends that supported me, that came to get me. What about the people that don’t have support? When you wonder why people are going back, it’s because they’re not prepared when you put them out there.
Mansa Musa:
Right.
Veronica (Ameena) Deramous:
Right? We have a really good reentry person that’s on A East. We have a couple of really good phenomenal case managers, but they can’t do what they’re supposed to do. How is that?
Mansa Musa:
Yeah.
Veronica (Ameena) Deramous:
Why is that?
Mansa Musa:
Why is that? Why is that?
Veronica (Ameena) Deramous:
Why is that? Why are they limited?
Mansa Musa:
Right.
Veronica (Ameena) Deramous:
We have someone that is a reentry person in the facility, but I didn’t get to see her until a week or two before I went home. Why did they not give me access to her or her access to me because she’s there to give me what I needed before I left. But someone didn’t put my name on the list, and I didn’t have access. Did you set me up to succeed or to fail?
Mansa Musa:
Oh, it’s no doubt. It is no doubt in my mind that the fact that y’all here today is only by the grace of God. There’s no doubt in my mind because everything y’all say is designed for you to fail. It’s designed like you said, I think you said earlier, Christina, “Don’t let them rent space in your head.” Well, some people got a mansion being written in their head because they don’t have no other choice.
Christina Merryman:
Right.
Mansa Musa:
Some people, this system and the women’s cut, and it’s premeditated on the part of the State of Maryland, and you talking about the governor, Wes Moore, and then you put somebody in the secretary Department of Public Safety that’s responsible for overseeing a prison system. But yet this has been going on since, I think, since the women’s cut been in existence. It hasn’t gotten any better. And the problem, I think, that we really need to recognize is that it’s intentional, and it’s designed to make sure that the women that leave, they leave in a broken state, and they don’t have no choice but to revert back to behavior because like you say, they getting out. So, they don’t have no choice but to revert back to the same behavior and keep this system afloat.
Christina, talk about [inaudible 00:19:50] out and really your process of once you got out and how you started re acclimating yourself back into society. I know you say you’re doing work. Talk about some of the things that you’re doing.
Christina Merryman:
Yeah, so luckily, just to reiterate that a little bit back on what Ameena was saying, I was on work release, and you’d leave with a brown envelope. But when I was on work release, I did not qualify for the reentry classes because I was at work. And so, for me to be able to get my insurance and my ID card, I would have to miss work with a pass. And so, when they gave me a pass for me to get all my insurances and my cards to get all that stuff processed, I would miss work and stay back, and then they wouldn’t show. So, luckily I had documents at home. I was able to, when I got released, I had to go handle everything on my own because the institution didn’t help me get any documents, no insurance, no ID. So, when I was released, luckily enough, my family was able to run me around and take me to get all the documents and all the things I needed.
Mansa Musa:
We have women that don’t have-
Christina Merryman:
They don’t have that, and they don’t have the knowledge. Luckily, I was able to know where I had to go, what I had to do and the websites and the places that I had to visit to get the information I needed to get to accomplish what I need to accomplish. But if they’re not given that information, how do they know when they come home? We’re talking about some of the younger generation that are coming home. What do they do? But luckily, we have certain people that help, and they got support, and they can do it. But now, I work for a non-profit. It’s called Prepare. We help re-entry, and we help incarcerated individuals prepare for their parole and come home with re-entry services. We get them set up with their documents and re-entry facilities or housing places to go. So, I love my job. It’s fantastic.
Mansa Musa:
So, what you been eating? A lot of chicken?
Christina Merryman:
Everything. Everything but ham and turkey. I don’t need no turkey. Not no turkey based products.
Mansa Musa:
How about your transition? First, where are you staying? You got your own place?
Veronica (Ameena) Deramous:
No. So, fortunately I’m a veteran. So, I’m at McVets.
Mansa Musa:
Okay.
Veronica (Ameena) Deramous:
So, I’m not far from here, but I’m at a veteran’s transitional education and learning training place. That’s good. I’m not working. I’m a little over 30 days out. I have to take care of me.
Mansa Musa:
Oh, yeah.
Veronica (Ameena) Deramous:
Seriously. I thought that I was going to hit the ground running. Mm-mm. [inaudible 00:23:03] a little bit too fast, so I am in the process of getting counseling. I’m in the process of figuring me out outside of from behind those walls. I’m learning that I don’t have to fight as hard on the outside as I had to fight on the inside.
Mansa Musa:
Yeah.
Veronica (Ameena) Deramous:
Right? To be a Muslim, I had to fight to be a Muslim.
Mansa Musa:
I know. Believe me, I know.
Veronica (Ameena) Deramous:
I had to fight-
Mansa Musa:
Yeah.
Veronica (Ameena) Deramous:
To be a Muslim.
Mansa Musa:
Talk about… Like I told you earlier, I was in Islam when I was incarcerated, and it was Salam vs. Collins. Well, before Salam vs. Collins came out. But Salah versus Collins established the equity as far as Islamic coordinator because you had a Christian chaplain that was regulating all the affairs. So, we wound up getting Islamic coordinator, but before all that came about, like Ramadan, they didn’t have no break fast. No, get up in the morning and break fast. No start to fast. None of that. If the sun set later than the chow line, whatever you had, you had to hold back. And that’s how it was before. But since then, it changed. But how, in your situation because I know that they making it hard. Mainly if you litigious and then you say you have the audacity to say that, “Not only I’m litigious, but I’m also a Muslim woman, Black woman at that.” How was you able to deal with those things?
Veronica (Ameena) Deramous:
What I’m going to say to you is I never tried to compare one religion to another religion, but I was able to show on way too many times the seven day a week studies for one group and one for this one. Right? Not do for me what you’re doing for them, but recognize the difference. And if you can accommodate, accommodate. Ramadan starts and ends whenever it wants to when you’re in prison.
Mansa Musa:
Oh yeah. I already know.
Veronica (Ameena) Deramous:
Right? So, I’m obligated as a Muslim to do Ramadan. So, I had better be prepared to start it when it starts and end it when it ends. Because several times start when they felt like it. We’re not ready today. Y’all aren’t real Muslims anyway. That’s one of the things, fake Muslims. That’s a super-duper word when you’re incarcerated, right? Sleeves. They took our jeans and T-shirts and all these other things and gave us uniforms. And up until the day that I left, they still never gave me long sleeves. So, I always had to wear thermals or long sleeve T-shirts under the short sleeve uniform that I was issued. So, in the summertime I was dressed in layers because they wouldn’t accommodate me. But if I went to work or if a program came in and they gave out a T-shirt, I’d be like, “Hey, can I get a long sleeved T-shirt?” “Absolutely.” But in the prison where I had to be, I couldn’t be accommodated. You’re allowed, according to Kohmar, one religious meal. We barely got that one. But there are other groups that got, before I left, five in one year.
Mansa Musa:
And you know what? And on that note right there, this is the problem that I’m having and that I think our audience need to understand is that taxpayers paying for that, it’s taxpayers’ money that’s keeping this thing that we call a prison industrial complex afloat. This ain’t about a person doing time. This ain’t about a person committing a crime. This is about whether or not you are obeying the law because this is about the law. This ain’t about Ameena. This ain’t about Christina. This ain’t about Man. This is about the law. Now, if you ain’t obeying the law, then you should be held accountable.
And if you taking and intentionally discriminating against people because of their religion, it say you shouldn’t be discriminating against religious or your gender or none of these things. But as you outline, if you transgender, if you accept that identity, if you accept that pronoun and you in the woman’s cut, then they’re going to say, “Well, okay. You a man in a woman’s prison. I can abuse you as such. I’m not recognizing.” But then you don’t have the outcry from the transgender community in society. You understand what I’m saying? Let somebody come up and say something on TV about something that they deem demeaning, and it’s an outcry, but when it come to prison-
Veronica (Ameena) Deramous:
They don’t want to hear it.
Mansa Musa:
“I’m transgender. I’m in prison. I’m being abused. Help me.” But if I’m on the street, I’m transgender, somebody say use a derogatory term towards me, oh, it’s all, “Yeah.” Or if I’m in society and somebody is Islamic-phobia, it become an outcry. But in the prison system, mainly within the women’s… But talk about this, and both of y’all can weigh on this individual. Talk about the young women because the population in changed. It’s lot more younger. Talk about where you see them at in terms of the impact this is having on them. When I left, we was doing things to try to get control over, but they clicked up blue, red, alphabets. You know what I’m saying? It was like a nightmare in terms of trying to get some things done. We was able to get some things done because we was able to press the issue. But talk about the young ladies.
Veronica (Ameena) Deramous:
So, let me say this. I got a couple of things I want to say because I said intentional. So, let me say two things before I say that. They pit the women against each other, and that’s why we don’t fight together. Right.
Mansa Musa:
Yes.
Veronica (Ameena) Deramous:
So, you have the transgender women, and then you have the women who are not transgender. If they do something to benefit the transgender women, then the women who are not transgender, I’m not saying jealous, but why should they be able to get supplements, and we can’t get supplements? So, we’re unable to come together. So, when I say intentional, they do things to put things in place to make us not be able to come together like that. If we were able to get rehabilitated, you’re never going to be able to do pre-release inside of a prison setting. You’re never going to get what you need.
Mansa Musa:
No.
Veronica (Ameena) Deramous:
Right. And if you don’t prepare them to do what they’re supposed to do, if you don’t find an alternative to just incarcerating people, those are our children that are in there. I’ve seen mothers and daughters and granddaughters [inaudible 00:30:51].
Mansa Musa:
Yeah. Three generations.
Veronica (Ameena) Deramous:
I’ve seen families in this place. I’ve seen communities in this place. You’re going to have to find an alternative to that, and you’re going to have to make your… People are paying, like you said, their money for nothing. No one wants to give away money. People complain about how much things cost, and yet you’re giving up money because nothing’s happening. We’re not being taken care of properly, and our children are coming in there because we’re in there. Who’s going to raise my children? Who raised my children? [inaudible 00:31:28]. My family raised my children. But what about someone else who didn’t have that support? There was a bunch of ladies in there with me who didn’t have that support, and their children came in ready for it, ready for whatever, and you can’t raise them then. It’s hard.
Mansa Musa:
Oh, I know.
Veronica (Ameena) Deramous:
These kids are coming in with their grandmothers and aunts and they’re, “I don’t know you because you’ve been in here just as long as… “
Mansa Musa:
Mm-hmm.
Christina Merryman:
Mm-hmm.
Veronica (Ameena) Deramous:
Right?
Mansa Musa:
Christine?
Christina Merryman:
It’s sad because I watched so many young kids come in, and they get younger and younger and younger, and it’s so hard to offer any advice because they don’t want to hear it. They know everything. And it’s hard to offer suggestions and directions when they can run wild because there’s no structure. You’re coming to a facility with no structure, no regulation, and you can pretty much run around and do what you want. You get in trouble, there’s really no punishment besides going to a lockup where you can go get what you want. You get more what you want. You just pay more for it. [inaudible 00:33:05]. And it’s sad. I’ve watched the facility run out of toilet paper. I’ve watched the officers throw cookout and barbecues for themselves, but yet we can’t get toilet paper, and they’re having cookouts.
Mansa Musa:
Yeah. Officer appreciation.
Christina Merryman:
Yeah.
Mansa Musa:
Once a month.
Christina Merryman:
It’s so backwards. It really needs help because there’s no way to rehabilitate us. There’s no substance abuse programs. There’s no…
Mansa Musa:
Cognitive.
Christina Merryman:
… cognitive programs. There’s no mental health. There’s no therapy. There’s no proper medication treatments. There’s nothing. I believe it’s in Komar to where when you go in and you get classified, you get put into a job bank or you get put into education.
Mansa Musa:
One of the two.
Christina Merryman:
These young kids are coming in with no GEDs, no high school diplomas. You get mandatory education. You have to go to school.
Veronica (Ameena) Deramous:
But there’s a waiting list.
Christina Merryman:
They’re not going to school. Schools are empty.
Mansa Musa:
As we close out, we’re going to start with you, Ameena.
Veronica (Ameena) Deramous:
Mm-hmm.
Mansa Musa:
As we close out, what’s your final thought? What do you want people to know about what we need to do or what you think they should be doing or what their outlook should be on? I mean, finish that out. You ain’t telling nobody, but if you had the ability to convey or tell somebody how to operate in this environment, and I’m talking about policy makers.
Veronica (Ameena) Deramous:
Oversight. Most recently an ombudsman bill was introduced. It needs to be taken seriously. They have to interact with the people that are incarcerated. Because if you only deal with the people, the admin or the staff, they’re not going to tell you what’s going on. But we’re out here, and we’re going to talk about these things. There are some of us out here now that are going to talk about these things, so they need to listen to us and take what we’re saying seriously. And even for people who have people incarcerated, when they tell you that something is wrong, something is wrong. Having a family member incarcerated is like having your child in school or your parent in a nursing home. You better check-
Mansa Musa:
That’s right.
Veronica (Ameena) Deramous:
… to make sure that… We’re broken. Right? We’re broken. Help us to be better.
Mansa Musa:
Help us to be better. Christina, you have the last thought.
Christina Merryman:
I wish that the officers within the institutions would really wake up and do their job. Just do your job and do it the right way, and treat us as we’re people, and help us rehabilitate ourselves. And I will absolutely piggyback on Ameena to check on us. Like I understand we broke the law. We did something wrong.
Veronica (Ameena) Deramous:
Yes.
Christina Merryman:
We made a bad choice, but we are still a person, and we are still within a facility that we are trying to get better because I will tell you that probably over 90% of us are actually trying to get better.
Mansa Musa:
There you have it. The Real News, Rattling the Bars. Sincerely, I appreciate y’all coming in and rattling the bars with me today. I want to make sure that our audience understand this, that we are talking about human beings. We’re talking about somebody’s mother. We’re talking about somebody’s daughter. We’re talking about somebody’s granddaughter. We’re talking about real live human beings, and all they asking to be treated like human beings. And more importantly, be treated like everybody else. What the rules and regulations say, if I violate them, you going to punch me, then let me get the benefit of those things that I’m supposed to get. And I’m telling you this, and I’m going to direct this to Governor Wes Moore, oversight.
Taya Graham and Stephen Janis commemorate five years of the Police Accountability Reportwith this special livestream panel featuring legendary cop watchers James Freeman, LackLuster, The Battousai, Tom Zebra, Laura Shark, and Otto The Watchdog. In this extended livestream, Graham and Janis host a timely discussion about the possibility of police reform, the importance and impact of cop watching, and why it’s vital that we all find ways to keep fighting for change.
Pre-Production: Stephen Janis, Taya Graham, David Hebden Studio Production: David Hebden, Cameron Granadino
Transcript
The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. A proofread version will be made available as soon as possible.
Taya:
Hello, this is Taya Graham, and welcome to the Police Accountability Report five-year anniversary live stream. That’s right, you heard me correctly. It’s been five years of reporting on police malfeasance across the country, and boy, do we have a lot to talk about. Not just about policing, but the community that has grown around the idea that holding police accountable is a serious task that requires all of us to participate. And honestly, that is one of the most important things I’ve learned in my five years of hosting the show, that there are people who care, not just about law enforcement, but how the government in general executes policies more than the mainstream media would have us believe. Meaning, the idea that there is a mass movement of indifference and apathy simply ignores the truth that I have witnessed firsthand because, over these past five years, I spoke to people all across the country who care about our rights and our communities. People who are willing to stand up, point a camera, risk an arrest, and come forward and talk to us.
It’s an amazing community of people who have something in common, the belief that we not only can control our destiny, but we can actually improve the lives of our fellow citizens by doing so. And to help me unpack these ideas, I’m joined by an all-star cast of copwatchers and First Amendment activists that have become literal legends in the world of holding police accountable and government accountable, a group whose passion and commitment to reporting on and documenting police malfeasance is unquestioned.
And so, just to give you an idea of what’s to come, let me give you a quick rundown of the people who will be joining us tonight. So first, we have the often comedic, but also serious copwatcher, James Freeman, whose onscreen antics have made him one of the most creative and formidable copwatchers on YouTube.
Next is another legend, a YouTuber known as Lackluster. Lackluster has built a YouTube channel with over 1.5 million subscribers with top-notch investigative reporting on police malfeasance across the country. And then, of course, one of our favorites, Otto The Watchdog, will join the discussion. Otto is another YouTuber who has used comedic and often unorthodox tactics to illuminate just how absurd policing can be in this country.
We will also be joined by the renowned copwatcher known as The Battousai, who has actually made case law when he was arrested for filming police in Texas. And finally, we’ll be speaking to two activists whose work can be best described as hardcore and unrelenting. I’m talking about Tom Zebra and Laura Shark, the incredible duo that has single-handedly hold the LA County Sheriff’s Office and Police Department accountable. And for the record, there were many other copwatchers we wanted to include, but unless we are going to do a ten-hour livestream, we’re just going to have to wait for them to join us next time.
And it’s quite a lineup, so I’m anxious to get started, but please remember, this is a live show. There may be some technical difficulties and I will also be looking down in the chat and trying to put your questions and comments on screen. And if possible, have some of our copwatchers respond to them as well. But please give me a little bit of grace because I’m trying to do quite a few things here at the same time.
But you know what, I have to find Stephen, I have to get him in here so I can start the show. Now, I know you’re thinking why isn’t Stephen here now? Doesn’t he know about the livestream? Don’t you guys plan for this? Well, to be fair, I’m going to ask our studio manager, Dave, to put Stephen’s Google calendar on the screen so people can see it. Notice how mostly his time is spent outside. The only event on his otherwise meager schedule is this livestream, which is clearly marked by me. So this constant absenteeism is not my fault. But wait, hold on, Dave. I think Dave has located Stephen. Hold on one second.
Stephen, Stephen, Stephen, Stephen. There’s a livestream. Stephen, there’s a livestream. That’s what’s going on.
Yes, Stephen. Stephen, please. Please. Stephen, you’re not some journalistic Keith Richards. Get in here. Seriously. That was not meant to be a compliment. Please get in here. Please just get in here. Please, please, Stephen, please just get in here. This is a livestream. You need to be here in live, in person to do it. Right now. Oh, jeez, please get inside.
Hi, pardon us. Much like that cat you saw behind him. He’s like a stray cat and he has to be encouraged to come indoors. So while I wait for Stephen to find his way in here, I want to delve a little deeper into the theme I discussed at the beginning of the show, namely community. It was something I’ve been thinking about quite a bit as I was preparing for this show. When I first started the Police Accountability Report with Stephen, I had no idea I would still be hosting it five years later. And in many ways the time has flown by and there are stories that I’m so proud of, and instances when we help people assert their lives.
But when I’ve cherished the most from the past five years are the relationships we’ve built with this unique community. And I’m not just talking about our guests, our incredible mods, Noli D and Lacy R. Hi, Noli D. I’m talking about all of you, the people who comment and offer a fresh perspective on our work and sometimes even pushback. And most importantly, the victims of police malfeasance and brutality, who contact us and have the courage to tell their stories to us.
And, of course, I include in this community, the people who gather for our live streams and join our premieres to discuss and learn from, and share it with all of us. I thank you for being here because it’s one of the aspects of independent YouTube journalism that I think our mainstream media counterparts and their pundits don’t understand. On YouTube, you don’t have an audience, you have a community. You have people who participate and people who expect you to do more than pose for the camera. They expect you to be active, respond, and be responsive beyond the confines of the story. And that is what’s so special about what I do. And seriously, it’s not just about me, it’s all of us. And I will say more about that later. But finally, one critical part of that community has finally decided to join us, Stephen, so kind of you to go out of your way to be here. We certainly appreciate it.
Stephen:
Taya, thank you so much. I was just wondering, did you like my song? Do you think… I thought it was pretty good, and I think maybe you have a new… I love the-
Taya:
Maybe you could save that for later and we could discuss it.
Stephen:
Okay.
Taya:
Maybe a little later.
Stephen:
You did call me Keith Richards and I was pretty pumped up about that.
Taya:
That’s not what I meant.
Stephen:
Okay. It wasn’t a compliment.
Taya:
That’s not what I meant.
Stephen:
Okay, well that’s fine. All right. I’m willing to accept that. But thank you for having me here. I’m glad to be here. I’m glad to be with this community and all these special people. And what a lineup, that’s an incredible lineup.
Taya:
I know. I’m so proud of the cast that we have.
Stephen:
That is Copwatcher All-Star Hall of Fame, whatever you want to call it.
Taya:
I completely agree.
Stephen:
I am totally pumped to hear what these people have to say about policing in America.
Taya:
Well, Stephen, before you arrived, we were talking about community. And one person who was part of this very interesting community is Colorado copwatcher, Eric Grant. And Eric is what one could fairly characterize as colorful. He has filed and won multiple lawsuits against various police departments, which has led to, among other things, First Amendment training and body cameras for those same departments. And he was also part of a landmark civil rights lawsuit that established the right to record police in the Tenth Federal Circuit. But Eric has also faced legal challenges. He pled guilty to threatening three federal judges and was sentenced to 12 years in prison in 2021. Now, lately, due to his good behavior, Eric was set up to be transferred to a halfway house, literally his last stop on his way to freedom, but then law enforcement stopped back. And for more on the rest of the story, I will turn to Stephen, who’s been looking into breaking developments regarding Eric. Stephen, can you share some of what you’ve learned with us?
Stephen:
Yeah, just recently over the summer, it’s interesting, a federal grand jury in Louisiana in the Southern District of Louisiana indicted Eric on account of harassment, interstate harassment. In other words, calling and harassing a law enforcement officer from Colorado to Louisiana. What was really questionable about this entire ordeal is the fact that he was indicted when he was pretty much ready to be released from his current situation in Colorado where he was going to be transferred to a halfway house. He’d already been put in a minimum security prison. And this indictment occurred over the summer, and then they just issued a writ of habeas corpus for it. They did not lay out what the charges were, like what particular incident.
There is a video we found where James Freeman was being harassed in a park when he had camped there with his children by a park ranger. And Eric had called and supposedly, allegedly, and we’ll say allegedly at this point, made some threats. But it really is a questionable and curious timing because of how Eric… He’d been serving out a twelve-year sentence for threatening three judges in Denver and had had such good behavior that he was on the precipice of having some freedom at that point.
And so it seems that some of the people he spoke to, like Abidy, Liberty Freak, feels like this was time to keep Eric in prison because the case, the incident date, goes back to 2019, in the summer of 2019, so this case is almost five years old. So the question is, why is this happening? It happened. They charge him right within the statute of limitations, the charges themselves, there’s one charge, there’s one count, can add another five years to Eric’s sentence. So, it really is a very difficult situation. And I think you’re going to talk a little bit about what happened when he finally ended up in prison down in Louisiana.
Taya:
Yes. Before I go on and share something from Eric, I wanted to say hello to Manuel Mata. He’s a copwatcher that we’re very fortunate to have with us. Manuel was going to turn himself in, but fortunately, they gave him time served, and maybe Manuel will be able to share a little bit more about what happened. We were very worried that he was going to be incarcerated for 180 days. So, we want to welcome Manuel Mata.
Stephen:
Yeah, welcome.
Taya:
Welcome back. And also of course to say hi to HBO Matt out there. Good to see you.
Stephen:
Oh, HBO Matt.
Taya:
Yeah, he’s out there.
Stephen:
Is he driving somewhere, or is he…
Taya:
Almost every time I’ve spoken to HBO Matt, he’s been in a car.
Stephen:
Every time you talk to that man, he’s driving.
Taya:
Seriously, he’s driving.
Stephen:
Pretty amazing.
Taya:
Yeah. So I’m going to share something now. I think it’s pretty obvious that in our prison happy society, we often forget how much of a toll incarceration can take on someone.
Stephen:
Absolutely.
Taya:
And this is particularly true for Eric, who as I said, through good behavior, had earned a degree of autonomy. And all of this was taken away when he was transferred to a state facility in Louisiana. So first, I want to read a letter from Eric describing the conditions in jail. And I want to thank, you Lacy R, for providing us this letter to share.
Stephen:
Yes, thank you Lacy.
Taya:
“In one word, this is horrid. I’m in my place now, it’s awful. There are 76 bunks stacked close in a big open room, just like Auschwitz concentration camp. The toilets are open along the wall, no privacy, showers the same. No curtain, no library, no books, no physical mail. It’s all scanned to the kiosk computer. In fact, the Monroe address is the right one. They scan it there. No law library. I’m literally the only white guy on my pod. For the first time in my life, I was deloused. It was mandatory. I guess that’s an issue here. They do not even provide underwear or socks. We have to buy them from the commissary. Can you believe that? Tablets suck, and cost is $1 per hour to use. Oh my God, Lacy, six months to two years, I am officially in hell. I might plead guilty just to get out of here. I’ll call you in a bit. Love from the Gulag. Vladimir Putin would be proud.”
Stephen:
Wow.
Taya:
That’s pretty powerful. Sounds terrible conditions. That’s St. Tammany Parish Jail I believe he was calling from. I mean writing from, excuse me.
Stephen:
Right. One of the things, we have this presumption of innocence, but when you’re put in basically a torture chamber, the presumption of innocence just literally evaporates. Because, as Eric said in his own letter, he’s like, “I’m going to plead guilty just to get out of here.” And I think that pretty much undermines the idea of justice, particularly in his case. And in many cases, he’s not the only person who suffers this way in prison. And I think prison is probably an important component of undermining the idea of presumption of innocence and the fact that you can fight back against the system of justice because if you are incarcerated like that already in what sounds like unbearable conditions…
Taya:
Absolutely.
Stephen:
… we see here why so many people plead guilty, and don’t really have the right to a trial. And the idea that you have a right to a trial is ephemeral when you’re sitting in jail like that. That is a very deserving-
Taya:
Something that I think is beyond anecdotal evidence is that prosecutors often stack charges in the hopes that you will plead guilty, prosecutors do want to win cases. And I’ve heard, and this is somewhat anecdotal evidence, but that people get punished if they try to take it to trial. If they fight for their innocence, then they’re doubly punished when it comes to sentencing if they dare do that.
Stephen:
This is my question, and this is an important question about this. Why five years later do they bring these charges? This is not a complicated case.
Taya:
Yes. This was a 2019 incident.
Stephen:
So if you’re investigating a murder or some sort of complex case with all sorts of trails of evidence, that’s not the case with this. This was a single phone call as far as we know. Now, we don’t know all the details of the case.
Taya:
We don’t know all of them.
Stephen:
But from what we know, it was one or two phone calls and some joking behavior by Eric because there’s that aspect of him. But why five years? Why did it take five years to investigate a phone call? And that’s what raises really troubling questions about this because Eric has spent a lot of time in prison. He has certainly done what everyone would want, someone who has to in some way make amends for his behavior if you judge it to be wrong. And he obviously, there’s a lot of discussion about that. But why, five years later, does Louisiana, does the federal system, suddenly indict this man, drag him out of Colorado down there, and put him in what would be abject conditions?
Taya:
Absolutely.
Stephen:
It does seem rather strange to me. It doesn’t seem like a case that would’ve taken five years to bring to trial.
Taya:
And in our conversations with Eric, because we’ve stayed in touch with him, he was working with some of the other inmates to create care packages and Thanksgiving for people. They were doing work for people outside of the prison. He started a men’s group. They were doing positive things.
Stephen:
I don’t want to necessarily have an opinion on this, but I think Eric has served his time at this point. If you agree that Eric’s behavior was wrong, he has served his time. To bring this up now, five years later, is to me, very questionable.
Taya:
Yes. And yes, Cajun Randy, he was in St. Tammany, and now he’s in Plaquemines. Yes.
Stephen:
Yeah, Plaquemines.
Taya:
We were also speaking to Eric from jail, as we mentioned earlier, and we asked him if there was anything he wanted to say to everyone. So, we’re going to play that clip now. Remember, we had been on the phone with him for 15 minutes, so we only had a few moments left, but I said, “Is there anything you want to say to people?” So maybe we can play that clip now.
So, Stephen, I think Eric is a perfect example of both the benefits and pitfalls of cop-watching. But he’s also a unique character too, someone who had his own style, someone one could say was unorthodox, but he was also ingenious in the way he approached the process of YouTube activism. And that’s another part of YouTube journalism that I have grown to understand and embrace. It is completely creative.
Stephen:
Absolutely.
Taya:
We make the rules, so to speak. And I understand this from my own experience. And Stephen, I know when we were developing the show, it was both an organic process, but also collaborative. We took so many suggestions and ideas from you folks out there, like you Noli D, and translated them into reality. Stephen, it was almost like inventing a new form of journalism, and not to give ourselves too much credit, but…
Stephen:
Here’s the thing. This is very important to remember. We talk a lot about David Graeber, the noted anthropologist, and he always said that a bureaucracy of violence causes a dead zone of imagination. So, how do you respond to that in journalism? With journalism, you have to be creative. And that means that you have to turn on the creative juices to make it work. You can’t hold police accountable through the normal standard practices of journalism. When we were creating the Police Accountability Report, we had to turn everything on its head and say, “Look, we can’t approach this. We’re talking about a huge, massive, indifferent bureaucracy that really in places where it takes root, places like our own city, we see how it affects the psychology of the community.” And in that case, we had to respond in kind.
We had to be where we create this so-called Dead Zone, as David Graeber said, we had to create a zone of creativity where we take a show and formulate it and say, “We’re not going to do the traditional journalism. I’m going to stand outside like a real…” Well, what am I going to say? I’m going to stand outside a lot, and I’m going to develop a persona around that. You are going to have your rants where you provide context, but also emotion because this is emotional for people. A lot of people love Eric. And it’s not just a simple thing we’re just reporting. We are engaged to the point where we feel the emotion, people. And I think one of my favorite things about the show is your rant at the end, which you’ll be doing today, which you have a great one coming up.
Taya:
Thank you.
Stephen:
Which no other person I ever know in journalists can do the way you do it, but you connect to the emotions of this problem. The people that we talk to, like Eric, their lives are turned upside down. And let’s remember that Eric started his protests against the mistreatment of homeless people in Denver.
Taya:
Yes.
Stephen:
So, we’ve responded in a way that I think we match. We want to be more creative than the people that are doing the bad deeds and the bad governance. Bad governance makes you less creative, but we’re going to be more creative. And that’s where this show came from, was like a fountain of creativity between me and you, and our audience, and Noli D and Lacy R, and Tom, and Laura, and people, all these people. Eric, Otto…
Taya:
And all the people that we met along the way, Otto, and Blind Justice, and so many others.
Stephen:
It’s a tradition in all movements of social justice to be more creative and to think of ways and new ways to fight power that is entrenched, and otherwise, it’s anti-creative. There’s nothing more anti-creative than policing in America the way it’s constituted. And in many ways, it seems to respond to complex social problems with simplified forms of bureaucratic violence. Well, we responded to that, and that’s where the Police Accountability Report came from.
Taya:
And I think that’s actually a perfect segue as I’m putting up some little comments up here.
Stephen:
Cool.
Taya:
A perfect segue to start rolling out our guests.
Stephen:
Please do.
Taya:
And I am so excited about this particular group because, as I said before, they are collection of independent YouTube activists, copwatchers, First Amendment activists, or whatever you want to call those who have simply made a difference, and not just a difference in my life or our show, but the people they have helped by telling their stories. Stephen, we often describe our show as the reverse cops.
Stephen:
Yes.
Taya:
And I’m sure you all know that that’s the infamous Fox show that tells of American law enforcement’s absolute fixation on the working class from the perspective of cops exclusively. And I would say we try to do the opposite. And I would say all our guests do the opposite. They center the victim, not turn people into victims like a show like COPS does.
But let’s get started with our first guest and just one more housekeeping note, our hope for this, our hope for our celebration of our fifth year, we’re going to thank all of our patrons at the end, patrons past, present, and future, we’re going to thank them all, and I hope you’ll bear with me, to hear me thank you personally at the end.
Now, we are going to stick to five questions per guest to make sure that they’re not trapped with us till one o’clock in the morning East Coast time. So we’re going to start, I hope you’re ready, and if you have questions, I will try to bring up one for the guest. I won’t be able to bring up a question for every single person in the chat, but I’ll at least try to get one for the guest. Okay. So first up is the most eclectic, an idiosyncratic YouTuber out there who has used humor as a tool and absurdity as a trope. His name is Otto The Watchdog and his battles with Royse Texas Police Department are truly epic. Take a look at this confrontation with Royse Texas Police.
Stephen:
You okay?
So, that’s a totally lapsed time, right? Okay…
PART 1 OF 5 ENDS [00:29:04]
Taya:
Okay. I’m not going to lie.
Stephen:
That is one of my favorite clips of a cop watcher.
Taya:
It’s a [inaudible 00:29:20] weird because I laugh every single time I watch that clip. I’m sorry.
Stephen:
It’s so understandable.
Taya:
Seriously, when he starts kowtowing to the police, it’s just that one police officer literally looks like he doesn’t know what to do, and he kind of like wanders away from Otto.
Stephen:
The thing about that clip to me that’s really interesting is Otto is really laying out the absurdity of police control over our space, how they try to police our geography. And he’s just showing them how literally absurd they are. And the funny thing is the way they reacted, they don’t know how to handle it. They don’t understand what’s being communicated. But I don’t want to go into that. I can talk about this for hours. Let’s get to Otto because-
Taya:
Right. So one of the reasons why we’re having him go first is that he also happens to be a good friend of Eric Brant. So we wanted to welcome Otto. Thank you so much for joining us.
Otto:
Hey, I’m happy to be here. Thank you.
Taya:
It’s great to see you. Now, I’m sorry to start on a somewhat sad note, but first we’d like to know your thoughts on Eric’s recent charges and whether or not the timing concerns you.
Otto:
Oh, the timing, yeah, that’s concerning. I think, like you said, the original phone call was like 2019, and here we are just now getting the charges, so they can file a charge and then just sit on it, so the statute of limitations doesn’t… Once they file it, the statute of limitations stops, and they can bring it up pretty much whenever they want to. And yeah, he was about to go in for a parole hearing and this guy is basically the mayor of the jail at this point.
Stephen:
Wow.
Otto:
So he had a really good chance of getting out. He was already in the process of relinquishing his authority within the inmate administration of the jail that he was in. So that’s pretty disheartening and it should be terrifying to everybody.
Stephen:
Yeah. Otto, I was wondering, I mean, Eric is resilient. I mean, we all know, he’s like one of the most resilient people I’ve ever met. But how do you think this is affecting him? Are you worried about him at all? I’m just wondering.
Otto:
Eric is pretty, he’s a tough guy and he’s been through a lot of stuff just like everybody else has, but everyone does have a breaking point. And if you don’t believe that you have one, just most people will get a speeding ticket and they will go and they’re like, “Oh, I’m going to fight it.” And then they find out that their court case was rescheduled and they end up just paying the ticket, because it’s too much of an inconvenience at that point. Okay? So if you’re willing to give up something that you know is wrong over a ticket, a small thing like that, eventually you will get beaten down. And that’s pretty much the goal. It’s not a bug of the system, it is in fact the goal of the system. That’s the whole point.
Taya:
Someone in the chat asked about you whether or not some of the cases that you had were resolved and if things had been resolved in relation to some of the difficulties the police had caused for you and your family. So maybe you could just give us an update on the status of your lawsuits against the police, who continued to pursue cases against you. Can you let us know if they’ve been dropped? Just give us an update.
Otto:
Yeah. If you were following my story, I was arrested a lot, a lot. I had a lot of charges. And for somebody who was arrested a lot and had a lot of charges, I have no convictions. Everything was dismissed. Of course, there’s always threats of imprisonment and plea deals and all of this and that. And like Eric said, he was thinking about pleading guilty just to make it stop. Well, that actually doesn’t work. You think it does, and then they slam you with something else, and that’s after, they can do enough things to you that you’ll want to plead guilty. And the hardest thing for an innocent person to do is to not take an easy way out and make a plea. Because they will make it sweet. But I have no convictions and all the lawsuits that I filed were successful, and we have settled out of court on all of my lawsuits against Rockwall, specifically. Some of my cases, the officers were entitled to qualified immunity, which we absolutely should overturn, because you and I would not be entitled to not knowing. You know what I mean?
Stephen:
Yeah. I mean that was in the fifth circuit and that they’re pretty pro-police. Well, let me ask you a question because what do you think the status of cop watching is now? Because you had to go through a lot of arrests and then you kind of turned to cop watching as a way to put it back on them. But where does that leave cop watching? I mean, we’ve reported on a lot of places where they are trying different types of arresting for ridiculous things like corners news, arresting for organized crime. Where does cop watching stand now in terms of what police are doing to fight against it?
Otto:
So they’re passing a lot of laws, trying to make active cop watching, following traffic stops as dangerous as possible without making it illegal. So now they’re putting distance requirements and things of that sort. So some of them are 10 feet as a guide and some of them are 10 feet as rule. And now Florida, I hear it once 25 feet, nobody’s carrying around a tape measure, so it’s all kind of subjective, right?
Stephen:
Right.
Otto:
And then it’s, “Hey, fight it in court.” And as we go back to my previous statement about getting a hundred dollars ticket, then it’s like, “Okay, well I’m just going to plead guilty to it because it’s easy enough to get out of this endless torment.” So they’re trying-
If you’ve watched even five minutes of any one of these people that you’re going to have on your show today’s channel, you’ll know that you can be the most dangerous thing that the police can find in your car is that you’re innocent. That’s guaranteeing that you’re going to get a ticket. You know what I mean? You’re going to jail, buddy.
Taya:
Very well said. Very well said. You know what, I have a question for you, but first I just have to shout out, we’ve got some great cop watchers down here showing some love and support for the other cop watchers. Guess who’s down there.
Stephen:
Who?
Taya:
Munkay 83.
Stephen:
Oh.
Taya:
Munkay 83. Somebody down there, I think they said, “[inaudible 00:36:20] is not the same without you.” I think we might even have Joe Cool down there.
Stephen:
Joe Cool is legendary.
Taya:
Legend. So just shouting out some of the great people down there. And I think I saw Lady Liberty Press as well.
Stephen:
Oh. Awesome.
Taya:
Just wanted to make sure to say hello to you kind folks. You see some cop watchers in there, you might want to find out more about what they do in the live chat. You might want to go follow them and click on their channel after we’re done. But before I go any further about some of the wonderful things in the chat, Otto, I have to ask you a question that may seem kind of serious, but I was kind of wondering, after all you’ve been through fighting back against police and it’s really they were nuisance charges, but they made your life miserable, making you drive all the way across country to go to court and just putting all the stress in your life and the cost of money. So I’m just asking, was it worth it? Was this fight to hold police accountable worth it?
Stephen:
That’s a great question.
Otto:
Oh, that’s a loaded question. Was it worth it? Was it worth it to me personally as an individual? No. Absolutely not. I would not recommend anybody to go through that intentionally on purpose for yourself. But I do think, and as ridiculous as this might sound, I do think it was worth it for you. And for my kids eventually one day, I think it’ll be worth it to them. We don’t lose our freedoms in one fell swoop. We lose them in tiny little increments.
Apparently we’re losing them about 10 feet at a time. And Florida just made it 15. So eventually it will be 50, and then it will be a hundred, and then it’ll be audio recordings are not allowed, and they’re going continue put restrictions on it. And I know that not because I’m Nostradamus or have a special book or a Magic 8-ball, because that’s what they do with every single thing else, we’re going to limit just a little bit. And then before you know it, you can literally, no shit, you can go to federal prison for the rest of your life over some things you bought on Amazon.
Taya:
That’s incredible.
Stephen:
[inaudible 00:38:37].
Otto:
Some things you buy on Amazon.
Stephen:
Otto, was Nostradamus, was he a cop watcher?
Taya:
16th century.
Otto:
Yes.
Stephen:
Oh, he was?
Otto:
Yeah. I mean, he-
Stephen:
I just wasn’t sure.
Otto:
He rubbed the government wrong. And that’s a common theme.
Stephen:
Nostradamus would’ve made a hell of a cop watcher. Just saying.
Taya:
Well, Otto-
Otto:
Well, generally, actually, we are kind lucky to be able to do what we’re doing-
Stephen:
True.
Otto:
… with as much as we’ve gone through individually and as a group, we are kind of lucky that at least we’re not actively being shot every day on the street, but a lot of men did get shot in the street so that we could do this. And if we don’t continue to stand up and push back against the encroachments, then we’re not going to have the ability at all.
Stephen:
I think that’s great.
Taya:
Otto, I think you’re absolutely right, and like you, I would never suggest to someone that they put their freedom on the line like that, especially if they have family that they’re concerned about. But I understand how important it is to stand up for your rights. And there’s a certain point where if we don’t make the individual decision to stand up, no one else is going to do it for us. So I’m really, it’s amazing that you led by example in that way.
Stephen:
Let me say this, Otto, we appreciate and we are grateful that we’ve been able to cover you and allow us to tell your story. So we want to thank you for that.
Taya:
Thank you. We do.
Stephen:
Because that is a wonderful thing that you’ve been willing to share all of this, so people can understand what’s at stake and why it’s important. And without your story and other people’s stories, we would not be able to tell that story. So I just want to say thank you as a reporter. I appreciate it.
Otto:
Hey, I want to say thank you guys for everything you do, for telling the stories, because if nobody tells the stories, then there was no story to have.
Taya:
They’re very true. And I think finally some of the folks in the mainstream media have realized that cop watchers exist. So that’s a nice change of pace. We were a little ahead of the curve, maybe by five years.
Stephen:
Five years.
Taya:
About five years, we were a little ahead of the curve.
Stephen:
That’s why we’re here. That’s what we’re here for.
Otto:
For sure.
Stephen:
[inaudible 00:40:53].
Otto:
In the [inaudible 00:40:55] of things, cop watchers won because now everybody, the first thing that happens is everybody pulls out their phone.
Stephen:
Very true.
Taya:
Absolutely. Absolutely.
Otto:
We won.
Stephen:
Without fear.
Taya:
Beautiful.
Otto:
Without fear, right. Everybody knows their IDs now. Y’all have to show you my ID. Everybody knows to record their traffic stops.
Taya:
Yes.
Otto:
Everybody knows what to do with it, and the cops do too, right? We’re going to record that shit and put it on TikTok or YouTube.
Taya:
Beautiful. And what a perfect and inspiring way to end your segment, Otto, I wish we could keep you on this whole time, but we have some other awesome people waiting in the wings, so I just want to thank you for joining us-
Stephen:
Thank you, Otto.
Taya:
… for our fifth year anniversary, and just we appreciate you so much, Otto.
Stephen:
Thank you. Thank you.
Otto:
You have a good one.
Stephen:
You too.
Taya:
Take care.
You know what, that was Otto. Fascinating and really insightful as always.
Stephen:
Yeah. As always. He’s great guest.
Taya:
Now our next guest truly needs no introduction. As I said before, he has built one of the largest cop watcher channels, reporting on police abuse across the country, and he has done it with his own distinct style and voice. And his videos get millions of views. You might recognize him. Take a look.
Stephen:
Oh. Sorry, sorry. Thank you.
Taya:
Don’t forget to check that screen to make sure you’re not on it before you.
Stephen:
Yes. Okay.
How’s the chat?
Taya:
Looking good.
Stephen:
Do we call him Dale? Do we call him Dale?
Taya:
I’ll ask. So without further ado, we would like to welcome LackLuster to the channel. LackLuster, thank you for joining us. Should we call you Dale or should we call you LackLuster? How should we-
Dale:
Either way is fine.
Taya:
Either way is fine.
Stephen:
Wait, I just have to ask you, did you sample that body camera sound, the [inaudible 00:43:53]?
Dale:
Yeah. Actually it’s probably one of the worst samples I could have picked up.
Stephen:
That is brilliant.
Dale:
I know Stephen loves that.
Stephen:
As someone who’s watched a lot of body camera footage, when I heard it, I was like, I know that sound, that sound. I wonder-
Dale:
Every commercial has a little jingle or something like [inaudible 00:44:10] at the end, [inaudible 00:44:11] the body cam was pretty distinct.
Stephen:
Is that meant to tell cops that they’re on camera? Is it to remind them or why did the body camera have that? I don’t even know.
Dale:
As far as I know, I am not a hundred percent sure, but as far as I know, yes, it’s just a reminder in case they forget to leave it on, [inaudible 00:44:31] turn it off.
Taya:
I was going to say something a little saucy, but I’ll keep that to myself. So first I’m just curious from your perspective, are police changing their behavior or are you getting just as many calls for help as before? What are you seeing?
Dale:
Yeah, it is kind of difficult. I’ve personally seen a large shift in the behavior of various law enforcement agencies across the country. I’ve had insurance companies that represent those companies reach out to me for tips on how to keep their guys out of the litigation. Things like that are happening, but it’s one of those occupations where there’s a high rate of attrition, so people are always coming in, getting kicked out or just bouncing around to different departments. So I think we’re always going to see new people that don’t understand what’s really happening out there. And unfortunately, most of these new guys are 20-year-olds and nothing, no offense to any of the audience out there that’s still very young, but when you’re 20, you don’t know shit. Excuse me-
Stephen:
Good point.
Dale:
… and then you have all this responsibility and power, and that corrupts the best of [inaudible 00:46:01] and I know I certainly wasn’t at my best in my 20s, so.
Taya:
Neither side of [inaudible 00:46:08]-
Stephen:
I kind of wonder if you’re driving you pulled over and you say, “Well, if you do something wrong, you’re going to be on LackLuster channel.” Do you think cops are aware of it now, where they’re like, “Oh God, I don’t want to end up on LackLuster channel”? I mean, because you’ve gotten so big.
Taya:
Seriously.
Stephen:
Do you think there’s behavioral adjustments going on out in the field because of what you’re doing?
Taya:
I know, I hope there are.
Stephen:
I think so.
Dale:
Yeah. There’s a couple of videos on the channel where people have made mention of the channel like, “Hey, this is going to end up on LackLuster,” so that’s [inaudible 00:46:38]-
Taya:
That’s awesome.
Dale:
… fun for me, of course. But I don’t know if it’s going to affect any. It might even make them worse, might make them perform for the camera, if you will.
Stephen:
Well, you say people would shout “World Star” before they do a video, now-
Taya:
Oh, that’s right.
Stephen:
… like if a cop comes, I’m just going to shout, LackLuster.
Taya:
LackLuster.
Dale:
[inaudible 00:46:58].
Stephen:
Just a thought.
Taya:
Oh my Gosh.
Dale:
We also see too. I’ve never asked my audience to do anything with their time. Well, maybe to speak their mind or something like that, but never anything specific, never any direction on where to go with, where to speak their mind. But I do post Facebook links in the description of my videos and Twitter sometimes if they have it. And I’ll see often in those comment sections, they’ll say, “You got LackLuster,” because they’re just [inaudible 00:47:35].
Taya:
That’s excellent.
Stephen:
That’s cool.
Taya:
That’s so excellent. Something I wanted to ask you about that I saw is this project that you seem to be working on, I think it’s with Long Island Audit. It seems like you’re trying to give people a way to literally have a lawyer in their pocket. Do you want to talk a little bit about that?
Dale:
Yeah, sure. Attorney Shield, it’s up, it’s running. It’s on iOS and Android.
Taya:
That’s great.
Dale:
We kind of did a little soft rollout because apps are extremely difficult to build and we’re not using any APIs at all. We built all the software, I mean, I had nothing to do with building a software. I don’t know how to do any of that. But we’re making everything our own, so that when we need to do something, nobody can shut us down first off, that’s number one. Amazon can’t shut us down or whoever else. Nobody can shut us down. And anytime we want to build, we know the code inside and out. So that’s great. But with that, that makes it a lot harder to build.
So we did kind of like a quiet, soft launch. So the people watching right now obviously will know that it’s actually up and running. But we’re waiting. And we’ve had a few interactions. Some have gone very well, some have not. And not like they’ve gone bad for the person because they’re using the app or anything, but we’re working with some of them. Most of them want to remain anonymous because that’s most people don’t want to be on the internet. But hopefully we’ll be able to share some of those interactions pretty soon and show you guys how the app works, because it’s pretty awesome if you ask me.
Taya:
Oh, you know what, I just have one more question before, I know you want to jump in, but I have one more question for you, Dale. So this is something that we discussed prior to the show, but you were telling me that people are already using AI to duplicate your work. Can you just talk a little bit about that and what you’re doing to fight back? Because there’s so many different ways that AI is going to be affecting the future of people who are trying to put out content, whether you’re a cop watcher or any other type of content creator. But I think it’s especially dangerous for cop watcher.
And one of the things I’ve noticed is that there’ve been some body camera channels that have popped up, and I’ll say allegedly, or one could say that they look like they are fed directly by police departments as a form of propaganda to kind of counter the narrative that we’re seeing when people actually hold their cell phones up and have real life encounters with police. So it does seem like they might be somewhat cherry-picking these encounters. So I just want to know how you’re handling AI, how it makes you feel, what you’re trying to do to fight back, anything along those lines.
Dale:
Sure. Well, the biggest push I’ve seen so far, it isn’t necessarily AI all the way. I’m seeing a big push from foreign countries blasting out YouTube channels with police interactions. And a lot of times they’re just taking my video, my script. They’re transcribing my script and running it through an AI voice, and then running basically somebody else’s voice over my editing and blurring out my logos. So that’s all over the internet, and there’s very little I can do about it. I can copyright strike it, but I’m still a one-man team, I have no employees. I need an editor, but it would be a full-time job to try to track down all the people doing this. But my biggest concern with it isn’t really for me or the channel because the channel’s going to be fine.
Stephen:
Okay. Sorry.
Dale:
My biggest concern is that the channels that are doing this aren’t even from the United States. So they really have no stake in the game. They don’t care what happens to the victims. They don’t care what happens with the police forces. I mean, maybe they might in some relative way or something, but because they’re not living in America, they don’t care. It doesn’t affect them. They’re for money. It’s a pure grift, a hundred percent. And that’s kind of bothersome because I think my work has, I don’t know, terminated, suspended dozens and dozens of cops, raised hundreds of thousands of dollars through GoFundMe for victims, things like that. That’s something you’ll never see from the foreign agencies making these videos. So I don’t know. It’s interesting.
Stephen:
Speaking of that, and that is absolutely terrifying and distressing that foreign countries are using this to some sort of entertainment fodder to get YouTube revenue basically, I’m assuming. But where do you see cop watching now as a practice and art form, whatever, where do you see it headed at this point and what’s happening to it? Where do you see it now?
Dale:
I don’t know. It could be very interesting. We got Trump talking about pushing more qualified immunity and getting rid of… I think he said something about people filming the cops recently, and I can’t recall it.
Stephen:
Really, he specifically. Wow.
Dale:
I know he said something about qualified immunity and making it, increasing it.
Stephen:
That’s true. That’s true.
Dale:
Yeah. I think it’ll be very interesting. We live in unprecedented times. This is truly an amazing period that we get to live through. And I don’t know, I mean, AI could ruin everything we’ve worked for or it could-
Taya:
So true.
Dale:
… make it 10 times better depending on who’s working on it and [inaudible 00:53:41] working on it. So it’ll be very interesting to see.
Stephen:
It’s a weird thing to think about because 10 years ago, you probably couldn’t have done what you’ve done and had the impact and the influence that you had. That’s been a benefit of algorithm [inaudible 00:53:53] technology. But then on the other hand, AI is a really sort of treacherous path there, and it might not be the same thing. It’s weird to think about in that sense.
Taya:
Actually, I’ve been spending every other night working on this piece that I’ve been writing and writing and writing about my experience at this journalism conference when I said, “Oh, why don’t you try all these wonderful AI tools?” And so I’m looking at these AI tools and I’m like, well, some of them are interesting, but some of the ones that I was being given for free, I was like, wait a second. They just want to learn how my brain works. They just want to learn what I know so that they can replace me so that a newsroom that would normally have a hundred people in it now are only going to have 15 miserable souls running around in circles, prompting the AI and trying to find out whether or not the latest social media video is a deep fake or not. And it’s just going to be like a hamster wheel nightmare.
So my concern isn’t that AI couldn’t be used for good and couldn’t be used to benefit creators. But if I know anything about the current system that we’re in, those with immense wealth, these technocrats are going to grab ahold of it and they’re going to use it to extract even more wealth from us, even more wealth from our society. These technocrats already ignore legal norms. They already exploit the working class, and it’s actually going to diminish the power that we have as laborers to come together. I’m actually a union steward, so if you eliminate all the laborers, then we don’t have any power against these folks, against these corporations. And so what I’ve noticed is what they’re most likely going to do is use it to replace human beings and to make labor as cheap as possible. And there’s just going to be a wide swath of people that are losing their jobs all over the place. Because what I’ve noticed with AI is that it’s replacing the things we love to do. Stephen loves making music. No comment on his music. He loves making-
Stephen:
That was [inaudible 00:55:48].
Taya:
It was a great song.
Stephen:
Thank you.
Taya:
He loves making music.
Stephen:
[inaudible 00:55:51].
Taya:
He loves writing. I like writing. We like making videos. I love doing voiceover work. I love doing narration. That’s all stuff that’s being replaced by AI. People who do art, hand drawing things, come up with cool styles, that stuff, the computers are doing all the stuff we actually like doing. Even actors, the people who are doing the behind the… They’re the ones in the background. People who spend like 20 years like playing zombies in the background of the movie because they love doing it-
Stephen:
You’re worried about zombies now, you bring zombies in this.
Taya:
I’m worried about the zombie actors, Steven.
Stephen:
Okay. Ask him the question.
Taya:
I think I started ranting.
Stephen:
Yeah. This is not the rant part. This is the part where you ask our guest questions so they can-
Dale:
No, it’s [inaudible 00:56:32].
Taya:
I’m sorry. The question is, Dale, do you see a horrifying dystopian future where we’re all going to have to ask the-
Stephen:
It’s very loaded question. That is not an objective question.
Dale:
No, absolutely. I don’t know if you guys watch what Nvidia puts out. They make all the microchips and GPUs and all that fun stuff, but technology advances. They used to say anyway a thousand times per year, and now he’s saying the CEO of Nvidia saying with whatever they just created, that it’s going to be more like a million times per year.
Stephen:
Moore’s law. Moore’s Law used to be the capacity-
Taya:
Oh, yeah. That’s right.
Stephen:
… of a chip with double every two years. And now, yeah, can you be more exponential? I think it is more exponential, yeah.
Taya:
Yeah. It’s absolutely horrifying. Can you say one last thing about AI?
Stephen:
No.
Taya:
Please.
Dale:
Yeah.
Stephen:
Yeah. That’s Dale. He’s the guest. He’s gonna-
Taya:
Dale, may I say one last thing about AI please?
Dale:
Absolutely.
Taya:
Okay. So what I’m concerned about is my one hope was that this AI was going to be self-limiting because at a certain point, there’s just not going to be enough energy and not enough storage for all this AI to work. And that’s why it worries me that former CEO or current CEO Sam Altman is walking around hat in hand to all these petrol companies to make sure that there’s going to be an endless supply of energy for AI. So the one hope that it might be self-limiting, he’s absolutely trying to destroy, despite the fact that he had gone on record saying, “Gee, I’m kind of worried what we might’ve unleashed out of Pandora’s box.” And then he goes around and he’s like, “Let’s make sure it can never be turned off.”
PART 2 OF 5 ENDS [00:58:04]
Taya:
… Pandora’s box, and then he goes around and he’s like, “Let’s make sure it can never be turned off.” He’s trying to build Skynet, as far as I’m concerned. Okay. Last thing I’ll say about it>
Stephen:
Well, and we talked about this with my editor. Dale, do you think RoboCop is the next step on policing? Are one day we going to get pulled over by a robot, and you’re going to have to turn your channel into a RoboCop channel, I guess?
Dale:
Yeah, absolutely. LAPD is already working on some robot that deploys from a police cruiser, and comes to your window, and then connects through Bluetooth or Wi-Fi, or whatever. You don’t even go face to face with a human anymore. You’ll be a little R2D2 thing, and a screen.
Stephen:
That’s just-
Dale:
Probably, it’s supposed to be a human on the other side, but-
Taya:
Oh, my God.
Dale:
… how long that lasts.
Stephen:
Wow.
Taya:
I think in New York they were getting the robot AI dogs, and then they had something that looked like a little trash can.
Stephen:
Right. Dale, thank you
Taya:
Dale, I have been given the signal that I definitely should let some of our other guests come on, and I need to stop talking about AI.
Dale:
Yeah, sorry to the production team. I was clicking buttons, and I didn’t know what some of them did, and I think I-
Taya:
You popped up a two-cipher. It’s all good. We were happy to see you.
Stephen:
Yep.
Dale:
All right.
Stephen:
Dale, thank you so much-
Taya:
Thank you so much for joining us.
Stephen:
… and congratulations on all your amazing work and-
Taya:
We love it.
Stephen:
… the success of your channel. It’s inspiring, to say the least.
Taya:
Absolutely. Thank you for what you do to help educate people. Because you do a terrific job-
Stephen:
You do.
Taya:
… adding the law to it. A lot of people, myself included, don’t realize the legality, some of the finer points of these police stops. You’re really helping educated people, me included, so thank you.
Stephen:
Thank you, and thank you for coming on.
Dale:
[inaudible 00:59:37] time, I appreciate it.
Taya:
All right, you take care.
Stephen:
Take care.
Taya:
Wow. I’m so glad we got to talk to him. We’re about to have someone very special coming up.
Stephen:
Mm-hmm.
Taya:
We’re about to be joined by a true original, a man, whose blend of satire, critique, and sometimes even absurd antics, makes him an impossible act to imitate. Take a look. Whoops. I did not need to put that up there. This man is a committed, independent journalist, who’s recently focused on the courts, to expand his efforts to hold police accountable. I’m, of course, talking about the man, the myth, the legend, James Freeman. James, thank you so much for joining us.
Stephen:
Thank you, James.
James Freeman:
Oh, I had it muted. Sorry. Hey guys, thanks for having me on the show.
Stephen:
I mean, those are such fascinating videos you do-
Taya:
Yes.
Stephen:
… because it exposes the absurdity of how police control space. Every time I watch them, I learn something new about them.
Taya:
I love it.
Stephen:
Just because when you juxtapose those roles, it reveals how those rules really operate on us, in ways psychologically we don’t think about. Every time I watch them, I’m like, “Wow, this is really like… this should be… I once read a book about 20th century theory of police power. James has actually explained it in a better way than reading a 200-page book. I just should have watched your videos, instead of reading certain things.” It really, it’s pretty phenomenal.
Taya:
I completely agree.
James Freeman:
Thank you.
Stephen:
Yeah.
Taya:
James, first to start off on something a little less fun first, I wanted to get your reaction to Eric’s latest indictment. I know you know him well, you’re friends. If you don’t mind sharing with us what your reaction is.
James Freeman:
It’s sad, it’s disappointing. Honestly, I still continue to get shocked by these people. I continually say, “I think I’ve seen everything.” This is what we can expect from them though, they’re terrorists, and that’s what they do is they terrorize people. Especially people like Eric Grant, he is still a very strong voice, whether he’s outside of the cage, or inside of the cage. Like you guys talked about, he’s been very successful at continuing to help other people, while he’s in. Eric has never been a threat to anybody. The reason that he’s in jail is because he allegedly made threats, allegedly made threats of violence. Eric isn’t dangerous, because he would violently attack someone. Eric is dangerous to the government, because he tells the truth, and he shows the truth.
Taya:
Well said.
James Freeman:
There’s nothing more dangerous than that, to them.
Stephen:
You make a really good point, because allegedly Eric was in Colorado when he is making these threats. But again, I want to ask this question again, because this is a very important question. Does the timing of this indictment-
Taya:
Yes.
Stephen:
… raise any questions for you?
James Freeman:
It looks like they had it planned all along.
Taya:
Wow.
James Freeman:
I mean, he was about to get out, and they knew it. That’s, again, this is sadistic. This is plotted out. I guess we would call it premeditated even. I don’t see it as shock. I mean, they continue to shock me actually.
Stephen:
Wow.
James Freeman:
I don’t think it’s a coincidence at all. I think they had it all planned out and said, “You know what? Let’s get him to where he’s got a glimpse of hope, and then let’s crush him.”
Stephen:
That’s really-
Taya:
Absolutely. First, let me just say thank you to some of the new subscribers we see here, and some of the great live chat donations. We really appreciate those super chats.
Stephen:
Absolutely.
Taya:
Hi to Matter of Rights, who’s one of my Patreons. We appreciate our Patreons, so hi, Matter of Rights. Okay. I had to make sure to do that.
Stephen:
Okay.
Taya:
I have another question. I’m multitasking.
Stephen:
Okay, fair enough.
Taya:
I had another question about Eric’s style. Some people feel that Eric’s style, just as doing his protests. Some people would say they were performance art. Some people would say they’re very creative. Other people would say it’s overly aggressive, loud, intrusive. How would you characterize it, and how would you defend it, if you would choose to defend it?
James Freeman:
Oh, that’s an excellent question, because early on when I had started my channel, there were lots of people who commented both on my channel and on Eric’s, and said, “James would never work with Eric, because of the way he acts.” I made a special point to go out of my way to travel, to work with Eric, and told people, “Look, just because I don’t do things the exact way somebody else does, we need all different types. What Eric is doing is very important, and to be quite frank, I don’t want to do it.” I’m glad he was. He mentioned to me, when I went out there, he said, “I’ve done activism for so many years, and I never got any attention on anything that I was doing, until I started using that four letter word that starts with F, and all of a sudden everybody’s paying attention to my stuff.” I mean, he was effective at doing what he wanted to do.
Taya:
Well said.
Stephen:
I mean, it’s so fascinating, because we interviewed him about that, and he was talking about how many years he tried to break through the noise.
Taya:
Yes.
Stephen:
Then once he did, it’s a fascinating tale, because really he was calling attention to a grave injustice that homeless people were being abused, that the criminal justice system, that judges had serious problems, and conflicts of interest, and no one paid attention. Then when he finally got people to pay attention, suddenly they start indicting him. I will say that what he said in some cases, was offensive to me. But there are people that make threats like that all the time, and it’s not uncommon. It seems like, I think there’s a lot to what you say. Could you expand on that? Because really, was it the threats, or the threat of Eric’s truth that was the problem?
James Freeman:
I really don’t even think that what he said was a threat. I even articulated to people, I was quite disgusted by it too, but I don’t believe it was a threat. His wording specifically, I don’t think-
Stephen:
Thoughts and prayers, thoughts and prayers.
James Freeman:
Right, and if you know him, he’s atheist-
Stephen:
Right.
James Freeman:
… so prayers to who?
Stephen:
It’s really fascinating, because he would say thoughts and prayers, so in a way… because Eric’s uncannily brilliant on things. Look, we’re doing a documentary, a very long form piece.
Taya:
Yes.
Stephen:
I have gotten to know him, and when he was doing, he’s commenting on that idea of thoughts and prayers, when people get shot, and someone says, “My thoughts and prayers,” and I feel he’s at the same time satirizing, as he is criticizing.
Taya:
Yes.
Stephen:
Am I getting this right, you think?
James Freeman:
I think you’re right, and his genius is beyond what I think a lot of people comprehend. Yeah, I think you nailed it.
Stephen:
Yeah. I mean, look, he is complex as they come, and there are many different ways to look at him, but sometimes when I sit down, and I was listening to some of those, because I had listened to them reading the recording, and thoughts and prayers, I’m like, “Well, Eric’s also making a commentary within this, that is quite brilliant in many ways, because it’s an empty phrase.” Right?
Taya:
Absolutely.
James Freeman:
Yes.
Stephen:
It’s an empty phrase. We’re saying, “We’re not going to solve a problem. But we’re going to share our empty thoughts and prayers.”
Taya:
Absolutely.
Stephen:
Eric was couching in that, and I’m like,” “Wow. You’ve really got to be careful of making quick judgments about Eric’s behavior, or what he says, because there’s always layers to it.” I’m sure that you found that out too, James. But let me just move on to one thing, because the courts-
Taya:
Yes.
Stephen:
… you know, you have spent a lot of time holding courts accountable. Why is that important, and why do people ignore it, at their peril?
James Freeman:
I think the courts are far more out of control than the police. When I first started my channel, that was where I actually put a good amount of attention. Then I realized that it was such an uphill battle, that I was going to win absolutely nothing on, that I stepped away from it. I don’t think the people were ready for it. But I want cameras in every courtroom, the way that cameras should be on every police interaction. To be quite honest, I don’t really care how it gets done. There are courts now, like the Ninth Circuit of Appeals, for example, has their own YouTube channel. They live stream almost all, if not all of their hearings. These things are supposed to be public.
Stephen:
Agreed.
James Freeman:
They’ve always been supposed to be public. Back in the day, the whole point of a court recorder, the guy who sits there and writes, or types what’s going on is because nothing that’s going on in there is supposed to be a secret. It’s all supposed… and so basically to me, they’re just behind on the times. We have far more advanced technology than a freaking typewriter, to document what’s going on in the courts.
Stephen:
Are you sure?
Taya:
Well said.
Stephen:
Than a freaking typewriter.
Taya:
Right, right, or having a courtroom sketch artist.
Stephen:
Oh, God.
Taya:
I mean, something that absolutely drives me crazy in our Maryland courts is that we can’t record. I mean, it’s terrible.
Stephen:
You know what’s a perfect example of that? James, is that you were broadcasting Eric’s sentencing-
Taya:
Oh, that’s right.
Stephen:
… and that judge went down some passive illogic, that had just still astounds me to this day, when I listened to that. Had you not done that, it would not be out there-
Taya:
That’s right.
Stephen:
… accessible to people to hear the audacity and the absurdity of his logic, when it came to sentencing Eric. You know? I appreciate that.
James Freeman:
Yeah.
Taya:
Absolutely. It was really important, in particular, because that judge, Judge Hoffman, who also wrote a book called The Punisher’s Brain-
Stephen:
That was just bizarre.
Taya:
… who went into this entire speech about how there’s four different types of justice. There’s retributive justice, and all this, rehabilitative justice. Then he says, he’s talking about it, and he’s talking about how he doesn’t want to give retributive justice, and then he immediately gives vengeful retributive justice. It was astonishing to me.
Stephen:
Right, on top of that, the whole thing is on Zoom, and then he’s like, “But don’t publish it. Don’t let anyone hear it,” even though it’s already on freaking Zoom. Which to your point, James, is the lack of… the actual cognitive dissonance of the legal system and judges. Yeah, I’m on Zoom where anyone can join, but God forbid you put it on YouTube, so the general public can hear it? That makes no sense.
James Freeman:
I think what it is too, is it comes down to controlling the narrative.
Stephen:
Yes.
James Freeman:
I can publish it on my channel, but you can’t publish it on yours.
Stephen:
Right.
James Freeman:
It’s about controlling the narrative, I think.
Stephen:
It is so much about controlling the narrative. It is so much about self-justification, and I think Eric and James had brought up, we focus on police accountability. But my God, the judiciary operates, as you said, and you’ve already said this, so I’m repeating it, but I want to say, with emphasis, that I’ve witnessed so many things in courtrooms, that are far worse than a traffic stop. You know what I mean? I’ve seen judges put people in jail for absolutely nothing.
Taya:
You’ve seen drunk judges on the bench.
Stephen:
I’ve seen drunk…. all sorts of stuff. It’s shameful, because judges are just so empowered, and are so imperious when you’re in court. I think, James, you’re right, but it’s a much harder branch of government to fight, because they really have archaic methods. You can’t have a camera in a courtroom. I’ve literally been almost arrested for opening my cell phone, when I’m trying to report on a case.
Taya:
Right.
Stephen:
The judge is like, “What are you doing with that cell phone?” The bailiff comes over, and they’re all so pleased with themselves that they’re controlling you, to the point where you can’t really cover what they’re doing.
Taya:
Yeah.
James Freeman:
Yeah, and I think, I usually don’t… actually, I really never like looking at government for a solution to a problem. But I think the problem though is that the legislature has essentially granted the court’s power to make their own rules in their courtroom, but it’s gone too far. I think it’s going to need to come down to the legislature writing something, saying, “No, these are some things that you can’t restrict, in setting some boundaries.”
Stephen:
I agree.
James Freeman:
I mean, I thought that was the whole point of a system of checks and balances, that the different didn’t work together, but quite literally worked against each other, and said, “Wait a second. You’re wrong. We’re going to step in and kick you in the butt.”
Stephen:
I mean, I agree, because usually an administrative judge can say… as you know, in your fight with New Mexico courts, the administrative judge has all this power to do all sorts of crazy stuff, that without proper oversight, or checks and balances, can just get out of control.
Taya:
Yes. Absolutely. James, I had another question for you, and I know it’s somewhat broad, but I wanted to know what you’ve learned about American policing, over your years of covering it from your viewpoint, your unique viewpoint, what stands out to you? What are the lessons James Freeman learned from covering police, in the unique way that you have? I know it’s a big, a broad question. I’m sorry.
Stephen:
Yeah. Sorry.
Taya:
I’m sorry.
Stephen:
Sorry, we’re putting you on.
James Freeman:
No, no, no. That’s all right. I’m trying to think. I think that some of my best videos that have exposed, to other people as well as myself, how police really are, is that it seems that once a man is told that he has power or authority over other men, that he just does things that are completely unnatural. That video that you showed, for my intro, of me walking up to this guy, I don’t know who he is. I’ve never met him in my life. I’ve got no reason to interact with him, at all. If I do, as a normal human, I should just say, “Hey, hello, how’re you doing?” But to walk up to another man, and just start demanding things, and trying to take control over that person, it’s sick, it’s wrong. But these people have been told that… they’ve got it in their head, that they literally have a right. They have the authority to just arbitrarily control everyone around them.
The whole point of asking someone to disarm themselves, or trying to disarm someone, it’s all about gaining power, being the most powerful person in the room, and establishing that dominance over everybody, the moment you walk in. In doing it, honestly, it’s a character that I play, but man, I’ve gone back, after doing it going, “That is sick.” I was even disturbed by the fact that this cop let me do it. Most of the people in the comments are like, “Man, this is the nicest cop ever.” No human should tolerate that from another human. It’s wrong.
Stephen:
That is profound. That is truly profound. I think, I mean, because James, what you point out is we take police power for granted, and we pretty much have all been indoctrinated into accepting the fact that an individual can walk up to us and say, “Stand over here.”
Taya:
Absolutely.
Stephen:
“Tell me this. Give me your ID,” that kind of stuff. I think that’s why your videos are so important, and vital, in many ways, because you really do bring that… there’s not many people who have been able to so starkly illustrate the effect of police power, and especially police overreach. We appreciate you, and thank you for coming on.
James Freeman:
Thank you.
Taya:
Yeah, absolutely. I just wanted to make sure, James… do we have to go to our next guest?
Stephen:
We really do.
Taya:
We do. James, I hate letting you go, because I want to pick your brain, and especially you know me, I really want to have a follow-up conversation with you. When you say you don’t like to look to government for a solution, I really want to have a follow-up conversation with you about alternative solutions.
Stephen:
That would be for-
Taya:
We’re going to have to have that conversation sometime.
Stephen:
Yes, we will.
Taya:
Okay?
Stephen:
But we appreciate it. Thank you for coming on and celebrating our fifth anniversary with us.
Taya:
Yes, we appreciate it so much.
James Freeman:
Thank you guys, and congratulations, and thank you for everything you’ve done for this five years. I’m happy for your guys’ anniversary. Thanks.
Stephen:
Thanks.
Taya:
Thank you.
Stephen:
Thanks.
Taya:
We really appreciate that. Oh, that’s great. It’s always good to see.
Stephen:
Absolutely.
Taya:
Now our next epic cop watcher, our guests are continuing one, by one, by one.
Stephen:
This is amazing, that we’ve talked to, and we have still legends to come.
Taya:
I know. We have more to come, more legends to come, you guys.
Stephen:
We’ve talked to legends. It’s amazing to me, it really is.
Taya:
Now, our guests, honestly, they really don’t need an introduction. In a world where cop watching can sometimes become almost too over the top, the Battousai stands out for his measured, and almost understated approach, but is one that sure gets results. Let’s take a look. Okay. Hey, Philip, best known as the Battousai. Thank you so much for joining us.
Stephen:
Thanks for being here.
Otto:
Hi. Thank you for having me.
Taya:
We really appreciate it, and I know you’re always asked this question, but I just want to make sure, for the people who might not be familiar with you. One of the reasons why you are so well respected in this community, is because you have actually made case law to protect people’s right to record, to actually protect people’s First Amendment rights. It was a decision that’s known as Turner v Driver, I believe a cop arrested you. I think for maybe trying to film a police station. We know what the decision is, but can you just talk a little bit about it, and how you’ve had to keep fighting to protect that right?
Otto:
This all started when I was actually in college. I was in college, worked a part-time job, and I learned about my rights. They don’t teach you this stuff in high school, of course, they don’t want to teach you this in public systems. But I actually ended up learning this, because the State of Texas made it mandatory, that in order to get your degree, you needed to take US government, and Texas local state government. Over the summer when I took those classes, I learned how to pretty much stand up for your rights, exercise, those rights. One book, in particular, really pushed me over the edge, and it was called Convicting the Innocent. I had to do a book report on that for my US government class, and that really stood out to me.
I started digging, digging, digging on YouTube, and then that’s when I discovered the whole cop watching room. This is where I came across channels like Tom Zebra, Jeff Gray, PINAC News, like Sean Thomas. These are some of the guys that’s been doing it for a long time. I’ve been watching and just learning from these guys, and I’ve decided that, you know what? I want to do this same cop watching activity in my city. Before I knew it, things just took off.
Stephen:
Well, one of the things we had talked about, when we had you on the show before, was that even though you got this ruling, you still… police didn’t really seem to abide by it. Is that my understanding, that they created laws that didn’t totally go to the heart, or the letter of the decision that was made, that you won? I mean, is that right, in some way?
Otto:
Well, not in Texas. Texas, I think they’re being very careful here. They’re saying you can record, but you’ve got to do it from back over there. There’s some things that you can do to test the limits here. Most times they’ll tell you to stand back, but I guarantee you, if you put the camera there, and you take a step back, they’ll be like, “You can’t leave your camera there. It’s interfering.” It’s just those type of things that you have to think of on the fly, things to improvise the situation. For instance, even though Turner v Driver has established a right to report police officers in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, I do believe that there are officers who are undermining that. They get away with things by shining the light in your camera, blocking your view by positioning themselves in front of your camera, and the action that’s going on, or playing copyrighted music, to try to see if they can get your videos taken down, so you can’t monetize it.
Stephen:
Oh, my gosh, so devious.
Otto:
There’s different steps that officers are doing, and if only they put this much effort into doing their job correctly, they wouldn’t have to worry about the camera, in the first place.
Stephen:
That’s a really good point. I mean, and that does make me question though, for example… one thing I wanted to ask you is, the Fifth Circuit has a reputation… which is Texas. The Fifth Circuit has a reputation for being very pro-cop. How did you even win that case? I’ve been meaning to ask you this question, because I’ve had people who we’ve reported on, they say, well, they go to a lawyer, and they say, “Well, you can’t win in the Fifth Circuit, so I can’t sue on your behalf.” How did you actually win, in the Fifth Circuit?
Otto:
This is what I try to tell a lot of people, and this is what makes me a little successful, is because you’ve got to study the game. Unfortunately, it’s just all one big game. Once you learn how to play the game, you can use the rules against them. That’s pretty much how I stepped into the scene, because once you realize what to do, and how to do it, there’s a lot you can do, going forward, to get things established, and get things set, right away. One of my philosophies is, “Give the officer the shovel, let them dig themselves a hole.” Ask the right questions, record it, and you never know how far that video’s going to go. I try to do it from a professional standpoint, but I love the different styles of cop watching out there. I think there’s a lot to learn from everyone. That’s what I enjoy watching a lot of people.
But unfortunately, when you’re dealing with the courts, you have to play the game, and then you have to beat them with their own rules. That’s something that I have to live with my life, even before cop watching, it’s just growing up. You’ve got to learn how to play within the rules, and then use the rules to get your way. You know what I mean?
Taya:
You know, Battousai, I just wanted you to know there was this great comment that said that you could survive a bear attack, cool as a cucumber. Michael Willis, hi Michael Willis, we appreciate you, said, “This guy’s awesome. He’s doing it the right way, to my taste, making case law in the process. You guys want change? This guy has the combination to unlock change.” Just to let you know, you are very much appreciated. The way that you have fought for our right to record, and our first amendment rights, is really appreciated.
But to go towards what Stephen was talking about, in relation to the Fifth Circuit, even here in Maryland, attorneys have shared with me that it’s very difficult to sue, because the judges are so pro-cop. There are people I’ve spoken to, across the country, who can’t even find a civil rights attorney who’s even willing to help them sue, because they know that they’re just going to get slapped down by the judge, or the attorney is worried about alienating themselves from the larger judicial community. I mean, have you found this to be the case? Have you found it, that attorneys have said that it’s difficult to sue, or that judges are particularly pro-cop?
Otto:
Yes. Yes. I remember this very well, even when I first started recording. Just trying to… I think I talked to at least maybe 10 to 15 attorneys to take my cases to begin with, and it was just an uphill battle. Most of the times, attorneys would not take my cases, because there was no damages. There was nothing there to make money off of. In fact, it was just more of, “If I can’t make a decent chunk of change out of this, then I’m not interested. It’s not worth my time.” I’ve heard that from many attorneys. Then that’s when I met Kervyn Altaffer and I met Kervyn Altaffer through Brett Sanders. When I spoke with Kervyn Altaffer, we talked for about two hours, the first time we met. From within those first two hours, I mean, we became really close. He took all my cases, and I think after that, I believe TML started putting me on their radar, because we were just suing, getting settlement checks.
Then as soon as our case went to the Fifth Circuit, those settlement checks were used to fund Turner v Driver. It wasn’t just a, “Oh, he’s settling to get money.” But keep in mind, when I was doing all this, I was in college, part-time. Where am I going to get 35K to fund an appeal? You know what I mean?
Stephen:
Yeah.
Otto:
From my settlements, I used that to fund that, and even though the officers got qualified immunity, the overall battle was lost, but the war was won, when we got Turner v Driver. Because a lot of people were able to use that case law to prove that it’s been established, so these officers don’t get qualified immunity. I think yes, it’s a win, but I think now you have to position yourself as in, “Okay, now you get to the point to where judges are super pro-police, and that pretty much any ruling, or any situation that gets presented in front of a judge, are going to side with the police.”
Well, whenever you think about it, you have to think that… you’ve got to try to make the officer look bad, and you just look like an angel. Just to put it in a nutshell, that’s just how it’s going to be.
Stephen:
That’s interesting.
Otto:
Unfortunately, it has to be like that, in order to get any movement in a court. Otherwise, even if you’re on the same level as a cop, if the cop’s being rude, and you’re being rude, they’re going to side with the cop, because he’s a cop. But if the cop’s being rude, and you’re just being as nice as a 76-year-old lady, who just came from a Sunday night service in the church, they’re probably going to side with the lady.
Stephen:
Okay.
Otto:
But it’s unfortunate that you have to go that far, to that link, just to get any movement with the courts, to be honest.
Stephen:
I thought it makes you a master of the cop-watching universe, that you thought, stylistically, how your style would translate into a court setting, into a higher court setting, into an entire process. That’s pretty freaking amazing, to think that far ahead-
Taya:
I know.
Stephen:
… and say, “Hey, I have to look sympathetic, if I’m going to win legal precedent-
PART 3 OF 5 ENDS [01:27:04]
Stephen:
Hey, I have to look sympathetic if I’m going to win legal precedent. I’m impressed.
Taya:
I mean, I have to ask. I mean, you’re noted for your deliberate style, how you do not allow yourself to get ruffled, how you don’t slip into profanity. Because you’re thinking long game, you’re playing chess. But are you still sticking with that formula? I have to wonder sometimes, don’t you just want to get loud? Don’t you just want to put that bird?
Otto:
You have no idea. Oh, man. You have no idea. There’s been so many times I have been test, I have been pushed to my limits. But I just like, “You know what? This is pretty much what they want.” And it’s like, I can’t do that. There’s a bigger picture here at play, and I have to stick to my convictions, and I have to keep pushing forward.
And there was one thing that I do want to say because this was part of the clip that you played with Corrigan, where they had the illegal signs posted on the side of the building? Well, we went to mediation for that. So, during the mediation we had a retired federal judge, and we can’t really talk about what happened during the mediation process, but what happened afterwards was something that really shocked me.
Because as soon as we were leaving, the retired judge, she shook all of our hands. But then whenever she shook my hand, she’s like, “Hang on, Mr. Turner. I read a lot about you, and I’m very impressed, and I’m very proud of you.” And it’s like, “You have no idea how many people actually support some of the things you guys are doing.”
So that kind of just hit a light switch for me. It was like, “Yes, we are actually making a positive impact.” And even though that there are judges that are pro-police, there are judges who are pro-Constitution.
Taya:
That’s so good to hear.
Stephen:
That’s an amazing story.
Taya:
That’s so heartening.
Stephen:
Wow.
Taya:
That’s a beautiful story. That helps renew my hope. It really does.
Stephen:
Truthfully.
Otto:
Yeah. It’s going to be uphill battle. And I don’t know if you knew, but that Corrigan situation, I got them to sign the signs that they took down from the building. I got all the defendants to sign the back of it.
Taya:
Wait, you got the defendants to sign the back of it? Was that part of the-
Stephen:
Whoa, really?
Otto:
Yeah. It was part of the settlement.
Stephen:
That was part of the settlement. I love it.
Otto:
Yeah. So, we told them, “You know those signs that you had on the building? Can you take them down and have all the defendants sign it?” And then they agreed to it, and we were surprised that they agreed to it. So, I kind of got it up there on the back wall. I don’t know if you can see it.
Taya:
That’s diabolical. I love that for you.
Otto:
I’m going to [inaudible 01:29:33] with you real quick. Give me a second.
Taya:
I love that for you. Yes, please let us see it. I love that.
Stephen:
I mean, the thing that’s amazing, just talking to Battousai, James Freeman and… Think of all the change that these individuals, just working on their own, no newsrooms, no-
Otto:
So this is the sign here. I know if you can see it. Oh,
Taya:
That’s incredible.
Otto:
And they signed the back of it, so it was no joke. And then one thing I did find out later on, because I did some open records requests, I think whenever they wrote me the citation for filming when they dismissed it two days later, TML, which is like the insurance for the city, required the officers to take constitutional law.
Taya:
That’s wonderful.
Otto:
Yeah. So it was two days after, so they knew the lawsuit was coming.
Stephen:
Wow. Which begs the question is why they hadn’t done that before they became police officers or-
Taya:
That’s an excellent point-
Stephen:
Out in the streets.
Otto:
It was probably more just like a revisit.
Taya:
Maybe a refresher course.
Stephen:
Yeah, of course.
Taya:
Hopefully.
Stephen:
It’s always good to brush up.
Taya:
Except Steven, didn’t you have a particular experience on what you saw? You knew that was written in a police academy Blackboard, about the Fourth Amendment?
Stephen:
Yeah, the Fourth Amendment doesn’t apply to us. We got a picture from a group of cops called VICD, Violent Impact Crimes Division, and they were doing training retraining on the amendments the fourth, fifth, and sixth. And they wrote on the Blackboard, fourth Amendment does not apply to us. And of course a lot of those guys-
Taya:
In the academy, in the academy on the Blackboard.
Stephen:
Just to show you how important Battousai work is, a lot of those officers ended up being part of the Gun Trace Task Force, which was a group of 6, 7, 8 officers who robbed residents, stole over time and-
Taya:
And dealt drugs in our city.
Stephen:
Dealt drugs. Congrats to you because that’s great to hear because if we can at least teach police officers that their whole occupation relies upon the constitution and those rights are important, that’s a victory.
Taya:
Absolutely.
Otto:
I think if people found a real reason why the police are here, I think everybody would blow their lids. And people are like, “Oh no, that’s not true.” But police are here to serve their masters. That’s pretty much all it is. They’re there to serve the wealthy and the people in position of power. That’s their true purpose.
Taya:
Yes, well said.
Otto:
And we should not forget that.
Taya:
And we can never forget that.
Stephen:
It’s an important thing to remember.
Taya:
Absolutely. They are the front line to protect the interest of capital. Corporatists, those oligarchs who are corrupting our society and corrupting our government process. They’re corrupting our democracy. Crony capitalism, I believe it’s called.
Stephen:
Go ahead. You say it, thank you.
Taya:
Well, I just wanted to ask, are there any new ongoing fights with the police departments or is there anything that you want to share with us? Any new legal front that you’re ready to share? I know sometimes you can’t always share something that you’re working on, and if you can’t, I totally understand that. But is there anything else coming up?
Otto:
Oh, I’ll say, so I had a couple of people respond to, email me, saying, “Hey, we didn’t know you were the guy for Turner V Driver.” And I was like, “Yeah, I guess it’s been some time. I haven’t been really active.” And then I had a couple of people from, Martha [inaudible 01:32:52] was actually one of them. He said, “I think it’s time for you to return to Fort Worth.” And I said, “Why do you say that?” And they said, “Oh, the Turner V. Driver case. They’re pretty much saying that, oh, that means nothing. And yeah, that white guy is not going to come back here anymore.” And I said, “Wait a minute, white guy?”
“Oh yeah, yeah. I didn’t tell you? They think the guy from Turner V. Driver was white.” And I was like, “Really?” I said, “Okay, yeah, I guess I already got a good disguise, so I’m going to go back up there.”
Taya:
You can be totally undercover now. They’re going to be looking for the wrong guy. That’s some bad police work.
Stephen:
That’s some very bad detective work, absolutely.
Taya:
That’s pretty sloppy.
Stephen:
We really appreciate you coming on the show for our fifth anniversary. So kind of you to take the time to join us.
Taya:
I really, really, really wish I could keep you for longer, but I promised everyone I would do five questions to make sure that I don’t trap our friends in the studio here all night. But would you please agree to come back and spend some more time with us? I think we just need to give the Battousai his whole hour. I mean, I think that’s what has to happen. You just need your own hour. Would you be able to come back?
Otto:
Oh, I got a lot of fun stories for you. Yes, I’ll come back. But I got a lot of fun stories for you guys.
Taya:
Okay. All right. I’m looking forward to them. Thank you so much for joining us and there is a lot of love in the chat for you, as I’m sure you’ll see.
Otto:
Thank you for having me and happy anniversary.
Stephen:
Thank you, Battousai. We really appreciate it.
Taya:
Thank you so much. It’s so great to see him.
Stephen:
It’s amazing. I was just saying, you think about all the changes that have been effectuated by the people that we’ve had in our show who had done this all on their own initiative. It gives you hope.
Taya:
It really does.
Stephen:
It gives you hope in democracy.
Taya:
It really does.
Stephen:
I know the internet is fueled by cynicism, but this is not a place for it, because if there are individuals willing to go out there and risk their neck and get arrested or just confront cops or create videos or tell people’s stories just on their own with no prompting, I can’t be a cynic all the time.
Taya:
All the time.
Stephen:
All the time. This is nice. I feel it’s pretty nice.
Taya:
You feel warm and fuzzy, aren’t you?
Stephen:
It’s a great gift for our fifth anniversary to really talk to people who have made a difference. You can make a difference.
Taya:
Absolutely. Because I have to admit, when I first started working with Steven, and he was a bit cynical and understandably because he had been a lone voice.
Stephen:
Oh, I cynical?
Taya:
He was a lone voice pushing back against police misconduct that he saw, violations of civil rights of community members, deaths that were being under investigated and literally covered up. He saw this, he listened to the community and reported on it, and he received retaliation from the police department. He had people from the medical examiner’s office call to try to get him fired. As a matter of fact, they tried to get me fired too, which is sort of ironic because at the time we were doing a podcast that we weren’t getting paid for. But just all these different forms of retaliation that you experienced. So you were getting a little cynical. So to see people do this, I really think makes a difference to you.
Stephen:
After I got laid off from my newspaper, I worked for a couple years on my own website, and then I got a job at a TV station. The first thing that happened was a police spokesman sent an email to my boss saying, “Steven Janis is a jerk, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Fire him.” That man actually-
Taya:
And a cop hitter, and a cop-hater-
Stephen:
That man right now is actually the head spokesman for the Secret Service. So yeah, Anthony Guglielmi, I think his name is, yeah. And so he decided that the best thing to do was take a reporter who had lost his job when his newspaper closed, because he had provided honest coverage of the police department-
Taya:
Exactly, all of it is honest-
Stephen:
And try to take away his job and his health benefits, because I hadn’t seen a doctor in three and a half years. So really wonderful people. I really have a lot to say about their character.
Taya:
You have some not-friends in some very high places.
Stephen:
But think about it. Think about, this was in 2011. This is four years before Freddie Gray and five years before. So was I right? Or was I wrong?
Taya:
You were right.
Stephen:
I was right about the Baltimore Freaking Police Department.
Taya:
Yes, you were.
Stephen:
But they tried to take my freaking job.
Taya:
That is absolutely right.
Stephen:
I’m sorry.
Taya:
And that’s why I thought you should share that. So when he says it affects him and makes him feel hopeful, this man had all the reason in the world for cynicism. So it means something when he says that.
Stephen:
Well, I’m very thankful that there are people who are willing to go out there and do this difficult work and all on their own. And it just gives me a lot. It makes me feel good. But anyway, that’s what I’ll say, but we’ve got to get to the next guest.
Taya:
Okay. Yes. So I’m just, thank you for letting me have you share that. So, our last guests are actually kind of a duo, and they have been unrelenting in their coverage of some of the most vexing police departments in the country. They’re a special team that have been involved in high profile cases that have led to a major settlement with the Los Angeles County Sheriffs, all due to the footage caught on their cameras. They also include one of the, so-called OGs of Cop watching, Tom Zebra. Tom’s uncompromising coverage of cops in LA has made him a legend in the world of YouTube activists. Also, the fact, I think he’s been doing it for almost 20 years. I think some of his early cop watches are actually on VHS. That’s how long Tom Zebra has been doing this. And they also made one of my favorite clips ever where they did a bit of an imitation of a show that I’m kind of fond of. Maybe we could just take a little peek at it. A little peek.
Stephen:
Okay.
Taya:
Good to know.
Stephen:
Thank you.
Taya:
I’ll tell people that.
Stephen:
Okay. I got to say something. Oh, Taya, just let me say something, that is good reporting because knowing that the Coke price was low or a good price, that’s the kind of detail, that separates the regular reporter from the top-notch investigative reporter.
Taya:
That lets you know that reporter hit the streets. And that’s what we respect around here.
Stephen:
I mean, I’ve been doing Stand-ups for five years, but Tom just knocked me right out of the park.
Taya:
He did. He knocked you out of the box on that one.
Stephen:
I’ve never had that kind of detail in my reporting, mad respect.
Taya:
Also, his sweatshirt was cool.
Stephen:
Mad respect for that man.
Taya:
And I liked Laura’s Bookshelf. And before we get started, that sounds really familiar. I’m not sure why it sounds so familiar.
Stephen:
I told Laura she needed more books though.
Taya:
She needed more books on her shelf. She even had the glasses. It was so awesome. Okay, just for any folks that are here, they did a version of the show we do. And we thought it was basically the best thing that we’ve ever seen.
Stephen:
We did.
Taya:
So you should go check it out on our channel, because it’s kind of great. And it also has really good reporting in it. So, I have to welcome Tom Zebra and Laura Sharp.
Stephen:
Hello.
Taya:
Thank you so much for joining us.
Stephen:
Thank you for being here.
Laura Sharp:
Bye. That’s, [inaudible 01:40:20].
Taya:
We appreciate you.
Laura Sharp:
My four books. It was like one of those last things. I’m like, “Oh, I need books.”
Stephen:
Tay and I have plenty of books. If you need something, we can ship them out to you.
Taya:
That’s right, we can ship them out to you.
Laura Sharp:
No, actually I have a lot. And if you notice, I don’t know what the… I don’t know. It was so random. I was like, “Oh no.” I just grabbed Egyptian books or something. I do have books.
Taya:
We just wanted to also say that Thomas has been having a little bit of an issue with his video. So at some point we might have the technical difficulty of just having his audio instead of his visual. So just to let you know, we’re not doing it on purpose. It’s just one of those technicalities.
So, to both of you, first, I just wanted to give you guys both a chance to comment on Eric’s recent indictment. You were there when we were out in Colorado spending time with Eric, checking in-
Stephen:
Prior to sentencing-
Taya:
To what was happening. Excuse me, we were there prior to sentencing. So we certainly know that you Eric well. I just thought maybe you’d like to have a chance to comment on his recent indictment and any concerns that you might have about it. And either one of you can take this question first.
Tom Zebra:
I’ll go, hopefully you can hear me okay.
Stephen:
We can.
Tom Zebra:
Everything you guys said is true. It’s not surprising in the least bit that they’ve retaliated against him and they’re going to do everything they can to keep him in jail. And if you think about it, I think that’s probably why Eric Brandt is the person he is anyways. It’s because of how unfair they are and the fact that that’s what they do every chance they get. They retaliate against people they don’t like instead of doing their job. So it’s not surprising to me one bit, but hopefully that’s going to light a fire under his butt. And when he gets out here, hopefully he’ll go right back to cop watching.
Stephen:
I hope so too.
Taya:
I hope so too. But I have a feeling he may retire to a quiet life-
Laura Sharp:
He might be taking a break.
Stephen:
I think, yeah… I think Eric is ready to retire.
Laura Sharp:
For his own mental health.
Taya:
Laura, did you want to comment on Eric’s recent indictment?
Laura Sharp:
He definitely covered everything. We talked about it at length and I mean, honestly, it just breaks my heart. Just there’s a lot that you risk when you do what we do. I mean, especially him. I’m almost at loss of words, just how that turned out.
Taya:
No, understandably.
Tom Zebra:
If I can add, I’d like to say something about the Judge Morris Hoffman.
Taya:
Please do.
Tom Zebra:
I know a lot of people have criticism about him. But one of the interviews I watched, he was explaining how if you are in the shoes of the defendant, if anybody else would’ve done what they would’ve done, then that’s not a crime at all. And I don’t think very many of us have been in the shoes of Eric Brandt, where he spent so much time in jail as an innocent person. And I mean, he’s got how many laws are in his name? He set precedent repeatedly. So, in the overall scheme of things, he’s the one that is righteous. And the judge said elsewhere, if any other person would’ve done those things, like in Eric Brandt’s shoes, and I think anyone else would have, I can’t imagine being locked up for so long as an innocent person.
Stephen:
I mean, Eric-
Tom Zebra:
At the very least, under those circumstances, of course, you’re going to say something that isn’t nice about the judge.
Taya:
Yeah, absolutely.
Stephen:
Yeah, and it’s true. Eric had set precedent in the 10th Circuit for filming police.
Taya:
Yes. With Liberty Freak, Irizarry.
Stephen:
Liberty Freak Irizarry. So that is very true. Among other things that he’s done-
Taya:
Among other things-
Stephen:
There’s many other lawsuits he won.
Taya:
I just meant, right… Also, there was a lawsuit that he participated in that resulted in the Englewood Police Department receiving body cameras about 18 months before any of the other police departments as well as guaranteeing them, certain retraining as well, certain constitutional retraining, which is good for everybody. I even want constitutional training.
Stephen:
So Laura, let me ask you, what’s it like out on the streets now? How are cops behaving? Are they responding to your work? How are things going up? How’s cop watching?
Taya:
Are they like, “Oh no, it’s Laura Sharp.”
Laura Sharp:
They’re running. They run from the camera.
Stephen:
They run from the camera?
Laura Sharp:
We go out. Yeah, no, no… We go out quite a bit and as soon as we get out or walk up, it’s like suddenly it’s over. It’s like, wow.
Stephen:
Really?
Laura Sharp:
Yeah, no, it’s almost annoying. It’s like, “Come on guys, please.”
Stephen:
So they’re ruining your videos. You can’t even make a video.
Laura Sharp:
We’re having to chase them to the department, their little substation or the… Come on please.
Taya:
That’s so funny.
Laura Sharp:
I mean, they’re basically [inaudible 01:45:24].
Taya:
But honestly though, in a way that’s great because what you’re doing in that process is there’s someone who might’ve been harassed, who might’ve been having an unconstitutional arrest or having their rights violated, and the officers decide, you know what? It’s not worth it.
Laura Sharp:
They’re still doing it.
Taya:
They’re still doing it?
Laura Sharp:
They’re still doing it. It’s just a matter of… It’s just a matter of there’s a new crop. I kind of see it as they obviously… I mean, they have so many departments like Sheriff for instance, and they have new rookies coming in. And at certain points there’s, right now I feel like there’s a brand new one for the last year that we haven’t figured out their places yet. Their path, the way that they get to each location kind of a thing. We don’t got that down the way we had prior. We could find the same guys in the same places mostly, but not anymore. And a lot of them, they’ve made a name for themselves. Sabatine has had a whole thing because I think he threatened the rapper. He said he was going to put one in his chest just like a whole… And I miss them, I don’t know. It was a little entertaining. Now these guys literally just don’t say anything. I’m like, this is no good.
Taya:
Let me ask you something. Because there’s a case that you worked on that really stood out to me and was absolutely life-changing. And this was the case of Christopher Bailey. You recorded some of the… I mean, I’ve witnessed a lot of police brutality, but this was truly terrible. And you were there live on the scene. And can you just talk a little bit about how your video footage helped him and the lawsuit that followed, and maybe even some information about the officers or detectives who were involved, if you don’t mind?
Laura Sharp:
Okay. So I mean, to make a really long story short, I mean, we did show up in the aftermath. We were directly after it. I mean, they must have just done their last strike on him or something. And initially when we arrived, I didn’t see him. And we did hear a deputy involved in a fight. So I was aware, I’ve come to these scenes before and maybe they have, they’re a little roughed up and they’re getting in an ambulance or something. But when we first got there, we didn’t see him. We could kind of see where the deputies were around. And then we heard him and he said, “I want to live.” And it was like, “Wait a minute. Oh, they have him on the ground.” And it was just this whole, it was in slow motion after that where it was like, we recognize all these, most of the deputies, and at this point, we know them all now.
But it was almost like, I don’t know. I could say I was shocked. I was not expecting when they sat him up and the condition of his face, it was horrific. And it really just could not bother, just even the most critical person of what we do. It was horrific. And so for almost a year to the day, I did not know this man’s name. And I started to resolve to the fact that I probably never would, because a lot of the times we don’t see, I mean most of the time, sorry, we don’t see these individuals again after they have their contact with law enforcement.
So I had almost become like, I had to accept that. And his lawyer made a comment on the video. I mean, she quickly took it off. But just that contact, and I have to say what we saw was pretty bad. But hearing it in detail, to the extent that what they did to him, it was almost, I don’t want to say it was worse, but it was just as horrific to hear the details of how many times they struck him or hit him and kneed him. And I mean, his injuries were his eye socket or his eyeball was dislocated from his orbital bone. They fractured his orbital bone. I mean, what we saw was just what looked like, he didn’t even look human. It was just something that I kept saying in the video. And they played a news clip, and you can hear me say, “He doesn’t even look human.” I mean he didn’t. And I think they referred to me as a bystander with a cell phone or something. And I was probably offended.
But Daniel and I just, Daniel has, we both have our own way of responding to these situations. And he had currently had a situation with a deputy that he was kind of asking about. But everything that we thought in the moment was very true. Daniel was calling it, before we knew the facts. And it sucks to be right. And I mean, we met him over Zoom. He is still, to this day, afraid to set foot in California. He took off to Texas as soon as he was medically able, because he was hospitalized for quite a bit after that. He still was, he’s still getting surgeries because he’s, he’s basically blind in his left eye. There was a clip from Eric’s trial where the judge said, “Who in the world thinks that that’s okay?” And literally, I could not have put that perfectly in this instance. But that one, it didn’t feel, that wasn’t even with Eric, it didn’t fit, but with this, it’s like, who in the world thinks this is okay? It’s just not.
Stephen:
Well, thank you for sharing that.
Laura Sharp:
I don’t know, you want to add something?
Stephen:
And I wanted to ask Tom, not just about this situation, but Tom, you’ve been out on the streets for 20 years. How have things changed for you and with your relationship? Have police changed at all in the 20 years you’ve been doing this? I’m just kind of curious.
Taya:
Good question.
Tom Zebra:
I’m going to say since I started having more people helping me, like Laura joined me, Jody Kat joined me. There was a few of us in the same area that I was working regularly. And as far as how things changed, the police don’t even come out of the station anymore. Like the Lawndale sheriffs, any of the areas, those productive feeding grounds, if it was like fishing, those were the areas that I would go because there was plenty of police instances to record.
Well, now I could drive through these areas every night all night long, and you won’t find a cop unless they’re responding to a call. They stay inside the station, they respond to a call and they go straight back to the station.
I don’t know how many millions people spent to put these police on the street, but for free, I come back off the street and put them in the station with the help of my associates. And to be honest, if anything, the crime rate has probably gone down because it seems to me like the most serious crimes are committed by the police, at least the ones that I see.
Taya:
Wow.
Stephen:
Well, yeah, it’s true. The crime has gone down over the past year from the pandemic highs. And that has been amid a police officer shortage.
Taya:
Exactly… Exactly.
Stephen:
Difficult to explain when you say the police are the key to public safety. But currently right now we have a really record drop in violent crime and also record low employment in many police departments, including ours in Baltimore, where we’ve had a 20% drop in homicides and we’re pretty much record low staffing. So really difficult conundrum for police partisans who want to say…
Taya:
It’s interesting you should say that, Steven, because it’s almost as if you two are drawing the conclusion that policing doesn’t necessarily stop crime, that’s a cleanup crew. By any chance, are you familiar with a book called You Can’t Stop Murder? Are you familiar with that book?
Stephen:
Yes, I wrote that book. I wrote that book.
Taya:
Yes, that’s right. And you actually… It’s interesting…
Stephen:
That was the thesis of the book, that proactive policing does not reduce crime and it only causes more, as to Tom’s point, causes more problems than it solves. And that is, I think borne out in Baltimore and I think in Los Angeles too as well, because as Tom and Laura were covering it, there was that report by the ACLU about the Los Angeles County Sheriff, and it was insane what they concluded. You guys remember that report, right?
Taya:
Incredible.
Laura Sharp:
Yeah, there was actually the investigation that they had put out is what I sent my video of Christopher Bailey. I sent my video in with several others, and that’s what I think the lawyer said that the district attorney said that she, that’s how she found out or something for their investigation.
Taya:
Let me just respond to MSTAR Media.
Tom Zebra:
Oh, I think-
Taya:
Oh, I’m sorry, Tom, go ahead. I don’t want to interrupt you.
Tom Zebra:
I think if I’m correct, you guys were talking about the investigation where like 90% of their time is spent on traffic stops, right? Is that what you’re referring to?
Taya:
Yes.
Stephen:
Yes.
Tom Zebra:
And our videos not only prove exactly that, but probably 90% of those traffic stops are fake traffic stops. They’re profiling where the person did nothing wrong, and at the end of the search, the police can’t even come up with the reason why they made that stop in the first place. And if you take that all into consideration, we’re wasting $4 billion to be pulled over for no reason. And I’ll let you get back to what you were, I just want to make that point.
Taya:
No, Tom, I’m so glad you’re making that point.
Stephen:
No, it’s a good point. Thank you for making that point.
Taya:
It’s really important. No, I just wanted to mention to MSTAR Media, and I really appreciate you bringing it up. She said, what are we getting our stats from about crime going down? Just in my case-
Stephen:
Well, the New York Times, FBI UCR.
Taya:
Well, just very specifically, the Uniform Crime Report is where various police agencies send in their data. Unfortunately, not all the police agencies do, but that’s where they’re supposed to send in their data about whether homicide, murders, et cetera, carjackings, theft, all the different varieties of crime. Something that we saw in particular in our city, Baltimore, is that although carjackings are up quite a bit, one of the things that we’re most concerned about is homicide in our city and shootings. And very fortunately this year, we’ve seen a precipitous drop despite the fact that we’re, what, maybe like 600 police officers short?
Stephen:
Yeah, 600 or something.
Taya:
And so there are other cities that are also experiencing this. If you have a chance, you can, the data from the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report is actually accessible. You can also get it through-
Stephen:
Go online, just look it up.
Taya:
Get it through the Bureau of Justice Statistics. There are a couple of different ways to access it.
Stephen:
It’s all broken down by locale. By municipality.
Taya:
Right, so you can take a look. And so we are speaking from our personal experiences in the areas that we’re in, but-
PART 4 OF 5 ENDS [01:56:04]
Taya:
So we are speaking from our personal experiences in the areas that we’re in, but there have been journalists who’ve done really solid work to show that this is an overall national trend. So it may be in relation to specific crime that we’re very concerned about like homicide, and it may be like in our city, things like carjackings are high, so maybe you’re looking at a particular crime stat and we’re looking at another, so maybe that’s where the disconnect is happening.
Stephen:
Well, let’s ask one last question because we’re almost at two hours. So we have got to-
Taya:
Can I please ask about the cannabis.
Stephen:
Yes.
Taya:
Oh, okay.
Stephen:
Go ahead.
Taya:
All right, so-
Stephen:
Last question.
Taya:
Tom and Laura, I loved this piece that you did and because to me, in every aspect of it showed how important a cop watcher is. So Tom and Laura arrive on the scene, a young man and his girlfriend, his girlfriend’s a passenger,
Laura Sharp:
Darius Dandy.
Taya:
Say the name again, [inaudible 01:56:51].
Laura Sharp:
Darius Dandy.
Taya:
Darius. So Darius is driving, they’re pulled over, they’re harassed. I think it’s originally about window tint, and they see that they have some legally purchased marijuana. And so they start recording this and Laura can talk a little bit about what a strange DUI test they gave. But what really jumped out to me, which just touched my heart so much, is that the police, after taking away her boyfriend and taking away the car, just left the passenger standing on the road without her phone, without ID, without-
Laura Sharp:
No, they took her.
Taya:
They took her too. I thought they’d left her on the side of the road.
Laura Sharp:
So they took her too to the station. Essentially did. They took her phone, everything that she had in the car. When they towed the car, they took all her [inaudible 01:57:38]. And I was repeating to them like, “Are you going to let her get any of these things?” These are the obvious things that you’d need to be able to carry on with your evening while the car’s… Yeah. No, they took her back to the station. She actually refused to get out of the car.
Taya:
So you actually went to the station with them to help? Which is wonderful.
Laura Sharp:
Yeah, so we followed them to the station, and then they basically set her on her own. But luckily we were there and I offered to give her a ride to the impound lot. Mind you, mind you though. Sorry. The show that it was after that is just, it was raining. So technically if we weren’t there, she would’ve had to walk, what was it, Daniel? The miles to the tow.
Tom Zebra:
It would’ve been a couple hour walk to get to her stuff, but then without a release, they tried to send her without a release. She would’ve had to walk all the way back and then-
Laura Sharp:
And then it was after hours-
Tom Zebra:
… for her to have so. She would’ve had to walk for eight hours and she would’ve never accomplished getting her wallet, her keys, anything.
Laura Sharp:
Yeah, she had to pay, well, she didn’t even have the money because she didn’t have her wallet or anything. So I loaned her money so that she could pay the after hours cost to be able to get these most obvious items of her. Okay, so the worst part of this is that they did the, what was it, Daniel, that they, it was under the, what was it? It was like a DUI investigation, he claimed.
Tom Zebra:
Yes. The whole thing was just a charade because apparently we caught him too many times. They’re trying to not admit or let on when we catch him doing illegal searches. So they just were framing the guy for a marijuana DUI. And I think you know about marijuana DUIs, they’re bogus on their face.
Stephen:
Wow.
Taya:
Excellent.
Stephen:
Well, I think-
Taya:
Excellent.
Stephen:
We appreciate you guys. I think Tay, we are almost up to two hours.
Taya:
I don’t want to let them go. We barely even got the chance to really talk to them.
Stephen:
I know. But we’ll have them back. We’ll have them back.
Laura Sharp:
We love you congratulations.
Taya:
Can I at least-
Tom Zebra:
Let me just say, I want to congratulate you guys. I have a ton more things to talk about, but we’ll save that for another time. It was a great show. I enjoyed watching it and I hope to see you guys soon.
Stephen:
Absolutely.
Taya:
All right. I will defer to my partners. No, you’re right. I’m sorry. It’s so rare to have Tom and Laura at the same time, and between the two of them, they have amazing stories and just so much to share.
Stephen:
Could you guys keep making fake police accountability reports, oh please? Because we like to watch it.
Laura Sharp:
We’re actually working on another one I was telling you about earlier this week, but I didn’t have time to-
Taya:
I would love that.
Laura Sharp:
Oh yeah, for sure. For sure.
Taya:
At least by the 6th.
Stephen:
Yeah. No, they’re working on one now.
Laura Sharp:
No, no, no. For sure. I’m working on it now, so yeah.
Taya:
Okay. Awesome.
Laura Sharp:
I was hoping to have it ready.
Stephen:
Thank you so much.
Taya:
We appreciate you so much.
Tom Zebra:
Good night everybody.
Taya:
Thank you so much.
Laura Sharp:
Love you too.
Taya:
Bye Laura. Bye Tom Zebra.
Laura Sharp:
Bye.
Taya:
Hey, if you guys haven’t already subscribed to their channel, that’s Laura Shark CW, you’re seeing right there. That’s how you find her channel. You might not realize this, but the world of cop watchers, there aren’t a lot of females out there, so please make sure to support them like Laura Shark CW, and of course you’ve got to honor the OG Tom Zebra, so make sure to go check out his channel as well. And all the other wonderful cop watchers that we’ve had here tonight. I think most of them already knew [inaudible 02:01:03] streaming in like [inaudible 02:01:04] and out of the watch dog. But please make sure you go.
Laura Sharp:
It’s great to see.
Taya:
Sub to Laura’s channel for me.
Stephen:
Isn’t it amazing that the cops are afraid to come out because Tom’s out there.
Taya:
I know. I love that.
Stephen:
Just a guy with a cell phone and a-
Taya:
I know.
Stephen:
… camera on his head-
Taya:
… that they’ve done that to him. I have to ask. Okay, I won’t. Can I just have one little question of Laura? One little question.
Stephen:
One more question quickly.
Taya:
One more. Okay. Laura, while you’re still here because you’re not done yet, I have to ask. Okay. You guys have gotten a lot of attention on YouTube question. You’ve had a lot of impact. Do the police treat you differently? When you show up are they like, “Oh no, it’s Laura, oh no, it’s Tom Zebra.” Or do they just act like they don’t see you? What happens when the cops see you?
Laura Sharp:
I [inaudible 02:01:42] know Daniel, what do you think?
Tom Zebra:
Definitely. I think a lot of them are, they’re scared of Laura it seems like, or if she asked more serious questions. I’m more likely to put things off and just say hello and be social. She’s not as nice to them. So there’s a lot of them that try to-
Laura Sharp:
[inaudible 02:02:03]. I’m just factual. I’m just real. I have passion. And he says a lot more in his own, when he posts videos, he gets to the point in that [inaudible 02:02:13]. But me, I am quite like, “No, no, no, I know what you did.” Or, “Wait, wait, wait, come back.” No.
Taya:
That’s great.
Tom Zebra:
If I could add one last thing. I know we’re ending the show, but after working with these guys for so many years, it’s hard to not become friends with them. So despite the awful…
Stephen:
Oh, I think we just lost him.
Taya:
Oh, no.
Laura Sharp:
Oh, no, no, no. He says he’s friends with us. I don’t claim such just silly thing. That’s so ridiculous. Good night.
Stephen:
Good night. Good night.
Taya:
Good night.
Stephen:
Thank you so much.
Taya:
It was great to have you both. And we definitely want to see you again soon. Thank you so much.
Stephen:
Cool.
Taya:
Okay.
Stephen:
That was amazing.
Taya:
Absolutely amazing. I love the idea that they’re scared of her like she’s mean to the cops. I’ve met Laura in person, she’s not-
Stephen:
We met Laura in person. She’s the kindest person.
Taya:
She’s a petite person. She’s not intimidating in any way. So to imagine her being mean and standing up in that way is amazing.
Stephen:
Absolutely.
Taya:
And I just have to thank all of our guests, for just their insight, being willing to spend their time with us and just for your patience to stick with us and talk to us individually. And I want to thank all of you for the amazing work that you do. You each have your own styles, you have your own way. And what’s even better is that you always find a way to somehow support and help each other. You’ve created an amazing community and I’m so glad to be at least a small part of it. So Stephen, I have a question for you. As I was talking about the theme of the show, I mentioned a phrase that is very familiar to you, a community that has something in common, but it’s actually a play on words on a book by a philosopher, Alphonso Lingis who wrote a book called A Community with Nothing in Common. So you spoke to this philosopher, you wrote about him. Can you talk a little bit about that book in relation to cop watchers?
Stephen:
Well, and to be really quick, because we don’t have a lot of time, but you brought up something that really struck me. Really, it almost made me upset because I was reminded of things that happened to me when I started covering police 15 years ago. And we were in the midst of zero tolerance and things police were crazy and they were shooting people in the back and all these horrible things were happening and I was trying to cover it, report out and in truth. And they tried to destroy my life basically. They pulled me over like 40 times. They would always harass me. My editor said I was a cop hater. The things that would happen to me were really horrible. And there was other things they did wrote about me as if I was some sort of crazy freak.
But then in 2016, when the federal government comes in and says unconstitutional, racist policing and all this stuff, it was even more painful for me because in many ways the damage had been done. But it affected me deeply. It made me a paranoid person and a person who doesn’t trust people much and a person who feels isolated. But the whole wonderful thing about talking to these people, the whole amazing thing is all these people who I really have very little in common with on a regular basis, that I don’t even live in the same cities I do, make me feel like I’m not alone in this effort to hold power accountable. And as painful as it was for me, when I know the people like Otto have gone through so much, James Freeman, I know Eric Brandt is in prison right now. I know all these people have suffered.
And so I feel like I have some connection to something that in many ways makes it all worthwhile. Because truthfully, I’ll tell you this, you can write all these things about police and about how bad policing was in Baltimore, but when the Justice Department comes around and no one says, “Hey, you did a good job. We appreciate what you did. We understand you suffered.” People like Anthony Guglielmi, don’t apologize to you for calling you Jerk, or some of the other stuff they did to me. I could just go on and on, on what happened to me. Dragging me into a trial board and screaming at me and subpoenaed me all the time to go into court, all these really things when all I was doing was writing. I wasn’t dealing drugs, I was just writing the truth. And so I feel connected to the people that we report on because they have been through this too.
And I understand the impulse. The people who we talk to, but [inaudible 02:06:53], these people aren’t doing it. Even though people say, “Well, it’s all about YouTube clicks,” or something. They are doing it, because they believe in this process of holding power accountable. And so in that sense, we have nothing in common and everything in common. And it’s helping me a lot personally because I just feel angry sometimes when you bring that up. I just don’t understand it really. I don’t understand. But I think I read once about, I think it was a woman who was a reporter, I can’t remember her name, but she said, “You think when you cover the truth and you say the truth, that everyone’s going to come running and say, ‘It’s the truth.’ That’s not what happens.” And as one of our guests pointed out, police don’t really serve the public, so to speak. They do, they serve this great inequality machine. And that’s part of the reason. Anyway,
Taya:
Yes. No, well said.
Stephen:
Anyway, thank you.
Taya:
No, very well said.
Stephen:
I just wanted to say that.
Taya:
No, and you should say that. And what’s interesting, someone said, “Does Stephen know former Baltimore cop Michael Wood?” I remember him from-
Stephen:
Yes, I do.
Taya:
Yes. We both interviewed Michael Wood and he went on to do some-
Stephen:
What happened to him?
Taya:
He went on to do some interesting things like, like rob veterans of campaign, allegedly.
Stephen:
Allegedly.
Taya:
Allegedly mismanaged some donations.
Stephen:
Let’s put it this way. Initially, he was very revealing in talking a lot of truth but then he became muddled in controversy. But yes.
Taya:
I’m sorry.
Stephen:
We are aware of it.
Taya:
Allegedly.
Stephen:
Allegedly.
Taya:
Allegedly mismanaged these funds. Let me be clear. So just once again, I want to thank all of the wonderful cop watchers and activists who joined us tonight, both on the channel and in the live chat. I’ve seen you, I might not have been able to put up everyone’s comment, but I really did try to at least put up some of them and read them. And thank you. Thank you, Russell. You’re my favorite too. Thank you. That’s a very sweet comment. So I just wanted you to know I was looking at all these great comments. I’m going to be in the comment section. Excuse me, in the chat, I’m going to be in the comment section later.
As always, I do a PAR comment of the week and I try to pick out a comment. So I’ll be doing that later as well. So I just wanted to say thank you for everyone who is participating, and I just want you to know how lucky we feel to be able to cover this vibrant and eclectic and fascinating community. And it is a thought-provoking collection of people to say the least. And we are so grateful to have been able to tell their stories. Stephen, I’m about to give my 5th year anniversary rant.
Stephen:
Happy anniversary.
Taya:
Happy anniversary to you too.
Stephen:
Thank you.
Taya:
You were a member of the mainstream media and now you’re in a very different world.
Stephen:
Yes, I am. But I wouldn’t be anywhere else, then here next to you, as Jay-Z said, “You could have been anywhere else in the world but here.”
Taya:
Oh, that’s great.
Stephen:
Yeah.
Taya:
Nice quote with Jay-Z.
Stephen:
Yeah. Thank you.
Taya:
Well done. You’re in a different world. Is there anything you want to share about covering this phenomena or?
Stephen:
Well, as I said before, I feel kindred spirits here, and it’s been a great 5th anniversary gift for me to hear from people who have struggled with the same things I have. And it makes me feel good that we are together in some ways, a community though not together in the same space, but by the same ideals. And that feels good. So I’ll say that.
Taya:
That’s beautifully said.
Stephen:
Thank you.
Taya:
Okay, now it’s my turn. As I’ve discussed at the beginning of the show, all of our work on the police accountability report is driven by a community, people who care enough to watch and share and comment, and even film cops. It’s driven by something we would call an audience, but I would characterize it more accurately as a collective of people focused on a single idea. Self-governance requires participation and good governance requires even more active involvement. And what I mean is that what I see is I report on the variety of people who watch or simply watch us, is a movement tied to more than an ideology. That is, it’s a group of people acting within their individual capacities to facilitate something more important than their own needs. A collective good, a common good. Think about it, when a person appears on our show to discuss an encounter with police, it’s more than simply an opportunity to tell their story. It’s an affirmation that standing up and pushing back and participating is more than what philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre would call a useless passion.
It is, at its core, an acknowledgement that democracy freedom and our essential rights require work to maintain them. Meaning if we don’t fight each and every day for self-governance, we will lose it. And that’s what this show, my show, Stephen’s show, your show has taught me. It has forced me to look beyond the past implications of a dystopian future where our personal agency has been rendered impotent. And it has inspired me to comprehend the real meaning of a single individual coming forward and standing up for themselves when police and the mainstream media would brand them as criminals. And it tells me that despite the cynicism that pervades social media and the apathy of the internet, there are people who believe that fighting back really matters.
Is there anything really as profound as an average citizen whose rights have been trampled by police bravely coming forward on a Zoom call to tell their story? Is there anything more inspiring than the premise of a single person story, a story that can be painful, and even embarrassing to tell can actually change all of our lives. But this is exactly what I’ve witnessed, and I’ve literally watched it unfold in real time. This community and the people who are part of it, you are changing the world for the better. And you who are watching the live stream who are in this live chat right now are part of it too. How do I know? Well, let me count the ways, so to speak. Let me tell you now and show you what I mean. Let me just go back five years to one of our early guest, Michelle Lucas.
Michelle had been forced to plead guilty to a crime she didn’t commit, namely passing a counterfeit bill. The fake money was given to her by a fellow employee to purchase liquor at the store, but the police didn’t believe her. And while she was awaiting sentencing, she told her story to us. After our story was published, which exposed the flaws of the case, the head public defender stepped in and withdrew her plea and dropped the charges. And I want you to know it is nearly unheard of for someone to have pled guilty and then have the public defender’s office step in to have it overturned. And then there’s a story of an Ohio car driver named Lufty Salim. Mr. Salim was parked outside of a pharmacy during the pandemic when an off-duty cop approached him, told him to move. And when Mr. Salim tried to explain that he was waiting for a patient, he started to drag Lufty out of the car and then tasered him multiple times. After telling his story, Lufty sued and a court tossed his suit due to, you guessed it, qualified immunity.
But Mr. Salim persisted. And just recently a circuit court panel overturned the decision, giving him another chance to fight to hold police accountable. Or I could talk about Caleb Dial. Caleb was charged with resisting arrest and felony escape by Milton police. They posted his mugshot on Facebook and hinted that he had been involved in domestic violence, all of which was untrue. After telling his story and showing the ring camera video that proved the officer was lying, Caleb obtained a lawyer, sued and won a major settlement from the Milton West Virginia Police Department. Or I could tell the story of one of our very first guests, Erica Hamlett, whose sixteen-year-old son was confronted by an off-duty Baltimore cop who pointed a gun at the teenager while he was waiting for a bus. The officer was never charged, but Hamlett fought both the department and the city to hold them accountable.
And just a few weeks ago, a jury awarded the family $250.000. These are just a few of the stories that we have been told over the past five years. Tales of malfeasance that all started with a simple idea you, meaning you, the people will not tolerate the diminishment of our rights or government that feels free to violate them. And this is what it’s really about. It’s not just police, or law enforcement, or laws, or legal precedents. What this battle really amounts to is to fight to preserve the most precious right we have, the right to self-governance. What we’re really witnessing when we report on these stories is a collective act of faith. That these rights not only matter, but are worth fighting to maintain that the phrase, “We the people,” means something tangible. And that to live in a free nation governed by equality and respect for the voice of the citizenry, means we have to speak up.
And speaking up comes with risks, and speaking out is often met with retaliation. Just consider how much jail time Eric Brandt is serving for doing so, even though what he said was offensive. His goals, his objective are not only worth considering, but debating so we can understand the limits of free speech and the price of imposing constraints upon it. So I guess what the show has taught me is that courage lies with the people who take the risk to stand up. Why else would Eric, and Abidy, and Monkey 83 stage protests around Denver over the rights of the homeless, get arrested for it, and then win settlement after settlement with the city of Denver? Why else would James Freeman turn his attention to the court system of New Mexico? And what other motivation could Otto have in mind to continue to fight the system that tried to force him to plead guilty and denied him the right to see his children?
It’s all an act premised on the idea that our world can be made better, that our rights are worth protecting, and that our freedom is non-negotiable. Believe me there days when I despair, moments when even I have doubts. But what always inspire me to double down and keep moving forward is you, the people who care. The people who not only want better, but demand better. The community that uplifts us all and the community that I’m so proud to be a part of. And it’s a community that most definitely has something in common, and it’s our humanity and our love of our constitutional rights. So I would like to thank all of you again, and I want to make sure-
Stephen:
[inaudible 02:17:19] applaud your 5th anniversary. You need applause for that. Was quite [inaudible 02:17:23]. That was-
Taya:
I don’t know if I deserve applause.
Stephen:
Sorry, I didn’t mean to interject there, but I was stunned. I was moved.
Taya:
Oh, well thank you Stephen. I hope other folks, oh, someone said, this is not the comment of the week. I just want to make sure to thank the amazing folks who helped make the show special. First, my dear friend and my very first moderator, Noli D. Hi, Noli D. and my second moderator, but no less appreciated, the kind-hearted Lacey Ard. And I have to thank the gentlemen behind the scenes who helped make the show possible tonight. Cameron Grandino and David Hebden. Thank you, gentlemen.
Stephen:
Thank you so much you guys.
Taya:
And hats off to our editor in chief who’s a great supporter of our work. Max, thank you.
Stephen:
Thank you Max.
Taya:
And I have to thank each and every one of you who shows up to our live streams. We appreciate you and I hope that you know it because we did this crazy live stream for you. That’s why we did it so we could interact with you and you guys when we don’t have the Thursday night live chat. I really do miss you. I honestly do. I hope you miss me too. Okay, so just to let everyone know, this is the time when I think my amazing patrons. Okay. I saw a Matter Of Rights down here. Okay, so this is when I thank them. So please make sure to listen up for your name. Please forgive me if I stumble or mispronounce something. And I just want to say thank you so much for your support. Are you ready for the Patreons?
Stephen:
Yes.
Taya:
Patron Patreons?
Stephen:
Yes.
Taya:
Okay. So first, for our PR patrons, first coming up, our amazing, loyal, and exceptionally intelligent associate producers, Lucida Garcia, David Keeley, John ER, Louis P, and then of course our wonderful PR super friends who are so generous and help us fight for justice with their donations and their moral support Matter Of Rights, Chris R, Kenneth Lawrence K, Pineapple Girl, Shane B and Angela True. And of course, people with wonderful and great taste in YouTube videos are official patrons. And I’m only saying the first letter of the last name because I don’t accidentally want to reveal too much information about someone. So Gary H, Michael W. Joseph P Dur Devil, Nope. Patty, Kemi, XXXX, Libit, Dante, Kipi S, John M, Joe Six. Six Estate AZ, Kyle R, Calvin M, Stephen D, Rod B, Celeste Dupy S, PT, Just M 2 Cents. Talia B, Tamara A, John K, True Tube Live.
Liz S, Gary T, and last but not least, are loyal, kind, and most certainly good-looking friends of PAR. Are you ready?
Stephen:
Mm-hmm.
Taya:
Okay. Ryan Pantilla, Sean B, Ronald H, Hugo F, Social Nationalist, Marcia E, Tim R, Justin P, Conrad B, Wingate B, Bill Ding, Ninding N, David W, Regina O, Jodes, Frank FK, Mary M, Mike D, Linda Or, and Linda, I got your card. I love that picture of Alaska you sent me. That was so sweet. You’re an absolute sweetheart. I’ve saved your letter. You’re awesome. Chris M, Dean C, Shannon P, Cameron J, Farmer Jane USA. Marbin G, Kimmy Cat P, Kurt A, Daniel W, William TG, DBMC, John K, Pot Shot, Stephen B, Cindy. K, Seskel S, Keith Bernard M, John M, Janet K, Mark William L, Noli D, Guy B, Ron F, Alan J, Trey P, Julius Geyser, Omar O, Umesh H, John P, Ryan, Lacey R, Douglas P, Andrea JO, Siggy Young, Stephen J, Michael Stephen L, Default Urine, Peter J, Joel A.
Larry L, Artemis LA. Jimmy Touchdown. He was our very first patron. Kenny G, David B, [inaudible 02:21:24], I’m A Lot To Unpack, Marlin, Cool Raul 07, Soulja, the Self-Care Maven Cat, Negrita, Gary B, Dan F, Eric G, Lorelai, W, Luis, S, Thomas C, Arvin N, Steve MC, Carson W, Twila M, Brad W, Cynthia Corrine, D, Mike K, Loretta S, Marciana, Brian M, Glen R, Mike K, I Is Circle of the Quantum Note, Philonius Punk, Betty R, Byron M, Graham Brigg W, Zira M, and RBMH. That’s it. Those are our beautiful Patreons. Those are our beautiful patrons. And I want to thank everyone that spent time with us in the live chat tonight. Like I said, I’m going to be in the comments for a little while later so you can say hi to me, share what you thought of the show.
And of course, I’m going to be looking for my PAR comment of the week. So if that’s something that you’re interested in, I’ll be taking little snapshots and putting some aside so I can have some nice comments of the week for this week and next. We’re not going to be back for two weeks, but we are working on one heck of a report for you, and it’s going to have in it a cop watcher that you know well. You might’ve seen him in the comment section today. He was fortunate to not be incarcerated this week. His name is Manuel Mata, and he’s going to help elucidate some of the larger problems with policing in this country. So I want to thank everyone. And of course, if you have any tips that you want to share with us, please reach out to us at PAR at therealnews.com. And of course, you can always reach out to me directly @TayasBaltimore on Facebook and Twitter. Stephen, is there anything I should allow you to say before I go?
Stephen:
Happy anniversary.
Taya:
All right, happy anniversary to you too.
Stephen:
Take us with your…
Taya:
Okay, and happy anniversary to my awesome mods, Noli D and Lacey R, and to anyone who I didn’t get to say goodbye to, I’m sorry, but I’ll try to make it up to you everyone. Thanks for joining me, and please be safe out there.
For decades, prisoners’ rights advocates have called on the State of Maryland to address its flagrant discrimination against prisoners housed in the state’s sole women’s prison. As The Real News has previously reported, conditions in the Maryland Correctional Institute for Women are akin to “torture,” and the lack of resources and services dedicated to incarcerated women amounts to state-sanctioned, gender-based discrimination. Christina Merryman and Ameena Deramous, both former inmates in the MCIW—or the “Women’s Cut”—join Rattling the Bars, explaining the conditions faced by incarcerated women in Maryland, and what advocates inside and outside the prison walls are doing to fight for justice, in the first half of this two-part panel.
Studio Production: David Hebden Post-Production: Cameron Granadino
Transcript
The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. A proofread version will be made available as soon as possible.
Mansa Musa:
Welcome to Rattling the Bars here on The Real News Network. I’m your host, Mansa Musa.
In the 19th century, women prisoners were first housed in a quarter reserved for them at the Maryland Penitentiary. They were later lodged in a section of the Maryland House of Correction, which opened in 1879. Overall, there are 854 women in the state correction system today, including women in Baltimore City Detention Center for Women, the Patuxent Institution, and intensive care treatment facilities that include male and female inmates, and the Central Home Detention unit which monitors women in their home.
The Maryland House of Correction, commonly known as the Women’s Cut, is the only institution for women in the state. This is a major problem. There’s a stark difference between how incarcerated men and women are treated in Maryland and what resources are made available to them. The procedures governing parole, security reduction, family leave, and work release are different for women in the system. I sat down to talk about the Women’s Cut with Christina Merryman and Ameena Deramous, both formerly incarcerated. Here’s part one of our conversation.
Okay. Welcome to this edition of Rattling the Bars, Ameena and Christina. Ameena, tell us a little bit about yourself.
Veronica (Ameena) Deramous:
My name is Ameena. I was just released from the Maryland Correctional Institution for Women, MCIW, in Jessup, Maryland, on January 31st.
Mansa Musa:
Welcome home.
Veronica (Ameena) Deramous:
Thank you, thank you. I have four children. I’m one of four daughters from my parents, and I was incarcerated for first-degree assault and false imprisonment. I did not know, prior to my incarceration, how broken I was or the meaning of being triggered, but once I was incarcerated I was able to, sitting down, get myself together, seek help spiritually, mentally. There were several things that could have helped me a lot quicker, but a lot of things aren’t available.
Mansa Musa:
Right. We’re going to talk about that and like I said, welcome home.
Veronica (Ameena) Deramous:
Thank you.
Mansa Musa:
[foreign language 00:02:43]. Ameena’s fasting. Today is the first day of Ramadan.
Veronica (Ameena) Deramous:
[foreign language 00:02:47].
Mansa Musa:
We’re thankful to have her here and to be able to share her experience and her stories with us. Christina, tell us a little bit about yourself.
Christina Merryman:
Hello, my name is Christina. I am a mother of two beautiful children. I am a very busy person. I work two jobs. I was released from MCIW on May 4th of this year. I came home. I got right involved with the PREPARE organization. I’m a parole advocate. I help incarcerated persons prepare for parole and go to their hearings and reenter society. I also work as an electrician. I got into the electrical trade. I am very involved with my family. I have a wonderful family, a great support network, that has stuck by my side through everything I have been through. I was away for almost six and a half years, and I got to know who I was. I got to humble myself and become a very grateful individual throughout that stay at MCIW.
Mansa Musa:
And, like I told y’all earlier, I was incarcerated in the Maryland system. I did 48. Years much like yourselves, at some point in the course of my incarceration, I had an epiphany about what I needed to do in order to maintain my sanity, because that’s one of the most important things for me at that juncture was, if I could stay sane, I could possibly survive. If I lose my sanity, I know I’m not going to survive. I commend both of y’all.
And this being International Women’s Month, I wanted to get in this space primarily to educate our audience on the prison industrial complex. We talk about it and how massive it is, but I wanted to really get into the impact that it has on women. And Angela Davis and them, they wrote a book called They Come in the Morning, they come for us at night, but in that book, it was a lot of the authors, the writers of the articles, was women and most of the women was locked up during that time, but they was locked up for their political views and that’s why they put this document out.
But when we look at the Women’s Cut, and I call it the Women’s Cut’s, it’s commonly referred to as the Women’s Cut, and it’s because of the Men’s Cut, which is now … they demolished it because of the debaucherie and the humanity that was going on in it. Ultimately, it came to a point where they just leveled it to the ground. But when you think of the Men’s Cut and some of the things that went on in there, I remember, back in the ’70s, networking with some of the sisters in the Women’s Cut when we was doing some organizing around trying to get certain things changed, and it was some real aggressive sisters. Some them was Moorish Americans, some them was Muslim, some them was just advocates that was trying to get some things done to change the way the conditions were down there.
And you said, Ameena, that you just got out. How much time did you do prior to getting out?
Veronica (Ameena) Deramous:
14 years.
Mansa Musa:
All right, so you did 14 years. When you went into the Women’s Cut, you was classified as maximum security initially?
Veronica (Ameena) Deramous:
I was.
Mansa Musa:
All right. And, during the course of your incarceration in there, did your security level ever drop?
Veronica (Ameena) Deramous:
It dropped down to medium, and when I went up for parole, I got an immediate release. It never had the opportunity to drop down any further than that and I never had the opportunity to have access to pre-release groups or classes that would’ve prepared me for my releases.
Mansa Musa:
And the tragedy in that is, I was telling Christina off mic, when we go … the men’s system … and by no stretch of the imagination do I claim to be a model prisoner. Matter of fact, I was a real live irritant to the system, and I had multiple situations. I’ve been in every jail, super-max. That’s let you know my background. But I went from max to medium, then back to max, because my behavior, from max to medium again, back to max, then to super-max. But, in each case, I had available to me, and men have available to them, the ability to go from max, medium, minimum and pre-release. In each one of these situations they’re given, they’re put in another institution, they’re given more privileges, and they’re given the ability to acclimate themselves back into society.
How does that play out with the women, Christina?
Christina Merryman:
MCIW keeps everyone housed together. I did have the ability to drop my security levels. I entered at maximum, I reduced to medium, I reduced to minimum, I reduced to pre-release, and then I reduced to work-release. I actually left the facility every day, went to an outside facility to work, and was transported back to the facility. And I had to pay rent, I had to pay fees, I had to pay room and board, transportation fees out of my check to the institution. I believe it was 25% of my overall pay that they took out of my check for me to live at the institution.
However, I was still housed with everyone, of all security levels. They do not offer a separate housing facility for any of the inmates that are, or I’m sorry, incarcerated persons, they are now referred as, for any of the different security levels. They did, right before I left, put a pre-release housing level unit as a separate section within the facility, but still housed people of all levels on that housing unit
Mansa Musa:
Okay. Now, in terms of that right there, so everybody’s in the same environment at the same time. How do they determine what you get in comparison to what other security levels get? Like I said, if I’m in a man’s facility … I left from JCI, I left from right down in that region, and they had medium, minimum, they had minimum, then they had work-release, and the men in work-release was going out working at Golden Corral and all these different places and coming back, and they was getting family leave. I just didn’t get that because I had a mandatory out, which is I made my mandatory as far as my parole. That’s the only reason why. But in terms of … did y’all get family leave?
Christina Merryman:
No.
Veronica (Ameena) Deramous:
Absolutely not.
Christina Merryman:
Denied.
Mansa Musa:
Did y’all-
Christina Merryman:
All requests denied.
Mansa Musa:
In terms of work release?
Christina Merryman:
Denied, all requests denied, for any special privileges, any special requests, any special anything, denied
Mansa Musa:
And what was the reason, in any case?
Christina Merryman:
The biggest reason they always referred to towards the end of my stay was COVID. Even though COVID was over with for two years, it was still COVID. That was their biggest go-to, any request that I ever made for the family leave, because I always brought it up when I was on work-release with the COMAR codes and everything was, “I’m entitled to this, I’m entitled to that.” No, COVID, denied.
Mansa Musa:
And when you refer to COMAR, that’s Code of Maryland Regulations and that’s the regulatory. They regulate the policies and procedures around the state of Maryland and different agencies, the Department of Public Safety and Corrections is one of the many. And then the Department of Public Safety and Correction, when they do a COMAR, COMAR has parole regulations in there. COMAR has work-release regulations in there. COMAR have family leave regulations in there. COMAR have pre-release regulations in there. COMAR even have the ability where you can go out, as we was talking, in the Maryland system, you don’t have to go to work-release, you can go to school, you can ask, “I want to go to Coppin State College, I’m pre-release, I want go to Coppin State College and come back.” And according to the Maryland regulations, this ability exist. Did y’all see that?
Veronica (Ameena) Deramous:
I had just left in January. Those rules don’t exist. They exist on paper only. They don’t exist. They’re not being applied, and it’s really, really hard to fight them. The three jobs that the women are allowed to have at MCIW is Panera Bread, Hardee’s, and the Maryland correctional Enterprises. We are being told that we can’t work anywhere where there are men. The ladies that are in the work-release program, they’re double-bunked, and they’re paying over $700 a month and they’re double-bunked. We have what looks like a pre-release unit, but it’s just another housing unit. Those ladies will never be able to have pre-release opportunities inside of a correctional facility. It’s not possible. We’re all there together. When you were on work-release, I was there, and I wasn’t pre-release or minimum. I was either medium or maximum, but I saw you.
Christina Merryman:
Yep. Every day.
Veronica (Ameena) Deramous:
Right? Things existed in writing, on paper, but not in reality.
Mansa Musa:
And I recall … because we did this, we interviewed a sister that was advocating for, in the Women’s Cut, and trying to get some policies, more importantly, trying to get the State Assembly and the governor to build separate facilities for women or create a mechanism where they can get out and have access to the same things that men … and it became apparent that, for whatever reason, y’all not relevant, and for whatever reason. Why do you think that? Why do you think that the men … and mind you now, I told you, I’ve been to all the institutions, it’s not no cakewalk on that side.
Veronica (Ameena) Deramous:
It’s not.
Mansa Musa:
It’s not no cakewalk with men, but in terms of the availability, why you think that y’all being … and this is what I want the audience to understand, we talking about the same rules and regulations. If I get caught with money in prison or a knife in prison, they going to find a rule, contraband category one, lock me on behind the door.
You get caught with a knife, money, in a prison, category one, you going behind the door. I go up for parole, they can say, “Okay, go get the work-release before you come back up.” I can come back up for parole, and this is what I want the audience to understand, I can come back up for parole and be in a work-release environment, be working in Golden Corral, been working there for the last six months, and when I go back up for parole, say, “This is where I’ve been at.” They can tell you the same thing, say, no, they ain’t going to tell you that, because they tell you that mean that they got to have you do something that the institution’s saying I do. Isn’t that a problem in terms of parole?
Christina Merryman:
Yes, because parole puts stipulations and regulations that they want the incarcerated person to accomplish. MCIW makes it virtually impossible for us to accomplish those things. First off, you can’t get into classes when you’re not on a certain level. The administration chooses who they want to choose and place in those classes. There is no proper procedure. The people in the administration, and the certain officers that handle the way they choose the incarcerated persons to participate, have their favorites. Honestly, it’s like you are in a high school all over again. There is no proper structure, there is no proper help, and you can’t go to a certain officer to have help because, when you do, it gets back to the entire population. It’s horrible.
Mansa Musa:
And you say you did 13 or 14 of your …
Veronica (Ameena) Deramous:
Yes.
Mansa Musa:
How much time did you have? What was your overall sentence?
Veronica (Ameena) Deramous:
I had life suspend all but 25.
Mansa Musa:
Right. You did did 15-
Veronica (Ameena) Deramous:
14-
Mansa Musa:
14-
Veronica (Ameena) Deramous:
… off of my life suspend-
Mansa Musa:
So you mandatoried out?
Veronica (Ameena) Deramous:
No, I didn’t mandatory out, but I definitely did-
Mansa Musa:
You went out with days?
Veronica (Ameena) Deramous:
Yeah.
Mansa Musa:
You made parole with days?
Veronica (Ameena) Deramous:
Well, I just made parole. I was granted parole, and if I had not made parole I would still be there because of the system. Let me reiterate some of the things-
Mansa Musa:
Come on.
Veronica (Ameena) Deramous:
… that she said. Again, we have a list of groups and classes and programs on paper, but we don’t have those groups and programs active.
Christina Merryman:
True.
Veronica (Ameena) Deramous:
We have groups and classes and programs that you can be certified in and you can take those classes if they pick you. And, once you’re done with that class, the testing part isn’t there.
You have a certification class that’s being given without the certification. Then do you have a certification class?
Mansa Musa:
No, you just do a class.
Veronica (Ameena) Deramous:
Okay. And we may have three or four of them, and then we lose the instructors, and so then we don’t have those. Hospitality, certification class, I was in that class when the instructor left for whatever reason and didn’t finish it. They said they were going to do cosmetology, but they did a barbering course in the women’s prison. And the ladies have taken … before I left, they were on their second group going through, and the first group, they still hadn’t figured out how they were going to test. The staff, I was in the military, I was in the United States Army, I never would have imagined going into a state facility not having any discipline or structure at all. The officer in the building, the officer on the grounds, every time there’s a different officer, there’s a different set of rules.
Mansa Musa:
There’s a different set of rules, that’s right.
Veronica (Ameena) Deramous:
Coming from the military, there’s one set of rules and everyone follows that set of rules.
Mansa Musa:
Yeah. Ain’t no consistency, ain’t no consistency.
Veronica (Ameena) Deramous:
None. And then, if you take officers who have no rank at all and put them in positions of power, you take an officer and make that officer the VAC coordinator who’s over all the programming, if she doesn’t like you, you won’t be-
Christina Merryman:
You don’t [inaudible 00:19:41].
Veronica (Ameena) Deramous:
… participating in those classes.
Mansa Musa:
Your volunteer activity coordinator.
Veronica (Ameena) Deramous:
Correct. You take another officer and you make them a case manager, and they don’t like you, but your case managers play a very large part in you being incarcerated. You take another staff member, off the ground, and make them the ARP coordinator. That’s a big problem.
Mansa Musa:
Yeah, yeah, administrative procedure.
Veronica (Ameena) Deramous:
Ho I going to complain about you, or any of your friends, and you’re handling the paperwork?
Mansa Musa:
And you know what? And, as you outline that for the benefit of our audience, this is important that we understand that what we’re talking about here is equity and equality, because we’re not complaining about, okay, you have this narrative crime, crying, time, if you did the crime, do the time and stop crying, but this ain’t about none of that. This is about, if the Code of Maryland Regulation says … it doesn’t say, “This is what the Code of Maryland Regulation say.” Code of Maryland Regulation don’t say, “In women’s prison, women get three meals. In the men’s prison, men get four meals.” It don’t say, in the Code of Maryland Regulation, say, “In women’s prison, women get one hour of rec and men get all-day rec.” It’s a uniformity, to go back to your point, it’s a uniformity from Department of Public Safety and Corrections all the way down.
It’s a uniformity, but it’s only a uniformity when it comes to men’s prison. And so I want y’all to flush out this as we go forward. I want y’all flush this idea out, what impact does that have on your ability to maintain your sanity and get out? Because both of y’all got out. I’m not going to claim that I wasn’t damaged. First thing I got, when I got out, was mental health, because I understood that I needed to understand a lot that was going on, and I got good support in that work. But I understood this here that wasn’t nobody did four and a half years in that super-max. I did that on that, [inaudible 00:22:01] part around 12 people, and I knew it impacted me. I knew I had to get some type of help.
Let’s start with you, Christina, how did that impact you in terms of your ability to function and survive to the point where you was able to get out?
Christina Merryman:
I am a people person. I am a social butterfly. I was all over that compound. I love people. But I found myself, when I was away, I isolated a lot, because the surroundings around me, mostly officers, if I didn’t, they will try to pull you out of your character to see you fail, and knowing that I had to isolate more of who I was and shut down. Coming home, it was a little bit of a struggle because … first thing I did was mental health. I see a therapist. I’ve never done that before in my life, and my mom doesn’t understand it. She’s like, “You don’t need that.” I’m like, “But I do,” because it’s such a change now that I’m home and I’m able to be this social butterfly again and not have that worry of who’s there, is somebody there, that person in that black uniform going to try to get me out of my character? It is a little bit of a struggle, when I first came home, of being able to be my true self and not have that tension, and it shouldn’t be that way.
Mansa Musa:
No. And I’ve been in that space. I was in Islam. I did a whole murder, different thing, and I recognized that we had to, in order to get food during the Ramadan, in order to get the opportunity to fast and be able to break fast, it was a whole lot going with that. Matter of fact, Salaam versus Collins, a case that came out, Salaam versus Collins, where the Muslims sued to get a Islamic coordinator in the environment.
Black woman, Muslim and incarcerated, and like you say, I got your military background, so you got a certain discipline, but how was you able to maintain in being in that … and you also said, off camera, that you was a litigant, you was litigious, so you was a [inaudible 00:24:56] for the powers that be, which was a good thing. How was you able to maintain and be able to get out without finding yourself with an adjustment record that supersedes the amount of years you done?
Veronica (Ameena) Deramous:
Retaliation is real, believe that. I got one ticket, I got caught with a cellphone, because I was an advocate. So many things happened there that I tried to write up that could never get anywhere, that when they were passing a cellphone around, I got it. And when I had it, I was taking pictures of the maggots in the shower. I was taking pictures of all the goose poop that’s on the ground that we, as incarcerated individuals now, we know that outside people are coming because the grounds smell grapey. They have something to get rid of them when the time is necessary. Even if you do complain about something, before someone can come in, they will have fixed that, in addition to they’re not going to take you to the place exactly that we were speaking of. The staff members, some of the staff members, they clique up like the residents clique up. A couple of times, we were trying to figure out if they were members of specific groups.
Mansa Musa:
I understand.
Veronica (Ameena) Deramous:
When you’re trying to get better, when you’re trying to do better, but you’re being agitated, it’s hard. I’m not saying … and please, I don’t want you to think for two seconds that I feel like I did the right thing or that I didn’t deserve to do time, but I didn’t deserve to do time like that.
Christina Merryman:
Yeah, I agree.
Veronica (Ameena) Deramous:
I didn’t deserve that. I’m not exactly sure how things go, but I almost felt like MCIW had some type of protective shield because we couldn’t get the word out. My mail didn’t go out. My mail didn’t go out. I would get my mail back two months later, opened. You can’t get the information out. Even to hear you say that you complain about things and you’re able to make a change, we weren’t, are not, able to make those changes because we can’t get to anyone.
Mansa Musa:
Let me ask you this here. Going forward, what do you want to tell the women that are back … they’re still in the Women’s Cut. What do y’all want to tell them as we wrap this segment up about what it is y’all want them to leave them with in terms of motivating them in the spirit and get them to maintain? Christina?
Christina Merryman:
To try to do what I did, get involved in everything you can possibly get involved in. Stay busy. Stay connected with as many outside connections, support members, that you have. Stay positive. Keep a smile on your face, and kill every officer with as much kindness of spirit as you have. And do not, no matter what, let them rent the space in your head to take you out of your character, because they’re not worth it, and it will get better because there’s a date, you will have your date, your time will come, and it will get better. And you’ve got girls like us. You’ve got your advocates.
Veronica (Ameena) Deramous:
Absolutely. For me, I want everybody to know that I love you guys.
Christina Merryman:
Yes.
Veronica (Ameena) Deramous:
I was excited and sad to leave at the same time. I left my family, my children, my parents, my sisters, for 14 years. But when I left MCIW, I left a different family. I had a lot of support and I’m grateful for that. I want you ladies to know that there are a group of us that have been released and we are fighting on your behalf and we’re going to get the word out. They let out the right ones. [foreign language 00:29:41].
Mansa Musa:
That’s right, that’s right.
Veronica (Ameena) Deramous:
They let out the right group of ladies. We got you.
Mansa Musa:
Yeah. Okay. We Rattling the Bars. We got Ameena and Christina, recently released from the Women’s Cut, as we refer to it, and as we recognize from this conversation that it is in fact a notorious environment. But, like the phoenix, both of these young ladies, both of these ladies, has risen, and we are here to advocate on behalf of our sisters. We don’t leave nobody behind. There you have it. The Real News, Rattling the Bars.
Speaker 4:
Thank you so much for watching The Real News Network, where we lift up the voices, stories, and struggles that you care about most, and we need your help to keep doing this work. Please tap your screen now, subscribe, and donate to The Real News Network. Solidarity Forever.
When Erica Hamlett’s 16-year-old son Jawone Nicholson called her from a Howard County cul de sac while waiting for a bus, she assumed it was a routine check-in to let her know he was en route to an after-school program.
Instead, he told her a man he didn’t know had pulled out a gun and pointed it at him. Terrified, Hamlett sprang into action.
She rushed to the site of the confrontation. Soon, she learned the man, dressed in jeans and a sweatshirt, was an off-duty Baltimore cop. Jawone told her the man had pulled the gun after confronting the teen over why he was lingering in the neighborhood. The yet-to-be-identified man had flashed a badge and was still standing menacingly nearby.
Hamlett called Howard County police. An officer quickly disarmed the Baltimore cop, Damond Durant. But Hamlett was so shaken she also started to shoot video from her phone as she confronted him.
That footage became part of a series of TRNN investigations chronicling this fraught 2017 encounter and Hamlett’s subsequent push to hold Durant accountable—efforts that came to fruition last week when a federal jury awarded $250,000 to Hamlett’s son.
“The verdict in support of Mr. Nicholson is a clear message that members of the community will not stand for unwarranted violence against its members.”
The judgment was the result of a federal lawsuit filed by Baltimore attorney Carey J. Hansel. The filing describes how the troubling encounter caused Nicholson mental duress, including insomnia, panic attacks, and the need for months of therapy.
Hansel tried the case with his associate, Tiana Boardman. She said the jury’s decision was a clear statement that the community would not tolerate casual threats from officers.
“The verdict in support of Mr. Nicholson is a clear message that members of the community will not stand for unwarranted violence against its members.”
The impact of Officer Durant’s actions was first recounted to TRNN in 2018 in a series of interviews in which Nicholson recalled the tense moment when Durant confronted him.
“He pulled the gun and then we put our hands up and started walking away, and he followed us,” Nicholson told TRNN in an interview shortly after the encounter.
“He came up and he never identified himself as an officer. He asked us why we were over there, asked us a few questions, and then he pulled his gun.”
For Hamlett, the encounter was frighteningly similar to many often-deadly interactions between American police and young Black men.
“He can be doing everything right, everything right, and that man had every opportunity to kill my son,” Hamlett told TRNN.
“And from the lies that he’s told since the incident, he would have had no reason not to tell a lie to make it seem like my son provoked him to do what he did to him.”
The settlement has received widespread coverage in Baltimore. However, Hamlett’s nearly seven-year odyssey has received less attention.
Initially, she tried to file an internal affairs complaint against Durant over her concern that Durant’s reckless use of a gun could occur again.
“This particular police officer broke somebody’s jaw a few years ago. The city paid out a large settlement to the suspect. And then, here is this incident that occurred with my son. So, to me, it makes the officer feel like “I can do what I want with no accountability,” she said shortly after she filed the complaint.
The city did initially accuse Durant of violating departmental regulations by filing administrative charges. But a judge tossed the case after ruling that the city filed after the statute of limitations had expired.
Hamlett also tried to obtain a restraining order against Durant, representing herself pro se in a Howard County court. The judge ruled in her favor. For her, the ordeal has been a lesson in the obstacles to holding police accountable.
Hamlett said to TRNN, “We are relieved that after seven long, difficult, even fearful, years, we finally received some form of justice. Holding police accountable for their actions isn’t a clear nor easy path. The officer is still a Baltimore City police officer and my son still has the fight of collecting his award, but we can finally celebrate a win… but without you and those 1 million-plus comments I’m sure our story wouldn’t have gotten the attention it deserved.”
Previously, Hansel’s firm was the lead litigant in a landmark civil rights case against the Baltimore Housing Authority. The suit alleged maintenance workers traded sex for repairs at the public housing complex Gilmor Homes. The city settled for $8 million in 2016.
Hansel Law Firm has become an important facet of government accountability for Baltimore residents, as they have reached out to assist victims in litigation after our investigative series in Gilmore Homes, Perkins Homes, and now Erica Hamlett’s family.
Hamlett told TRNN, “No one else really listened before you… We just hope that others will gain the strength to fight for justice as well.”
In 1977, American Indian Movement member Leonard Peltier was convicted of the murder of two FBI agents, and has remained a political prisoner of the US ever since. Peltier’s conviction has long been contested by activists and legal experts. Despite the recantation of three key witnesses, his case has never been brought back to trial. Peltier has been eligible for parole since 1992, and the federal government has ignored calls to free him for more than 30 years. Rachel Dionne Thunder joins Rattling the Bars to discuss Peltier’s case and the radical vision of the American Indian Movement which the federal government has sought to repress through Peltier’s incarceration.
Studio Production: David Hebden Post-Production: Cameron Granadino
Transcript
The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. A proofread version will be made available as soon as possible.
Mansa Musa:
Rachel Thunder, her name speaks for itself, was reared in the spirit of the American Indian Movement and active in freeing Leonard Peltier, the longest held political prisoner. Welcome to Rattling the Bars, Rachel.
Rachel Dionne Thunder:
Hi. Thanks for having me.
Mansa Musa:
Tell our audience a little bit about yourself, Rachel.
Rachel Dionne Thunder:
So my name is Rachel Dionne Thunder. I currently live in Minneapolis, Minnesota. I come from an AIM family, that’s the American Indian Movement, which is a Civil Rights movement for American Indian people that started here in Minneapolis in 1968. I’m also one of the co-founders and board members of our organization here called the Indigenous Protector Movement.
And so, growing up as a girl, as a little girl in AIM, I always heard stories of Leonard Peltier and those founding members of the American Indian Movement, and the injustices that they fought during the Civil Rights era in the late ’60s and early ’70s. And so, our work today is carrying that on, but also not forgetting our now elder, Leonard Peltier, who is the longest-held indigenous political prisoner. He’s been held for nearly five decades at this point.
Mansa Musa:
We’re talking about people whose nation, these are nations that’s asking for… The thing with Leonard Peltier is because of, like you said earlier, the Civil Rights. But it’s more about the human rights of a people who are claiming nationhood and the right to self-determination and the right to govern themselves. And it’s because of this that we find a situation with Lewis Peltier. But not only with him, but other indigenous people that have came and gone. And so, let’s talk about, as you spoke earlier, about AIM. Now, we recognize that, and it came out, I think the birth is in the Minneapolis, if I’m not mistaken.
Rachel Dionne Thunder:
Yeah. In 1968.
Mansa Musa:
1968. We know that during that period, a series of events took place that led up to AIM being organized into an entity. We had all the tribes, various tribes come to Washington during the Nixon administration to try to get treaties that was signed, giving back properties, getting out the way of indigenous people from having their own nation. That they came to Washington with the sole and purpose of educating the populace about what was going on on the reservations, and then the different parts of the country where indigenous people was populated.
As a result of that, that put them on the radar, because they took over the Bureau of Prisons… Not the Bureau of prisons, but it took over the Bureau of Indian Affairs because they came to Washington with the understanding that they was going to be, that this was an opportunity for the federal government to acknowledge what they doing, and to pave the way for the various nations to come together and get their own autonomy.
Rachel Dionne Thunder:
Right, and you’re speaking on what was the Trail of Broken Treaties.
Mansa Musa:
The Trail of Broken Treaties, right. Go ahead, talk about that.
Rachel Dionne Thunder:
Which, that was a caravan that took place, where thousands of individuals went to Washington D.C. with 21 points to honor, what you were saying, our sovereign indigenous rights as sovereign nations existing here in what we call Turtle Island, which is effectively the United States and Canada. And so, as a sovereign nation, we exist separate from the United States government and the Canadian government. We are effectively our own countries, our own nations, and there are treaties that were signed with the United States government and with the Crown, actually, it’s not the Canadian government. And every single one of those treaties that were signed, which is over 570 in the United States alone, have been broken.
And in those treaties, you can find things all the way from land ownership, to hunting and fishing rights, to the rights to be able to supply our own food, our healthcare, our education. And so, all of these points in these treaties were broken, and so that was the point of the Trail of Broken Treaties was to raise awareness to that effect and to bring that issue to Washington.
And once they arrived, they found that they were not going to be hosted the way that they were originally planned to be.
Mansa Musa:
[inaudible 00:05:26]
Rachel Dionne Thunder:
Yep. And so, that was when the occupation of the Bureau of Indian Affairs occurred in Washington D.C.
Mansa Musa:
And we want to acknowledge that when things was articulated about what that actually happened, actually the distortion was that it didn’t have nothing to do with all the aforementioned things. It had something to do with savages coming to District of Columbia, taking over the Bureau of Indian Affairs. But the recognition is that no, this was an organized activity designed around and not getting an acknowledgement of certain treaties that was around it.
But as we move forward, out of this came what we know as the American Indian Movement, because that’s when it became, the organization structure started to take shape. And it’s at this juncture, and I remember it distinctly because I was incarcerated, and I was involved with a collective that was the Black Panthers, and the black Panther papers always keep us abreast of what was going on with different movements during that period. And this was one that was being highlighted, because not only did they do that, they had took over… It was a series of events that took place. They took over the island where the prison was at.
Rachel Dionne Thunder:
Alcatraz.
Mansa Musa:
They took over Alcatraz, and they started policing. They started providing security for the various reservations where the Bureau of Indian Affairs and their proxies was terrorizing the community. Talk about, like you say, you are a child of AIM. Talk about your views on those things as you know them to be today.
Rachel Dionne Thunder:
So the way that I was told is that the American Indian Movement was born in the prison system. Our people are incarcerated at some of the highest statistical numbers. And so what we saw during that time and what we were told is that there was a renewal, a rebirth of our traditional spiritual practices in the prison system. Our men were able to return to the sweat lodge, they were able to return to the drum, and once they had received that traditional healing in the prison system, they came back out on the streets and they brought that back to the people.
And so, Clyde Belcourt, Eddie Benton-Benet, Russell Means, Dennis Banks. These are all co-founders of the American Indian Movement. And here in Minneapolis, police brutality against our people was at a high. And so when they came out of the prisons, they enacted AIM Patrol, which was protecting our people from the Minneapolis Police Department. And that hasn’t gotten too much better today, but that’s a different podcast.
Mansa Musa:
Right, right.
Rachel Dionne Thunder:
But specifically in South Dakota, to kind of flip things towards Leonard Peltier, Wounded Knee, the occupation of Wounded Knee happened in 1973. And so, that was led by the American Indian Movement in an attempt to bring attention and awareness to protect the traditional people of the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation that were being attacked, that were being assaulted, that were being murdered by the FBI and non-traditional natives and a corrupt tribal council that had been effectively bought out by the FBI.
So, the occupation of Wounded Knee began a period of time known as the Reign of Terror. So in 1973, it was a three-year period of time known as the Reign of Terror that was led by corrupt tribal chairman, Dick Wilson, the Goon Squad, which is the guardians of the Oglala Nation, and the FBI. And so, what you had during this three-year period of time was intensive local surveillance, repeated arrests, harassments, 64 local murders of natives there on the reservation, and over 350 serious assaults during that time. So you have to understand that context, that atmosphere of violence at that time.
Mansa Musa:
That’s right.
Rachel Dionne Thunder:
That the traditional people were experiencing. And so, what happened was they called AIM. They called AIM here in Minneapolis, and they asked for help. They asked for protection. And so, responding to that call were warriors that went there to the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation to protect their traditional people, so that they wouldn’t be murdered, so they wouldn’t be assaulted.
And so, one of those individuals that responded to that call was Leonard Peltier, that went there to the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation to protect the people. And ultimately, almost three years later, after the occupation of Wounded Knee, we have what’s known as the Incident, the shootout at the Jumping Bull Camp, which happened in June of 1975.
And so in June of 1975, there was a camp set up of AIM members and traditional people, mostly women and children at the Jumping Bull Residence on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, and some of the AIM members who were there setting up camp as well. And on June 26th, two unmarked cars, which were later found to be two FBI agents in civilian clothes, but two unmarked cars followed a van into the complex, and what ensued afterwards was a shootout. And you have to remember the violence that was happening there on the reservation.
Mansa Musa:
Right, right. [inaudible 00:11:58]
Rachel Dionne Thunder:
Yep. So a shootout happened, and at the end of that shootout, both agents, later to find out agents, were dead. And one Native American man, Joe Stuntz, whose death has never been investigated, and no one has ever been charged with his murder. But two FBI agents, Ronald Williams and Jack Coler, were both dead at the end of the shootout.
What ensued after that was a manhunt to seek justice for these two FBI agents that have been shot, and for the FBI to make an example out of native people, saying that if you resist, if you stand up, if you don’t go along with this strong arm of the United States government, if you stand on your traditional values and your traditional ways, this is what will happen to you.
Mansa Musa:
Right. And Rachel, we recognize that the Reign of Terror, but right there, they had the lackeys that was from the Bureau of Prison, the lackeys that were responsible for suppressing anybody on the reservation, anybody, any indigenous person, to suppress or repress their, any desire they had to have any type of self-determination. That they was primarily there, when they was trying to get him out, when they was trying to get the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the representative is trying to get him out. This whole thing, FBI, the military came to prop him up, or to solidify their reign, in terms of terrorizing people. But talk about how they wind up identifying Leonard Peltier as being involved in these agents being killed.
Rachel Dionne Thunder:
So what ended up happening, so these two agents were originally going in, apparently, to serve a warrant for a pair of stolen cowboy boots.
Mansa Musa:
Two agents for a pair of cowboy boots?
Rachel Dionne Thunder:
Yeah, two FBI agents.
Mansa Musa:
Two FBI agents. Right. Okay.
Rachel Dionne Thunder:
For a pair of stolen cowboy boots. They were serving a warrant for a man named Jimmy Eagle, and they were following a van in that reportedly had been known to be Jimmy Eagle’s van.
But what ended up happening was, there were arrests made at the end. And so there were three arrests made. There were Bob Robideau, Dino Butler, and Leonard Peltier. But Leonard Peltier was not arrested until later. First it was Bob Robideau and Dino Butler were both arrested, and they were tried in Cedar Rapids, and they were both found not guilty and acquitted on the grounds of self-defense. And then later, Leonard Peltier was arrested in Canada.
But the way that Leonard Peltier was linked to this case is that, on the Kansas Turnpike outside of Wichita, in Wichita Kansas, there was a van that exploded on the turnpike, and magically in this van that exploded… This is a separate date later on, there was an AR-15 found in the van, there was Agent Coler’s .308 rifle found in the van, and some homemade explosives.
And from this van that magically appeared in Wichita, Kansas on the turnpike, they determined that the AR, that specific AR-15 was Leonard Peltier’s AR-15, and that AR-15 was the one used to kill the agents, even though there were multiple AR-15 there at the shootout that day, and to say whose was whose…
Mansa Musa:
Right. Exactly.
Rachel Dionne Thunder:
And so…
Mansa Musa:
Go ahead. Go ahead.
Rachel Dionne Thunder:
Part of the belief that Leonard Peltier was specifically targeted was because of his leadership in the movement, in the American Indian Movement. Because during that time, even outside of Pine Ridge, outside of Wounded Knee, when you look at all of these strategic calls to justice that the movement was doing at the time. You mentioned them, the BIA takeover, the takeover of Alcatraz, standing up against the system. There was a nationwide manhunt for leaders in the American Indian Movement and heavy, heavy COINTELPRO happening in the movement too, to cause division. And so anytime there was an opportunity to place any of the leadership in a situation that could be used against them, it would be used. And so, in this instance, that was the case for Leonard.
Mansa Musa:
And I wanted to bring that point home about COINTELPRO, this is just my philosophy, right? If COINTELPRO is involved in your case, then you ain’t get a fair trial, because their whole design is, this is what their design is, to manufacture evidence, to coerce witnesses, to outright lie, to isolate the individuals, to attack their support base, and at the end, to get a conviction, which is not going to be hard to get under those circumstances. Because like in Peltier’s case, they claim that someone that was supposed to have knowledge of the incident was around when it happened. Later we can say, well, they was coerced. And then when we can say they was coerced, the state and the system say, oh, well, they suffer from some type of mental illness.
Rachel Dionne Thunder:
You’re speaking about Myrtle Bear.
Mansa Musa:
If your word can’t be taken on your recantation, how can your… Because of your mental state, if I recant, you’re saying I can’t be trustworthy on my recant because of my mental health, but yet my initial statement has validity? That in and of itself is suspect. But talk about why you think, and you hit on a little bit, why you think they’re so adamant about holding Leonard Peltier, even in the face of overwhelming evidence and information that he was set up by the FBI because of his political involvement with AIM.
Rachel Dionne Thunder:
I wanted to touch a little bit on what you just said too, because Myrtle Poor Bear signed, there was two affidavits that were based off of Myrtle Poor Bear’s testimony that was used to extradite Peltier from Canada to begin with. So he should have never even left Canada after he was arrested, to even be brought to the United States to have a trial. He should have stayed in Canada, because the affidavits were based off, of course, testimonies.
But in the big picture of what you’re speaking on, because our people, as indigenous people of Turtle Island, let’s just go ahead and throw South America into indigenous people of North and South America. We have been resisting and fighting colonization and the colonial governments of the United States and Canada and South America for over 530 years, since they first stepped foot here on these lands. And in that genocidal war that we have been in for over 530 years, their genocidal tactics have only shifted faces. Hundreds of years ago… Well, actually less than a hundred years ago, in some instances, they could just outright massacre our people.
And today, because of political environment, they can’t just outright massacre our people, but they can massacre us in other ways. They can massacre us through the justice system. They can massacre our people by not fighting the drugs and alcohol that are plaguing our communities. They can massacre our people by making sure that we don’t have access to healthcare or to education.
There’s different tactics that genocide follows over years. And Leonard Peltier is a piece of that. They’re saying, if you resist our colonial government systems, if you resist colonizing your traditional ways, and you want to stay traditional, and you want to continue to fight the system, this is what will happen to you. And it doesn’t matter if you did it or if you didn’t do it, we’re going to make it look like you did it.
Mansa Musa:
Right. And that’s where I wanted really to emphasize the point, because I said earlier, reparations, if you were saying that you was interned as a Japanese during World War II and you want to be compensated for that, that’s a behavior and an act that was inflicted on you as a citizen of this country. That was an act that was inflicted on you when you was brought to this country as a slave.
But the issue, and I really want to emphasize this issue for our audience, the issue of indigenous people is, this is our land. You on our property. You signed treaties to say that we have the right to sovereignty, to autonomy. And when we seek to exercise that, because now you find out that where we are at is on mineral-rich soil, or where we are at is more important for corporate America or capitalism and imperialism. Now you going to say that, well, we don’t want to give you independence. We want to acclimate you and become an American, and through that process, ignore your rights to have your own autonomy.
And this is why I think that I was asking about why Peltier, because it stands to reason, to be held that long under the most dubious circumstance. Even like Geronimo Pratt. It was obvious he was innocent. It was obvious that they spent all that time to hold onto that fabrication. But at some point, it unraveled. But with Peltier’s case, even in the face of the evidence saying that he’s innocent, even in the face of the evidence saying that he’s being held captive because of his stance on his right to be treated, have a right to self-determination, that that right there seemed like to be, like for the United States of America, a line in the sand. It ain’t even asking him, like to renounce status. They saying, we just going to let you die a dead of a thousand cuts. Do you get that same impression?
Rachel Dionne Thunder:
Yeah, no, I do. I was just sitting here listening to what you were saying, and it made me think about just how unfair his trial was. I don’t think we’ve really touched on his trial.
Mansa Musa:
Come on, talk about it.
Rachel Dionne Thunder:
Because Bob Robideau and Dino Butler were both tried in Cedar Rapids, right? So we touched on that Leonard was extradited from Canada. So he had a separate trial in a separate location. He was brought to Fargo, North Dakota, so he was not tried in the same location as Bob Robideau and Dino Butler, where they were found not guilty on self-defense.
So he was in Fargo, North Dakota. He was with a different judge. All of the evidence and testimonies from Dino and Bob’s trial were not allowed to be in Leonard’s trial. It was found inadmissible. There were coerced testimonies. There was evidence tampering, with the whole AR-Fifteen and the van that exploded in Wichita, Kansas. At the end of his trial, the jury only deliberated for six hours, and at the end of his trial, he was found guilty and sentenced to two consecutive life sentences. And so, what he was found guilty of was murder at that time.
Later on… Later, we’re talking decades later, in the year 2000, with the Freedom of Information Act, a lot of information came out about the injustices in his trial. It was proven. And so, through that, his sentencing or his charges actually changed to… They changed it. They changed it to aiding and abetting the murder of Ronald Williams and Jack Coler. But that’s an interesting point in itself, because Bob Robideau and Dino Butler were both acquitted and found not guilty. So who is he aiding and abetting? Himself? Can you aid and abet yourself?
Mansa Musa:
Yeah, aid and abetting. I’m aiding and abetting you in self-defense. You are defending yourself, so I’m aiding and abetting, I’m helping you defend yourself. I’m helping you defend yourself. I’m not doing nothing to the person that’s trying to do something to you. I’m aiding and abetting you in defending. That’s the illogic of this whole thing.
But talk about where we at right now in terms of, because I told you earlier when we came on, how important it is for Real News and Rattling the Bar, how important it is for us to be able to get this information out there and beat this drum constantly about Leonard Peltier there. We don’t want to be in a position where we’re eulogizing our freedom fighters, we’re eulogizing our comrades, because now we holding them up in high esteem because of what they stood for. We want to be able to say that we fought the fight to the end, and no matter what, that’s our position. He’s innocent. He should be let home. So talk about where we at right now with his case and if you have knowledge of it.
Rachel Dionne Thunder:
Yeah, I actually, I just talked to Kevin Sharp yesterday. So Kevin Sharp is Leonard Peltier’s lawyer that’s in charge of overseeing his parole hearing that’s coming up, passionate release and clemency petitions. So those are the three paths that Leonard Peltier currently has to being released. And so, I can kind of touch a little bit on each one of those.
Peltier first came eligible for parole in 1993, and so he’s eligible, but on all of those hearings, he was denied parole, obviously. But he is eligible for parole now again this year. So there is that avenue. There is the compassionate release avenue, which there has been three compassionate release petitions filed for Leonard Peltier over the years. There’s a fourth currently being pushed through the system. And then the third opportunity for freedom, it would be clemency through the Biden administration. So those are the three possibilities right now.
And then, in reality, we have to be very real about the situation. Leonard Peltier is 79 years old. He’s going to be 80 years old in September. He has type two diabetes. He has an abdominal aortic aneurysm that is fatal if it ruptures. He’s lost 80% of vision in one of his eyes from a stroke. And what Kevin was telling me yesterday is that he has lost most of his vision now, at this point, and that’s a mixture between cataracts, glaucoma, and his diabetes affecting his eyesight. So if one of these three avenues, the clemency, the parole or the compassionate release, don’t happen, and they don’t happen soon, we will be in a situation where it’s too late and Leonard Peltier will have died in prison.
And in recent years, there has been a really strong push for Peltier. In 2022, myself, I led, along with other members in the American Indian Movement, we led a walk, where we walked from Minneapolis to Washington D.C. It took two and a half months. It was 1,103 miles, and we had rallies along the way. We had rallies in Madison and Chicago and Cleveland, Toledo, Pittsburgh. And we had a rally in D.C. where we met with senators and representatives there to advocate for the release of Peltier.
Just this previous year, there was a caravan from South Dakota to Washington D.C., where it ended in a large rally in front of the White House, where several arrests were made. Several of our people were arrested there, protesting in front of the White House. And we have a lot of support through the National Congress of American Indians, through the Senate, through the House of Reps for clemency, for compassionate release for Leonard.
And so, all of this energy and culmination of history and sacrifice of people and work of people over the decades for Peltier is really coming to this head point now, that if something doesn’t happen now, it won’t happen. And there’s, in several speeches and several times during the walks, during the caravans, during the meetings with representatives, we have made it very clear that they don’t want Leonard Peltier to die in prison. If they want to keep relations with indigenous people and native people in our communities somewhat positive, then they need to let Leonard Peltier go.
Mansa Musa:
Right. And as we close out, tell us about your organization, how we can get in touch with you, and how people can stay abreast of what’s going on now with your organization, with upcoming events around Leonard Peltier.
Rachel Dionne Thunder:
I would say that there are two organizations to follow. One would be our organization, the Indigenous Protector Movement, and we are on all social media handles, and NDN Collective, and that’s the letters N, D and N Collective. They’re based out of South Dakota. They work a lot with Kevin Sharp, working towards the freedom of Leonard Peltier. And so, both of our organizations are heavily involved. We’ll share updates.
And I would say that the biggest ask that anybody could do would be to call your senator, call your local representative, and say that you support the release of Leonard Peltier and that you want their elected official to do the same. Because a lot of this is a political game at this point.
And I’ll just kind of wrap up by saying that, through these stories that I’ve heard growing up of Leonard, of carrying on this fight for Leonard in my life and seeing it come to this point, that by holding Leonard, they’re holding a piece of all of us as indigenous people. That until Leonard is free, none of us are free. And if they can do it to him, they can do it to any of us. And I don’t mean only native people, anybody that resists the long hand of the United States government.
Mansa Musa:
Right. Turtle Island. And thank you, Rachel, for coming in and rattling the bars. You definitely rattle the bars in the spirit of indigenous people, like you say, warriors fighting for the rights that they not asking for. I’m not asking you to acknowledge my rights. I’m asking you to get out of my way while I exercise my right to my freedoms. I’m not asking you to give me nothing. I’m asking you to get out of my way as I go forward and live my life as my ancestors lived their lives. I’m not asking you for no monies. I’m asking you to get off my land so I can cultivate the land and produce the necessary minerals and resources to feed my people and strengthen my people.
And I agree with you. Peltier is all of us, or Angela Davis say, they come for you in the morning, they’ll come for us at night. Well, as long as Peltier remains captive, all of us is captive, and we need to really step forward and let people know. And we encouraging our listeners and our viewers to really look at what Rachel Thunder is saying about indigenous people, and really listen to what she’s saying about Leonard Peltier and the fact that according to this country, you have a freedom of speech and a freedom of thought, but it’s only if you not indigenous or a person of color, do these rights get acknowledged. Thank you for coming in, Rachel. Thank you for rattling the bars with me today.
A Wisconsin man making Doordash deliveries in the vicinity of Lake Superior had his world suddenly turned upside-down by a traffic stop gone terribly wrong. Body camera footage of the stop shows police officers barking contradictory orders at the driver, who does his best to comply, before mercilessly using a taser on him. The man, who was later charged with resisting arrest and driving the wrong way up a one-way street, says he was not informed about the reason for the stop before police brutalized him. Police Accountability Report examines the facts and unpacks what this case reveals about law enforcement’s broad powers to deploy force against civilians.
Production: Stephen Janis, Taya Graham Post-Production, Stephen Janis, Adam Coley
Transcript
The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. A proofread version will be made available as soon as possible.
Taya Graham:
Hello, my name is Taya Graham, and welcome to the Police Accountability Report. As we always make clear, this show has a single purpose, holding the politically powerful institution of policing accountable. And to do so, we don’t just focus on the bad behavior of individual cops. Instead, we examine the system that makes bad policing possible. And today, we’ll achieve that goal by showing you this video. It depicts police using violent force against a DoorDash driver for turning onto a one-way street. But when you watch how this car stop unfolded and how dangerous the situation became, you’ll understand why we need to drill down into all the details and how and why this harrowing car stop happened. But before we get started, I want you watching to know that, if you have video evidence of police misconduct, please email it to us privately at P-A-R @therealnews.com or reach out to me on Facebook or X at tayasbaltimore. And we might be able to investigate for you.
And please like, share, and comment on our videos. It helps us get the word out, and it can even help our guests. And you know I read your comments and appreciate them. You see those hearts down there. And I’ve even started doing a Comment of the Week to show you how much I appreciate your thoughts and to show what a great community we have. And we have a Patreon called Accountability Reports. So if you feel inspired to donate, please do. We do not run ads or take corporate dollars, so anything you can spare is truly appreciated. All right, we’ve gotten that out of the way. Now, one of the most precarious powers we confer upon police is the discretion to use deadly force. It’s a truly terrifying idea to contemplate and something that can lead to irrevocable injury and suffering to the people subject to it. One of the problems with the ability of police to use violent force is how often it is deployed for what could best be described as questionable justifications.
This is why, today, we will be reviewing the video I am showing you now, and it’s an example of how little impetus police need to use it and how easy it is in a situation where force is deployed to completely spiral out of control. The story starts in Lake Superior, Wisconsin. There, a DoorDash driver named Ian Cuyper was en route to make a delivery. He was a bit confused, because he was navigating an unfamiliar neighborhood. And Ian took a wrong turn down a one-way street. Realizing his mistake, he immediately stopped his car, but before he could turn around and right his error, the police pounced. And inexplicably, without even speaking to Ian, they began to order him out of the vehicle. Take a look.
Police:
[inaudible 00:02:43] door. Do it now. With your left hand, grab the door handle, open the door, do it now.
Ian Cuypers:
Come on.
Police:
Unlock it. Keep your hands up. Slowly step out of the vehicle and face away from us.
Ian Cuypers:
What?
Police:
Face away.
Ian Cuypers:
[inaudible 00:03:08] happening.
Police:
Keep your hands up, face away from us. Right now.
Ian Cuypers:
[inaudible 00:03:16].
Police:
All right, put your hands behind your head and interlace your fingers.
Taya Graham:
Now, you’re probably wondering why police were so aggressive from the onset. So were we. So we obtained the officer’s report after the incident occurred. In it, the officer cited furtive movements as the reason for taking such extreme actions, seriously. I just want you to watch as the officers continue to bark orders at Ian and see if his movements are indeed furtive.
Police:
Just listen to his instructions. Move slowly backwards to sound of my voice. You understand? Start moving. Slow down. Keep forward. Keep on walking.
Taya Graham:
The officers continue to escalate, and as you can see, Ian becomes confused. First, I think the instructions are somewhat contradictory and difficult to interpret. And second, there are no less than four officers on the scene making this situation even more chaotic and stressful. Just watch.
Ian Cuypers:
I feel like I’m being assaulted.
Police:
Put your hands on top of your head. Put your hands on the top of your head [inaudible 00:04:25].
Ian Cuypers:
I feel like I’m being kind of…
Police:
Stop moving. Hold up. Let me take over for a second. Keep looking forward. Don’t do anything other than keep your hands on top of your head. That’s it. Put your hands on top of your head. Stop moving.
Ian Cuypers:
Guys, you have guns on me. I really do not feel like I’m being…
Police:
Follow our instructions.
Ian Cuypers:
What are these lasers?
Police:
I want you to get down on your left knee. Get down on your left knee.
Taya Graham:
Still, Ian tries to comply. He’s obviously terrified, but still trying to follow this police-conjured game of Twister. Unfortunately, one of the officers decides he’s not complying enough. Take a look.
Ian Cuypers:
Can I please get an explanation?
Police:
Do it now or you’re going to get tased. Get down on your left knee.
Ian Cuypers:
No.
Police:
Don’t move or you’re going to get tased again. [inaudible 00:05:31] Keep watching the vehicle. Yeah, get this guy dried back. Let’s get this vehicle out of here.
Taya Graham:
Here’s the question this video raises, what happened prior to deploying the taser, which necessitated using it? I asked this question, because as I said at the beginning of the show, the use of deadly force is a power that police have both the freedom to use and abuse. And it’s up to us to make sure the latter doesn’t happen. Still, as you can see, officers continue to use a taser to send thousands of bolts of electricity through Ian’s body.
Ian Cuypers:
I can’t feel my legs.
Police:
Okay. Do you need medical attention?
Ian Cuypers:
Do I? Fuck, is that going to cost me money?
Police:
Do you need medical attention?
Ian Cuypers:
What does that entail?
Police:
It entails an ambulance coming to look at you to make sure that you are medically okay.
Ian Cuypers:
Can I get some time to collect my thoughts?
Police:
We’re going to need you to stand up now or we are going to stand you up. You either do it yourself or we do it for you. Hands up.
Ian Cuypers:
You can stand me up. There’s one in the…
Police:
Who else is in the vehicle? How many people?
Ian Cuypers:
There’s no one in there. There’s no one else in the car.
Police:
Okay.
Ian Cuypers:
I have shirts in the back seat covering the windows, because I banged in there one time.
Police:
[Inaudible 00:06:49] hands off.
Ian Cuypers:
Look, there’s no one in there.
Police:
So we’re going to sit you up. Take your knees and bring them forward.
Ian Cuypers:
I didn’t think to use…
Police:
We’re trying to get him up and moving. Bring your knees to your chest. One, two, three.
Ian Cuypers:
I give you consent to just put me however you want.
Police:
Ready? One, two.
Ian Cuypers:
Thanks. Yeah.
Police:
Walk him back this way. You okay? We’ll get it. Just walking him back.
Taya Graham:
Now, usually, I would end the video review here. There’s no reason to show more than once the pain and suffering experienced by Ian. However, in this case, there is critical evidence that unfolds as the police effectuate the arrest. First, Ian asks why he was stopped, tasered, and what his charges are. Take a listen. Okay,
Ian Cuypers:
Is my car suspicious or something? I just really would like to know what’s happening.
Police:
Okay, we’ll explain what’s happening in a second. My partner pulled you over and called for more squads, and here we are. And then, we’re in this position, because you were not following our commands.
Ian Cuypers:
Well, I pulled over right away, and then, a bunch more cops showed up.
Police:
You were not following our commands. That is why we are in the position we are in.
Ian Cuypers:
I followed all your commands.
Police:
You sure didn’t.
Ian Cuypers:
What didn’t I do?
Police:
You sure did not follow…
Ian Cuypers:
What did I not do?
Police:
We can discuss that in a little bit.
Ian Cuypers:
Okay.
Taya Graham:
Okay. So nothing from the police that we hear appears to justify the use of force, but now, before I get to more of the evidence about this flimsy justification, I want you to watch something that is rarely witnessed by the public, the painful consequences of a taser, beyond the literal paralysis of your nervous system. I’m talking about removing the barbs that pierce the skin and create the current that electrocute your body. They have to be removed. Normally, that’s left up to a doctor or EMT or at least a medic to ensure less bleeding and that the puncture site is properly sterilized, but the cops in Superior decide they’re superior enough to do it themselves. Take a look.
Police:
[inaudible 00:08:44] the light. Yeah, hold the light. [inaudible 00:08:51] Lift your hands up for me, up. Like that.
Ian Cuypers:
It’s like a lot of commands [inaudible 00:09:02]
Police:
So I’m going to have to get this. I got them. Sorry. We’re just going to have to…
Ian Cuypers:
So am I under arrest?
Police:
At this point, you are not free to leave. You can talk with my partner more about that in a second. You want me to cut one of… Yeah, I want you to cut the wires. Hey, stay leaning against the vehicle. Otherwise, Jason, I know you have shears too. [inaudible 00:09:37] I know. I just don’t want you to fall over or move or any of that kind of stuff. Take a breath. Figure out what you got to do next.
Ian Cuypers:
Yeah.
Police:
[inaudible 00:09:53] Yeah.
Taya Graham:
And now, finally, more evidence of how questionable this use of force was. Unguarded moments captured on body camera. Just listen as the officers try to figure out what to charge Ian with.
Police:
Oh, I was under it. Oh, I don’t think… Do you want ask him if he wants his whole wallet or do you just want [inaudible 00:10:24]? He wants that too. So that’s why I was like, “Hey, need another squad.” We were doing our drug court. That’s what I figured. He was diving across the side of vehicle. I was like, “That’s super weird,” because he was like, [inaudible 00:10:39]. Because I pulled off at 28 from Tower and got behind him, because I was way behind him. But his tag light was out, so I started trying to catch up with him. He turns on 23rd, goes up Ogden, turns here, stops, and rolls the roadway. Cars go.
Then he eventually, a car is behind between us. [inaudible 00:10:58] makes a full stop and then he pulls up from here, and I lit him up. Well, he’s going the wrong way on a one way, first of all. Well, I know, but I was really going to… But all the other stuff too is a little bit weird. No, you made a good call. Then I’ll cite him for… Did you search his vehicle at all? Or are we leaving it? I think he wants us to just lock it up and leave it probably maybe try to gain his consent to turn it [inaudible 00:11:18] You can ask. Or is it okay to just leave it? I just don’t want to get towed.
Taya Graham:
So that’s it. End of story. The only other debate they had was whether they could deliver the DoorDash order he couldn’t complete.
Police:
Dang. Really? Yeah. Should we deliver their food for them? Is that what he was doing? DoorDashing. I’m down for doing that. He said he locks the food to just them just get refunded. Otherwise, we could leave it here, and that’s where I was going with that. He said, “I just want it to just get refunded.” So lock up the car and let it be where it is. Yeah. And I don’t think it’s blocking the alley, probably facing the wrong way, but I’m not actually that extremely worried about that. No, we know we’re not going to tow it, and you can put it in your report that you left it facing that way.
Taya Graham:
It’s really just troubling to hear how thoughtless and cavalier the officers are about what they just did, how little they question their own actions, and how casually they try to come up with some sort of charge for a young man who was, simply put, unjustly harmed. But there is much more about how this happened and the consequences which Ian will share with us later. Ian will discuss behind the scenes information about how the legal system is treating him, shortly. But first, I’m joined by my reporting partner, Stephen Janis, who’s been digging into the case and reaching out to police. Stephen, thank you so much for joining me.
Stephen Janis:
Taya, thanks for having me. I appreciate it.
Taya Graham:
So what does the statement of probable cause say? How did the officers justify the arrest and their use of force?
Stephen Janis:
Taya, this is really kind of sketchy, because there’s not much information there. They talk about the furtive movements that you already mentioned. They talk about him driving down a one-way street, but they don’t talk about any other suspicious activity or anything else that would really, I think, justify the use of force. It’s really weird. I’ve seen police sort of not say anything in a statement of probable cause, but given what police did, given that they used a taser, there’s just not justification. There’s nothing in there that says the breaking and entering that you talk about, later on, when you ask about it. Nothing about that is in there. It’s really just he drove down a one-way street and then, very little explanation as to why this happened.
Taya Graham:
So you’ve reached out to the Superior Wisconsin Police Department. What are they saying about how the officers acted?
Stephen Janis:
Well, Taya, apparently, they’re too superior to get back to us, because we haven’t heard from them. But we asked them a lot of extensive questions about use of force, because I feel a lot of smaller rural departments or small town departments do not have the right guidelines. And in this case, we said, “Do you have a use of force report? What is your policy about use of force?” We heard nothing, but we’re going to keep on them. Because I think this is a really important oversight and lapse that needs to be addressed. Also, we got in touch with the public defender’s office in that county to ask them what their criteria is for offering services to people who are indigent or poor. Again, we have not heard back, but that’s another thing we’re going to pursue. Because it seems like this young man certainly qualified. We’re going to follow up on that. We’ll let you know what happened.
Taya Graham:
So tasers are technically known as less than lethal weapons, but you’ve reported on them extensively. What do you think?
Stephen Janis:
Well, Taya, from my reporting, they’re decidedly not less than lethal. I have reported on them being lethal in many situations. At least half a dozen cases during my reporting career in Baltimore, I have investigated and also written about, but one of the things that really stunned me about tasers was how the primary cause of death is ruled when a taser is used. You see, medical examiners are reluctant to rule a taser as being the primary cause of death, because, I was told, they will get sued by the manufacturer. And the manufacturer has made it very clear to the medical examiners across the country, “You make taser the primary cause of death, you will get sued.” Now, when you talk about something that shocks the electrical system and the body, it seems like there are a lot of things that can go wrong. And I have medical examiners tell me off the record, “Stephen, these are deadly weapons, and they should be classified as thus.” But again, in this country, corporate power and corporate money rule. And so, tasers are dangerous, but do we really know, because information is being concealed?
Taya Graham:
Okay. And now to learn about the events leading up to his arrest and how the police justified it to him and what the legal system has done to him since. I’m joined by Ian. Ian, thank you so much for joining me.
Ian Cuypers:
Oh yeah, thank you for giving me the opportunity to talk.
Taya Graham:
The incident that we witnessed on camera shows a great deal of force being used on you. Can you tell us how this began? This was a traffic stop, right?
Ian Cuypers:
Yeah, so what was happening is I was delivering for DoorDash. I’ve been up here in Minnesota for a couple of months and I’ve been mostly making money through DoorDash. I had to take a delivery from Duluth over to Superior, just right across the bridge. It was a Taco Bell delivery, and it was actually two orders. And it was just nighttime. I was sort of confused about where I was, because Superior was a new area. And there was a one-way street. It was dark. So I turned onto it, and right when I turned on, I saw that there was a one-way sign. So I was about to make a U-turn. And there was an officer behind me, I guess. He turned on his lights, and then, I pulled over pretty much right away.
And then, I was just looking for my insurance. And by the time I had my ID and everything ready, there were officers like a bunch of, I don’t know, two more squad cars pulled up, and there were a bunch of officers shouting at me to put my hands up. So I put my hands and my face out of my window to greet them and try to show them that I wasn’t a threat. And then, they told me that I had to open the door from the outside with my left hand, which was immediately just kind of distressing, because that’s a lot to take in all at once. And so, I was trying to open the door, and it was locked. And yeah, that’s how it started.
Taya Graham:
Did you follow the officer’s instructions during the traffic stop? The officer says to use your left hand, open the door, and leave the vehicle, which you did. They said to move backwards with your hands behind your head, which is difficult, but you did it. And you stopped when you were told, and then, the officer shouts for you to get down on your left knee. And you were still complying and only took a moment to ask a question, and in under a minute, you were tasered. Do you have any idea why the officers chose to use force, even though you have been compliant the entire time?
Ian Cuypers:
Well, no, I have no idea. I have no idea why they, in the first place, even told me to get out of my car. I especially was surprised when they tasered me. Even before that, I was really shocked when I just saw that there were laser sights everywhere. It was just mind-blowing to me.
Taya Graham:
I guess another thing I’m trying to understand is why so many officers were called to the scene. At no point in the video did I see you offer any resistance. Why do you think there were so many officers there?
Ian Cuypers:
No, because I pulled over right away. And so, the only reasonable situation that I can imagine is like, “Oh, if this guy is dangerous, maybe I should have someone here with me to see what’s going on.” But then, six people showed up, and they just immediately assumed I was armed and dangerous and started treating me like a criminal, which didn’t seem rational to me.
Taya Graham:
Well, I think it was because they suspected you of another crime, possibly a B&E. I listened to the dash camera footage very closely, and the initial conversation with dispatch mentioned a B&E, which might explain why he called for backup. And I think at least some criminal history could have been shown with your tags. It seems like they could have realized that you weren’t a real threat, but at the time, weren’t you actually working?
Ian Cuypers:
Yeah, I don’t want to override the conversation or anything, but it did seem to me, while it was happening, about halfway through, it was very surreal. But I do remember thinking to myself, “This really seems like, are they conducting an exercise on me or something? It seems like they’re just sort of ignoring the situation that’s actually at hand and just sort of doing something that they wanted to.”
Taya Graham:
So when did the officer decide to use force? Do you have any idea why she decided to use it? She gives you a brief warning, and then, in less than a minute, she’s tasering you. Do you have any idea why she thought this was necessary or why another officer had a gun trained on you?
Ian Cuypers:
See, like you were saying, I thought also to myself briefly that maybe they think maybe my car looks like the car of someone who’s recently done something terrible. And at that point, I was like, “Oh, okay, that sort of would explain what’s happening,” but I think they would tell me you’re under arrest or something like that. And so, the way they were treating me, it was confusing, because they were just giving me orders, and I didn’t know that I was under arrest until after they tased me. And I think I asked them a couple of times, and they didn’t give me a clear answer at first. And then, they did. But yeah, it was confusing.
Taya Graham:
It seems, from what you’ve described, they were quite relentless with the use of the taser. What kind of pain or injury did you suffer from it? Did they have to pull the barbs out of your skin? It sounded incredibly painful. Can you describe what it was like?
Ian Cuypers:
Just in case you think the officer that pulled me over is the one that tased me, he did not. It was one of the people who called for backup is the one that tased me. He was holding a gun, not a taser. I can explain how it felt by saying, I’ve explained this before, it’s like my body sort of turned into a vapor. It felt very painful, as though I exploded into a mist. That’s how it felt when I was electrocuted. And then, after that, I was just in shock and in so much pain. I think I was still being electrocuted when I hit the ground. But anyways, when I did hit the ground, my head hit pretty hard and I couldn’t even feel that, because of how much pain the rest of my body was in.
So I had some bruising on my chin. It was a pretty nasty bruise. I took a picture. And yeah, it hurt really bad. Also, I think it was six barbs went into my skin. And I don’t know if this is important right now, but they didn’t take pictures of the ones on my legs, even after I asked them to. They brought me into the station, I think, mostly for that reason. And then, when I asked, “Can we take the pictures for insurance purposes?” He was like, “No, we don’t have to do that.”
Taya Graham:
I’m pretty certain a medic is supposed to take those barbs out with sterile tools. That really doesn’t sound right, Ian. So you didn’t have access to your personal property. Did you consent to let them go and search your car or trunk? I believe you consented to them turning off the lights in your car, is that correct?
Ian Cuypers:
No.
Taya Graham:
So what happened next? Were you given medical treatment? Were you taken to a hospital? Or were you taken to jail? What happened?
Ian Cuypers:
Well, they asked me if I needed an ambulance, but I have heard things about ambulances and I didn’t have insurance at the time, so I said no to the ambulance. Because I didn’t want to get stuck with two grand of medical bills, that I have no way of figuring out how to pay. But then, yeah, after that, they didn’t really give me any time to think. I did ask them if I could just have a minute to breathe, which they didn’t give me a second to gather my thoughts or anything. They just said I had to get right up, and then, they ripped the probes out of my back.
Taya Graham:
That’s terrible.
Ian Cuypers:
She just yoinked them out, like she was starting a lawnmower or something, through my jeans.
Taya Graham:
So one aspect of this assault, an unjust arrest you endured, that really bothers me, is that, on camera, you can hear the officers realize that you were driving food delivery, and they laugh, joking that maybe they should finish the delivery for you. How does it make you feel when you hear that?
Ian Cuypers:
So when I got the USB drive with the footage and I was able to watch everything, it was, yeah, it really was a little bit gut wrenching to see the transition from they’re willing to annihilate someone to they’re chuckling about that same person who they’re about to do some things that they don’t even know how they’re affecting that person. The fines that they charged me with are more than I could imagine being able to afford with a month of what I do for work. And it’s probably not even that much money to them. I don’t know. Yeah, it’s just sad to me.
Taya Graham:
I can only imagine what was going through your mind. One moment you’re working, providing for yourself and maybe your loved ones, and then, you’re engaged in a simple traffic stop for going the wrong way, and the next, you’re being shouted out on the ground, surrounded by officers, being repeatedly tasered. How are you coping with that? Because honestly, this really does seem traumatizing. How has this impacted you physically, emotionally, or even financially?
Ian Cuypers:
I definitely don’t feel comfortable driving around the police anymore or for DoorDash. I’ve been getting, I don’t know if it’s tremors, but I’ve been getting shaky whenever I think about it. And my blood pressure, I went to the urgent care clinic four or five days after I got tasered, and they took some diagnostics, anyways, my blood pressure has been high. And they sent me to the emergency room right away after I told them that I got tased a couple of days earlier. They said that I should go to the emergency room, where it turned out my body is functioning properly, just under a lot of stress. But anyways, yeah, it’s been very distracting. I think about it during the day and at night, and I just think about if I could… At first, I was thinking a lot about if I could have done anything differently, because sure, if I would’ve just shut up and done everything they asked me to do, I don’t know.
In my head, I was thinking, “If I make a wrong move, I’m going to end up with bullets inside me.” So my fight or flight instinct kicked in, and I decided that the best thing to do would be to figure out what was actually happening and not just get myself ready to be shot. Because that’s what I felt like was about to happen. Yeah, that’s, I guess, it is pretty traumatizing. It’s difficult to talk about, because I haven’t been able to get a therapist or anything yet. So I guess, if this isn’t a very good explanation, I guess it is just still difficult to talk about, for sure, as far as explaining it properly.
Taya Graham:
Another thing that gets me is that, on the car ride, they try to justify your treatment. The officer says, “I pulled you over for going the wrong way up a one way.” And then, he says he called the other officers and gave you commands because you made furtive movements, which you explained to me you were just trying to get your insurance ready for them. Furtive movements have been used to excuse a great many tragedies of police violence. Does it make any sense to you that they responded with such aggression and force for a traffic stop like that?
Ian Cuypers:
It doesn’t. No. Even if I was armed or even if I was dangerous in some way, I don’t think that the way that they treated it was reasonable at all. I think, before you escalate to an immediately deadly situation, you need to have someone there to negotiate terms like, “Is this person about to do something dangerous? We’re here. You’re here. What’s about to happen?” before, “We’re telling you what’s going to happen, based on little to no evidence.”
Taya Graham:
So what was the end result of this interaction with police? What were you charged with? And what are your next steps? And what sort of financial costs are you looking at?
Ian Cuypers:
So I was charged with resisting arrest.
Taya Graham:
I can’t believe you were charged with resisting arrest.
Ian Cuypers:
With going the wrong way down a one way, which that one is fair, if he wants to be really picky. I just made the turn, and the street is designed in such a way, there’s a little passageway in between the two one-way streets, just in case somebody does make that wrong turn, I’m sure, is why that’s there. It’s immediately there, and I was about to correct myself. And I’m sure people do that all the time. But yeah, that’s a fair charge. I did turn the wrong way. Anyways, as far as costs for that, those fines were, it was $350 for resisting arrest. Or no, it was more than 350, it was $375 or something like that. And then, it was 170 something for going the wrong way down a one way. Altogether, it’s around $800, there’s 700 something dollars.
I don’t make that much in a month with what I do lately. And as far as other costs, I did have to go to the emergency room, but I got insurance recently. So I don’t know how much that’s going to be able to cover. And then, I’m going to, of course, have to try to hire a lawyer, because they won’t provide me one, which I thought they were supposed to. But they will not. I will have to buy a lawyer or figure that out somehow. And lawyers are expensive, but if I want to get a good civil lawyer, I have a GoFundMe that I just set up actually. And if I want to get a good civil lawyer, I don’t know, it’s probably like a couple thousand dollars at least.
Taya Graham:
Has this changed the way you perceive law enforcement? Or perhaps I should ask, how has this experience changed you?
Ian Cuypers:
So it’s actually a really interesting phenomenon, I guess. On the bridge on the way over to Wisconsin, I was thinking to myself, “Wisconsin cops are probably nice.” I thought to myself that while I was on my way there that night, and I proved myself wrong. I was like, “Small town areas, people know each other. Should be a friendly basis with the local law enforcement,” but it was not a friendly basis. So yeah, my worldview sort of did change a lot after that happened. I’d always heard about this sort of stuff happening and I knew that there were issues in the system that need to be looked at, at the very least, but yeah, definitely having it happen somewhere where I just assumed that it was safe and now, I know that it’s not safe. And looking into it, the Superior Police Department, I guess nobody likes them. They’re not friendly, I guess, and I didn’t know that.
Taya Graham:
Last thing, something that really disturbed me was the reaction to your compliance. They even blamed you, saying that your movements were furtive, that you searching for your insurance was a furtive movement, and therefore, somehow, the force was warranted and deserved. I recently reported that people who have an impairment or disability, like being hard of hearing or an intellectual or mental health challenge or being on the spectrum, are much more likely to experience police brutality, because of their stress response or inability to follow commands perfectly. And it really scares me, because I have family members with these issues. And I’m really fearful for them to have an encounter with police.
Ian Cuypers:
I tell you what, this is something else that went through my mind, and I do believe perhaps I was profiled a bit, because my car, I can’t afford a car wash. It’s covered in dirt. It looks dirty. Who’s to say maybe drug dealers drive dirty cars is what people think, but regardless, I can’t afford a car wash. So my car is dirty, even when I go to work. I work with disabled adults, and I drive them places. So if that scenario happened and I had one of my low functioning people with me, that went through my head, that that would’ve been absolutely, like they wouldn’t have taken a second to think about that.
Taya Graham:
I have to say that this really hits home with me, because the hidden minority that is most often the victim of police violence is a person with a disability. The estimates range from 33% to 50% of people killed by police have at least one disability. That’s just one of the reasons why these judgments of furtive movements can be so dangerous. Okay. Usually, during this part of the show, I focus on a broader theme that I connect to the incident we covered earlier in the program, something that links bad policing back to bad policy, so that we can ponder how both can be addressed. But today, I’m going to narrow it down a bit. In fact, I’m going to literally boil down my entire rant to the import of one single word, namely “furtive.” Okay. Now, before you start saying, “Taya, what is this some sort of PAR word game? How can you even boil down a rant on American law enforcement into a single term or phrase? How can you discuss the extremely pervasive overreach of law enforcement by playing YouTube Scrabble? Are you even serious, Taya?”
Again, I’m talking about furtive. Furtive, adjective, attempting to avoid notice or attention or being secretive. You know the term thrown about by cops and statements of probable cause used to characterize almost any movement or action by a supposed suspect, the word that sounds vaguely menacing and overly judgmental, that can be used to justify almost any action by police? In my hometown, it was the word used to excuse the killing of Edward Lamont Hunt. In 2008, Hunt was shot three times in the back after he walked away from an officer who had patted him down at least twice. The officer said he had the right to shoot the young man in the back, because he made so-called furtive movements. Mr. Hunt died. The officer was charged with murder, but was acquitted at trial.
And likewise here in Ian’s case, the police again used the completely vague idea of a furtive movement to justify the deployment of a taser and one I would note was used long after he had exited the vehicle and was clearly not a threat to anyone. But of course, the charging document used this highly charged word to justify a range of behavior that is as hard to understand as it is to rationalize. But that brings me back to the word itself. What does it mean? Why is it so potent when it comes to policing? Well, to understand it, I think perhaps we need to use a little bit of literary theory to unpack how this word became shorthand to describe behavior, to justify almost anything. So first, let’s just go back to the meaning of furtive.
It’s a technical definition, according to the Cambridge Dictionary, and it’s behaving secretly or dishonestly. But of course, that definition leaves much of the work to the beholder. In other words, it’s a purely subjective characterization, and I think that’s the point. Because the word imbues the person who uses it with the power to define the actions of the others in the most deleterious way possible. In other words, subjectively speaking, a furtive movement can be almost anything and in the end, almost always bad. Let me show you. If I lower my glasses, is this furtive? If I hold my hands together, is this furtive? If I look into the camera and then, quickly glance away, was that furtive? Well, how can you really know? And that’s my point. The word itself defines something normal as threatening. How can you really know what my intentions are?
How can you know, when I reach down to my pocket like this, that, somehow, this discreet movement actually portends something harmful? This shows, in an indirect way, the real, but less tangible, power of law enforcement. Literally, a cop can define reality with a simple word, that has a purely subjective meaning. And not only can an officer use this nebulous descriptor to imply criminality in the most innocuous behavior, but as we saw in the video we just watched, use it to justify deadly force. I want you to think about that, how utterly it is that we have constructed a law enforcement industrial complex that can take our lives by invoking a word with a definition that is as subjective as it is ill-defined, meaning the entirety of our existence can often sit upon the threshold of an officer’s personal and really non-objective assessment of behaviors that could be just as innocent as they could be menacing.
It’s really, in a way, frightening to contemplate that such a flimsy justification can be used literally to administer street justice. And I think it should give us all pause, because like police describing a motorist as nervous to justify dragging them out of a car or bystander’s actions being suspicious to initiate an arrest, how we treat this word has massive real world implications. I liken it to another less obvious word that our legal system uses regularly, but also deserves scrutiny. It’s so common we hardly think about it, yet it has equally devastating consequences when misapplied. “Crime,” that’s right, the most serious and commonly used word that describes an almost incomprehensibly wide variety of human behavior, a term that serves as an umbrella for so many different actions. It’s probably one of the most broadly defined terms in the English language. Think about it, what we define as a so-called crime has huge implications.
Some things that seem minor, like using a drug or failing to feed a parking meter, are crimes. Not mowing your lawn or rolling stop on red are technically crimes. But I want to focus on where it seems to come up short, activities that should be crimes that aren’t and how this speaks volumes about how our country uses and misuses law enforcement. I’m going to start with a story that should have been big news, but really didn’t get much attention. It starts with an obscure government body, that rarely makes headlines, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission or MEDPAC. Now, just to give a little bit of background, MEDPAC is a body authorized by Congress in 1997 to advise Congress on how to make Medicare, the program that provides healthcare to senior citizens, more efficient. Last week, that body released a report that got hardly any notice, but has huge implications.
In an extensive study, it found that Americans enrolled in private insurance companies through Medicare Advantage cost $83 billion a year more to the government, compared to the people directly enrolled in Medicare. So translated into percentages, each person who was covered by private insurance was 22% more expensive than a person who simply had Medicare directly. To put it simply, private insurers were charging significantly more for the same service and getting away with it. And this was no minor expense. $83 billion is just 20 billion shy of what the government spends on food assistance for poor families. And it’s roughly 30 times the budget of our entire national park system. But of course, has there been any mention of this by the mainstream media, which nightly recounts all the chaos and mayhem and fear generated by crime? Has the constant drumbeat of bad news, that’s supposed to make us feel unsafe in our homes and unsure of our future, been interrupted by news of an $83 billion overcharge for healthcare?
Now, I’m not downplaying the adverse effect of crime in my community or others. I’m not saying that theft or dealing drugs or even carjackings are something to be ignored, but there do seem to be actions that I would consider crimes, that are rarely reported on on the nightly news. What I’m pointing out is how our choice of words to describe actions does not always equate to the harm being described, meaning too often, the word does not fit the misdeed. Think about it, overcharging seniors for vital healthcare really isn’t a crime. It’s an accounting problem. Ripping off the taxpayers of this country does not make a company or a person a criminal. It makes you a savvy business person. It’s so interesting to me how these contrasting behaviors are characterized by words. Moving your hands when a cop has pulled you over is reaching for something. Literally absconding with $83 billion in government money is overcharging. Acting confused when a cop is pointing a gun at you can be described as furtive. Knowingly ripping off the federal government is simply good business.
The rights in the Constitution are malleable, debatable, a statement of probable cause, solid, true, and always accurate. You get my point. While we often think of the justice system as some sort of immutable paragon of reason, it is often defined by subjective interpretations of words and laws that can be bent, warped, twisted by those who control its meaning. Essentially, we are often subject to the whims of language constructed by the people who wield the power to define it. It’s a phenomena that I don’t think we acknowledge enough or really understand its potentially devastating implications, but it’s also at the root cause of much of the unequal treatment under the law that is so often the topic of this show. It’s why it’s important that you see the videos that we showed you today. It’s why it’s important that every encounter with police and every incident is viewed with the proper context, why every decision by police to use force needs to be scrutinized, and why every word police use to describe our behavior must be accounted for and must be fully examined and must be fully understood by all.
That’s why we do this show, why we painstakingly review every video, every charging doc, and every law to give the most accurate and most transparent rendering of the truth. That’s a promise I make to you each and every show. I want to thank my guest, Ian Cuyper, for coming forward to speak with us, and we hope that, by sharing his experience, he can help prevent this type of excessive force from happening again. Thank you, Ian. And of course, I have to thank intrepid reporter, Stephen Janis, for his writing, research, and editing on this piece. Thank you, Stephen.
Stephen Janis:
Taya, thanks for having me. I really appreciate it.
Taya Graham:
And I want to thank mods of the show, Noli D and Laci R for their support. Thank you both and a very special thanks to our accountability report Patreons. We appreciate you, and I look forward to thanking each and every one of you personally in our next live stream, especially Patreon Associate Producers Johnny R, David K, Louis P, and super friends, Shane B, Pineapple Girl, Chris R, Matter of Rights, and Angela True. And I want you watching to know that, if you have video evidence of police misconduct or brutality, please share it with us, and we might be able to investigate for you. Please reach out to us. You can email us tips privately at P-A-R @therealnews.com and share your evidence of police misconduct.
You can also message us at Police Accountability Report on Facebook or Instagram or at Eyes on Police on Twitter. And of course, you can always message me directly at tayasbaltimore on X or Facebook. And please like and comment. You know I read your comments and appreciate them. And we do have a Patreon link pinned in the comments below for accountability reports. So if you feel inspired to donate, please do. Like I said, we don’t run ads or take corporate dollars, so anything you can spare is greatly appreciated. My name is Taya Graham, and I am your host of the Police Accountability Report. Please be safe out there.
Speaker 8:
Thank you so much for watching The Real News Network, where we lift up the voices, stories, and struggles that you care about most. And we need your help to keep doing this work. So please tap your screen now, subscribe, and donate to The Real News Network. Solidarity forever.
A controversial copwatcher—whose unorthodox tactics have garnered him a loyal following on YouTube, but have also embroiled him in legal troubles that eventually landed him in jail—has been indicted on new federal charges for making interstate threats.
Eric Brandt, a prolific filer of lawsuits and First Amendment rights advocate, as well as a former Navy submarine technician, has been charged by a federal grand jury in Louisiana with violating a federal law that prohibits interstate threats. A copy of the indictment, obtained by TRNN, lists the date of the offense as December 2019 but does not provide any additional details.
Abade Irizarry, a fellow cop watcher known as Liberty Freak, said Brandt was moved to Delta due to his good behavior.
“Delta Correctional Facility is just before halfway house,” Irizarry told TRNN. “He said he has been treated with dignity and respect, they respect him there.”
Irizarry added that Brandt was on the verge of being released—a fact, he said, that is raising suspicions among Brandt’s supporters that the indictment was timed to keep him in jail.
Irizarry added that Brandt was on the verge of being released—a fact, he said, that is raising suspicions among Brandt’s supporters that the indictment was timed to keep him in jail.
“He was two weeks away from a halfway house,” Irizarry said.
While authorities were not forthcoming with details about the incident that precipitated the charges, Irizarry said Brandt posted a video in December of 2019 in which he recounted calling St. Charles Parish, Louisiana, police and telling a person who answered the phone to shoot an officer.
Brandt’s calls to St. Charles Parish police were in response to a livestream posted by fellow copwatcher James Freeman.
Freeman was camping at a federal park when a ranger ordered him to move. The popular copwatcher said he would comply while filming the encounter. Police were called and Freeman was arrested.
Authorities would not confirm if the video was related to the indictment.
Brandt is a Navy veteran who became a YouTube personality by chronicling his often freewheeling and confrontational brand of activism.
Brandt told TRNN he began challenging police after he voluntarily left his home to show solidarity with unhoused people who were being harassed by police. The first videos Brandt posted on YouTube, which prompted his ascent as a critical voice in the copwatching movement, depicted him confronting Denver cops for intentionally honking their horns to wake up people sleeping on the street.
Brandt said the mistreatment of the unhoused by police prompted him to adopt more confrontational tactics. That included the use of what he called the “eight magic letters” or “fuck cops”), which he often displayed on colorful signs he touted on street corners or in front of city hall.
The first videos Brandt posted on YouTube, which prompted his ascent as a critical voice in the copwatching movement, depicted him confronting Denver cops for intentionally honking their horns to wake up people sleeping on the street.
Brandt has been characterized by the mainstream media as an abrasive oddity whose rant-filled videos warranted criminal charges and jail time. But his supporters say his activism is more nuanced than these caricaturistic portrayals suggest, and for all the controversy his tactics have sparked, his efforts have led to substantive reforms.
For instance, Brandt has been successful in forcing change within law enforcement.
In 2018, he sued the Englewood police department after they arrested him for a tattoo that displayed a middle finger on his forearm, emblazoned with his signature “Fuck Cops” motto.
Brandt’s pro se suit led to a $30,000 settlement for Brandt and First Amendment training for the Englewood police department and the early institution of body-worn cameras.
“I call this my $30,000 tattoo,” Brandt told Police Accountability Report in an interview in 2021.
Last November, Denver City Council agreed to pay Brandt $65,000 to settle a lawsuit over his 2018 arrest for shouting “No Justice? No Peace! Fuck the Denver police!” on the 16th Street Mall.
He was also part of a groundbreaking lawsuit that established the right to film police in the federal 10th Circuit. Brandt and Irizarry filed the suit, which began with a straightforward cop watch of a DUI stop in Lakewood, Colorado, in 2020.
Irizarry and Brandt filed a suit pro se, arguing that the officer’s actions interfered with their right to record.
After a federal district court ruled the officer could not be held accountable due to qualified immunity, several advocacy groups joined the suit with the hope that it would be a test case to establish the right to film police.
[Brandt] was also part of a groundbreaking lawsuit that established the right to film police in the federal 10th Circuit.
The plaintiffs recently settled for $35,000.
The current federal charges against Brandt require him to appear before a federal magistrate by April 15, 2024. Brandt has since been placed on lockdown and is awaiting transport to Louisiana. According to the writ of habeas corpus reviewed by TRNN, Brandt will remain in federal custody until the case is resolved.
Despite the setback for Brandt, Irizarry told TRNN he is confident the colorful activist and fellow copwatcher will prevail.
“He is tough,” Irizarry said, “he never negs out. He’s the one who boosts our spirits, and he’s in prison.”
The prevalence of sexual violence in the US prison system is so widespread and accepted that it’s often made the butt of jokes in popular culture. Yet the reality is that countless survivors of the prison system carry the scars and traumas of sexual abuse—and for many, the perpetrators of these crimes were the very prison staff charged with their protection. Juvenile victims of the prison system are no exception. In Maryland, several adult survivors of sexual abuse as juveniles in state custody have filed a class action lawsuit demanding justice. Lawyer and former DC Council Member LaRuby May joins Rattling the Bars to discuss the class action suit, and the systematic nature of sexual violence in prisons as a form of racial oppression.
Studio Production: David Hebden Post-Production: Cameron Granadino
Transcript
The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. A proofread version will be made available as soon as possible.
Mansa Musa:
LaRuby May has been a vessel for change for over 30 years. The inspirational lawyer, entrepreneur, developer, teacher, and strategist found May Jung Law Firm alongside long-time friend and business partner Je Yon Jung. May Jung’s mission is to unapologetically advocate for people of color and empower them to be whole and active participants in the civil justice system. Prior to practicing law, LaRuby served as the council member representing Ward 8 in the District of Columbia. Her latest fight is around survivors of sexual abuse in Maryland, more specifically juveniles. Welcome to Rattling the Bars.
LaRuby May:
Thank you, thank you. Thank you for having me, Mansa. I appreciate being here.
Mansa Musa:
Okay. Let me give my audience some context: In 2023, the governor of the State of Maryland, Wes Moore, signed into law the Child Protection Act — You can unpack wherever I’m off track when you get on — Under this he eliminated the statute of limitation of being able to bring a civil suit against anyone that was an employee or contractor within the state of Maryland to bring a litigation against them for sexual abuse. This came on the heels of a report that this attorney general for the state of Maryland put out indicting the archdiocese of sexual abuse of children.
Prior to that, the advocacy was always around trying to get something done about child sexual abuse and trying to be able to get some compensation. But more importantly, try to make people aware that this was an ongoing thing and that people were harmed and damaged by this. It was only after the signing of this law that it became apparent that it wasn’t only the archdiocese but other institutions that were responsible and involved in abusing children; One institution was Juvenile Services, in particular. May, why did you choose to get in this space in particular? Because this space is fraught with problems on a lot of levels. Why did you choose to get in this space?
LaRuby May:
Thank you for that question. My law firm, May Jung, our motto is “Justice for our people is personal.” Having folks who’ve been touched by and part of the juvenile justice system, the Department of Corrections, that’s all very personal to me. You know what I mean? Whether or not it’s from family members, immediate family members, or other family members. The opportunity that we have as a law firm to be able to go and hold people accountable for harm — Specifically harm that’s happening disproportionately to Black and Brown folks, to Black and Brown children — Is the privilege that I have. So how dare I not get involved in being able to protect children? Specifically individuals who have been harmed while they were in the custody of the Department of Corrections, the Department of Juvenile Services, or the state of Maryland.
We have a lawyer in our firm named Jessica who’s already done some work around child abuse in the state of Maryland. As you mentioned, once Governor Wes Moore signed the Maryland Child Victims Act into law in 2023 — And we’re based here in Washington D.C., man, that’s our backyard — We knew that the opportunity to get into this space as a Black and Brown woman-owned law firm, to fight for Black and Brown children, is something that it wasn’t optional for me, Mansa. I don’t get the opportunity, I don’t have the privilege to not fight when I see injustice. The privilege of being a lawyer gives me the right to say you know what? When our people have been harmed, let’s go and fight this fight. When this law went into place, what happened is now our brothers and sisters who are returning from home or who were in juvenile facilities, they now have the opportunity to file civil lawsuits related to child sexual abuse.
The talk about this was around the Catholic, the archdiocese, and children in the custody of their care; We weren’t looking at the overwhelmingly number of Black and Brown children that were in juvenile facilities who were also sexually abused by staff members and contractors. Quite frankly, some of these institutions knew that this was happening and they did nothing to protect our children.
Mansa Musa:
Let’s unpack this. We’re talking about a situation where, if you’ve got something that’s current, then you can be up on… This calls for identifying plaintiffs, and getting somebody to come forward and feel comfortable enough to get around the stigma attached to the victimization like when a person is raped. And this is a cliche but this is a reality when it comes to poor and oppressed people: As opposed to being victimized, you take the victim and say like, oh, had you not went this way, you would’ve never had this happen to you. It’s because you went down the wrong street that somebody came out and brutalized you in this system.
How do you go about identifying plaintiffs? What’s your methodology? And how do you help them understand the trauma and get them to understand that it’s their right to come forth and get the accuser? If it is more about I’m letting you know now, it might have happened 20 years ago but I’m now in your face to let you know that it was wrong, I had a problem with it, and — If I’m going to get compensated, so be it — I want people to know of what you did. How do you get people to come forward?
LaRuby May:
It’s hard. That’s why we’re grateful for folks like you who are in the space that are allowing us an opportunity to talk to folks in the space because identifying folks … We have folks that were abused as children and they have some of that shame and some of that victim mentality so they haven’t told folks. We have folks that have been abused when they were 13 and 14 years old and now they’re 40 years old and they’ve never told anyone because of the shame. That makes it difficult for them to say I was one of them — especially in Black men.
It’s a catch-22. If they were assaulted or molested by a woman, it makes it a little bit different; It’s almost like they’re not necessarily ashamed of that. But if they were abused, molested, or raped by a male, there’s definitely some stigma that comes around that for them and there’s shame to go and talk to folks about it. We continue to go out there, talk, and touch as many people as we can. And touch people that already have relationships with our brothers and sisters who were a part of the system and potentially violated by individuals in the system.
We’re going to continue to talk, we’re going to continue to empower people, and say this was not your faultl; You were a victim, you were a child. The state of Maryland was in charge of your care, they were responsible for making sure that you were rehabilitated, and we know what the systems are like, the rehabilitation of the system, and how it works and how it doesn’t work. But your family members, your mothers, the court system entrusted your care to the Department of Juvenile Services while you were there, while you were vulnerable. Many times, I’ve talked to some of our clients — Especially their first time going in — Who were scared.
Mansa Musa:
Right. Oh, that’s a reality.
LaRuby May:
Yeah, yeah. I’m scared and now I got these people who I’m supposed to be able to trust, these people who are supposed to help me are now violating me and taking advantage of that and it’s a large hurdle to overcome but that’s why we’re here.
Mansa Musa:
We’re talking about anyone that was employed in the state of Maryland — Anyone be it contractual or 1099, W2, anybody that was getting any money from the state of Maryland — That violated a kid or juvenile while they were under the care of Juvenile Services. But how do we look at the agency? Do we look at the Juvenile Services agent as being a defendant in it and we looking at Bobby Smith ETA or Department of Juvenile Services, Bobby Smith and all those involved or are we saying that we looking at just Bobby Smith?
LaRuby May:
We’re looking at everybody that’s involved because Bobby Smith was a bad person if he was the offender but many times the culture at the facility allowed for this to happen. The department was entrusted with the care. These individuals, they had obligations to train folks, monitor folks, and to make sure that they were putting non-offenders around our children, especially when they were in such vulnerable positions. So we want to hold everyone accountable: We want to hold the state accountable, we want to hold each facility accountable, and we want to hold all of the individuals accountable that did the harm. But ultimately, this is a systemic problem.
This isn’t us saying that this happened to one person a year or one person in the past 20 years — Thousands, literally thousands, of individuals who were in these 13 different facilities were molested, raped, and violated as children. It’s important to understand — Especially for the audience — You are a child, you were not an adult. No one deserves to be violated. Even if you’re an adult, you don’t deserve to be violated. But as a child especially, to be violated by any adult that was entrusted with your care.
Mansa, we’re not going to know; These young brothers and sisters, they’re not going to know whether or not you were an employee, 1099, worked for the state, or worked for the contractor. What they’re going to know is you were an adult that was supposed to be a counselor, admissions person, teacher, or kitchen staff. All they’re going to know is that you were an adult that took advantage of them, abused them, and most of the time they felt helpless and powerless to be able to fight against you and then to go and tell somebody. But we have clients who did go and tell. Do you know what happened when they told? Nothing.
The systemic issues within the facilities was such a part of the culture that it still went … We talked to folks that, when they told that someone abused them, that someone violated them, the child was transferred to a different facility and the individual was not held responsible. That’s what we’re very thankful to do right now. There are multiple firms that have filed litigation but we are very thankful to be the first firm and the only firm to have filed this as a class-action lawsuit because we want our individuals to get remedy, we want to hold folks accountable for the harm that they did to our young people, but, Mansa, we also want systemic change. We can’t accept it.
One of the great things in the leadership of Governor Wes Moore and Attorney General Brown in looking at removing the statute of limitations, that means this could have happened to you last week, last year, 10 years ago, 20 years ago, or 50 years ago and because there are no statute of limitations, you can now bring those claims. But that’s not enough. We still have children that are getting abused as recently as —
Mansa Musa:
As we speak, yeah.
LaRuby May:
— Yeah, as we speak. We have to have changes in the system that are focused on protecting our children.
Mansa Musa:
This is a point that needs to be emphasized. We’re seeing this history around crime and we got this Herod mentality: Find the savior that’s supposed to come and kill all the firstborn. We got this firstborn mentality of lock all our kids up and throw away the key. It’s in that environment that this type of behavior festers because now you have a situation where you have children being locked up in astronomical numbers and being put into an environment where there’s not a lot of control in terms of what goes on. So in order to get that control, you become more abusive and that becomes your way of getting control. Locking kids in solitary confinement. And if you isolate them enough, get to the point where they’re mentally incapable of dealing with it and that opens the door for this type of behavior.
In this litigation, how do you all articulate that? You said it’s systemic, how do you all articulate that in your facts? How do you all make people aware that this is not isolated, that this is not whack, this is not Charles, this is not Hickey, this is not Boy’s Village, this is not this institution, this is a general mentality like the archdiocese. When they came out and indicted them, it became apparent throughout the country that this was a behavior that was going on, but you can juxtapose what’s going on with Black and Brown children in these juvenile facilities with the same thing. How do you all get people to understand that?
LaRuby May:
When it comes to the lawsuit — As we talk about all 13 facilities and whether or not these facilities have been closed or these facilities are still open — We recognize that it is not just one facility. It’s saying, we’ve got to look at all of the facilities that were ran by the department and look at all of the practices and all of the people in these facilities. If it were one isolated center then you’d be like, maybe it’s not systemic; But when we look across all of the systems, all of the facilities that were under the control or under the jurisdiction of the department, we see the theme is that it’s happening at every facility, that it’s happening to all of our children: It’s happening to boys, it’s happening to girls, and, unfortunately, the disproportionate number of Black and Brown children that are being incarcerated means that there’s going to be a disproportionate number of children that are violated who are also going to be Black and Brown children.
One of the things that we’ve failed our children on many times in these facilities is we’re locking them up and whatever the reason is that they got locked up, we’re not helping them deal and cope with the trauma. On top of that, while they’re in there, they’re being even more traumatized. Post-traumatic syndrome, it’s real. Trauma is real and what we see in some cases. There are individuals who were victims and traumatized while they were in juvenile facilities and they’ve been able to go on and live productive lives and still be able to maybe suppress the trauma that they’re in. But in other situations what we see is individuals have continued to repeat behaviors because the trauma has never been addressed. Then —
Mansa Musa:
Yeah.
LaRuby May:
— Go ahead. I’m sorry.
Mansa Musa:
No, go ahead, go ahead. You finish that thought.
LaRuby May:
We wonder why a brother that’s incarcerated at the age of 45 started getting incarcerated when he was younger — It’s because when you arrested him when he was 13 you didn’t do anything to help him or help his family. Other than, like you said, lock him up and put him in solitary confinement. You never helped him deal with the trauma. We see that trauma sometimes can lead to continued behavior that allows for them to, not only have been incarcerated as juveniles, but now to be incarcerated as an adult. And we look at him and he’s this or she’s that without the full context of the system helped to make them.
Mansa Musa:
Right, right. Created that, yeah.
LaRuby May:
Yeah, the system created that. That’s a part of the accountability that we want to hold for the system, that you not only allowed for these babies to be violated when they were children but then you allowed for this behavior to continue and that’s why we see some of our brothers and sisters still currently incarcerated.
Mansa Musa:
Okay. I want you to address two things.
LaRuby May:
Mm-hmm.
Mansa Musa:
Early in the system, they had the Department of Juvenile Services outsourced. So they might outsource foster care and they would have children in, in lieu of sending them to an institution, they would say, I’m going to send you here but you’re under the jurisdiction of the Department of Juveniles. Have you all identified that mechanism? And two, talk about why people should understand this issue, in terms of the importance of it. As you were talking, in my mind I’m saying, if we indicted the archdiocese so everybody can be like yeah… A lot of the folks that were violated, ethnicity is such that they got a little bit more prominence in that regard, and if you’re talking about poor people.
Talk about that why this issue should be given the same attention and get the same results as when people come out and talk about being victimized by the archdiocese. Talk about those two things if you can.
LaRuby May:
Okay. Say the first question first again.
Mansa Musa:
The first question deals with the Juvenile Department.
LaRuby May:
Oh, the facility.
Mansa Musa:
So, they had a situation where people got in that space said, we’ll become a foster parent, you can send them to us; Whatever the condition is, you send them to us and we’re getting paid for supervising them. Children have been abused in that system. And the other one is the archdiocese and how we look at it.
LaRuby May:
Okay, yeah. We haven’t specifically looked at individuals who were violated or abused while they were in foster care or while they were in the custody of the state of Maryland through Child Family Services or other services. I would believe if there was an individual who was… Many times, you are a ward of the state, you are in the custody of the state. If there was an employee or an adult that was affiliated with the state who violated a young person while they were in their care, we want to talk to that person as well, we want to talk to those people as well. But this lawsuit specifically focuses on individuals that were in the custody of a juvenile facility, of one of the 13 facilities that we’ve named in our complaint.
The other part about it is we understand money and we understand economy. We know people tend to care about people that other people care about, and people don’t care about Black folk and people don’t care about poor folk as much as they care about our white counterparts or our more affluent counterparts. But for us, that doesn’t mean that you don’t deserve justice. In fact, for us that means that we need to fight even harder for you. Lots of attention, lots of resources around… Especially young boys who were altar boys in the Catholic Church, we saw a prevalence of white folk that were in that litigation.
But our Black and Brown brothers and sisters who were in juvenile facilities, guess what? Their mothers love them as much as those altar boys, their daddies love them as much as… We love our children as much as anybody else loves their children, so how dare a system not be sensitive and not consider a child just because you had an interface with the law. I’ve interacted with folks that, yup, he stole, yes, he went to juvenile but he was stealing because he was hungry.
Mansa Musa:
Right, right, right. It’s a social connection.
LaRuby May:
Yeah.
Mansa Musa:
It’s a social connection. Yeah, it is.
LaRuby May:
So, now he or she gets treated differently because he didn’t go to a church, because of his skin color, or because of where he lived in the neighborhood. For me, my law firm, and this litigation, that doesn’t work because that’s my niece, that’s my nephew, that’s my little cousin. To make sure that we’re fighting for justice for individuals who have formerly been incarcerated or may be currently incarcerated, to us, they deserve no less justice than anyone else. And we’re going to continue to fight for that justice and are looking for the opportunity to talk to more folks who were in the facilities.
Mansa, it’s important for me to let you and let your audience know that we do not use your name. Even in our lawsuit it’s listed as a John Doe or a Jane Doe because this is about holding accountability, this isn’t about trying to put people on blast. We recognize that folks are still going through trauma. We work to try to make sure clients get connected to mental health services to be able to deal with the trauma. Not only the trauma of the past, but when I ask you to talk about what happened to you 20 years ago, that’s going to trigger trauma again. To be able to make sure that we can provide or help you get connected to resources is an important part of the work that we do.
Mansa Musa:
All right. As we close out, tell our audience how they can get in touch with you if they a family member that knows somebody, or if they’re interested in trying to help you advocate, or get a copy of the litigation.
LaRuby May:
Oh, absolutely. If you want information as it relates to this, if you, a family member were violated or abused while you were in one of the juvenile facilities in the state of Maryland, you can give us a call. Our phone number is 1-833 May, M-A-Y-J-U-N-G, the name of our firm, May Jung, which is 1-833-629-5864. Again, that’s 1-833-629-5864. If you are a victim, if you know of a victim… And everything is held with us in complete confidentiality in terms of your talking to us and letting us know what happened to you. I work with many providers who are doing housing with our brothers and sisters who are returning citizens.
So if you’re an advocate or an activist working in the field, we want to talk and connect to you. Because the other thing that we realize is that we want to connect to people who are already connected to the folks that have been victims so that we can continue to leverage those trusting relationships. Again, 1-833-629-5864 is how you can get connected. My name is LaRuby and you can also email me; My email address is LaRuby, L-A-R-U-B-Y@M-A-Y-J-U-N-G.com, laruby@mayjung.com. Feel free to email me or to give us a call.
Mansa Musa:
Yeah. Thank you, LaRuby, for coming on Rattling the Bars. You definitely rattled the bar today. We want to emphasize this to our audience: We’re talking about our children. We’re talking about children. No matter what they look like today, 50 years old, they were a child when this happened to them and nobody has the right to abuse a child. Nobody has the right to take advantage of a child because they have the ability to. More importantly, when our children are taken into custody of Juvenile Services or any services, our children should be protected. We want to encourage everyone to reach out to LaRuby and the firm and educate yourself on this issue. But more importantly, we want you to continue to rattle the bars and continue to support real news. Thank you, LaRuby.
Former Baltimore Police Sgt. Ethan Newberg’s disgraceful downfall continues as new body camera footage reveals an incident in which the ex-cop made three illegal arrests, and then threatened to arrest entire block full of witnesses. Although they were initially responding to a neighborhood dispute, Newberg and his partner arrested a local resident who was not involved in the altercation almost immediately. When neighbors began to protest, Newberg escalated to arrest two more residents—and threatened to keep going until the whole neighborhood was in handcuffs. Police Accountability Report returns with exclusive footage of Sgt. Newberg’s outburst, and what it tells us about the state of policing in Baltimore and around the country.
Production: Stephen Janis, Taya Graham Post-Production: Stephen Janis, Adam Coley
Transcript
The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. A proofread version will be made available as soon as possible.
Taya Graham:
Hello, my name is Taya Graham, and welcome to the Police Accountability Report.
As I always make clear, this show has a single purpose: holding the politically powerful institution of policing accountable. And to do so, we don’t just focus on the bad behavior of individual cops, instead, we examine the system that makes bad policing possible.
And today, we will achieve that goal by showing you this video of a cop that made not one, not two, but three illegal arrests, all of which occurred during a dispute between neighbors that was unremarkable, to say the least. But it’s also an example of how bad policing can literally spiral out control to the extent that it changes the psychology of an entire community, which is why we will be showing it to you in exacting detail.
But, before we get started, I want you watching to know that if you have video evidence of police misconduct, please email it to us privately at par@therealnews.com or reach out to me directly on Facebook or Twitter @tayasbaltimore, and we might be able to investigate for you. And please like, share, and comment on our videos. It helps us get the word out and it can even help our guests. And of course, you know I read your comments and appreciate them. You see those hearts down there, I give those hearts out, and I’ve even started doing a PAR comment of the week to show you all how much I appreciate your thoughts and to show what a great community we have. And we have a Patreon called Accountability Reports, so if you feel inspired to donate, please do. We don’t run ads or take corporate dollars, so anything can spare is truly appreciated.All right, we’ve gotten that out of the way.
Now, one of the problems with the advent of body-worn cameras is that even when police are caught making bad or illegal arrests, the video is not always made public. Ironically, police departments, using transparency laws, have been able to hide their questionable behavior and thus circumvent the whole purpose of wearing body cameras in the first place.
And today we have a perfect example of that problem, video that the police did not want you to see, but we are showing you here for the very first time, despite having to battle the government for two and a half years to obtain it.
It depicts Baltimore police officer Sergeant Ethan Newberg, wreaking havoc on the community, an authoritarian style of policing that leads to multiple illegal arrests. It is in fact a stunning example of how easy it is to abuse police powers and the consequence when that abuse is hidden from the public.
Newberg was charged in 2019 with multiple counts of misconduct in office for making nine illegal arrests, 32 counts to be exact. The body camera remains secret until we won an appeal to have it released. And now in a series of shows, we are revealing it to you for the very first time.
This story starts in Baltimore, Maryland when a neighborhood dispute attracted the attention of the police. As you can see, Newberg arrives on the scene, and instead of talking to the residents or trying to understand their concerns, he immediately becomes combative. Notice that one of his fellow officers decides that talking in their own backyard was actually illegal.
Take a look.
Newberg:
What is going on?
Woman in Dispute:
First of all, I live here. I don’t know what the hell’s going on. I just got off work.
Newberg:
So nobody knows what’s going on.
Woman in Dispute:
No. Nobody.
Cop 2:
Who called us here? How about that?
Woman in Dispute:
I don’t know! One of the nosey-ass neighbors called!
Cop 2:
Is everything okay here?
Woman in Dispute:
Yes! Everything’s okay!
Cop 2:
Do you need us here?
Woman in Dispute:
No!
Second Woman in Dispute:
We live here. I live here. I got a son!
Cop 2:
Oh my God. Okay.
Newberg:
Hold on. Hold on. This is what’s not going to happen. We’re not going to have a group of people outside in the block screaming, and shouting, and yelling.
Taya Graham:
But one of the neighbors decided to push back. Take a listen.
Woman in Dispute:
She done left!
Male Neighbor in Dispute:
That’s a public street. I thought we can do what we want.
Newberg:
Hey, let me tell you something, big mouth.
Male Neighbor in Dispute:
Excuse me?!
Newberg:
Leave! Leave! Leave!
Male Neighbor in Dispute:
I am leaving.
Newberg:
That’s a great idea.
Male Neighbor in Dispute:
I know.
Newberg:
Let me see your ID.
Cop 2:
Is this your car right here?
Taya Graham:
That’s right. He says, “It’s a public street. I can do what I want.” That’s it. He didn’t shout ACAB, or F the police, or any other anti-police type of behavior. No, just an accurate rendering of his Constitutional rights. And what kind of response does the First Amendment right to free speech elicit? Handcuffs.
Newberg:
Illegally parked. Let me see your ID.
Cop 2:
Let’s see your ID.
Newberg:
You want to play these games, big man?
Cop 2:
There you go.
Newberg:
You’re so close to going. Don’t even think of it. Put your hands…
Male Neighbor in Dispute:
What?
Newberg:
Based off your actions right now, you’re going in handcuffs.
Male Neighbor in Dispute:
Record. Record.
Newberg:
Yeah, please do.
Woman in Dispute:
Want me to take [inaudible 00:04:49]?
Cop 2:
No [inaudible 00:04:50] this vehicle.
Woman in Dispute:
Why?
Cop 2:
Why?
Woman in Dispute:
That’s my vehicle.
Newberg:
Okay, well right now it’s illegally parked.
Taya Graham:
So he left. He actually left, even though all he did was express himself, so to speak. His only crime invoking the right to peaceably assemble, but the police were not satisfied. Just watch.
Woman in Dispute:
And we can move it!
Newberg:
And based off your actions, you’re not following orders.
Cop 2:
Put him over here.
Newberg:
I hear nothing.
Cop 2:
Put him on the sidewalk.
Newberg:
Scoot back! Scoot back!
Taya Graham:
Okay, so let’s just review. The officer says, “Based on your actions right now, you have committed a crime.” Really? You mean speaking politely? Leaving when asked? And showing your ID? How and why does this add up to a crime? How is that illegal?
But it gets worse as Newberg decides to bully the rest of the neighborhood.
Cop 2:
You can laugh all you want. I’m giving you a lawful order. Scoot back! It’s off…
Woman in Dispute:
Okay, we’re back!
Male Neighbor in Dispute:
You do what you do!
Woman in Dispute:
Babe!
Male Neighbor in Dispute:
You do what you do. I’m scooting back. Look at that shit.
Newberg:
Y’all think y’all tough, huh?
Cop 2:
Put your hands behind your back. Put your hands behind your back.
Speaker 5:
We have another unit. 2200 Ashton street [inaudible 00:06:06] I don’t know what the problem is.
Taya Graham:
That’s right. Newberg makes another illegal arrest. Cuffing someone who was filming on a public street. We’ve seen some overreach by police, but this might actually just take the cake. What was the crime? What was he doing that justified handcuffs? But Newberg only ups the ante, threatening the remaining residents who are standing on a public street, just observing the police. They aren’t protesting, they aren’t yelling, but even if they were, it wouldn’t matter because that, again, is not illegal.
Just watch.
Cop 2:
Now you threaten me.
Newberg:
Scoot back! I will take everybody! Out the street! Out of the street!
Cop 2:
It’s a felony to threaten me.
Male Neighbor in Dispute:
I don’t fucking threaten you. I said don’t touch her of my baby. My baby…
Cop 2:
You said you ain’t shit without that badge or whatever.
Male Neighbor in Dispute:
It was not a threat. I just said, you ain’t shit without that badge. That’s what the fuck I said. It wasn’t a threat.
Cop 2:
Negative. Hey!
Male Neighbor in Dispute:
You got my hand on twisted up.
Cop 2:
30.
Male Neighbor in Dispute:
You hear me?
Taya Graham:
Okay.
The observation that Newberg is not, you know what, without that badge is that man’s truth. It’s not a felony. But that is what happens when law enforcement is allowed to operate with impunity. Speaking truth to power becomes a crime, and exercising your rights becomes an arrestable offense. And Newberg continues to embrace that form of policing. Take another look.
Cop 2:
Get another cage car up here on Longwood.
Woman in Dispute:
I don’t give a fuck!
Cop 2:
Get this crowd back! Get this crowd back! Hey, your car unlocked? I want this guy separated. Stand up.
Male Neighbor in Dispute:
Hey babe, get this man’s badge number.
Cop 2:
Stop yelling in my ear.
Male Neighbor in Dispute:
I’m not. I can fucking yell if I want.
Newberg:
Scoot back!
Cop 2:
I got to get a search on him.
Newberg:
I got it.
Male Neighbor in Dispute:
You got nothing. I just got money and my ID. Can I give that money to my fiance?
Newberg:
No.
Male Neighbor in Dispute:
Well, y’all better not talk about money, though.
Newberg:
Shut up, dude. You’re getting annoying.
Male Neighbor in Dispute:
I mean, y’all’s annoying.
Newberg:
Just take your charge.
Male Neighbor in Dispute:
I’m taking it.
Newberg:
Yeah.
Taya Graham:
So as you heard there, the infamous Newberg credo, “Take your charge.” In other words, “Forget about your rights or if you’re innocent, just accept the fact that I am the law and you are subject to my whims.” But Newberg is not finished. Not hardly. Just see for yourself.
Male Neighbor in Dispute:
My fucking arm! You got my arm all twisted!
Newberg:
Handcuffs are not made for comfort, sir. Put your feet in the vehicle.
Male Neighbor in Dispute:
You put my hands straight.
Newberg:
Put your feet in the vehicle.
Male Neighbor in Dispute:
Can you switch this cuff, please?
Newberg:
Put your feet…
Male Neighbor in Dispute:
I just need to put my hands straightened and I’m good.
Newberg:
Okay, well the problem is you keep inciting the rest of the crowd. So you need to… No, you are, you’re inciting a riot. Get in the vehicle.
Taya Graham:
So I ask you, is he really inciting a riot? Can’t the police at least accommodate him so he’s not in pain? Apparently, not in this land of law enforcement run amuck. It seems to me that the police are trying to enforce silence, if not obedience. It’s a push for street supremacy that escalated when police tried to make yet another arrest.
Woman in Dispute:
All he said was you ain’t shit without that badge.
Newberg:
Get out of the street! You’ve been warned! I have units in route! Whoever does not live in this block will be going to jail! I’m giving you a lawful order! I don’t care! Until we clear this scene and make it safe! Everybody’s out of here!
Second Woman in Dispute:
Police [inaudible 00:09:41].
Newberg:
You talking to them. When these units get here, people are going to go in handcuffs. I can guarantee it. And, ma’am, you’re going to be the first one to go.
Taya Graham:
Okay. So now Newberg has basically threatened to arrest the entire block. Forget the fact that standing on the sidewalk does not require a residency test. Forget that the right to peaceably assemble prevents police from effectuating just a sort of arrest. Neither Newberg nor his fellow officers seem to care.
Newberg:
Say one word!
Woman in Dispute:
[inaudible 00:10:21]
Newberg:
Let me tell you something. You want to be a show off? You can join the other two that’s going to jail.
Second Woman in Dispute:
She needs to…
Newberg:
No, you need to mind your business! Don’t walk up here and run your mouth!
And if I do?
Try it! Do it! Go ahead. Go ahead. Yell at him. I dare you.
Second Woman in Dispute:
[inaudible 00:10:38]
Cop 2:
Take her.
What are you doing?
Newberg:
You’re making a fool of yourself.
Second Woman in Dispute:
I want to leave. Get up.
Newberg:
No, you’re going to jail.
Second Woman in Dispute:
Y’all are hurting…
Newberg:
You’re going to put your hands behind your back. Let her go. Let her go.
Second Woman in Dispute:
Don’t push me like that.
Newberg:
Then walk away while you still can! Take her out of here!
Speaker 9:
Come on. Come on, come on. Come on. You got your car…
Taya Graham:
Then, after failing to arrest the woman, who again was simply exercising her right to push back against the government, police arrest another woman for reaching into the police car to get her keys. All of this is due to the initial illegal arrest that put her in the predicament of having to retrieve her keys in the first place. A perfect example of the cascading effect of bad policing. Just take another look
Newberg:
Young! Well, hey, Cisco, do me a favor, let’s tow this truck out of here. It’s blocking the whole thing. What are we doing with her? What are we doing with her?
Cop 2:
I don’t know. She decided to reach in the car and not…
Newberg:
Oh, that’s lovely.
Cop 2:
It’s up to you.
Newberg:
No, you cannot! You can walk away!
Cop 2:
[inaudible 00:11:58] multiple times to go to the end of the block.
So you want me to order a tow for that?
Newberg:
Yes.
Cop 2:
Okay. Where are you going if those cuffs come off?
Second Woman in Dispute:
Home.
Newberg:
Where’s home?
Second Woman in Dispute:
Down the street.
Newberg:
So those cuffs come off, you’re walking down the street?
Second Woman in Dispute:
Well I planned on driving down the street.
Newberg:
No, well that’s off the table.
Cop 2:
That’s off the again.
Newberg:
So you have two choices, jail or walk away, which one you want?
Second Woman in Dispute:
I need my truck.
Cop 2:
Okay.
Newberg:
All right. So she needs to be transported then.
Cop 2:
Okay. All right.
Newberg:
To jail.
It’s your call. I mean, I can’t understand what’s happening here. They’re definitely going! Oh, they’re gone! Just few… They came up here to start trouble and now they’re going to jail.
Taya Graham:
And then Newberg decides that as a final insult to injury, he will continue to taunt that victim of his illegal arrest in jail. Just watch.
Newberg:
Okay.
Cop 2:
Hang on.
Newberg:
Search him.
Cop 2:
Hot Spot. Check [inaudible 00:13:19] Avenue.
Newberg:
Is your ID in here?
Male Neighbor in Dispute:
No. You got it.
Newberg:
Got it. All right. Well that’s a charge.
Cop 2:
Oh yeah, felony. It’s you said?
You said, “Yeah. Okay?”
Male Neighbor in Dispute:
I didn’t say nothing. I just said okay. [inaudible 00:13:52] Y’all had no reason to lock nobody up. Nobody did nothing.
Cop 2:
Y’all know each other?
Newberg:
Don’t explain anything to him. Just… It’s over.
Male Neighbor in Dispute:
It’s over for your badge. That’s all.
Newberg:
Stay on for the other one.
Taya Graham:
And that final video illustrates a point about a so-called “minor” arrest that I think is worth illuminating. In the end, that minor arrest leads to an innocent person being locked into a dirty, filthy, tiny cage. A moment without dignity that I believe the public must see to understand that there is nothing minor about an arrest, because it always ends up with someone, somewhere, locked in a cage.
So let’s watch that again and keep in mind that no arrest is inconsequential.
Newberg:
You got the ID on him?
Cop 2:
You want his ID, too?
Newberg:
Mm-hm.
Cop 2:
That’s his.
Taya Graham:
But there is more to this story than just the questionable actions of Ethan Newberg and his fellow cops, details that my reporting partner, Stephen Janis has been digging into during our ongoing investigation into what was going on behind the scenes and the possible motive police had for trying to keep this video secret.
Stephen, thank you so much for joining me,
Stephen Janis:
Tay, thanks for having me. I appreciate it.
Taya Graham:
First, Stephen, we have been trying to get this video for over two years, but the state’s ombudsman, the official of last resort when the keeper of records, in this case the police department, refuses to release those records. So this ombudsman gave us some very troubling reasons for not releasing the body camera footage. Can you talk about it?
Stephen Janis:
It was almost like we were talking to the police department, which it turns out we were, because I did a little research. Now this ombudsman is, you said it’s supposed to be the person of last resort, you appeal to when your MPI request is turned down. But she ended up making the argument that releasing this body-worn camera before Newberg was sentenced would prejudice the judge.
Now this is evidence, so this is very strange. So I did a little background check and it turns out the ombudsman is actually under the auspices of our Attorney General. In other words, our ombudsman represents law enforcement, and that’s exactly what went down when we spoke to her.
Taya Graham:
So do you think the release of the video prior to sentencing would’ve affected that outcome that Newberg did not receive jail time?
Stephen Janis:
Okay, Tay, I’m going to be a bit of a skeptic and say the judge wouldn’t have done anything, but the public would’ve seen it, and perhaps that would’ve put pressure on the justice system to do its job in this case, which I think is to hand out a fair sentence based on the crimes committed, which were extensive. S.
O I think the judge had already decided he was not going to give Newberg anytime, which he didn’t. But I think if the public had seen it and there was public pressure, it would have made a big difference.
Taya Graham:
I thought the video was a good example of why there is really no such thing as a minor arrest. What’s your take?
Stephen Janis:
Well, it’s amazing because as you watch the video, and as we just showed it, there’s a young woman who’s trying to retrieve the keys for the truck from one of the young men he arrested, and then Newberg hassles that woman and threatens her with arrest. But the point is that he’s got his keys, they take his possessions, and then they’re going to tow the truck.
So a family, for an illegal arrest, is out of its transportation for who knows how long they have to pay to get it back. So as you can see, one arrest can sow chaos throughout an entire family and the community. I think this is a perfect example.
Taya Graham:
Interestingly, Baltimore has returned to a form of quality of life arrests. How is that working out?
Stephen Janis:
Well, I would call Zero Tolerance life. They’ve been writing summons for people supposedly who commit quality of life arrests like drinking on a sidewalk or spitting on a sidewalk. There haven’t been that many citations written. Almost none, actually. It’s just really performative and I think it shows again that law enforcement can’t solve complex social problems like poverty in Baltimore, or crime, or whatever. You need the community and the people.
Taya Graham:
The Baltimore Police Department has been rocked with a series of scandals, including the Gun Trace Task Force, which was eight officers who robbed residents, dealt drugs, and stole overtime money right out of the taxpayer’s wallets.
How does Newberg’s issues fit into the broader picture of a police department be set with such corruption? Well,
Stephen Janis:
Well, Tay, I think it’s really interesting because we talk about big corruption like dealing drugs by officers and things like that, but it’s like the minor corrupt culture of police that we see in Newberg’s videos that it’s important to recognize. 14 cops standing around and arresting a guy who has a drug problem, five or six cops around arresting a whole community that’s having a minor dispute, that’s the real corruption that we have unleashed policing in these communities that can least afford it and deal with it, and expect it to solve the problems of poverty, low wages, all sorts of other things. The fact that people can go broke when they get sick, all those things can’t be solved by policing, and when you send them in to do that, you get Ethan Newberg style of policing. And I think that’s why these videos are so important to watch and why we will continue to bring them to our viewers.
Taya Graham:
Okay, now I think there is quite a bit to unpack about the video we just watched. Truisms about American policing that are often overlooked during the debates over the role of police and the broader powers of law enforcement, which is a topic of our show today.
Generally speaking, when political parties spout tough on crime narratives, they miss a salient point, a hidden consequence of unleashing law enforcement on vulnerable communities that rarely sees the light of day. When law enforcers become lawbreakers, it undermines not just our belief in our rights, but the idea that we are entitled to equal protection elsewhere. In other words, what we often miss when we confront the examples of police abuse we witnessed is how the malfeasance affects our minds. And, to a certain extent, I feel like that oversight is intentional. That is the psychological effect of over policing is simply dismissed as a byproduct of law enforcement obsessed political establishment, but it’s also something that needs to be addressed because caging our minds can be just as bad as caging our bodies. So I’m going to address this idea right here, right now.
Let me start with a story. It’s about a Mississippi sheriff’s drug unit who, believe it or not, called themselves the Goon Squad. Now this particular unit was quite adept at something far field from policing. They were, in fact, practitioners of terrorism. How can I make this claim?
Well, consider some of the facts that have been recently exposed regarding how this unit operated. And I have to warn you, this is graphic. In their efforts to allegedly make drug arrests, this unit of sheriff’s deputies committed acts that would be more akin to a fascist’s torture. They choked an innocent man with a lamp cord and then waterboarded him. They tasered another man while he was stuck in a ditch full of water. They conducted illegal raids in the middle of the night, often handcuffed and interrogated innocent people, accusing them of holding or dealing drugs without evidence. Sometimes all of this unconstitutional intimidation was done while the victims were staring down the barrel of a gun.
Oh, and the man they tasered while he was submerged in a ditch full of water, eventually they shoved a stick down his throat until he coughed up blood. But here’s the kicker, this type of unacceptable behavior continued unabated for nearly 20 years. That’s right, for more than two decades, this group of so-called law enforcement officers pretty much acted like an extra judicial tribunal, meting out punishment and intimidation in violation of every precept of our legal system.
In fact, as the New York Times reported, this behavior would’ve gone on unchecked if not for a grizzly incident that occurred in 2019. And I do need to give you a warning that I will describe graphic violence.
2019, roughly five deputies stormed into the home of Michael Jenkins and Eddie Parker, falsely accusing them of dealing drugs. Deputy Hunter Elward then proceeded to unholster his gun and shove it into the mouth of Mr. Jenkins. He then inexplicably pulled the trigger, seriously wounding him. This all occurred after they were both forced to strip naked and were abused with sex toys. I’m serious. But, believe it or not, it actually gets worse.
That’s because the sheriff in charge of the so-called Goon Squad expressed disbelief that this type of abuse behavior was happening at all. Rankin County Sheriff Brian Bailey said, and I’m quoting, “Never in my life did I think this would happen in this department.” Never? In a department that has less than 50 employees, you had no idea? Turns out that this particular sheriff must have been managing a different department, because an investigation by the Mississippi Center for Investigative Reporting, along with the New York, Times found allegations of similar brutality going back to 2004. That’s right. For almost 20 years, the Goon Squad had been terrorizing the community while committing crimes all in the name of law and order.
Allegations that the so-called law enforcement community apparently knew nothing about. And I say “apparently” because this excuse that the people who are charged with administering justice simply did not know about a large unit of cops regularly committing crimes strains, not just credulity, but logic itself.
And you know what? That’s also because it’s so familiar. I’ve heard this line almost every time a scandal like this comes to light. And what I think this excuse reveals comes straight from the How To Use Law Enforcement to Sow Chaos in Communities playbook, a few pages from the operating manual they use to keep the engine humming for the American law enforcement mayhem machine.
So let me try to explain why this is an outright lie, and it’s more than just camouflaging the truth, and share what it says about the actual imperative that drives these units to commit crimes with often unfettered impunity.
First, we have to understand one aspect of the structure of law enforcement that often goes unexamined. A police department is essentially a military organization operating, technically, at the behest of a civilian hierarchy. That is, all police departments are structured around the command and control of a military style hierarchy with oversight by civilians.
That’s why officers are often designated for military ranks like sergeant, lieutenant, captain, et cetera. And that’s why civilian control of the police is considered such an important element of reform. It’s also how police departments are managed, by ranking officers who give orders which the rank and file are expected to obey, no questions asked. This means that regardless of circumstance, those same rank and file officers are acting under the orders of supervisors regardless of what the top brass says when things go awry.
So all of this begs the question, why would a top-down command structure be unaware of the actions of officers who are subject to direct orders? Why would an organization, allegedly under the auspices of military style management, be able to run amuck without anyone knowing?
Well, aside from the fact that often the people in charge are simply lying, I think there’s another factor that makes a continued drumbeat of specialized unit in scandal after scandal emerge from the apparent shroud of mystery that surrounds law enforcement leadership. It’s a factor that’s routinely underestimated with the mainstream media and political elites hand wringing over, “How could this have happened?” fairytale, they tell themselves, not us, when the news breaks about a veritable torture unit masquerading as police.
Put simply this unit targeted impoverished areas just like Sergeant Newberg, just like the notorious Gun Trace task force that robbed residents and dealt drugs in Baltimore, just like most of these cases, they all occur in places struggling or suffering from poverty. Whether it be the big city cases I just mentioned, or the rural community subject to the Goon Squad, bad policing is focused primarily on poor and working class neighborhoods. This is as true for Mississippi as it is for Baltimore. Meaning when it comes to unleashing the power of bad policing, the worst of it tends to trickle down.
Now that’s perhaps not such a surprising revelation. The idea that our political elites would seek to unjustly punish the working class is hardly breaking news. What’s perhaps less understood is why, and that’s what I’m going to break down for you here, and I’m going to do so by making a point about something that may seem tangential, but is actually part of the reasons cops like to cause chaos in communities that can least afford it. The topic is social security, the trust that is supposed to, in part, fund retirement for working people that is apparently on a path to run out of money? The meager benefit for people who work their whole lives that apparently over promises to workers and needs to be curtailed, or otherwise altered, to ensure that it has enough money to cover the benefits that were earned by hard, backbreaking work.
Well, guess what? One big reason social security is underwater is due to this, generous benefits to the rich. That’s right. Unlike other countries, like the United Kingdom and the rest of Europe, which limit what the top earners can take from the system to keep it sustainable, the US grants benefits that, in some cases, exceed $117,000 per year for the highest earning couples. That’s three times what the same couple will receive in Britain, the contrast is so extreme that the Cato Institute, that’s right, the Cato Institute, which incidentally is no bastion of liberalism, called our Social security system, a “golden parachute for the rich.”
The point they make in the report is that the richest Americans, just like their counterparts in the UK, don’t need the extra money, which is why the cap exists in England. The point of this pension system, and supposedly ours, is to make sure every American who retires does not become impoverished. But our system actually does the opposite, it enriches the already rich.
And before you start saying, “Oh, Taya the rich pay more so they deserve more.” Just stop. It’s not true. That’s because our social security system has a cap, meaning you only pay into social security tax on a maximum of $168,000 in annual earnings. So a person who earns $50,000 a year pays multiple times more on social security tax on a person who makes $500,000 a year. Let me say this another way. The richer you are, the less you put in the system. Every dollar you make over $170,000 a year is not taxed. This also means that if the cap were lifted, and everyone was taxed at the same rate, rich or poor, the entire system would not just be solvent, but might even be overfunded.
But the reason I bring this up in a rant about law enforcement is simple, the elites are ripping us off and they don’t want us to know. They’re literally burdening us to pay welfare for the rich and they don’t want us to focus on just how bad a deal it is. Instead, they want us to focus on crime, how bad it is, how out of control it is, how many new punitive laws we need, how we need to pay cops more and more, and spend more money on law enforcement.
It’s a nice compact misdirection play. “Don’t look over here while we’re writing bills that tax you more than the filthy rich so they can retire in luxury while you go broke buying insulin or trying to afford an EpiPen. Don’t stop fixating on that crime because if you do, you might realize we’re being fleeced and call for change and more fairness in this system.” Now we wouldn’t want that, would we?
The point is, the powers that be want to keep us confused, off balance, and fighting for our rights instead of demanding more. They want us to be pleading for mercy from the militarized units that terrorize our communities rather than saying, “Wait a second, you want me to pay more taxes than a millionaire?”
I find it hard to believe they just didn’t know that deputy sheriffs were breaking the law on a daily basis. I think it was purposeful, willful ignorance, because that was the point, to have our rights degraded, and to make our minds pliable, and worn down and ultimately make us psychologically unable to demand better. In sum, they simply want to imprison our minds. That’s why videos like the ones you just watched need to be revealed. That’s what the so-called scandal in Mississippi, portends. That our ability to imagine something better is imperiled. That’s why we need to fight back for it because freedom, our freedoms, started with a thought, an idea, and we need our minds clear and our imaginations free to define these freedoms. We, the people, need to be the ones to define it, not a bunch of rogue cops.
I’d like to thank the Baltimore City Police Department for giving us the body camera footage that gave us such powerful insights into the culture of policing. And of course, I want to thank Intrepid reporter Stephen Janis for his writing, research, and editing on this piece. Thank you, Stephen.
Stephen Janis:
Taya, thanks for having me. I appreciate it.
Taya Graham:
And I want to thank mods and Friends of the show, Noli D. and Lacey R. for their support. Thanks to you. And a very special thanks to our accountability report, Patreons, we appreciate you, and I look forward to thanking each and every one of you personally in our next live stream, particularly Patreon Associate Producers; John E.R., David K., Louis P., Lucy Garcia, and super-friends Shane B., Kenneth K., Pineapple Girl, Matter of Rights, and Chris R.
And I want you watching to know that if you have video evidence of police misconduct or brutality, please share it with us, and we might be able to investigate for you. Please reach out to us. You can email us tips privately at par@therealnews.com and share your evidence of police misconduct. You can also message us at Police Accountability Report on Facebook or Instagram, or at Eyes on Police on Twitter. And of course you can always message me directly @tayasbaltimore on Twitter or Facebook. And please like and comment, I do read your comments and appreciate them. And we will have a Patreon link pinned in the comments below, so if you feel inspired to donate, please do, because anything you can spare will truly appreciated.
My name is Taya Graham and I’m your host of the Police Accountability Report. Please, be safe out there.
Speaker 5:
Thank you so much for watching The Real News Network, where we lift up the voices, stories and struggles that you care about most and we need your help to keep doing this work. So please, tap your screen now, subscribe and donate to the Real News Network. Solidarity forever.
This story originally appeared in In These Times on March 11, 2024. It is shared here with permission.
Federal charges ordinarily cover matters of national reach: immigration, voting rights, racketeering. Not in Indian Country. Tribal members frequently find themselves in federal court for all sorts of allegations— not just serious crimes, such as murder, but lesser offenses, like burglary. Once in federal court, they face sentencing guidelines that are stiffer than if they were tried in state court, where non-Native cases are generally heard. Diversion, probation and other mitigation actions, typical of state courts, are also less common, as is a jury that includes their peers, which is to say, other Natives.
As a result, Native Americans receive significantly longer sentences than non-Natives for similar crimes and many sources have cited a statistic indicating they are 38% more likely to be behind bars than anyone else. Native detainees are also, on average, younger, more likely to be women and have less criminal history than the federal prison population at large.
More than two decades ago, the U.S. Sentencing Commission — the independent agency within the Department of Justice (DOJ) that defines sentencing policies and practices for federal courts — first met to address these disparities. The differences are baked in by laws and Supreme Court decisions that date back more than a century — in particular, to the Major Crimes Act of 1885.
Still on the books, the Major Crimes Act established federal jurisdiction over a swath of on-reservation crimes — if the defendant is Native. This jurisdiction, which results in many crimes by Natives on reservations being tried in federal court, effectively ensures greater sentences for Natives than non-Natives committing similar crimes. It’s one of the clearest manifestations of the U.S. government’s long and ongoing efforts to dominate Indigenous nations.
The Sentencing Commission found, for example, that, on average, an assault conviction in a South Dakota state court that carried a 29-month sentence got 39 months in a federal court. The spread in New Mexico was wider: six months versus 54. Similarly, the state court sentence for a sexual-abuse conviction in South Dakota could be 81 months, as opposed to 96 in federal court. In New Mexico, it averaged 25 months versus 86.
A rare image of the jury in Crow Dog’s trial in Deadwood, S.D. COURTESY OF DEADWOOD HISTORY, INC., ADAMS MUSEUM COLLECTION, DEADWOOD S.D.
CROW DOG AND THE MAJOR CRIMES ACT
On Aug. 5, 1881, gunfire rang out on the Rosebud Sioux Indian Reservation, Dakota Territory, as Kangi Sunka, or Crow Dog, shot dead rival tribal leader Sinte Gleska, or Spotted Tail, as the latter was leaving a tribal council meeting. Local newspapers covered the story continuously — and in great detail — from the initial incident through the final court decision two years later.
After the shooting, the tribe directed Crow Dog to re-establish community harmony by giving Spotted Tail’s family horses, money and a blanket. When federal officials called for his arrest, Crow Dog, accompanied by a Rosebud chief, turned himself in at a nearby Army fort and was arraigned in Territorial Court in the town of Deadwood.
Prosecutors alleged Crow Dog ambushed Spotted Tail, shooting him from the cover of his wagon. For his part, Crow Dog testified he was behind the wagon because he was fixing its undercarriage. Spotted Tail apparently thought Crow Dog was lying in wait and aimed his pistol. Crow Dog saw this, grabbed his rifle and fired.
Meanwhile, Crow Dog’s wife and baby were on the wagon’s seat during the incident — which raises the question: Who brings their family to a gunfight?
Crow Dog’s lawyer, who worked most of the case in return for a few ponies, filed a plea of self-defense. He also challenged the Territorial Court’s jurisdiction over on-reservation offenses committed by tribal members. How the trial ended and the ensuing political maneuvers reverberate to this day.
As Crow Dog’s trial progressed, many Deadwood residents came to believe that Crow Dog had not set out to kill Spotted Tail. Instead, they thought the two men had defended themselves simultaneously in a confusing and fast-moving event. Crow Dog was simply faster. They thought he would be acquitted or, at worst, found guilty of manslaughter. Instead, Crow Dog was convicted of murder and sentenced to hang.
Meanwhile, the Bureau of Indian Affairs and other federal officials had been case-shopping, according to City University of New York law professor Sidney L. Harring in the American Indian Law Review. In particular, they wanted a situation that would give the United States control of tribal justice. A few cases were considered, but Crow Dog’s seemed most likely to spur Congress to act: Spotted Tail was a prominent tribal leader who was widely understood to support negotiation with the federal government on important matters, and his death could be sold as a loss to the United States.
At the same time, the United States was looking for cheaper ways than war to separate Indigenous people from their land. By the estimate of Carl Schurz, a Union Army general who became Interior Department secretary in the late 1800s, the government spent $1 million per death in training, equipping and fielding an army for its battles against Natives. The 1883 Congressional Record shows Congress allocated just $1,000 for the Crow Dog case. After this minimal outlay, the confinement, incarceration and execution of Natives would be established in federal law.
Though 19th-century Deadwood was a tiny frontier town on the western edge of present-day South Dakota, it was well acquainted with celebrities and celebrity trials. Calamity Jane, Wild Bill Hickock and other notorious gunfighters lived, loved and shot each other there. In 1876, a drifter named Jack McCall was tried in Deadwood for killing Wild Bill in a poker game. Five years later, local newspapers were ready — and eager — for Crow Dog’s trial.
About a month after the shooting, the Black Hills Weekly Pioneer reported “at least one hundred pairs of eyes” had gathered to watch Crow Dog arrive at the Deadwood jail. Weeks of thrilling “fake news” in the Weekly Pioneer and Black Hills Daily Times postulated just how the killing could have — must have — occurred. Both tribal leaders were given disparaging nicknames, “the old dog” and “old spot.” Onlookers were expecting a fearsome scoundrel.
Then, Crow Dog appeared. Immediately described by the media as handsome with a pleasant smile, he was quickly re-labeled the “distinguished Sioux” and lauded as brave, reliable and honest. His good looks should impress the jury, confided the Black Hills Daily Times. Held in the Deadwood lockup, Crow Dog enjoyed ample meals “well cooked and cleanly served” and was allowed dinner guests, according to the newspaper. He whiled away his time by making scrapbooks and issuing much admired Deadwood weather predictions.
In a prequel to today’s red-carpet coverage, readers learned that one day Crow Dog wore to court a Native-style shirt, leggings and matching blanket. On another, he sported an outfit fashionable today — dark blue sports jacket over dark blue shirt and trousers, no tie. The newspapers carefully recounted the testimony, attorneys’ objections and judge’s rulings, along with overtly racist comments from the jury. One jurist declared the testimony of one white man was worth more than “one hundred Indians.” Another said he had “been pretty badly scared by them.”
Some courtroom attendees were pleased that Crow Dog would pay for the shooting with his life. Others hoped the verdict would establish federal jurisdiction and hasten the Dakota Territory’s transition to statehood. Many were shocked by what they saw as double jeopardy, which the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment forbids. The tribe had already resolved the tragedy according to its own law with Crow Dog’s restitution to Spotted Tail’s family. How could the United States try Crow Dog again?
After Crow Dog was sentenced to hang, his lawyer filed an appeal. In 1883, the Supreme Court vacated the conviction, opining that tribes retained the right— as an attribute of their sovereignty — to be governed by their own laws. When Crow Dog was released, he walked through Deadwood, shaking hands with his many well-wishers and accepting gifts: winter boots, woolen socks, a heavy coat and more. He dined with his lawyer and the lawyer’s wife.
None of them saw the trap. Deadwood had little communication with the East Coast in those days, and officials in Washington felt free to falsely claim there had been a “public outcry” when the Supreme Court freed Crow Dog, according to Harring. Interior Department officials lobbied Congress for more power over tribal nations, describing them as lawless and ruled by “blood revenge,” according to Chickasaw tribal citizen Kevin Washburn, dean of the University of Iowa College of Law and former assistant secretary of the Interior for Indian Affairs. They claimed federal legal oversight would provide tribes with increased public safety. “Though this justification was based on false and misleading information, it has proven the most durable,” Washburn explains in an article in the North Carolina Law Review.
When the Major Crimes Act became law, in 1885, it let the federal government reach deep into tribal nations, control their judicial systems, degrade public safety and destabilize their communities. The list of crimes covered has lengthened through the years, and the law has been bolstered by Supreme Court decisions declaring that Natives have no jurisdiction over non-Natives.
THE ONGOING STRUGGLE
The aggressive attempt to assimilate tribal members that followed the Ex parte Crow Dog decision “ranks as one of the great legal atrocities in the United States, equal to the Dred Scott case and the internment of U.S. citizens of Japanese descent in concentration camps,” writes Harring. A high-profile example of the vast disparities in sentencing that result, cited by the Sentencing Commission and others, followed the death of a baby on a North Dakota reservation in the late 1990s. The baby’s mother was convicted of second-degree murder and received a 10-year federal-prison sentence, which was affirmed on appeal — but not unanimously.
In dissent, Judge Myron Bright, of the 8th Circuit, argued passionately that the circumstances surrounding the child’s mother — who wrestled with mental illness and had endured constant and even near-deadly physical and sexual abuse since age 5— meant the death should not have been charged as “murder,” but as “neonaticide,” a crime that takes the mother’s state of mind into account. “Now her lifetime of travail becomes magnified by an unjust and improper prison sentence,” Bright wrote.
Bright also insisted that, had the child and mother not been Native and the death not occurred on a reservation, the mother would not have gone to prison. Indeed, a nonNative North Dakota college student, who was convicted in state court for her role in her child’s death at about the same time and did not appear to have suffered many of the extreme experiences the Native mother had, received a sentence of three years’ probation. “I find it gut-wrenching when I am asked by a family member of a [Native] person I have sentenced why Indians [receive] longer sentences than white people who commit the same crimes in the same location,” says Judge Ralph R. Erickson, the chief District Court judge in North Dakota, who helped lead the Sentencing Commission’s research efforts in 2015. But, he wrote in a later report, “differences between state and federal sentencing law mandate the difference.”
The U.S. justice system has long operated differently for different groups. The Black Lives Matter movement put that issue on the national agenda, asserting that people of color and those from marginalized populations face separate and unequal judicial hurdles and impacts. It stands true for Indigenous communities, whose history of exclusion is so little understood, whose contemporary struggles are so little covered in the media, and who have the law applied to them in such complicated ways. For Native Americans accused of crimes, like Black Americans and others, the judicial system is punitive, capricious and unrelated to conventional notions of justice.
Mind-boggling jurisdictional convolutions, along with lack of data, help drive the confusion around Indigenous sentencing. Laws regarding Indian Country justice accreted over the centuries such that who is in charge of a case (the federal government, a state or a tribe) now depends on the Native or non-Native status of the alleged offender and victim, the type of offense and where it is said to have occurred, among other factors. Fair, impartial and clearly defined judgments are absent, and judges openly acknowledge it. “Ask virtually any United States District Judge presiding over cases from Indian Country whether the Federal Sentencing Guidelines are fair … and I believe the answer would largely be the same: No,” U.S. District Court Judge Charles B. Kornmann wrote in an article in the Marquette Law Review.
CASES IN POINT
“I find it gut-wrenching when I am asked by a family member of a [Native] person I have sentenced why Indians [receive] longer sentences than white people who commit the same crimes in the same location,” says Judge Ralph R. Erickson.
Attorney Charles Abourezk, now chief judge of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe Supreme Court in South Dakota, was part of a legal team that successfully defended tribal council members of the nearby Pine Ridge Indian Reservation. U.S. authorities had charged the council members in the early 2000s with “felony failure to pay rent,” arrested them very publicly, and dragged them out in ankle chains, Abourezk said. If convicted, each faced as many as 25 years in federal prison. At issue was how the council members had calculated rent for on-reservation properties, some of which they rented themselves. The members calculated prices according to market value, but the federal government claimed they should have figured the charges based on a renter’s income. If they had, they would have likely owed more for the properties they were renting. According to the federal government, they were in arrears and should be imprisoned.
To non-Natives, the melodrama of the charges, threatened sentences and arrests may sound preposterous. They’re not, says Joseph Holley, chairman of the Te-Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone Indians in Elko, Nev. Because a tribe’s reservation is held in trust by the federal government, Holley explains, something seemingly innocuous can be magnified into a federal offense. After years of drama, a judge dismissed the charges against the Pine Ridge tribal council members, noting the United States abolished debtors’ prisons long ago. The U.S. Attorney’s Office in South Dakota declined to comment, according to victim witness specialist Ace Crawford.
In a 2021 report from DOJ, “Indian Country Investigations and Prosecutions,” Attorney General Merrick Garland declares the department is “committed to partnering with Tribal communities, governments, courts, and law enforcement agencies to help reduce crime and support victims.” To this end, DOJ has given tribes grants, access to national information resources and more. The DOJ report also describes the impossibility of accurately documenting the efforts or determining their impact on Native people. When the Sentencing Commission met recently, it noted that crafting solutions required data it didn’t have— especially from states with large Native populations. So it would be impossible “to complete a robust comparison of the sentences received or served by non-Indian and Indian defendants in federal and state courts,” according to the commission’s Tribal Issues Advisory Group.
Addressing sentencing disparities would also require addressing the justice system’s vengeful approach to Indigenous people. Consider the cases of Lezmond Mitchell and Leonard Peltier. After a trial beset by investigative and procedural failures, the federal government convicted Navajo Nation citizen Mitchell of “carjacking resulting in death” in 2001. In August 2020, the United States executed Mitchell. Mitchell’s tribe opposes the death penalty on cultural grounds and had asked for Mitchell to be sentenced to life without parole. Instead, he was caught up in the Trump administration’s execution binge. In resuming federal executions after a 17-year hiatus, the administration killed more prisoners than any other administration in the previous 120 years.
The case of prominent Native activist Leonard Peltier is another debacle. With fabricated evidence and shifting charges, Peltier was convicted in 1977 of aiding and abetting murderers who had themselves been acquitted. Peltier, who is of Anishinaabe, Lakota and Dakota descent, was sent to federal prison. He has remained there for nearly half a century. Pope Francis, the late Archbishop Desmond Tutu, the Dalai Lama and others worldwide have called for Peltier’s release.
In 2021, retired U.S. Attorney James Reynolds, who prosecuted Peltier, wrote to President Joe Biden, saying he now realizes Peltier’s conviction was shaped by “the prevailing view of Native Americans at the time.” He urged the president to grant Peltier clemency and “take a step towards healing a wound that I had a part in making.” Peltier’s petition for clemency is again under review, according to DOJ’s Office of the Pardon Attorney. Peltier’s attorney, Kevin Sharp, says he is “more hopeful than ever that something positive will happen.” Sharp credits his optimism to recent public outcries for clemency, along with publicity for gatherings outside the White House in September 2023 for Peltier’s 79th birthday.
JURISDICTIONAL ANOMALIES
While the federal government pursues Natives with allegations of even minor crimes, it ignores many serious crimes occurring on their homelands. Joseph Holley of the Te-Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone Indians puts it plainly: “There’s no definitive line about how [Native] people are going to be treated by the law.” This unpredictability destroys confidence in the justice system, says Tanya Reynolds, council member of the Te-Moak Tribe’s South Fork Reservation, in Spring Creek, Nev.
Restrictions on tribal jurisdiction have made Native nations into crime magnets, attracting non-Native criminals expecting to operate without scrutiny. American Indians and Alaska Natives are more than twice as likely as all other races to be victims of violent crime, often at the hands of non-Natives, according to the Association of American Indian Affairs and the National Institute of Justice. Amnesty International has found that about 30% of Native women are raped in their lifetime and are more than twice as likely to be raped as white women; about 86% of the perpetrators are non-Native men. Wyn Hornbuckle, deputy director of DOJ’s Office of Public Affairs, wrote in an email to In These Times that the justice department’s “efforts to enhance public safety and sovereignty of Native Americans … accelerated significantly after the passage of the Tribal Law and Order Act in 2010 and continue today.” That law aims to, among other things, increase the number of law enforcement officers on tribal lands.
Luella Brien, the Apsáalooke founder and editorin-chief of Four Points Press, covers news on her Crow Reservation, in southeastern Montana. She knows of dangerous non-Native perpetrators — drug dealers, human traffickers and more — hiding out on reservations. Thanks to limits on tribal jurisdiction, she says, “Non-Native criminals feel safer on the reservation.” William Main, of the Aaniiih and a former chairman and tribal-court lay advocate of the Fort Belknap Indian Community in north-central Montana, reports that non-Natives tell him, “reservations are havens for criminals.” He agrees, explaining “It’s not the Indians [they’re] a haven for.” There aren’t enough federal agents, says Main, and they are slow to respond to emergencies. The Oglala Sioux Tribe, of the 3.1-million-acre Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, sued the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) in 2023 over inadequate policing for its 30,000 members. Only about 30 officers and seven criminal investigators patrol an area nearly the size of Connecticut. The business committee of the Ute Tribe, of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation, tells In These Times that, at most, three BIA officers patrol its 4.5 million acres in Utah.
The Supreme Court upheld the limitations on tribal jurisdiction in 2021 in United States v. Cooley. The lawsuit was based on the events of a cold February night, when a tribal police officer came upon a truck stopped on a lonely Crow reservation highway. The officer wondered if the vehicle’s occupants needed assistance. What he found was a non-Native driver with red eyes, slurred speech, bags of meth, wads of cash, loaded guns and a toddler. The officer contacted state and federal officials, and the driver was eventually charged in federal court with drug trafficking. His lawyers convinced lower courts that the tribal officer had exceeded his authority. The Supreme Court disagreed, saying the tribal officer could apprehend the driver — as long as he handed him over for further investigation. In sum, the federal government doesn’t protect tribal communities, and the tribes aren’t allowed to, according to attorney Brett Lee Shelton, responsible for the Indigenous Peacemaking Initiative of the Native American Rights Fund. “Undoing the Major Crimes Act and related laws and court decisions is essential,” says Shelton, who is from the Oceti Sakowin Oyate (Great Sioux Nation) and enrolled in the Oglala Sioux Tribe. Getting the federal government to reverse course will not be easy. For decades, it has supported tribal self-determination in education, healthcare, environmental regulations and more — but not criminal law, Shelton says, adding that determining the needed resources for that would be a massive, community-by-community effort.
CIRCLES OF TRADITIONAL JUSTICE
Amnesty International has found that about 30% of Native women are raped in their lifetime and are more than twice as likely to be raped as white women; about 86% of the perpetrators are non-Native men.
The way the Rosebud Sioux Nation handled the killing of Spotted Tail — before the U.S. government got involved — is an example of Indigenous justice. Also known as peacemaking, Shelton says these approaches prioritize healing. They were once emblematic of Native communities worldwide, and many — in the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and beyond — are reviving them as far as national law allows. “We tend not to throw people away — to throw them into prison,” says Shelton. He adds that Indigenous cultures understand that a misdeed arises from imbalance, which can be corrected through restitution, apologies and community service. “We ask what we can all do together to help each of the people involved.” The goal is healing perpetrator, victim and community.
The success of this approach is apparent when comparing recidivism rates between recipients of federal sentencing and of traditional Indigenous justice. The Federal Bureau of Prisons reports 45% of released prisoners are back in custody within a few years. In contrast, Shelton says, compliance rates in the United States for peacemaking participants tend to be in the 90% range. Laurie Vilas is a peacemaker with the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe in Minnesota. A citizen of the White Earth Nation, also in Minnesota, Vilas welcomes those involved in a case into a circle. This approach is based on time-honored Indigenous talking circles, in which each person talks in turn, uninterrupted, then the group seeks consensus. She encourages participants to craft their collaborative decision making with essential Indigenous values — love, respect, courage, honesty, humility, wisdom and truth. By holding onto their traditional values, Indigenous communities have endured unimaginable depredations. “They’ve tried in every way, shape and form to get rid of Natives,” says Reynolds of South Fork. “They have not succeeded.”
The Native American Rights Fund and Indigenous Peacemaking Institute provided source material for this article.
From Assata Shakur to Leonard Peltier, social movements have lifted up political prisoners as revolutionary examples and fought protracted, often decades-long campaigns to secure their release. Now, a new collection from AK Press, Rattling the Cages: Oral Histories of North American Political Prisoners, gathers the experience and wisdom of some 30 political prisoners in one place for the first time. Eric King and Josh Davidson, the editors of the project, join Rattling the Bars to discuss their new book and the urgency of the fight to free political prisoners.
Josh Davidson is an abolitionist who is involved in numerous projects, including the Certain Days Collective, which publishes the annual Freedom for Political Prisoners calendar, and the Children’s Art Project with political prisoner Oso Blanco. Josh also works in communications with the Zinn Education Project.
Eric King is a father, poet, author, and activist. He is a political prisoner serving a 10-year federal sentence for an act of protest over the police murder of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, in 2014. He is scheduled to be released in 2024. He has been held in solitary confinement for years on end and has been assaulted by both guards and white supremacists. King has published three zines: Battle Tested, Antifa in Prison, and Pacing in My Cell.
Studio / Post-Production: Cameron Granadino
Transcript
Mansa Musa: Welcome to this edition of Rattling The Bars, a show that amplifies the voices of people who are disenfranchised, marginalized, and subjugated, while offering solutions. I’m your host, Mansa Musa. The powers that be say we don’t have political prisoners in America; They say this isn’t a country where people are imprisoned for their political beliefs, but I can tell you from firsthand experience, that the reality is very different. Recently, I spoke with Josh Davidson and Eric King about a book they have co-edited entitled Rattling the Cages: Oral Histories of North American Political Prisoners. This book brings together the experiences and wisdom of over 30 political prisoners in North America.
Josh Davidson is an abolitionist who is involved in numerous projects including the Certain Days Collective, which publishes the annual Freedom for Political Prisoners calendar, and the Children’s Art Project with political prisoner Oso Blanco. Josh also works in communication with the Zinn Education Project. Eric King is a father, poet, author, and activist. He’s a former political prisoner who was incarcerated for an act of protest over the police murder of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri in 2014. He was held in solitary confinement for years on end and was assaulted by both guards and white supremacists. King has published three zines: Battle Tested (2015), Antifa in Prison (2019), and Pacing in My Cell (2019).
All right. Thank y’all for joining me on this edition of Rattling The Bars, Josh Davidson and Eric King. Let’s start by talking about the book. The name of the book is Rattling the Cages: Oral History of Political Prison. That’s right. Why? Why this book? And you might have an audience saying, well, there are hundreds of books, hundreds of memoirs, hundreds of narratives dealing with people that are locked up – Why this particular book at this particular time? Let’s start with you, Josh.
Josh Davidson: That’s a great question and thank you, Mansa. This is a story that needs to be told. It’s a collection of almost 40 interviews with people who are in prison or have spent time in prison for political reasons. As with all people in prison, they don’t tend to have a voice, and it’s hard to get your voice out when you’re in prison. The interviews that we included not only show love and compassion and a depth of humanity but also non-stop resistance to the system, which is always inspirational and always needed. It was an idea that Eric came up with from the very belly of the beasts, from the inside of some of the worst prisons in the country. He saw that humanity was still there and he wanted to capture it. Eric, I’d love to hear your thoughts on it.
Mansa Musa: Right. Both of us have been in this space. Eric, I did 48 years before getting out, and we interviewed you and we recognized that because of your commitment to freedom and justice and struggle, you were ultimately locked up for being involved in the resistance movement. Then after getting locked up, once they got you in the system, they really tried to kill you; Their goal was to kill you. The fact that you’re here on this camera is a miracle. From your experience when you were in the system, why did you see the need and the necessity to try to get this information out to society?
Eric King: My brother. Thank you, thanks so much for having me on as well. When I was inside, I was reading a lot of books about political prisoners and about prisoners in general and those books lifted me up. They gave me strength, knowing that other people have been through certain things and that I’m not alone in this struggle, and I also wanted to learn more. I thought it could be beneficial for the next generation to know that their elders went through similar things but that also the prison system didn’t crush us inside.
That we were able to grow as people, that we were able to grow as organizers, that we were able to have friendships and learn things; Not because the prison system gave it to us but because we took it from them. We insisted upon it. That we’re not going to become these puddles of mud to be stepped on; We’re going to become these tall oaks. Thomas Manning died and I remember thinking to myself, he had so much knowledge and wisdom and it’s gone now. I wanted to make sure that we could get that knowledge and wisdom from as many of our elders and peers as possible to share with the next generation.
Mansa Musa: Tell our audience who Thomas Manning was so we don’t take for granted that our audience nationally knows who he is.
Eric King: Thomas Manning was a political prisoner, he did approximately 30 years or so. He was a member of the UFF and he was at ADX and the Supermax for a couple of years, and he got brutalized by the police for fighting against the apartheid system in South Africa. He fought against that inside America with Ray Luke and a few others. His body was destroyed by the police and he ultimately died of a heart attack at USP-Hazelton in 2018 or 2019, I believe.
Mansa Musa: Okay. We want to send our regards out to his family even now. I see y’all had Angela Davis write an intro to the book. When they locked her up back in the 70s, they wrote a book called If They Come In the Morning, by Angela Davis and other political prisoners. To resonate with the point you made, Eric, in the book she made the observation of the comradery that grows out of the prison system when it comes to – Prisoners in general but – Political prisoners being in that environment. Josh, when you were interviewing, did you get that sense? I see the way you set the book up, you identified a political prison, and then you set up prison life, politics, the prison dynamics, and looking forward. In your interview, did you get that sense of how people related to each other in terms of the comradery that grew out of that wretched decadent environment that we found ourselves in?
Josh Davidson: Yes, absolutely. Great question. Great, great question. Angela Davis published that book, that collection of political prisoners, 50 years ago. Now we’re publishing this one with a foreword by her, and the struggle is still the same. And I think that we see that in all the interviews. Everyone talks about not only the comradery that comes with doing time with fellow political prisoners and politicized prisoners but also once they get out, working together through the bars, across the bars to make changes happen and to make a better world. That comes across clearly throughout most of the interviews.
Mansa Musa: Right. Eric, you’ve been to ADX, you’ve been everywhere they could put you other than in the ground. I’m not saying that lightly because anybody who knows your story knows that and knows that this was because of civil disobedience. It wasn’t because you went down there, stormed the Capitol, and killed everybody. You weren’t with that crowd. You weren’t with the crowd with the person who assaulted five police in the Capitol and was given five years for that attempt to take over the country. But you sought to… As a matter of fact, I’m going to let you tell your story about why you wound up in prison.
Eric King: So when I first got locked up, I was locked up after the uprising in Ferguson when the pigs killed Michael Brown. In my city, I was an anarchist – I’m still an anarchist – And I participated in that sort of activism. Activism that I thought would build a unified community. I saw a lack of concern or care when this happened; No one took to the streets and no one confronted the police. So I went to Ferguson for a couple of days and I saw what was happening down there. I saw the military presence, I saw the white power militias backing the police like they were one family, and I saw the genuine hurt and rage in that community. And that affected me.
I went back to Kansas City and I thought, I need to bring awareness of what’s happening to people in other communities because it’s happening in our community too, it’s just not getting to the news. Police kill poor and Black people everywhere. So I thought the best way to get attention for that was to cause a stir. I took two Molotov cocktails and threw them into the congressional building of our local congressman. I let it be known this is a solidarity act with those that are fighting down the road in Ferguson and I ended up getting 10 years in federal prison for throwing those bottles.
Mansa Musa: Right. Recently, I read where Dr. King said that we’re obligated to respect just laws but we also have a right to protest against unjust laws by any means that we deem necessary. So we recognized at that point, that it was an all-out war, as it is now, it’s an all-out war on poor, Indigenous, Black, and oppressed people. And your act merited 10 years as far as they thought, but if you went down to the nation’s capital with Molotov cocktails – Because remember, they found Molotov cocktails down in the nation’s capital – You’d have gotten five years or you’d have got a congressional medal of honor for being a part of that attempt to overthrow this country.
Let’s unpack some of the political prisoners and some of the stories. I recall that I was in constant correspondence with Jalil Muntaqim and Sundiata Acoli back in the 70s. We used to organize and take the problem with the prisons to the United Nations. They were organizing all the prisons throughout the US. Our collective, the collective that we had in the Maryland penitentiary, took on the mantle to organize a protest with everybody around the country and the world, simultaneously. We had a designated date. I was responsible for corresponding with Jalil and Sundiata. After that was over, back in the 80s, they were bringing a law withhold; They were transporting it from one point of the country to another point. And Jalil had written me and told me that a comrade was coming to Baltimore, that she might need some help because they sent her to the woman’s detention center.
So I did what I was supposed to do: I had somebody reach out to her and let her know if she needed something. To fast-forward the story, when me and Eddie were locked up in the institution he said, I’m going on a visit and I’m going to see… I said, who are you going to see? He said I’m going to see Laura Whitehorn. I said, I know her. He said, well, how do you know her? Now I’m telling him about the story I just told y’all. And so we went down there and he told us, oh yeah, I know that comrade. Fast-forward, all of us were out and had the ability to be out. Eddie had a thing called Eddie’s Front Porch where we used to come together with Laura, and different comrades. When you interviewed Laura – Now she’s out doing some remarkable work up in New York – What was your takeaway, Josh?
Eric King: Josh, real quick. What you just said, that story is the exact reason why I wanted to make this book. That history, that’s priceless and it’s so empowering. Josh, go ahead. Sorry, I didn’t mean to interrupt you. My bad.
Mansa Musa: No, you’re good. You’re good.
Josh Davidson: Yeah, no, no, you’re good. Laura Whitehorn is an amazing person. She did, I don’t know, 20 years related to the resistance conspiracy case starting in the 1980s. And she helped co-found RAPP, Release Aging People in Prison. I had met Laura a few times before, especially working to get a lot of the elder political prisoners in New York out, like Jalil Muntaqim – Who you mentioned – David Gilbert, Herman Bell, Seth Hayes, so many of them that RAPP helped to get out. And also running into Laura and Susie at Red Emma’s with Paul Coates and then Eddie Conway over the years.
Laura’s a great one to bring up as an example because she’s so vibrant, so full of stories of radical history, and she’s such a tiny, small person, but she’s so full of love and anger at a system that is endlessly horrible to people across the world. She also does a great job of bringing humanity into the prison system. She talks about protesting on the Baltimore jail roof and communicating with people out on the street. She talks about doing AIDS work with other political prisoners around the country in the 80s. And she hasn’t stopped doing that work. She was involved while they were underground –
Mansa Musa: Yeah, that’s the good thing. Eric, you are working in the law office right now. And that’s the thing about this book, the impact that political prisons have. Huey Newton – And we were talking about this off camera – Wrote an essay called To Die for the People. In his essay, he talks about how when people are in prison, you have two types of prisoners. He identified two types of prisoners: Prisoners that become politicized or are already political when they go in. But they all become politicized while they’re in. Then he talked about prison, he identified it as illegitimate capitalists that hold on to the idea of getting money or having some prominence under the capitalist ideal.
At any rate, he’s saying that the goal of prison is to change a person’s thinking. It’s not effective in any of that. Eric, talk about your experience and how some of the people that you ran across in the system were politicizing other prisons and how the presence of you and other prisoners had an impact on that environment. Talk about that.
Eric King: So real talk, most of the time I did, I didn’t have the privilege of running across other consciously-minded people. It was difficult because we want to make a difference and we want to fight against this system inside. You do have to put in a lot of patient work. You have to have a lot of hard discussions to get people to understand that sometimes what they’re doing inside is furthering the system. It’s empowering the system, it’s not empowering ourselves. We’re giving them bullets to shoot us with when we do some of this shit as opposed to trying to tear down these walls.
So I did have the chance to help radicalize a few people. I saw solidarity inside a lot of times where we were able to build relationships and then ride with each other against the system; Whether it be hunger strikes, barricades, or taking the team over something. I also got to meet a lot of people from different backgrounds that in the free world I probably wouldn’t have met: A lot of people from Baltimore, DC, and then a lot of Jihadi folks.
Getting to know other people’s stories, getting to know their lives, their passions, and hopes and dreams, helps me be a better activist. Now we can ride together as people, as opposed to I’m a political prisoner and you’re a drug dealer. Now we can ride together on a common cause. We’re just two men inside fighting for our freedom. So I didn’t get a chance to meet as many… I don’t think there are as many inside anymore as there were in the 70s and 80s. But I got to meet a lot of great people, have a lot of great discussions, and hopefully uplift their consciousness and help people move forward.
Mansa Musa: And that’s what I was talking about is –
Eric King: Oh, here we go.
Mansa Musa: – Your impact on… Because that’s the narrative of the book. The narrative of the book is you lock people up. Fred Hampton said you can kill a revolutionary but you can’t kill a revolution. You can’t kill the spirit of the revolution but you can kill a revolutionary. But that’s what you had talked about: Your impact on people. When you come in contact with people, that it’s your consciousness, your ideology, and your perspective of what the system is.
And educating people on understanding that you have the prison-industrial complex and you’ve got slave labor. Why are we not getting living wages? Living in prison doesn’t mean that we’re not entitled to living wages. Then that got people to start looking in prison to start identifying and looking at the conditions through a different lens. But they started looking at it from a different lens because of us and the people that were in [prison]. Back to you, Josh. What do you want the people to take away from these stories and this work?
Josh Davidson: That’s a great question, Mansa Musa. If nothing else, I hope that this book arms the spirit. I hope that activists, organizers, and people in prison read this book.
Eric King: Arms the spirit.
Josh Davidson: Yes. And that’s another throwback to the 70s and the 80s –
Eric King: The book.
Josh Davidson: – Movement thing. But yeah, I hope that people read this book and learn that there aren’t monsters behind the walls. There are people fighting back against an unjust system that, not only do they not deserve to be there, but we can learn from them, with them, and we can grow together and we can make our movements stronger together. You brought up the structure of the book and how it talks about prison life and politics and prison dynamics and then looking forward, and I did that in a way to make it easier to maneuver and to read through the book. But I also based it on prison visits, visiting all of these elders throughout the years, learning from them, learning the history that they have, and how involved they can be in current movements too.
Mansa Musa: Right. That’s a good way to articulate that. Making the observation that when you talk about revolutionaries and political prisoners, we have humanity like everybody else and oftentimes it’s not expressed, it’s not being written about. We are in an artist-type situation, we’re in a struggle. Eric, you found yourself in ADX and isolated in the cell when they brought these three racists in there and they tried to do some unconscionable thing to your body. And you don’t have a choice of being able to say, what am I going to do? Fight and die? Like Claude McKay said, back pressed against the wall, dying, but fighting back. But your book shows the humanity of political prisoners and revolutionaries and that’s something that we need to emphasize more. Eric, what do you want our audience to know about you and the people that you left behind?
Eric King: So when you say the people that I left behind, I’m going to talk about the men at ADX.
Mansa Musa: Okay, come on.
Eric King: I feel as if the abolition community has forgotten about the Supermax folks. There are people locked down right now who have been locked down for 10, 15, and 20 years at ADX, and a lot of them will never touch their family members again; A lot of them will never touch their wives or hold their kids. Some of them aren’t allowed phone calls, they’re not allowed visits, they’re not allowed mail. That restriction is so brutal that it can rip your heart out. But what I saw meeting these men is that resistance, that fire, is still there. There’s a bro I left, his name is Shaheed, and he’s from DC. He was one of Silk’s homies out there, Wayne Perry. And Wayne Perry also, honestly. But this dude’s been at ADX for 16 years – He’s only 39, so that’s almost half his life. He’s in 24-hour lockdown. And the reason he is locked down is because he refused to bend a knee to these pigs.
So the resistance, the revolutionary spirit doesn’t go away. He still reads Free Minds every day: That organization from DC that sends in magazines. These people still care, still have hearts, still have passions, still have hobbies, and still have joys. We need to see that the prison system tries to take that away; Prison tries to crush these people. And it’s on us, it’s on the abolition movement, to say we’re not going to give the government that power. We’re not going to let you bury our brothers and sisters for decades. And we need to rise up and try to stand with these people, stand with everybody that’s resisting the system.
Mansa Musa: Thank you. Yeah, there you have it. The Real News and Rattling the Bars. Eric King and Josh Davidson, thank you for joining me. We encourage our viewers and our listeners to reach out to the political prisoners throughout the country and try to get a better understanding of what’s going on with people who are in prison only because of their ideas. We found ourselves in this country in a time where what you thought would get you locked up. This is taking place today. We thank y’all for coming. Continue to support The Real News and Rattling the Bars because guess what? We really are the news. Thank you.
The system of mass incarceration in the US offers few second chances to prisoners, and Maryland is no exception. As The Real News has previouslyreported, the state’s parole system puts incarcerated people at the mercy of an inefficient, capricious process that is unlikely to deliver a speedy release for many. Now, a new bill in the Maryland legislature could create new pathways to freedom for prisoners who’ve served 20 years or more behind bars. Alonzo Turner Bey and Desmond Haneef Perry of the MD Second Look Coalition join Rattling the Bars to discuss the Second Look Act (SB123).
The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. A proofread version will be made available as soon as possible.
Mansa Musa:
Welcome to this edition of Rattling the Bars: A podcast that amplifies the voices of people who are disenfranchised, marginalized, and subjugated while offering solutions. I’m your host, Mansa Musa. Maryland is currently in its legislative session and today, we are discussing two important bills proposed by the Second Look Coalition, which focuses on sentencing reform. Joining me to discuss these, are two formerly-incarcerated organizers from the coalition, Desmond Haneef Perry and Alonzo Turner-Bey. Thank you for joining me.
Desmond Haneef Perry:
All right. Thank you for having me, bro.
Alonzo Turner-Bey:
All right. Thanks.
Mansa Musa:
All right. Let’s educate our audience on the legislative process. So the legislative session in the state of Maryland has convened and it’s in the process of looking at a series of bills around the interest of the state. What’s of interest to the Second Loop Coalition is specific bills as it relates to men and women that are incarcerated. One bill in particular that the Second Look Coalition is sponsoring and trying to get people to become more aware of is Senate Bill 123. All right. Haneef, first, tell us a little bit about yourself.
Desmond Haneef Perry:
All right. Thank you for having me on here, bro. My name is Desmond Haneef Perry. I’ve been home now, out of the division of corrections, for almost two years. I came home back in May of 2022. I was incarcerated when I was 18, and I did a total of 20 years and 78 days. I was a lifer — I had life plus 15 years. I successfully won a post-conviction so that’s how I was able to obtain my freedom, but also because of something that we’re going to talk about when we get into talking about the bill.
And talking about the significance of the Second Look bill, I’m from Prince George’s County originally, and because I was convicted and sentenced in Prince George’s County, I would say it’s that I had the benefit to have Aisha Braveboy as my state’s attorney. Her program that they have right now, the Sentencing and Conviction Integrity Unit was also a means that I benefited from to be able to get out and it’s somewhat connected to what we’re talking about here today. I’ll go on a little bit more about that, but I am also a forensic peer specialist right now. Since I’ve been home, I’m so humbled to have opportunities like this to be able to speak to the public, share my story and my experience, and also the things that I’m advocating for, like this particular bill right here.
I’m a forensic peer specialist with the Maryland Office of the Public Defender. I’m also the co-founder of a reentry nonprofit organization called Rectify, which is focused on trauma-informed peer support and clinical case management, helping individuals return home equitably, and being treated with decency and given the things that they need. So that’s what we’re doing now.
Mansa Musa:
Okay. Turner-Bey, before we unpack this bill, tell our audience a little bit about yourself.
Alonzo Turner-Bey:
My name is Alonzo Turner-Bey. I was arrested and convicted with a charge of a homicide when I was 17 years old. I was serving a sentence of life plus 5 years at 17 years old. I served 31 years, 6 months, 15 days, and 5 hours. I was released on parole on October 16, 2020 after serving over 31 years. Since I’ve been out, I’m a certified peer recovery specialist for a local county agency and I volunteer with a nonprofit organization called F.R.E.S.H, Fully Restoring Every Sons Hope. We go around the country teaching our youths about knowing their rights and how to interact with law enforcement in a manner where everybody can walk away with their life, safe, and — What’s the name — Teach them about their Fourth Amendment, Fifth Amendment, Sixth Amendment rights. We also feed the homeless.
We work with men and women who come home from prison and help them get reacclimated. Right now, we currently are doing a clothing drive for a nonprofit organization called Momma’s Safe Haven, where we are collecting clothes for women and children ’cause they work with battered women who leave their situation with nothing — They leave with the kids, they get up in the middle of the night, and they roll. So we’re trying to make sure that these women got clothes for going on job interviews and these children got clothes so they can go to school. We’re trying to help the women get back. One thing you know like me, Mansa Musa, for women who are in our situation, in prison or have been in prison, they don’t get as much attention and focus as the men do. So at Fully Restoring Every Sons Hope, we want to help the sisters out as much as we can. So we’re working with this battered women’s organization and we’re trying to provide some clothes to these women and these children and the everyday things they need.
Mansa Musa:
Okay. This opens the door for the conversation about the bill. We recognize that the women that’s incarcerated, in the state of Maryland in particular and the country general, don’t get treated nowhere near the treatment that men get. And if men get mistreated, then what’s that say about what women are getting? Today we’re looking at the legislative session being convened and we are looking at a bill that the Second Look Coalition is endorsing and sponsoring. It’s Senate Bill 123. All right. Haneef, explain what Senate Bill 123 is for the benefit of our audience.
Desmond Haneef Perry:
Thank you. In a nutshell to keep it quite simple, Senate Bill 123 is our version of what we call a Second Look bill. This bill for the state of Maryland is a bill that would grant an individual the opportunity to come back for a relook at their sentence after the individual has served 20 years of incarceration. This bill doesn’t discriminate in gender, this bill doesn’t discriminate in age, nor does this bill discriminate in offenses of any type. One of the things that we emphasize with this bill… We’re saying that if an individual has served 20 years of incarceration and that person has demonstrated that they deserve a second chance, that they have reformed, that they have done all of the things that they could possibly do — They’ve went to school, got an education, college degrees, they’ve completed all types of cognitive behavioral programming, they’ve been somewhat of a model inmate in regards to their infraction record, and they held jobs — They’ve demonstrated throughout the 20 years that they have changed, that they’ve gained the remorse and empathy that we all are looking for in such tragic crimes, that this individual should be given a second look.
His or her case now should come up before a judge and they should be given an opportunity to look at that individual and determine whether they want to reduce that individual’s sentence and give this individual a second chance. Again, we’re saying this is the second chance for all in the state of Maryland. We want the public to be aware that there are some other bills that are advocating for something similar to what we’re advocating for, however, these bills are not for everyone. One of them is focused on geriatric individuals, individuals who are 68 years old and above. Another bill is focused on giving the prosecutors the ability to bring these individuals back up. We know that can be problematic if we don’t have a complete bill that is saying, hey, look, it’s simple: 20 years or better with a great institutional record, 20 years or better demonstrating that they have reformed and gone above and beyond, then this individual should come back up.
We should be looking at their cases and reexamining it not from the perspective of the offense and the crime, because that’s one of the things that can’t change. That’s something that we like to elaborate on and talk about is that we cannot revisit that person’s offense and say, well, because of the nature of the offense or because of the offense that took place, now we’re looking at all of the good that the person has done, this man or woman has done, and we’re going to say, well, because of that, it outweighs their good, as if they’re irredeemable. It’s something that we feel like, man, it shouldn’t be done. But basically in a nutshell, this particular bill is that it’s a second chance for all; 20 years of better, a person should be able to come back up for a relook at their sentence.
Mansa Musa:
Turner-Bey, as Haneef just outlined, it’s a bill for all. Okay, we recognize that, and we recognize that it’s all hinged on if a person has a significant amount of time they have served. I was looking at the bill — Unpack this bill, if you can, about some of the factors they’re going to take into account in assessing once the person has filed a petition with the court to get a modification or to get their sentence free. Turner-Bey, talk about some of the things that the court is going to be looking at in terms of making their determination. So that it won’t just look like, well, a person did 30 years or a person did 20 years, filed a petition, said they’ve been doing good, and ain’t got no tickets. Okay, that’s all good. Now they get out. Is that the gist of it, or is it going to be a more in-depth analysis on the part of the court, Turner-Bey?
Alonzo Turner-Bey:
It’s going to be a more in-depth analysis. Let’s get this understood; We’re talking about a person who’s doing 20 years day for day, not including good days. 20 years day for day. When they came into incarceration, they got their GED, they may have went to anger management, they went to Thinking For a Change, they’ve been to all of these programs that aid in the system in becoming a better individual — They went to school, they have veiled their self to every opportunity. They have worked, they have changed. We’re going to look at their family. When a person puts a petition to a court, let’s get this clear, it is not a guarantee that you’re going to be released.
Desmond Haneef Perry:
I forgot to add that.
Alonzo Turner-Bey:
This bill does not give a guarantee release. All it says is you’ll be given the opportunity to present your case before a judicial body. A judge can say, okay. Right now, you’re serving life plus 20 years. You’ve been locked up since you were 18. Okay, we’re going to take and cut your life to 50 years. Then you may go for parole in another 10 years. So it’s not guaranteed that you’re going to be released. The judge can cut your sentence to a point where you don’t have life. You can have 50 years. You can have 60 years. He can reduce your sentence based upon how he looked at your record. Victims will be notified in this case, so it’s not —
Mansa Musa:
Yeah, talk about that.
Alonzo Turner-Bey:
— This bill does, in fact, have victim notification in it. If you have a crime or a case where there is a victim, the victim will be notified by the state’s attorney’s office and will be informed that you have petitioned the court and you have ask the court for a reduction of sentence. And the victim or the victim’s family or representatives will be given an opportunity to appear before this court and say what they want to say. Whether they are for it or they’re against it, they will be given an opportunity.
Mansa Musa:
Let me ask you this, Turner-Bey, then Haneef, you can weigh in on too. Okay, I’m going to push him back. In the Maryland prison system, we’re talking about introducing a bill that says if you serve 20 years that you have a right to petition the court to have your sentence reviewed. I served 20 years, I’m eligible for parole. Why do I need a law to say in addition to this, I served 20 years, I got a right to modification when I first come into the system. When you juxtapose these things to what you’re talking about with this bill, how do these things gel, Turner-Bey? Because I’m seeing they do have, in the state of Maryland, different situations where a person can gain relief post-conviction. Haneef just talked about he filed post-conviction and got released. So why do we need another law or bill to come out and say, yeah, well, we going to give you preferential treatment?
Alonzo Turner-Bey:
No, let’s get it understood. We are not saying a right, you don’t have a right. We’re saying we are giving you an opportunity. Parole is an opportunity to present yourself before two commissioners or two agents to give an opportunity to see if you’re worthy or should be given or granted parole. The first modification that any person get after incarceration, you must be filed within the first five years of your incarceration. If a person is serving a sentence of life in prison, there’s no judge on the face of the earth after your first five years of incarceration, that is going to give you some type of relief or modification. Why? Because you have not demonstrated before that court that you are not the same person you were five years ago. They want you to do some time for the crime that you have committed. So we have come to the conclusion that 20 years day for day, not including diminishing credit, 20 years from the date of your arrest all the way up to now, then you become eligible. This is not a right, you become eligible.
It’s not guaranteed that you will be released. We look at 20 years because we’re saying that after being incarcerated 20 years, if a person goes in prison and does everything that he or she is supposed to do to aid and assist in their rehabilitation process, their changing of their mindset, their thought process, and educate their self, after 20 years, this person should not be the same person they were when they came to prison regardless of what their age is. This is not a guarantee. It only presents the court with an opportunity to consider and weigh in all of the factors and then making a decision from a judicial process and saying, hey, this person may deserve an opportunity but I ain’t going to give them the complete opportunity today. So what I’m going to do is I’m going to reduce your sentence. You’re serving life with parole, well, I’m going to reduce it to maybe 50 years.
Mansa Musa:
Okay. Okay.
Alonzo Turner-Bey:
So over 50 years you go back up and see the parole board and then the parole board may make a determination and say, hey, come back in three years. Come back in five years. It’s not a guarantee —
Mansa Musa:
All right. Haneef, come on.
Desmond Haneef Perry:
— Go ahead.
Mansa Musa:
Let me ask you this then you can go ahead and say that.
Desmond Haneef Perry:
Go ahead. Yes, sir.
Mansa Musa:
Okay. Why do you think this bill is important in terms of the mindset of the prison population in the state of Maryland? What do you think this bill represents for them?
Desmond Haneef Perry:
I believe first and foremost, this bill represents hope, and that’s something that we have to continue to give individuals who are incarcerated. Me coming from that setting… First let me say it like this because Turner-Bey touched on some things that I want to piggyback off of before I go into this. But it definitely represents hope, and this is the reason why. For those in the public who may be wondering, why are we pushing for this? Because there are other mechanisms set up for an individual, as we currently speak, to be able to petition the court to come back for some type of reduction, modification, or review of sentence. There’s no doubt about that. However, when a person has done a substantial amount of time, you end up exhausting all of those remedies, sometime before 20 years.
You’re exhausting all those remedies because everything has a time limit and a deadline that you have to get those things in. Just like Turner-Bey talked about, if you have the right or ability to file a modification of sentence in the state of Maryland, but there’s a five-year cap on it, then what? That means you get to that five years and there’s a possibility that you go up for that modification you’re not going to get it because you didn’t have enough time to demonstrate that you have reformed or that you have changed. That’s a significant thing. The number is very significant. A person may look at it like, okay, it’s 20 years. Some people may look at that and diminish that, but 20 years in reality as we know, that’s a generation. 20 years is a generation, we’re talking about a person who has been incarcerated for an entire generation of their life.
That’s key that we point that out. And that this mechanism would be a mechanism that will give individuals hope. One of the things that we don’t want to do with our individuals who are incarcerated is take away that hope. Right now, the US — And Maryland as being one state in part as we know — Incarcerates more people than anyone else on the face of this earth. Let alone that, as we now have determined, the Office of the Attorney General and the Office of the Public Defender have come together because the numbers in the state of Maryland are out of this world. It’s unacceptable that we make up 29%, 30%, or some say 31% of the population in this state, but we lock up 71%. You know what I’m saying? That doesn’t make sense.
Mansa Musa:
That math is crazy.
Desmond Haneef Perry:
That doesn’t make sense. That math is crazy and that’s not even talking about the math for the entire country. So when we’re talking about this right here and this particular bill, this bill does a lot. It gives individuals who are incarcerated something to work for, something to strive for. Like myself, for example. There’s no doubt about it, man, that had not these two things happened by the permission of God, I would not be sitting here right now talking to you. For one, I had a post-conviction and my post-conviction was denied. First and foremost, my post-conviction was denied. I filed an application for leave to appeal and the higher courts overturned my case and then the lower court granted me post-conviction relief.
The prosecutors, even after that, wanted to retry me and reconvict me again even after the higher court said, no, there was an egregious prosecutory misconduct issue here. Constitutional right was violated of this young man and you need to correct that. However, the prosecutor still wanted to prosecute me; that particular assistant state’s attorney at that time. Had it not been for something that… The only thing going on in the state of Maryland right now is that Aisha Braveboy and her team put together a Sentencing and Conviction Integrity Unit, which is similar but not quite the same to what we’re talking about right now. What they did was they put together a unit that would go and look at the individual’s constitutional record and look at how long they’ve been locked up and seeing what they have done to determine whether they would want to give them that second chance.
Mansa Musa:
You outlined your situation and how much time and what you’ve done, but put on top of that, you’ve done over 20 years. So the reality is that you’re demonstrating what this bill is representing, you and Turner-Bey are proof positive of that. Even if we take out of the equation the post-conviction, if we take out of the equation that Turner-Bey got relief, even we take that out the equation how I got relief, and put into the equation a 20-year cap or opportunity for men and women to petition the court to look at me and look at my circumstances and see if I’m worthy to be released. Turner-Bey?
Alonzo Turner-Bey:
Yes.
Mansa Musa:
Talk about how you see this bill going forward. Because you got your ear to the ground. How do you see this bill going forward? What are y’all saying?
Alonzo Turner-Bey:
This bill is imperative. We’ve got to look at this. As a whole, people of African descent make up less than 30% of the population in Maryland, but we make up 78% of the prison population. The JRA does not affect anybody who comes to prison at 18.
Mansa Musa:
For our audience, what’s the JRA, if they don’t know the acronym?
Alonzo Turner-Bey:
The Juvenile Restoration Act is a bill that passed in 2021 for individuals who are under the age of 18 and are serving long sentences. After 20 years in prison, they can come back, petition the court ,and ask to have their sentences reviewed. This is the exact same thing but for those who are 18 years and older. There are individuals that I know — Just like you know, Mansa Musa — Who came to prison two days, three days, or a week after their 18 birthday. So they missed the Juvenile Restoration Act. They have been in prison for 30, 40, or even 50 years, as first-time offenders. The bar ain’t set low, the bar set high in this bill. The bar is set high, but if you meet this and you have done everything that you’re supposed to do, we are saying that this bill will allow you the opportunity to present your case to a judicial body, to a sitting judge, and have the judge review your case and make a deciding factor in writing on why they’re going to give you some relief, and they’re going to spell it all out.
The average person is not just going to be released. You’re going to be given some parole, some probation. You’re going to have some restrictions that you’re going to have to do. There’s a lot, it’s not an immediate answer. Some people won’t get a relief, they may get a reduction, but some people may get turned down. So let’s look at all of the ramifications. This is not an opening of the valve, but the Maryland prison system need this because we’re behind Mississippi and Alabama when it comes to locking up people of African descent. As small as Maryland is, we are behind Mississippi and Alabama, so this is imperative.
Mansa Musa:
Listen, all of us been in that system. All of us been in that system when they locked it down. All of us been in that system where they had no program. All of us been in that system where we had to create our own program. Haneef, going forward, how do you look at the bill? What is the Second Chance Coalition advocating? How people can support the effort of trying to get some support and more importantly, get the legislative body in Maryland to be receptive to voting? I think today they had a hearing on it to get people receptive on passing this bill.
Desmond Haneef Perry:
First and foremost, everyone, whoever is listening to this, and if you’re interested in learning more about it, you can go to the Maryland Second Look Coalition’s website. On there you can see more about the bill. Secondly, if you would like to, after you have read it, if you agree with it, and if you heard something today that we’ve said that you agree with, then the next step is to reach out to your representative. The next step is to reach out to the senator, delegate, or congressman or woman in your district. Reach out to them and let them know that you want them to support this bill, that you are asking them to support this bill. Make that phone call. It’s very simple, it’s very easy. You can look it up and find out who in your district is the person that you need to go to no matter where you are in the state of Maryland, and you can ask and request they support the House bill for the Second Look Act and the Senate bill for the Second Look Act.
Mansa Musa:
Turner-Bey, as we close out, I saw in the bill where they talk about the role of the state’s attorney and the prosecutor. It has in there that the prosecutor can either agree with the request or disagree with the request. But you have a relationship when you get out, you build a network and you build a relationship with the prosecutor’s office. Let it be known so they can be aware of the importance that you have, in terms of helping people, and more importantly, to be able to give other people coming behind you the opportunity to see that they got the same rights that you got. Talk about how you think that’s going to play out, mainly in PG County or the state of Maryland in general. How do you think the prosecutors are looking at this bill?
Alonzo Turner-Bey:
Every prosecutor is looking at this bill. Every prosecutor is looking at it because let’s be real, the prosecutors get a say. This bill makes sure that the prosecutor gets a say. Some prosecutors are going to say no to some cases. Some prosecutors may say yeah to some cases. Some prosecutors may have an offensive mindset because they want stipulations with the reduction of sentence. All of that is welcome.
Mansa Musa:
Facts.
Alonzo Turner-Bey:
Now, nobody is left out. You got a judge, you’ve got victims right advocates, you have the prosecutor, and you have the defendant and his counsel. This is imperative because in my case, Honorable Aisha Braveboy out of Prince George’s County, she sent a letter to the governor and to the parole commission on my behalf. I was the second person that she stood up for and sent letters on their behalf and said she did not oppose my release. Even my trial judge who had retired from Maryland Court of Special Appeals, he came back, because during my trial he called me everything but the child of God, but after he seen everything I’d done in prison and talked to some people, he said, this is not the same person he was at 17, and as his trial judge, I believe he deserves a second chance. So second chances are imperative. Even for us who are believers in God. If you read Acts 9, God gave Saul who later became Paul, a second chance.
Desmond Haneef Perry:
That’s right.
Mansa Musa:
All right. I heard that.
Alonzo Turner-Bey:
I think all of us should look at this bill, and contact our legislators, our state delegates, and our state senators. Call them. Ask them where do they stand on this bill? Explain to them why you think they should support it, and what are your opinions and your views. You don’t have to always have somebody in your family incarcerated to support this, you can believe that we deserve second chances after serving a long, extended period of incarceration. So we ask that the audience educate themselves on this bill and then come forward and let us know your decision.
Mansa Musa:
Haneef?
Desmond Haneef Perry:
This is connected to the humanity of the people, what Turner-Bey is talking about right now. This is something that I’d like to add is that we’re talking about humanity right now. We’re talking about us being human beings when you’re talking about second chances. Every one of us forgets, every one of us makes mistakes. Just like the brother said from a religious perspective, spiritual perspective, every last one of us sins. So it’s no doubt about it, man, that when we have fallen in a situation where we have made a mistake, we want someone to forgive us and get that second chance. So it’s important that we look at this from a human perspective as well. But I want to say quickly — I wanted to make sure that I added this — Is that we already had the oral testimony done for Senate Bill 123 on the Second Look. You can look it up on YouTube. If you go to YouTube and look up the judicial committees hearings, you can find the testimony and you’ll see —
Mansa Musa:
That’s Maryland Judicial Hearings.
Desmond Haneef Perry:
— Maryland Judicial Hearings. And you’ll see, for everyone in Baltimore, that Ivan Bates on record said he supports this bill.
Mansa Musa:
Okay. Ivan Bates is the state’s attorney for Baltimore City.
Desmond Haneef Perry:
Ivan Bates is the state’s attorney for Baltimore City. You will see on record that Aisha Braveboy from Prince George’s County says she supports this bill. So we have prosecutors, individuals who are basically saturated with the responsibility of defending the public and being the representatives and attorneys for the public and victims of crime, they support this bill. Because it is comprehensive legislation of this crisis that we’re living in right now of mass incarceration, especially of Black and Brown people. So the bill is Senate Bill SB 123 and House Bill 724. We have two great sponsors for this bill and I make sure that I put their names out there —
Mansa Musa:
Go on and put their names out there.
Desmond Haneef Perry:
— Because they are doing wonderful work. That is Senator Jill Carter. She is sponsoring the bill from the Senate. And this is the amazing Delegate Cheryl Pasteur. She has sponsored this bill from the House. We are getting great traction and great support with this bill from the public because from a human perspective, everyone understands that a person deserves a second chance. We should be doing that right now for our individuals who are incarcerated in the state of Maryland who have demonstrated that they deserve that second chance — Not because we’re saying we simply want to give it to them. No. As Turner-Bey pointed out, we’re saying because they have demonstrated themselves that they are worthy or deserving of that.
Alonzo Turner-Bey:
We’re asking for them to give the opportunity. No guarantee, only an opportunity.
Desmond Haneef Perry:
That’s right.
Mansa Musa:
Okay. I appreciate both of you brothers for coming in. In the 20 years and 30 years that we talk about, we did a lot of that time together in the most arduous, inhumane conditions. So the fact that we are here advocating for change and advocating for change in a manner such as getting a bill passed, getting some laws passed, and letting our brothers and sisters that’s left behind that we’re trying to create a mechanism where they can have some hope and that your record is going to be what gets you out. Your record got you in and your record is going to get you out. Thank y’all. Thank y’all for joining me today.
Alonzo Turner-Bey:
I appreciate y’all, bro.
Desmond Haneef Perry:
Please visit the website. Visit the website marylandsecondlook.com, marylandsecondlook.com, www.mdsecondlook.com. Visit the website and you’ll see all of it on there.
A group of current and former prisoners have sued the state of Alabama with the support of two unions who have signed on as co-plaintiffs, the Union of Southern Service Workers, and the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union. The lawsuit claims that Alabama’s system of prison labor amounts to a “modern-day form of slavery” that generates massive profits for private businesses and revenues for the state by forcing incarcerated people to work for little or no pay. Jacob Morrison and Adam Keller join Rattling the Bars to discuss the lawsuit and the importance of the fight for prisoners’ rights to the overall labor movement.
Jacob Morrison is a member of the American Federation of Government Employees, and the president of the North Alabama Labor Council. Adam Keller is a member of the International Alliance of Theatrical and Stage Employees Local 900. Together, they host The Valley Labor Report, Alabama’s only union radio talk show.
Studio / Post-Production: Cameron Granadino
Transcript
The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. A proofread version will be made available as soon as possible.
Mansa Musa:
Welcome to this edition of Rattling the Bars, a show that amplifies the voices of people who are disenfranchised, marginalized and subjugated while offering solutions. I’m your host, Mansa Musa. Today we are talking about the return of convict leasing in the United States, and we are talking about why the labor movement and the prison abolition movement need to unite to fight the exploitation of slave labor in prison. A group of current and former prisons have sued the state of Alabama and two unions, the Union of Southern Service Workers and the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union have signed on as Plaintiffs. The suit claim the Alabama system of prison labor is a modern-day form of slavery that forces prisoners to work often for little or no money while generating massive profits and revenue for government agencies and private businesses. I recently spoke with Jacob Morrison and Adam Keller about this issue. Jacob is a member of the American Federation of Government Employees and he is the president of the North Alabama Labor Council.
Adam is a member of the International Alliance of Theatrical and Stage Employees, Local 900. Together, they host The Valley Labor Report, Alabama’s only union radio talk show. Welcome Adam Keller and Jacob Morris to Rattling the Bars. So recently in the state of Alabama, a lawsuit was filed relative to prison labor, more importantly, to what’s called convict leasing. When you think about a lawsuit, and I come out of this space, I was litigious when I was locked up. I did 48 years, I was real litigious when it came to filing complaints. Normally, you have the Plaintiffs and then you had the Respondent. In all prison civil litigation that I ever dealt with in terms of litigation, the Plaintiffs always have the tendency to be people that are incarcerated or formerly incarcerated. The unique thing about this, and something I want to make our audience aware of, is this particular litigation, the Plaintiffs consisted of formerly-incarcerated, incarcerated individuals and union representatives among other civic and social groups. Two of the representatives in the lawsuit or have knowledge of the lawsuit are my guests today. Let’s start with you, Adam. Give us some background on the lawsuit-
Adam Keller:
Sure.
Mansa Musa:
… if you can.
Adam Keller:
Sure. Yeah. So thank you for having me. I’m a labor union activist, and so that’s the perspective I’m taking into this case. When I first heard about it on the news, I was shocked that convict lease labor, which was supposed to be banned in 1928 was still happening. I knew that there was this kind of exploitation happening in Alabama’s prisons because Alabama’s prison system is itself unconstitutional.
Mansa Musa:
Right.
Adam Keller:
It is currently under litigation with the Department of Justice-
Mansa Musa:
Right.
Adam Keller:
Right? For being cruel and inhumane. So I knew it was bad, but you’re exactly right, this lawsuit is interesting because of the combination of forces behind it, right?
Mansa Musa:
Right.
Adam Keller:
We have the Union of Southern Service Workers, which is an SEIU affiliate alongside the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union-
Mansa Musa:
Right. Right.
Adam Keller:
… RWDSU. Listeners may be familiar with them from the famous campaign in Bessemer at the Amazon warehouse. It’s the same union, RWDSU. so they have a vested interest for a few reasons, including the fact that this incarcerated labor is happening at facilities that they’re trying to organize.
Mansa Musa:
Right.
Adam Keller:
So the lawsuit, it’s a class action lawsuit, and what is happening here is that the Alabama Department of Corrections, the ADOC, they are operating what is being alleged to be a convict lease system where they lease out incarcerated workers to public sector employers and private sector employers, and across various industries including fast food franchises, auto supply part manufacturers, a Budweiser distributor, the City of Montgomery, the City of Troy, the Alabama Department of Transportation, so all sorts of industries. What’s happening is that the prisoners are being forced to go to work in these scenarios. It’s not just their choice to do so. They’re being coerced through various means-
Mansa Musa:
Right.
Adam Keller:
… which is described in the lawsuit. When they go to these jobs, they’re being paid less than free-world workers, and if they’re being even paid the legal minimum wage. Even if they are, the Department of Corrections takes 40% off the top. Before taxes, before deductions, before child support, before any restitution, they’re taking 40%. Then they’re charging you fees for every essential service that you use, from transportation to the job, to laundry for the job, you name it, meals, you’re being charged for everything such that if you work $7.25 an hour, 40 hours a week as one of these workers, your “take home pay,” quote, unquote, at the end of the week is less than 90 bucks.
Mansa Musa:
Right. Right.
Adam Keller:
And so what is also being alleged in this lawsuit that I think is an important angle to it is that because this is such a money maker, estimated to make $450 million just in 2023, it’s such a money maker that there’s a vested interest in keeping people locked up and participating.
Mansa Musa:
Right.
Adam Keller:
So the lawsuit alleges that this contributes to the lack of parole that’s being granted to eligible prisoners in the state of Alabama. There’s been a huge decline in paroles disproportionately affecting Black prisoners because you are twice as likely to be denied parole if you are Black in the last few years. So there’s a racial component absolutely through this between the folks being denied parole. You’re also more likely to be Black if you are one of these workers involved in this program, so there’s a lot of angles to it. There’s a lot of money being made. If there’s any silver lining, it is the fact that you see civil rights groups and labor unions and incarcerated folks coming together for this common cause because it is an issue that affects everyone.
Mansa Musa:
That’s where I want to go, and Jacob talk about that because I want our audience to understand that when we’re talking about this particular litigation, and as Adam outlined, some of the signatories to it happen to be industries within society. So talk about that connection, how in that regard, ’cause if I can go to a produce industry and I’m in a union and it is unionized, and I’m saying, “Okay, I want better work conditions. I want better healthcare,” and you tell me, say, “Well, listen, this is what we going to do. We’re going to say F you and go to one of the 62 or 27 prisons on the state of Alabama and get a lot of labor or cheap or none to nothing.”
Talk about that, Jacob. How is this connection between some of the signatures, mainly the union aspect of it, so people in society can understand that when we’re talking about one, you’re paying for the prison, your tax dollars are going to holding that up. But now they taking jobs, they’re not taking the job because they saying, “Well, we’re taking jobs.” They’re saying, “We got an alternative to your labor, and our alternative to your labor is slave labor.”
Jacob Morrison:
Right. Yeah, that’s exactly right. I think that the connection to unionism is pretty intuitively obvious in that if you have a group of free workers who are trying to organize and then you have a group of essentially slave labor that have… What the prison system in Alabama will come back and they’ll say, “They don’t have to. Nobody is forcing them into this labor program.” There are multiple ways that that’s just not true. The least coercive part of that is that if you don’t go out and take these jobs, you have to stay in the prisons in Alabama, right?
Mansa Musa:
Right. Right.
Jacob Morrison:
That in and of itself-
Mansa Musa:
Right. Right.
Jacob Morrison:
… is literally a deadly choice.
Mansa Musa:
Right. That’s right.
Jacob Morrison:
Alabama’s prison systems are the most dangerous in the entire country as far as I can tell. Like Adam said, they have been deemed unconstitutional multiple times. If you read the reporting in Alabama, there’s a death it seems like almost every day-
Mansa Musa:
Yeah, it is. You’re right.
Jacob Morrison:
… there’s a new death-
Mansa Musa:
That’s right.
Jacob Morrison:
… in Alabama’s prisons.
Mansa Musa:
That’s right. That’s right.
Jacob Morrison:
So just in that the most minimal way, it’s extremely coercive. You have every incentive in the world to get out of these prisons as much as humanly possible. Then the second is that when you get into these programs, the lawsuit alleges that when you don’t participate, even when you are sick and you say, “No, I’m sick, I need to stay in my cell, which I don’t want to be in,” everybody knows that you-
Mansa Musa:
Right. Right. Right.
Jacob Morrison:
… don’t want to be there in your cell.
Mansa Musa:
Right. Right.
Jacob Morrison:
“But I need to be for my own health and also for the public’s help, because these prison laborers are being used in industries that you might not immediately think.” You think automotive industry, that sounds strange, but I guess I can wrap my head around it. When you think prison labor, you think chain gangs and-
Mansa Musa:
Right. Right. Right.
Jacob Morrison:
… picking rocks and stuff.
Mansa Musa:
Right.
Jacob Morrison:
They’ve also got people working at Wendy’s, right?
Mansa Musa:
Right. Right.
Jacob Morrison:
So I don’t want sick people handling my food just in general, and they’re being punished not just with, you have to stay at the prison, but there are people being punished with solitary confinement, the lawsuit alleges. So that’s extremely coercive. So going back to the union issue, if you’ve got a group of people that are there in such coercive conditions, I think all of us here recognize that there’s a certain amount of coercion inherent in capitalism, but there are degrees, right?
Mansa Musa:
Right.
Jacob Morrison:
The degree to which a prisoner is coerced to go take these shifts is much higher than the rest of us. So it’s that much more difficult for them to stand in solidarity with other people that are organizing. In fact, I didn’t even realize this, Adam said that it’s downright illegal for prisoners to join the unions in their workplaces where they exist.
Mansa Musa:
Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
Jacob Morrison:
So this huge self-interest outside of, this is wrong morally, obviously, but there’s a huge self-interest for the labor movement to say, “Look, this system is broken. It’s immoral. It’s not good for us, and it’s not even good for the prisoners. There are important things that we can do, and we should be doing to rehabilitate people and give them skills while they’re in prisons to the extent that we have to have them and to what extent that is, we can also talk about that.”
Mansa Musa:
Right.
Jacob Morrison:
But there should be obviously rehabilitation programs, but the way that these are structured are not that. They’re moneymaking schemes for the state and they are undercutting free labor. One last thing, and I’ll kick it back over to you and Adam, but everybody can see the parallels to the convict lease system that arose immediately after the fall of Reconstruction in the Deep South. They called it Redemption. I’ve been reading a book recently about the unionism in the coal mines among Black and white coal miners. It’s so interesting the parallels not only in the dynamics, but in how the unions were fighting against convict leasing all the way back then.
You had as far back as the 1870s Black and white coal miners with first the Greenback Labor Party, then the Knights of Labor, and finally the United Mine Workers in various forms affiliated and disaffiliated with the national organization fighting against convict leasing on moral and practical terms on an interracial basis. To see that happening again in almost exactly the same words is there’s a certain inspiration in that working people are… it’s not just that people have had a sudden moral revelation that all… There are people that have been saying this in Alabama. Alabamians have been saying stuff like this is bad for literally over 100 years.
Mansa Musa:
Right.
Jacob Morrison:
But then there’s also the bleakness of the fact that we have been having to say that for over 100 years.
Mansa Musa:
That’s a good observation because when you look at prison labor, and when you look at it from the perspective that you just outlined how I’m using this, I got an alternative to giving people a livable wage, to giving people healthcare, to giving people a safe workplace, I got an alternative there. Well, look at my alternative. My alternative is I can go get some convicts.
Jacob Morrison:
Right.
Mansa Musa:
More importantly, I can go get Black convicts, I can go get Indigenous convicts. I can go get them and tell them that unless they work, they’re going to be in solitary confinement. Now, the alternative to solitary confinement is you go work, but where you going to go work? You going to work in the coal mine? So then you going to work in the coal mine, you going to work ungodly hours, and anything you say about the work conditions, I’m going to replace you with somebody else that’s there ’cause I got endless labor. Now, when it comes down to what you just outlined, Jacob, when it comes to the people in society saying that, “Listen, you taking my job,” not the prisoner taking my job, but the system capitalism, “You’re taking my job and you’re taking my job because you don’t want to give me a livable wage.” Therein, is the sickness of this whole system.
But Adam, talk about where the state falls in on this because I was looking at the background and okay, you got the governor and I think you say you got 67 counties in the state of Alabama, so everybody’s getting free prison labor. They complicit to it, like, well, if it’s an auto industry and wherever part of Alabama, and they saying, “Well, we need labor because people talking about they want more wages, can you lease us some convicts?” Talk about how the role of the state is playing in this oppressive system?
Adam Keller:
Yeah. So I appreciate you bringing that up because Governor Kay Ivey, Attorney General Steve Marshall, the head of the Alabama Department of Transportation, and of course the Alabama Department of Corrections, they’re all named in this lawsuit. They’re all considered complicit in this system through various means, both through the leasing itself, but also the systemic denial of paroles, which is feeding labor back into this system.
Mansa Musa:
Right. Right. Right.
Adam Keller:
It’s a vicious cycle.
Mansa Musa:
It is.
Adam Keller:
People have been reporting for years about the paroles and the lack of paroles and how it’s getting worse and worse each year. Then you find out, “Well, okay, now we know why it’s getting worse.”
Mansa Musa:
Why, that’s right. That’s right.
Adam Keller:
We know why there’s a denial, and I wanted to spotlight one of the examples-
Mansa Musa:
Come on.
Adam Keller:
… because there’s this company called SL Alabama, and some folks may remember this because this is the same company that is in Hyundai supply chain, and they were using child migrant labor-
Mansa Musa:
That’s right. Come on.
Adam Keller:
… and including children as young as 13. This very same company is one of the companies in this lawsuit, and they were working incarcerated workers 11 to 12 hours a day, six days a week. So this same company that feeds into Hyundai, this big auto manufacturer that receives subsidies from the state of Alabama, so there’s another way we’re paying for it, right? We’re subsidizing the industries.
Mansa Musa:
That’s right.
Adam Keller:
We’re paying for the prisons, and then we’re seeing our jobs being undercut by the use of incarcerated labor. We’re seeing union organizing being undercut by the use of incarcerated labor, and then the exploitation that these people are facing is just cruel. It’s a moral outrage. It’s an economic outrage. To see an alliance between the state and these private industries and the local governments, like you said, because from the lawsuit, it looks to me like so many of our cities and counties would struggle to even operate if they were not utilizing this. You think about how many employees they would hire to fill this gap.
Mansa Musa:
Right.
Adam Keller:
You talk about city jobs with benefits, pay that starts at maybe 15 an hour, so it goes up from there, how many more jobs would be in our community if it weren’t for the reliance on these systems? It’s a moral outrage, but I think it’s worth highlighting again, $450 million is how much is alleged to be created in profits last year from the system. The state of Alabama made a million dollars just off transportation fees of work release folks, a million dollars just charging people for the van rides to and from the Wendy’s, to and from the SL Alabama, to and from the city of Montgomery, and so it is a giant money maker. It is a perverse way to deal with incarcerated human beings. These are our brothers and sisters, and it’s worth highlighting that Alabama has one of the highest incarceration rates in the country-
Mansa Musa:
That’s right. That’s right.
Adam Keller:
… which means we lock up more people than almost any other place on planet Earth, disproportionately, Black folks, because 26% of Alabama’s population is Black, over 50% of ADOC’s population is Black. It’s even more disproportionate when you look at the people in these actual convict lease scenarios. So it’s a racist system, it’s a profit-generating system, it’s an anti-labor system. So that’s why it’s important that all working people, we all know people who are impacted by the criminal justice system, almost all of us do, particularly in Alabama if you’re a working class person, but we all are impacted as members of the workforce. We are all impacted as taxpayers, frankly.
Mansa Musa:
Right.
Adam Keller:
So we all have a vested stake in seeing this cruel system come to an end.
Mansa Musa:
Now, you know what-
Jacob Morrison:
I want to-
Mansa Musa:
Go ahead. Jacob, before you go there, ’cause I wanted to ask you, and if you can integrate this into your answer, whatever you want to talk about, I wanted to ask you about, is the state of Alabama are incentivizing corporations that come into the state and that’s using this labor? Because I know in the District of Columbia, they throwing money left and right at developers to come and develop and build, and they selling real estate like it’s ice cream, a hot summer day. But I want to know in y’all observation or y’all research, have y’all come across that. Well, go ahead, Jacob. You weigh in on that how you feel.
Jacob Morrison:
Well, has the state of Alabama incentivized these employers to come here? Yes. I don’t know that there’s been any incentives specifically to utilize convict labor. I don’t know about that, but there has definitely been an inordinate amount of money shoveled onto specifically the auto industry. The auto industry in Alabama has been in the news a lot lately because of the budding UAW campaigns. Across the state now, Mercedes and Hyundai workers in Alabama have both gone public with their campaign, and Governor Ivey has been attacking them immediately after their announcements. But in 1993 with the building of the Mercedes plant, that came at the cost of $200 million. That’s right, Adam. It was 200 million to get Mercedes here in ’93.
Adam Keller:
I believe so, and it’s been over a billion dollars in-
Mansa Musa:
Yeah. Right. Right.
Adam Keller:
… overall industry subsidies, right?
Jacob Morrison:
Yeah, and just recently, the state of Alabama announced another $50 million investment in a training center right next door to us here in Decatur to serve the growing auto industry, Toyota Mazda here in Huntsville, specifically. So there’s been huge investment in these industries-
Mansa Musa:
Right.
Jacob Morrison:
So like Adam said, we are paying on multiple ends for this kind of exploitation. Adam mentioned SL Alabama, and I wanted to highlight that the working conditions of people at SL Alabama are in part the result of the undermining of solidarity and worker organizing efforts driven by this convict leasing system because SL Alabama in particular, but Alabama’s auto industry as a whole is extremely unsafe compared to the auto industry in the rest of the country.
Mansa Musa:
Right.
Jacob Morrison:
Alabama Arise has a new report out that’s really good that talks about how Alabama’s auto industry has evolved and devolved in many cases. As it relates to safety, Alabama workers are at least 10% more likely to have an amputation as people in different parts of the country and 70% more likely to have an amputation than auto workers in Michigan. So then if we take a look at SL Alabama in particular-
Mansa Musa:
Come on.
Jacob Morrison:
… they’re using prison labor, they’re using child labor. During this time, while they’re doing both of these things, putting children at risk, children shouldn’t be in automotive manufacturing-
Mansa Musa:
Right.
Jacob Morrison:
… facilities anyway. Those are dangerous jobs, and we understand that, and there’s a certain amount of a degree that just comes with the job, right?
Mansa Musa:
Right.
Jacob Morrison:
But SL Alabama is above and beyond that by multitudes, as is evidenced by the multiple OSHA fines that have been levied against SL Alabama, which OSHA does not just throw out fines willy-nilly.
Mansa Musa:
Right.
Jacob Morrison:
You would know if you look through the press releases of OSHA and look at how many people have been fined by OSHA in the last week or month or year, $50,000 for crush and amputation hazards in one year is what you saw at SL Alabama while they were using prison labor, while they were using 13-year-old children. Those conditions are in part, of course, there are lots of reasons, but no doubt, the undermining of the solidarity that is possible by the use of people who are coerced to the extent that prisoners are. That’s the thing that you get when you go about running your state this way. You get insanely dangerous working conditions. You get low pay, you get bad benefits and a working class in this state that is just generally, it’s worse to be a worker here in Alabama than basically anywhere else in the country when you look at wages, working conditions and benefits. The prison convict system is just one more reason that is the case.
Mansa Musa:
When we talk about capitalism being evil, this is evil personified because-
Jacob Morrison:
Right.
Mansa Musa:
… as you say, the reason why I asked about the state being incentivized, I’m quite sure that they don’t put in their packet when they try to solicit somebody, a corporation to come there, “Oh, yeah, we use child labor.” “We got cheap labor,” or, “We got endless labor of force.” No, they don’t say that, but that’s known by the corporation because every corporation, every corporation in the United States of America, anywhere in the world, they want cheap labor, they want a lot of it, and they want to work you from sun up to sun down and get as much money out you before you fall out. So that’s the narrative when it comes to capitalism. The exploitation of man against man, that’s the narrative. Marx, Lenin, all of them exemplified that in their writings.
But Adam, talk about where we stand at, ’cause I know the suit was filed, and I recall an injunction was… they asked for an injunction. Now, and I want you to answer this in the context of if you have any knowledge on the impact this is having on the prison population, ’cause I read where a lot of the prisoners, and rightly so, are fearful of the retaliation. At the same token, they don’t have no choice now because the cat’s out the bag. The suit is out there, but what about the injunction? What kind of coverage are the men and women getting in the system based on this? Because ain’t no doubt in my mind the hornet’s nest been kicked and they ain’t feeling good about this one here. You getting ready to take their big pocketbook.
Adam Keller:
Oh, yeah, yeah, I agree. The hornet’s nest has definitely been kicked. The lawsuit is asking for changes to the parole system immediately for folks to be paroled. They’re asking for back pay for the workers affected. They’re asking for an end to the system immediately. My understanding is there is a hearing coming up, I believe next month. Jacob, maybe you can correct me if I’m wrong there, but I do believe next month. So I’ve noticed a lot of silence from our state government, and so that’s interesting. I know that of course, they’re going to say, “We don’t want to comment on pending litigation.”
Mansa Musa:
Right. Right. Right.
Adam Keller:
That’s always the go-to answer, but there has certainly been a lot of silence from Governor Ivey, from the Attorney General’s office, from the Board of Paroles. They don’t want to talk about this at all. I think you’re right, it’s because it’s like the cat’s out of the bag. Now people understand why some of these things have been happening in our system.
Mansa Musa:
Right.
Adam Keller:
We’re connecting the dots now and seeing, “Okay, you’ve been running this scheme this whole time. You’ve been generating these profits. You have all these people depending on it and thriving off of it. Well, no wonder people can’t get out. No wonder we can’t get real prison reform in the state of Alabama. No wonder when the federal government says, ‘Your prisons are unconstitutional and you need change,’ our answer is to say, ‘Okay, we’ll just build more prisons.’”
Mansa Musa:
Right.
Adam Keller:
That’s what the state government has proposed, is to build new mega prisons to house even more people as opposed to real criminal justice reform, as opposed to ending the drug war, as opposed to doing the kind of actions that we need to actually make communities safer, right?
Mansa Musa:
Mm-hmm.
Adam Keller:
Yeah, it’s going to be interesting to see how this plays out. I’m very curious to know how deep it really is, because the lawsuit says over 500 employers have been involved. So the lawsuit really is just scratching the surface.
Mansa Musa:
Right, exactly.
Adam Keller:
So that’s something that I think is going to be interesting to see in the coming months is how much more do we find out? How many more people are involved in this? How much more money is being made off of this? So I’m glad as a labor union activist that organized labor is taking a stand here and is getting involved, and I want to see more of it because-
Mansa Musa:
Right.
Adam Keller:
… ultimately that’s the kind of solidarity that we need if we’re going to really thrive as working class people faced against this sort of system.
Mansa Musa:
Jacob, going forward, what do you want the takeaway for our audience? ‘Cause like I said earlier, I was telling Adam this earlier, I think off-camera, I wanted to get in this space a long time. I’m constantly trying to make the connection between the prison industrial complex and how it impacts society, overall and why society should be having an invested interest in it. Talk about going forward, what you want our audience to have as a takeaway and how they can get in touch with you and Adam.
Jacob Morrison:
Yeah. Well, the takeaway, I guess, with this case in particular is just stay tuned, and we’ll see what happens. Hopefully, there will be some justice here in this case. But more broadly, the answer is that we have to, and this answer is going to be similar across the country, that mass incarceration is not working for working people. If you take a look at-
Mansa Musa:
That’s right. That’s right.
Jacob Morrison:
… people who are in prisons, it is not the bosses. It is people who have been down on their luck for one reason or another and made mistakes, sometimes very bad and gross mistakes, but that by-and-large can be rehabilitated and will be back in society at some point.
That’s a thing that the opponents on this issue just don’t seem to want to reckon with is that 95% of people in our prisons today are going to be back out on the streets. So the question is not, are these people going to be back out on the streets? The question is, in what state are we going to return them when we release them, and are we going to continue doing this? Really, the state that we return people to society now is in a worse state than they came in. So also a question going forward is, how many more people are we going to subject to this system, to this system that you said, Mansa, is really anti-human? I think to some of the opponents on this issue, some language that may hit them harder is anti-American, really-
Mansa Musa:
Right. Right. Right.
Jacob Morrison:
… continually anti-American-
Mansa Musa:
Right. Right. Right.
Jacob Morrison:
… because who believes that our system of incarceration is just? What you have to believe about the American people is that the American people are so rabid and immoral and wicked and vile-
Mansa Musa:
Come on.
Jacob Morrison:
… uniquely so, compared to every single other population of human beings on the country that we have to cage more people than anywhere else for our own good-
Mansa Musa:
In the world, yeah.
Jacob Morrison:
… because if we don’t cage all of these people, then we won’t be able to have a functioning society. That’s what you have to believe about the American people, that we are uniquely evil and wicked and incapable of handling freedom to believe that this is a just system. So when you put it to people that way, I hope, and I’ve seen it in some cases, that it’ll get their gears turning because it’s just on its face such an inhumane, unjust system that we have to upend it for the betterment of our society, of the working class and for our country and for the world.
It’s not a good system for anybody except the people at the top. I mentioned that working people are the ones who fill our prisons. One of the stark reminders of that is when you take a look at, I mentioned OSHA’s press releases. If you go through there every single week just about, you’re going to find OSHA fining some employer because they were responsible, they were found responsible for their employee’s death. We just saw OSHA come out with the results of their investigation for the 16-year-old who was killed in a Mississippi poultry plant.
Mansa Musa:
Right.
Jacob Morrison:
$200,000 is the fine that this multi-$100 million organization is going to have to pay for killing a child. Nobody’s going to prison. Nobody is having any amount of freedom taken away, and nobody is even having a significant monetary penalty placed on them. It’s a slap on the wrist at best, while people that child was working alongside are going to prison for much less. So it’s just fundamentally unjust.
Mansa Musa:
But that’s a good observation and a good articulation of what we know to be the reality. Adam, speak to the broader issue. Speak to the labor union. Tell the labor unions nationwide and worldwide why they need to be cognizant of this, because I think it was Marx or Lenin, say, “Workers of the world unite.” Well, they didn’t say, “Workers in society unite, and workers in slave labor, you ain’t considered work.” As we close out, talk to the labor union in a broader aspect of why it’s important that they understand this particular contradiction.
Adam Keller:
Right. Right. Our labor movement in this country for all of its flaws and warts over the years has historically fought for an end to convict lease labor. It has fought for an end to child labor. It’s fought against these forms of super exploitation, and so it’s our historical mission. That’s our calling is to fight against exploitation and oppression wherever it may lay. Workers of all kinds rely on solidarity to survive, and we have a responsibility as labor unions with resources, with members, with reach to do what we can to fight for justice, to fight for what is right. The right thing to do is to oppose the system, but there is a practical concern because it undercuts the wages of our members.
Mansa Musa:
Come on.
Adam Keller:
It brings in workers who are literally ineligible. According to the rules of the Alabama Department of Corrections, they cannot join RWDSU, right?
Mansa Musa:
Right.
Adam Keller:
They cannot join the Union of Southern Service Workers. These are unions that are organizing in places like Wendy’s, in places like poultry plants where this source exploitation is taking place. So there are practical concerns, there are moral concerns here. Our labor movement, if we’re serious about representing working people, if we’re serious about bringing about the kind of country we need for working people to thrive, we can’t sit back and let something like this happen. We can’t allow state government to collude with local governments and with private employers to extract so much from people. To do so in such a cruel manner with such force, it’s not acceptable, not acceptable. In the year 2024, it is not acceptable.
Mansa Musa:
I agree. I agree.
Adam Keller:
So I applaud RWDSU. I applaud the Union of Southern Service Workers. I do see more labor unions get involved and get engaged in this, we all have a role to play in this fight. The more of us that speak up and the more our unions speak up, the louder we’re going to be.
Mansa Musa:
Okay, and thank you. Thank both of y’all for joining me today on Rattling the Bars. Y’all definitely rattled the bars today, and y’all rattled it in such a manner that we ask our audience to really look at this issue right here. This is not about Alabama. This is not about Alabama prison system. This is not about the Alabama Unions. This is about humanity. This is about, as Jacob outlined, we had to be some demented, twisted individuals to say that the citizens of the United States, that American people are so demented that they would allow our country to just go get kids, put them in places where they subject to be mutilated by the machinery, go get prison labor that at the end of the day, you denying people parole premeditatedly because you want to hold on to the labor. So we thank y’all for coming and rattling the bars today. We ask that our audience continue to support the Real News and Rattling the Bars, ’cause guess what? We actually are really the news. Thank you.
The US has one of the highest prisoner recidivism rates in the world: over 70% of incarcerated people who are released from prison in the US will be rearrested within five years of their release date. That is not an accident. Our system of mass incarceration sets people up to fail as they leave the prison system and try to reintegrate into society. That is why organizations like Hope for Prisoners in Nevada are working to provide returning citizens with the resources and support they need to rebuild their lives and maintain their freedom. In this episode of Rattling the Bars, Mansa Musa speaks with Jon Ponder, founder and CEO of Hope for Prisoners, about why returning from prison is so difficult for so many, and what it takes to “empower the formerly incarcerated and their families to create a successful future.”
Studio / Post-Production: Cameron Granadino
Transcript
The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. A proofread version will be made available as soon as possible.
Mansa Musa:
Welcome to this edition of Rattling the Bars, a show that amplifies the voices of people who are disenfranchised, marginalized, and subjugated while offering solutions. I’m your host, Mansa Musa. Joining me today is John Ponder, founder and CEO of Hope for Prisoners. Hope for Prisoners assists with reentry by providing to formerly incarcerated long-term support and services as they work to reclaim their lives, families, and standing in the community.
Welcome John.
Jon Ponder:
I’m glad to be here. Thank you for having me.
Mansa Musa:
All right, and full disclosure, I met John when I was in Vegas visiting Dominique Conway and a friend of mine connected me, told me I had to reach out to John when I got into Vegas. So ultimately we connected and he was gracious enough to have me come to his workplace, I want to call it. And it’s remarkable place, the work that you’re doing, I’m familiar with it and I’m doing some of them the same, myself. Tell our audience a little bit about Hope for Prisoners and how you came about that concept.
Jon Ponder:
Oh yeah, absolutely. Again, I just want to make a reference to our time that we spent here in the office. I thoroughly enjoyed our conversation because when you get two people that’s working on the same page, I could sit up and talk to you for hours. So our organization Hope for Prisoners. We work with men, women, and young adults that are exiting different arenas of our judicial system. And what we do is to provide the supportive services to help the men and women to successfully reintegrate back into the home, back into the workplace, and ultimately to help them to be standup leaders out into the community. So I founded Hope for Prisoners back in 2009. It was birthed out of my own personal experiences. I was a guy who was coming in and out of the system since I was 12 years old, been and out of every different juvenile systems in the State of New York, multiple jails, prisons here in the State of Nevada.
And then I got stretched out in the maximum security United States federal penitentiary behind 50 foot walls. So coming in and out of the system all that time, I made a whole lot of mistakes trying to get life right and I would violate and go right back to the prison system. But it came a time on that journey where God taught me tremendously valuable lessons from all those mistakes that I made and those lessons that I learned, it helped me to live life on a whole different level. So what my passion in life is, the reason why I founded the organization is to turn right back around and help the other men and women who were facing those same challenges that I once had to face, to do everything I can to remove the barriers that are preventing them from being successful and to help to escort them up to the next level of life.
Mansa Musa:
And like you said, by your own admission by, I did 48 years in prison prior to getting out and at some point in time, I had to come to the realization that what I did that got me in prison, is not going to get me out. And if I do get out and hold onto it, it’s not going to sustain me. Talk about how your program offers sustainability to men and women coming out.
Jon Ponder:
One of the things that we’ve learned, and again speaking from personal experiences, is that the vast majority of people from this segment of the population, they really do want to change, but they have no idea how to do it. So for so long we’ve been telling people in this segment of the population to come home and be a productive member of the community.
Mansa Musa:
That’s right, that’s right.
Jon Ponder:
But they have no idea what that looks like or we tell them sometimes even get a job and some of them have never worked a legitimate job a day before in their life. Or we ask men to come home and take their rightful positions in their home as the husbands and fathers that they need to be, but they have no healthy reference point up in here on what that might look like. So what it is that we do is we provide them with the tools to not only get a good job, but it’s important that we help them to maintain that good job. But we also lay down the foundation for which people can build up this brand new life to where they never, ever, ever re-offend again.
Mansa Musa:
And that fact right there, that foundation, what do that foundation look like? Now, let me give you an example. I work in this organization called Voice for a Second Chance. What we do, we provide, when men and women come out of the system, we help them get their critical documents and try to stabilize as much as possible. We are not in a position to provide everybody how we create a housing mechanism for people, but the foundation that we have is that we let the people come in there know that if you follow the directions that we offer you, you will be stabilized. Not like tomorrow, but you will be stabilized. What’s that foundation look like for you, for hope?
Jon Ponder:
So again, it is the training. It’s the complete wraparound services. We train very intensively on things like the importance of winning attitude, the attitude about their past, the attitude about their present condition, and how could we cultivate this winning attitude that’s going to help carry them into a successful future. We train very intensively on things like how to go above and beyond the call of duty inside the home, inside the workplace, and then out there in our community.
We take a deep dive into effective communication and understanding the different personality types, the people that you’re going to be interacting with inside the home, the workplace and the community. We also take a deep dive into goal setting and time management and banking and budget and conflict resolutions and when and how to apologize, the importance of forgiveness.
And then we put a strong emphasis on leadership. Teaching individuals, number one, how to lead yourself, how do you get those results that you’ve always wanted to get out of life? How do you be that leader in the family, in that workplace and ultimately out there in the community? So again, it’s those wraparound services. When we address the needs for housing, we address the needs for employment, we address the needs for transportation and then, also very important, the family reunification.
Mansa Musa:
So in terms of walk me through a client coming out and how do they get access to Hope and walk me through that process. I just got out, I heard about y’all, where would I be at?
Jon Ponder:
So the beauty of what it is that we do is that we have a pre-release model. We’re in seven institutions here in the state of Nevada where we work with them up to 18 months prior to them even being released. So doing that needs assessment with them. We do a risk assessment because we want to target the people who are moderate to high risk to re-offend. That’s our target population. If you could make it out there in the community without us and we help you be successful, what good have we done? So being able to get in there with them and number one, if drugs and or alcohol had something to do with the initial offense of why you went to prison. Then I have my licensed drug and alcohol counselors begin to work with them and do an assessment.
And out of that assessment, while they’re still inside, that comes up with a treatment plan. And sometimes that treatment plan on the inside looks like one-on-one counseling or group therapy. So we start all those intensive trainings while they’re on the inside and again up to 18 months. And when they get to the 12 month mark, then we fast track them into, for the next six months, into what we call… We built our vocational village to where we now train them before they get out, we train them with HVAC, electrical, plumbing, welding, warehouse logistics, other manufacturing and a masonry training program. And we built a full scale commercial driver’s license school on the prison yard. What does that mean? That means that not only are we addressing the cognitive and behavior change, the moral recognition therapy, but that vocational training that we have them go through, then that means that they are certified and ready to go to work the minute that they walk out the back door.
Now when they walk out the back door, remember we were 18 months before they get out, but then we put them into an 18 month mechanism once they get released. You see, it wasn’t enough for us to be able to train them very intensively while they’re inside. But if we release them out the community by themselves, we will have wasted time, effort, energy and resources. We do that through intensive case management and mentoring where we have trained up well over 550 men and women from our community that are serving as mentors right now.
These mentors come from a very diverse group of people. Now these are pastors and leaders from churches across southern Nevada, other leaders in other houses of faith. These are business owners and business leaders. These are school teachers from our school district, professors from the University of Las Vegas, Nevada, right down to the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department. And I smiled every time I say that because the sheriff has given us an army of volunteer police officers that are serving as mentors. Never before in the history of reentry, nowhere on this planet to this magnitude has law enforcement gotten this involved in mentoring and training people coming home from the prison system. So it’s that kind of wraparound services that we know that helps them to be successful.
Mansa Musa:
Now in terms of success ratio, what is y’all’s success rate? Because I know from a personal experience, and like I said, I’m in this environment where people come through there and like we say, you give them a roadmap to be successful. If they stay patient with it and they deviate. And you look up and you go back through the system or they contact you and what happened? Well, they come up with a myriad of reasons. What about in y’all situation? What about that? And then how do y’all deal with people that recidivate?
Jon Ponder:
Sure, absolutely. So we are very encouraged. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas, their criminal justice division had come in and they wanted to take a look at how well we were doing. And what they did was they took a look at 522 high risk-to-reoffend after that assessment and what they determined of those 522 people that they took a look at, more than 74% of those were successful in gaining full-time employment and sustainable wage jobs. 25% of those were full-time employed after completing the first initial stage of what we do post release. And of those 522 men and women who by every stretch of the statistics should be back on the yard, only 6% of those individuals return back to the prison system. It is something that we are very encouraged by. We know that what it is that we’re doing is working, but to be quite honest with you, I’m not satisfied with that rate.
We’re always looking for ways to improve the efficiency of what it is that we do. So we wanted to take a look at that 6% of people to try to figure out why was it that they were going back. And there was two things that we found, the common thread. The number one reason why people were returning back to the prison system was going back to drugs. This is why we increased our substance abuse treatment and therapy prior to them being released because that’s really where the rubber’s going to hit the road and the benefit of us working with them while they’re inside now. When they get released, we create this continuum of care. They’re not having to go get substance abuse treatment, meet another therapy, it is just that continuum of care. And the other reason why people are continuously going back to the prison system of that pilot group of people was that went back to the old neighborhoods.
We have this saying, and I know you’re familiar with this, that you’re associations determine your destination. If you show me who your friends are, I will tell you exactly who you’re going to be two years down the road. So when someone does recidivate, again, the beauty of us being inside the system, we get to touch that person at every area, at every stage. So they recidivate, do something wrong, parole violation, we can connect with them in the county jail and start wrapping our arms around them. If they have to go back up to prison, then my staff is in the prison waiting for them. So we just start all over with them on the inside, then stay with them, and then they start all over again once they get released.
Mansa Musa:
Go ahead. Go ahead John.
Jon Ponder:
No, please go ahead.
Mansa Musa:
What gives you this enthusiasm? How do you stay focused? How do you maintain this enthusiasm to maintain working with this population? I know for me personally, I get burned out. I don’t get burned out to the point that I’m burned out. I let my flame go down. My passion is not where it be at all the time. One time I might be on 100, next I might be on 15, but I’m still moving forward. What is it that sustains John Ponder and to maintain the belief that it is Hope for Prisoners.
Jon Ponder:
So absolutely, I am a man of faith and I understand that I’m walking in what God has called me to do. So I find my strength and my enthusiasm in Him. I get my directions from Him and I always have to stay connected to God. Do I get burnt out? Do I get tired? Absolutely, 100% I do. But it’s important that I have people on my team that I trust, that I’m ever able to delegate things out to, who have the same level of enthusiasm as I do. They’ve climbed up into the vein of what it is that we’re doing and have caught the vision and they stay focused with that. You asked me what it is that gives me hope because I know and understand that if people would just give God enough of their time, God could do some amazing things with their life.
When you’re able to see someone who is at rock bottom in the prison system and we have a chance to walk alongside them and then they’re in the post release phase, for me, it’s like watching the evolution of life. That’s what keeps me going. Take someone from absolutely rock bottom to today, they’re employed as an electrician journeyman and just purchased their home and reconnected with the family and they’re taking vacations. That’s what it is that really, really keeps us going. And the other thing is, I’ll have to tell you a story about how, many years ago when I was founded the organization. I was giving birth to this thing that God impregnated me with. We were ready to get our 5501-3C and we needed to come up with a name for the organization.
And people were asking, “Well, what is going to be the name?” And I felt like God dropped in my spirit that the name is going to be Hope for Prisoners. And the people that were in the world around me at the time had said that, “John, you don’t want to call it Hope for Prisoners because you’re not going to be able to raise money. People are more likely to donate money to get their cat spayed and neutered as opposed to giving it to prisoners.” And they said, “Why do you want to name it, Hope for Prisoners?” And I said, “It’s simple. Number one, I’m doing it because God told me to.” And then I reminded them that the mission of Hope for Prisoners, the mission of our organization is to help to create a massive amount of people who come home from the prison system, and not only do they never re-offend again, they begin to live levels of life that most people only dream of. And when we get them there, then they become the Hope for the Prisoners.
Mansa Musa:
I got you. And that’s what opens the door for the segue to my next question is, what do you want to tell people that have the perspective that “You do the crime, you do the time.” And it’s no such thing as any type of repentence that, all right, I hear what you saying, this sound good. But at the same time, crime is on the rise. People still doing these things and I can’t get these blinders off for of me because I’m thinking that it’s a waste of money and a waste of time. How do tell, what do you tell these people that I know you come in contact with, that I know you know exists?
Jon Ponder:
Absolutely, 100%. And I’m going to speak from my personal experiences. I did just about 17 years in prison. It wasn’t a straight shot, it was two years here, four years here, six years in county jail and accumulated about seven… Life on the installment plan and I returned back to the community. People, if you take a look at who I was, fully addicted to everything known to man. Gang affiliated, I was a monster. I was a menace to society. But then I respectfully have to say, take a look at my life today. If I could change, someone else can change. And if you could take a look at the vast majority of people that are in our prison systems today, one day they will be coming home. And if we don’t embrace them and provide the support, pour time, effort, energy and resources in them to help them to be productive members of the community, then I think that we are missing the mark.
They’re coming home anyway. And I would rather have them come home and they’re coming home and being in our next door neighbors. They’re in the shopping malls with us and so forth and so on. And what condition do you want that person in? Do you want that person… If you don’t address it, they’re in that never ending cycle of recidivism. Or do we want to do everything we can to assist them after they paid their debt to society?
Come on, they paid the debt, they paid the debt to society and they’re coming home. And I just feel that we, as a community, have an obligation to do everything that we can to help them to be tremendous assets to their home, to their workplace and out there in the community and not a liability. And when we’re able to help them to secure sustainable wage employment, because that’s basically what people really want, to where they can take care of themselves and be able to take care of their family and we would help them to get sustainable wage employment and they start working out in that community, what people really need to think about is that they then become fuel in the economic engine of our communities.
Mansa Musa:
Yeah, I like that. John, you had the last word. And I appreciate that articulation and that observation because at the end of the day, unless the person is to be locked away and throw away the key, they are going to return. Whatever state they return, that’s going to happen. And as a civil society, it’s our obligation to look out for the least of these, as a civil society. I think that’s what all of us claim to believe at some point in our lives, we claim to believe in a higher power. We claim to believe, have a certain amount of spiritual decorum. So I think at the end of the day, when we look at with the work that you’re doing and people in similar situations, we recognize that like you say, there is hope for prisoners. Our audience tell our viewers and listeners how they can get in touch with you and how they can support your work.
Jon Ponder:
And thank you very much for that. You can reach Hope for Prisoners, certainly visit our website at www.hopefor and it’s “for” prisoners.org hopeforprisoners.org. Or you can give us a call at 702-586-1371, 702-586-1371. And there are many, many ways that you could support our organization. We do accept donations, small monthly supporters. You can get all the information on our website. Well, the other thing that we do is we look for mentors, not only here in our local community, but we look for mentors all over this country that could become part of our mentoring program. So we train and equip mentors and then they can connect with our people coming home over Zoom, over Teams. So this way, we are here in Las Vegas, Nevada, but you can be in Tupelo, Mississippi. If you had some life experiences that you feel that you’d be able to give back and help someone navigate some challenges you have had in your life, then we would love to be able to have a conversation with you.
Mansa Musa:
Thank you, John for joining me today on Rattling the Bars. You definitely rattled the bars today, and I appreciate your taking time out of your busy day. I know you’re busy. Taking out time out of your busy day to really educate our audience on how we… We’re talking about a civil society. We’re not talking about a draconian, dark age unforgiving society. We’re talking about us in a civil society where people like ourselves come out and making amends for what we have done. We make amends in the form of helping the least of these and being the example. You are definitely a good example. Thank you. We ask that you continue to support Rattling the Bars and The Real News. Thank you very much.
Like hundreds of thousands of other Texas motorists, Thomas Reader found himself in an unending debt spiral as a result of the state’s Drivers Responsibility Act. Due to the program’s surcharges and late fees, Reader owed $13,000 to the state—an amount he simply couldn’t pay until he was finally granted a form of amnesty. The occupational license, which was a direct result of this program, limited his ability to drive, and as a DoorDasher his increased time on the road only meant increased exposure to police looking to write tickets to secure revenue. When Reader, out of frustration, “flipped the bird” at a Texas Sheriff patrol car, officers conveniently claimed to have witnessed a traffic violation, pulling Reader over and arresting him. Taya Graham and Stephen Janis of the Police Accountability Report examine the footage in the case and its wider implications on the corrosive power of revenue-motivated policing, which is increasingly a factor in the behavior of law enforcement nationwide.
Studio Production: Stephen Janis Post-Production: Stephe Janis, Adam Coley
Transcript
The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. A proofread version will be made available as soon as possible.
Taya Graham:
Hello, my name is Taya Graham, and welcome to the Police Accountability Report. As I always make clear, this show has a single purpose, holding the politically powerful institution of policing accountable. To do so, we don’t just focus on the bad behavior of individual cops. Instead, we examine the system that makes bad policing possible.
Today, we’ll achieve that goal by showing you a video of a traffic stop that led to the questionable arrest of a man who had simply shown his dissatisfaction with police by giving them the finger, but it is the abuse of power that led to the encounter, a program designed to entrap motorists, which we will be breaking down in the show. It’s a cautionary tale about the dangers of incentivizing law enforcement, and what happens when fines and fees are motivating cops rather than upholding the law.
But before I get started, I want you watching to know that if you have video evidence of police misconduct, please email it to us privately at par@therealnews.com, or you can reach out to me on Facebook or Twitter @TayasBaltimore, and we might be able to investigate for you. And please like, share, and comment on our videos. It helps us get the word out, and it can even help our guests. You know I read your comments and appreciate them. You see the little hearts I give out down there, and I’ve even started doing a Comment of the Week to show you just how much I appreciate your thoughts and to show what a great community we have.
We do have a Patreon called Accountability Report, so if you feel inspired to donate, please do. We don’t run ads or take corporate dollars, so anything you can spare is really appreciated. We always make sure to thank our patrons like Shane B, David K, John Rowe, Lucy Garcia, or Lucy P. Okay, now we’ve gotten that out of the way.
Now, one of the biggest problems with law enforcement in our country has nothing to do with enforcing the law or even the shortage of officers. What often makes American law enforcement so fraught is that it is structured around a word that seems far afield from investigating crimes, namely profit. That’s right, fees, fines, penalties, bail, you name it. It’s an imperative to generate revenues that often prompt police to behave like bill collectors rather than public servants.
And no arrest embodies the bad consequences of treating cops like government-sponsored ATM machines than the video I’m showing you now. It’s a cautionary tale of what happens when the government turns to law enforcement for revenue, and how that emphasis can often twist the law into a tool for financial oppression. The story starts in Kerrville, Texas last year. There, Thomas Reader was working as a delivery driver for DoorDash. The job was a lifeline to help him with a problem that had little to do with his willingness to work or his commitment to the job.
Instead, his financial woes were completely the result of a government-conjured burden. That’s because Thomas had been repetitively ticketed under a program called the Driver Responsibility Act. The policy incentivizes officers to write traffic tickets to fund highway construction and emergency rooms. The program has been controversial, as you’ll learn later, and it has been halted. But that was too little too late for Thomas, because he was the recipient of numerous tickets from that program for minor traffic infractions.
And because the program added fees and surcharges when drivers had trouble paying, Thomas was put in debt, and that debt was an ever-growing tab with penalties that kept piling on top of the fines, to the point where he owed, and I’m not kidding, $13,000. But Thomas wasn’t alone. For example, in January 2018, 1.4 million Texans had suspended licenses for not paying surcharges, and all of this boiled over for Mr. Reader when Kerrville Police pulled him over last year.
That’s when, as I said, he was driving to make a delivery when police started to follow him. He had not committed a traffic infraction. No, they targeted him because that program limits your driving abilities when you can’t pay. But Thomas, already frustrated with the constant harassment that he believes is tied to the incentives I mentioned before, exercised his constitutional right and gave the cops the finger, and that’s when they pulled him over.
Not initially for a traffic violation, but because the officer said the bird drew their attention, and they used his license restricted from the debt as an excuse to further investigate him. Let’s watch.
Video:
Can I see your driver’s license?
No. [inaudible 00:04:16] anything like that?
Okay. Go ahead and turn around for me.
For what?
Go ahead.
Sir, get your phone out.
You pulled me over for no reason, man.
No, sir.
Yeah, you can’t do this.
I know you’re not to have an eligible driver’s license.
I do have an eligible driver’s license.
Taya Graham:
Now, you’ll also notice that the officer immediately accused him of driving without a proper license, and this turned out not to be true, but that didn’t stop them from slipping handcuffs on him. Let’s watch.
Video:
You pulled me over for no reason, man.
No, sir.
Yeah. You can’t do this.
I know you’re not to have an eligible driver’s license.
I do have a eligible driver’s license. Do you want me to get it out?
Yeah. That’s why-
You guys are making a huge mistake.
That’s why I asked you for your driver’s license.
You’re making a huge mistake right now.
Here, step right over here real quick.
Record, Sawyer.
She’s fine. She can record.
[inaudible 00:04:57] You’re retaliating because I gave you the fucking finger. You can’t do this.
Just stand right here real quick.
Man, you’re breaking every fucking law, man. You’re a piece of shit, dude. Y’all can’t do this. You are violating my rights. My license is valid. I have an occupational license.
Okay.
We are DoorDash. Why am I in fucking handcuffs?
I just want to come confirm that.
No, you’re telling me [inaudible 00:05:16]. You have no fucking [inaudible 00:05:17].
1448-6640-1448-6640. Okay.
Yeah. Why do you think you got the finger?
Do you have your occupation… Hey, do you have your occupational paperwork with you?
It’s right there. No, I don’t. We’re DoorDashing right now and you can see we’re DoorDash.
Taya Graham:
Now, almost immediately, Mr. Reader pushes back on the officer’s assertions that he should not be driving and using let’s say, colorful language. He did indeed have restrictions on his license due to the Driver Responsibility Act. But none of those restrictions precluded him from earning a living. Still, the police persisted.
Video:
Okay, but do you have your paperwork with you?
I don’t know where my paperwork is in the car.
You have to have that paperwork with you.
No. I have an occupational driver’s license.
You have to have paperwork with you.
Y’all retaliate. You can do whatever you want.
No, sir. Do you have the paperwork?
No, I don’t have it. I have it on my phone. I have it on my phone. I have it electronically on my phone. I already talked to the judge and he said it was okay.
Taya Graham:
Okay, as you can see, the police were simply uninterested in hearing his side of the story no matter how caustically he shared it. In fact, they kept insisting he was driving illegally. Take a listen.
Video:
[inaudible 00:06:17] shit.
So you’re okay teaching your daughter to [inaudible 00:06:20].
Hell yeah. Her grandfather’s a retired police officer.
Why don’t you do yourself a favor and just be quiet, okay? Until we get [inaudible 00:06:25].
I don’t have to be quiet.
Do you have that?
[inaudible 00:06:26] make it worse on yourself.
I’m not making anything worse for myself. Freedom of speech, buddy. You can’t tell me to be quiet. You cannot tell me to be quiet.
It’s still acting [inaudible 00:06:36].
I’m still talking. What are you going to do?
I’m just asking you to be quiet.
And I refuse [inaudible 00:06:41].
You have every right to refuse.
Yeah, because you can’t tell me to be quiet. You can’t tell what you do. I don’t have to [inaudible 00:06:44]-
Get it to where you can see how much hours-
Man, y’all are crooked, dude.
That’s not how works.
Y’all messed up.
Okay.
My license wasn’t suspended. Y’all keep harassing me, dude.
One hour-
Taya Graham:
Still, even after Mr. Reader showed the officer from his phone that he did indeed have the proper license to drive his car to earn a living, but these cops would not relent and they still gave him a ticket. That’s right, a man who for years had suffered with $13,000 in debt from surcharges was now just trying to [inaudible 00:07:11] out a living, and he was hammered with another $210 ticket. Just look.
Video:
Did you get him recorded saying I gave him the finger and so they pulled me over?
No, sir. I actually pulled you over because you failed to signal into this parking lot. Also, I need your driver’s license for failure. I also know that you didn’t have a good driver’s license.
You’re retaliating because I gave gave you the finger.
No, sir.
[inaudible 00:07:30] shit. That’s what y’all do. That’s what you do, Graham. It’s Officer Graham and Officer Vasquez. What’s your badge number?
Right there.
Let me tell the judge, asshole. It’s right there?
Yes, sir.
You’re such a crooked cop man. How do you guys sleep at night when you do this shit? I gave you the finger and your egos just can’t take it, can they, bud? That’s why he put me in cuffs-
I don’t even know you, buddy.
… immediately.
I don’t even know you.
That’s because you’re a piece of… I don’t [inaudible 00:07:55] you’re a piece of shit what you fucking did to me. You violate people’s rights on a daily basis. That’s what you do. You just did. Let me see your driver’s license and you fucking put me in cuffs immediately.
Yes, sir.
What a piece of shit.
Is DoorDash your full-time job or do you do something else?
Yeah, idiot. It’s not your business what I do, man.
Okay.
Fucking pignorance is what it is. Pignorance.
That’s kind of good.
You like that?
Yeah.
I’m glad you like that, Graham. You got a little sense of humor, bitch.
Oh, you like my pig right here?
Yeah. For my safety, I’m in fucking handcuffs, huh? Dummy. Fucking morons. Crooked ass shit. Sorry they’re holding you up, ma’am. They don’t care about your time. Sorry ma’am. You guys don’t give a fuck about other people do, do you? She’s innocent and look at you guys. We’re going to hold her fucking time up.
Who’s?
Her. She’s waiting for you guys to fucking move.
If you want, your daughter could get your food delivered.
If she has a driver’s license to drive.
I’m talking about the lady right there in front of her car, you morons. [inaudible 00:08:45] these fucking cuffs for you to fucking sign shit.
Actually, are you going to sign it?
Do I have to?
Yes, sir.
Then I’ll fucking sign it.
Okay.
Taya Graham:
And as a result, Mr. Reader now saddled with yet another fine after struggling with those fines and surcharges for years, decided to share his displeasure with the officers. Yes, he did use colorful language and yes, the cops listened, but in the end they just added more to his financial woes, which is perhaps why he expressed his displeasure even as the officers decided not to take him to jail. Take a look.
Video:
Hey, you know why I’m here? Because I prepaid for my electricity and I’m negative $3.
I thought you were here to drop off food.
I’m paying electricity too right away from DoorDash right there. I got to pay my electric bill. You want to give me another fucking ticket, asshole?
So then you’re not here for purposes of your DoorDash.
We’re just DoorDashing that apartment. So while I’m by K-Pub, I got to pay my electricity. Tell the judge that. Tell the judge that.
Again, you’re in violation of your-
We were still DoorDashing. We’re still active. But you pulled me over. My phone is still DoorDashing right now.
Okay, but you’re not delivering any food, right?
I can still be working. This is a hotspot too. Nice try.
Is it this?
Yeah.
Look at you guys trying to hem somebody up here. Fuck y’all, man. All y’all care about is [inaudible 00:09:51].
It’s the words that are coming out of your mouth that are getting you [inaudible 00:09:53].
No, they’re not against the law. It’s called Freedom of Speech. One thing you don’t know, Vasquez, is the law. And your law enforcement? So that’s a joke. You should study law.
Where did you get your degree?
You don’t have to have a degree no more than your ass.
Did you get your degree too in law? Where? Exactly. Don’t know where, do you?
Taya Graham:
Now we have been investigating this program and it’s burdensome use of fines and the impact it’s had on people like Mr. Reader. In fact, we will be speaking to him soon about what else was going on behind the scenes when those officers pulled him over.
But first, I’m going to talk to my reporting partner, Stephen Janis, who has been investigating the Texas ticket machine and why it was able to saddle motorists with insurmountable debt. Stephen, thank you so much for joining us.
Stephen Janis:
Taya, thanks for having me. I appreciate it.
Taya Graham:
Stephen, you’ve been looking into this program. What have you learned? What happened and why did the governor finally discontinue it?
Stephen Janis:
Well, basically what happened is it was totally out of control. It became sort of a vicious cycle for drivers in Texas where almost 1.4 million drivers or 1.5 million drivers had lost their license. Because what happened is that you didn’t just have to pay the ticket, you had to have a fee on top of that ticket if you had too many tickets in a certain period of time.
And then, if you didn’t pay that extra fee in 105 days, you’d lose your license. A lot of people can’t afford to pay those fees so they kept driving because they have to go to work and then they get another fee. And before you know, it compounded so much that millions of people couldn’t drive in Texas legally. It was really out of control.
Taya Graham:
So this is not an uncommon phenomenon, law enforcement agencies ratcheting up fines. It seems to go beyond the need to ensure public safety. What do you think drives these policies?
Stephen Janis:
It’s interesting. There’s an untold story about this particular program. There’s a thing called the Municipal Service Bureau, which is a place that collects for Texas when people can’t pay. This company, this firm is private. They’re a private firm. So all those millions in fees, they’re getting money to actually collect those fees. And it turns out there have been 60 lawsuits filed in federal court against them because they harass people so much.
So, “Oh yeah, this is a great program. We’re collecting money for the trauma center,” but really what we’re doing is enriching private companies who can collect and done people because they haven’t paid their ticket fees, which is bad enough when you can’t even drive. Really, it’s a way of enriching the private sector too and we can’t forget that about these programs.
Taya Graham:
Now, these fine-driven programs tend to really be focused on the working class and can have devastating impacts on the people who can least afford it. What does the research say?
Stephen Janis:
Well, the research lines up exactly with your question, Taya. It’s pretty freaking straightforward that the people who can least afford, like people who are working people, living paycheck to paycheck, are the ones who end up losing their license. I mean, just look at our guests. He had $10,000 he had paid in fines and he still had another $13,000 to pay. It was insane.
How can a man survive? How can a man pay his bills when he’s got to pay $10,000 just to get behind the wheel? This is truly a tax on the poor, the impoverished people who are working and struggling. It is not a beneficial program for society. It does not even help drivers because it turns out that only 12% of the people who lost their licenses were people who committed some sort of DUI or some sort of serious infraction. The other 88% were just people who were speeding or something.
It really wasn’t getting to the root of the problem it was designed to solve. It’s really a total and utter mess. Taya, let me just say this before I go. I want you to watch really carefully. When this cop says he pulled over for not turning a signal, the cop was going in the opposite direction, but notice we’re showing you with arrows here, that he was indeed giving the finger and then the cop turns around. There’s no way, I think from his perspective, unless he had a very, very, very good sort of telescope quality rearview mirror, he could have seen the man not signaling.
I think really this was about getting the finger from a man and trying to show, “Hey, we’re in charge. You can’t push back against us.”
Taya Graham:
And now to learn how police have been targeting him and the impact this questionable overreach has had on his life, I’m joined by Mr. Reader. Thomas, thank you so much for joining me.
Thomas Reader:
Thank you for your time. I’m a big fan.
Taya Graham:
Well, thank you, Thomas. That’s very kind. First, please tell me why were you allegedly pulled over during the traffic stop we have been showing on the screen. What did police say?
Thomas Reader:
Well, they allegedly said they pulled me over for driving while with a suspended license, although I have an occupational. Yes, ma’am. I was working at the time.
Taya Graham:
Could you explain what an occupational license is?
Thomas Reader:
It just means your license is still suspended, but you can drive for essential purposes like going to and from work, picking your kids up from school, medical reasons. I DoorDash for a living, so I drive all the time. So that’s part of my work.
Taya Graham:
You said to the officer, “You pulled me over because I flipped you the bird.” What did he say in response and how did he react to that assertion?
Thomas Reader:
Well, Officer Vasquez is the one that said that got their attention and we have it recorded. And so I was glad we got that recorded. But he said that he pulled me over initially because he thought it was invalid, but he didn’t really even mention the bird. Officer Graham wouldn’t mention that. Officer Vasquez was the one that mentioned that.
Taya Graham:
Were you surprised that you were put in cuffs for a traffic infraction?
Thomas Reader:
Yes, ma’am. First, I didn’t see any lights. All I saw was them do a U-turn and I was going to pay my electric bill, so I was already parked. I was getting out of the car to pay my electric bill and saw them behind me. All I did was get out of the car and put my hands in the air. I never advanced towards them or anything. He said, “Give me your driver’s license.” I said something like “What for?” And immediately, I was put in handcuffs.
Taya Graham:
Now you seem pretty annoyed with the officers disrupting your workday for something petty like this. As you mentioned, your livelihood is tied to driving. Does it cost you money or time to unravel these tickets or basically can you explain why you were so upset? Was it the money or was it something else?
Thomas Reader:
Basically, it was for getting arrested out of my house for supposedly driving while invalid. Although, I never received a citation, any notification by mail, nothing. The only notification I got was police knocking on my door telling me I had to come out or I’d be also arrested for resisting without violence. That’s why I started getting upset and started actually giving cops the verge just to let them know my displeasure with what they have done.
Taya Graham:
Okay, so you’re telling me the police pulled you out of your home, put you in a car and took you to jail just for an alleged traffic violation. What happened next? I mean, how did you feel and how long were you in jail for?
Thomas Reader:
About three and a half hours. I felt very helpless. I just couldn’t believe they could come to my house for, first off, an invalid driver’s license. And secondly, I had never gotten a ticket for it, so I was really just stunned and actually kind of just wondering where this had come from.
Taya Graham:
Now you were pulled over just a few days ago. Can you tell me exactly what happened?
Thomas Reader:
Yes, ma’am. I was working, I was DoorDashing. I was waiting at McDonald’s for an order because that’s a hotspot, and a police officer was across the street getting gas and instead of her leaving, she pulled a U-turn and faced me across the street. I thought nothing of it. Ironically enough, I got a Burger King order where she was parked and went to get my order. When I pulled out I wanted to thank her for an officer that had done me a favor and she immediately tried to initiate a traffic stop saying I was driving while suspended.
Taya Graham:
That just seems like overkill to me.
Thomas Reader:
She said there was no infraction. She said she just ran my tags because that’s what she does. There was no infraction except for I was operating a motor vehicle on a public roadway while suspended. Although, occupational does come up when she calls dispatch.
Taya Graham:
This really shows me that once you’re pulled into the system, the system still keeps pulling you back in and taking money and time.
Thomas Reader:
Yeah, we don’t live in town anymore. We had to move seven miles out into the country because I don’t want to live in Kerrville anymore. I did also find out while I was pulled over, while I was arrested out of my house for an driver’s license, I later found out it was because an officer had pulled me over two months prior for a headlight out, although my headlight was not out. We got it on video and that’s when he said I was suspended.
My daughter was in the car and I was like, “I’m not suspended.” He goes, “Yeah, you are. You had a failure to appear today.” I was like, “No I didn’t. I called and had it reset. I have the email right here.” He would not look at it, but he insisted I was suspended, didn’t give me a ticket for it, just gave me a ticket for the failure to change my address of all things because my headlight was working. He was the one, because at the end he goes, “I’m going to look give you a break this time.”
I was like, “Oh my God, can I lick your boots? Please, please. Let me lick those boots.” My daughter has it on video, and he was very offended then. After he let me go, he went to the county attorney and had her put in a warrant for my arrest for driving.
Taya Graham:
So it does seem that these officers were offended by the way you expressed your First Amendment rights. Something I have to ask you is, are you at all concerned that talking to me will make things more difficult for you and your relationship with local police?
Thomas Reader:
Not at all. I just want to get them exposed. I mean, I just want somebody to hear my story. I’m sure it goes on all over Kerrville. People get pulled over for no signal all the time. Officer Graham has bragged about it in the courtroom. I have people that have told me. It’s a small town, so I have friends that work there and he jokes about it. “If I can’t find something, I’m going to get you for no signal.” We got him on dash cam lying about it, so we got it dismissed and then that’s when we filed our 1983.
Taya Graham:
Now let me ask you something. There’s some people who are watching this that might ask, what if someone flipped you off while you were working? I mean, how would you feel or react? I mean, personally I have to say putting someone in handcuffs and threatening them with an arrest might be what you want to do to someone who hurt your feelings, but it’s probably not really appropriate. How do you respond to someone who says, how would you feel if the role was reversed?
Thomas Reader:
Well, if I was just in my normal capacity DoorDashing, then I would probably give the bird right back. But if I’m a public servant, I’d be expected to have a standard professionalism that these guys need to have and they didn’t have it. They retaliate and it’s obvious, the retaliation.
Taya Graham:
You must believe that since you filed a 1983 lawsuit that your constitutional rights were violated by these officers. What would you like to see result from this? Or for example, would you like the officers to go through retraining or maybe you’d even want an apology from the officers who cuffed you? What would you like to see happen?
Thomas Reader:
I would like an apology from Officer Graham. I know Officer Vasquez was involved in the stop also, but it was Officer Graham who whipped the U-turn and decided to put me in cuffs. I think Officer Vasquez was just, if you notice him in the video, he is just kind of trying to stay out of it, kind of. Even when I’m in cuffs, if you notice I’m kind of standing by myself in cuffs, and you’re supposed to be holding the prisoner or whatever, if I fall in custody… So they’re known to be close and Vasquez didn’t want no part of it. It was Officer Graham. I’d like an apology from him and I would definitely like retraining.
I’d like for police all over the nation to not hear “When you pull a car full of people over, you need to get everybody’s ID.” They’re told that every morning probably before they leave to go get their donuts that “Hey, you better get everybody’s ID.” So they’re under pressure from their sergeant and you can tell when they pull someone over, it’s like crack. They want that ID so bad.
I even said it on the last video, that five minute video when I got pulled over last week, “It’s like crack you guys. You just can’t let it go.” And so, I just finally had enough and so I just want them be retrained. I’d like to be compensated. I’ve lost a lot of money. We got evicted out of our last house because I was afraid to drive because I’ll go to jail and I can’t DoorDash. I’m a single dad of three kids.
Their mom has been absent for three years. They’ve seen her one time in three years. So it’s just me and the kids. That’s my livelihood and I try to work in DoorDash to make money and I couldn’t drive for a month and a half just in fear of being pulled over. So we got evicted, had to move seven miles out of the town, which I’m glad we did. That was voluntary, but thank God we found a house. My friend let us move into his house and everything’s been good since.
Taya Graham:
I’m really glad you mentioned your family because I think it’s important for officers to know that these arrests have an impact not just on you but the people who you put food on the table for, that this is not just a matter of a man’s pride, but these tickets and arrests interfere with your livelihood and your ability to be a provider and a father.
Now as we have recounted in both the interview with Mr. Reader and Stephen’s reporting on our nation’s traffic fine industrial complex, there is a trend in this country that is both troubling and on the rise. It’s a transformation of our public institutions from agents of public good to agencies premised on profit. In other words, governance that was intended to serve some greater purpose has ended up becoming cash machines to public coffers for pensions and luxury cop cars and other forms of wasteful overspending.
It’s an evolution that I think often goes unnoticed, a transformation of the ethos of governance that I think explains the lack of faith Americans have in those same institutions. It’s a malaise that needs to be understood so that we can demand better and expect better. Just consider for a moment a slew of new legislation across the country premised upon the concept of making bail less affordable. That is new laws creating burdensome costs for people who are swept into a system through no fault of their own.
Let’s remember that as many of our previous guests have explained on the show, bail often becomes the punishment inflicted upon the innocent. It’s a penalty without recourse assessed on people who are already struggling economically and that does not get refunded even if the underlying arrest was illegal, unjust or otherwise unnecessary. This imposition of fines upon the innocent is not a meager wealth extraction mechanism.
A study by the Prison Policy Initiative found that of 600,000 people locked up in local jails in 2016, nearly 70% were pretrial, meaning that they could not afford to pay the bail to be free until their case was adjudicated. This is a number that has barely nudged since. It points to a serious problem, which is this, our constitutional right to be punished only after due process actually has a price tag and it’s quite steep.
In 2022, large insurance companies netted roughly $2.4 billion in profits, charging fees to make people pay bail payments. The same study shows that the money is extracted from people who can ill afford it. That’s because more than half of the people in jail awaiting trial earn in the bottom third percentile of income for all Americans. But there is a bright spot in this story.
Across the country, community activists have acted collectively to help people overcome the onerous bail imposed by the government, grassroots organizers who are trying to fight the corporate takeover of our justice system. Known as bail funds, the groups raise money to assist people who cannot make bail without assistance. They have sprung up across the country specifically to help protestors who are subject to arrest by police for exercising their constitutional rights and often find themselves subject to excessive bail, all designed to infringe upon their ability to dissent.
We actually spoke to one of the most active funds in the country when we traveled to Atlanta to cover the ongoing protests over the construction of Cop City. Cop City of course is the $90 million plan funded by Fortune 500 companies to tear down an old growth forest just outside Atlanta to construct a veritable Coptopia. The facility is planned to have a fake city to practice military-style training, classrooms, a club, an auditorium, and even onsite housing for law enforcement, which is ironic in a city that is in the midst of an affordable housing crisis it has not been able to solve.
Still, the protestors have continued to fight against the project and law enforcement has effectively criminalized their efforts as a result, charging people with RICO and domestic terrorism. To fight back, the Atlanta Solidarity Fund has sought to help those who find themselves charged. In fact, we spoke to one of the key people involved in their efforts, Marlon Kautz, and he explained to us how they were using grassroots organizing to help activists overcome the system, which wants to silence them.
Marlon Kautz:
What they’re trying to do is very clearly establish a precedent which says that based on your political convictions and your beliefs, you could be considered a member of a criminal organization and charged for crimes which you had nothing to do with aside from agreeing with the politics of a movement.
Taya Graham:
Several months after this interview, the Georgia Bureau of Investigation arrested Marlon and two other people who had run the fund. They were charged, and wait for it, for using funds raised through an umbrella group dedicated to stopping Cop City to pay for bail for jailed activists. The total sum in question $5,000. That’s right, $5,000 to stop a $90 million corporate-funded training center to school police on how to use military-style tactics against civilians.
I’m not kidding, but it’s actually getting worse. Much worse. Because the efforts by the small band of Atlanta activists to fight the system armed with guns and badges and hundreds of millions of dollars has apparently warranted even more action. The state government has stepped in too, legislators who are pushing to put an even steeper price tag on our constitutional rights that would pretty much make them an a la carte selection from an extremely expensive fascist-run restaurant.
That’s because the state senate in its infinite wisdom, has decided to impose even more punitive obstacles to obtaining bail. It has made cash bail mandatory for a variety of crimes including marijuana possession and unlawful assembly. Seriously, it’ll achieve these goals by making roughly 30 crimes eligible for no money bail. What that means is that people charged with these crimes will not be able to use a bail bondsman, which is already usury enough. Instead, they’ll have to put up cash only to be freed before their trial.
What that means is that if a judge set a $10,000 bail, you basically have to pay $10,000 cash upfront. What this legislation does is say “Pay up or sit in a cell before you have your day in court.” Isn’t that the opposite of innocent until proven guilty? I mean, won’t that force people to endure the punishment before being convicted of the crime?
The bill would also impose limits on bail funds to make bail less burdensome. It would prohibit them from bailing out no more than three people a year, effectively ending the ability of these same funds to operate. And Georgia is not the only state trying to pass similar laws. Several other states, including Virginia, have bills that impose cash bail or severely limit the activity of bail funds.
It’s a countrywide effort that is gaining steam that will essentially put an increasingly expensive price tag on our basic right to petition the government. How many people will speak their mind and peaceably assemble and protest if they know it could cost them thousands or that they could sit in jail for months before getting a trial? That’s what disturbs me the most about the series of efforts to prohibit protest, what it says about the true state of civil rights in our country that was founded upon them.
It’s a state-sponsored pushback that is both dangerous and offensive. Because, like I noted at the beginning of this rant, government officials when faced with pushback from citizens like Mr. Reader and others seem to turn to the same tool that allows them to diminish our rights without actually doing so directly. I mean, what I mean is that the powers that be have learned how to use a mechanism that makes the erosion of our ability to push back not only more difficult, but nearly impossible for anyone other than the wealthy.
They are doing so by charging us to exercise our own rights. Basically, they want to make our rights prohibitively expensive. As I said before, they want to put a price tag on the rights enumerated in the Constitution that we simply cannot pay. They want to make being an American citizen as expensive as possible, an interesting idea in a country already accustomed to paying the highest prices for things like education and healthcare.
Let’s think of it as a civil rights toll system. Each time you try to exercise your right, you get charged. Just to note, they haven’t yet come up with an easy pass system that allows you to glide through and pay later. No, these excise taxes are all paid upfront. I mean, can we foresee a future envisioned by science fiction writer Philip K. Dick, where all US citizens will have to sign a Terms of Service Agreement to access their rights to the Constitution? A dystopian society where like his character in Ubik ends up having to pay to use a door on an appliance, and the door won’t let him open it until he pays a fee. When he refuses and tries to pry it open, the door threatens to sue him.
I think it’s a perfect metaphor for the world of fines, fees, bail, and other charges we are living in today. Is it really that farfetched that this process of charging us to use our right only escalates, that politicians will continue to devise enough new levies that we will have to carry around a constitutional debit card that will be charged to us each time we show up to protest, seek a jury trial or simply want to walk down a sidewalk and shout without interference from police?
Are we really that far from a world of fee-for-service citizenship? I don’t think so. I mean, in a sense we are already living in it, even without the bills I mentioned actually becoming law. Just consider the guests we’ve had on the show. How many were innocent but had to pay bail, hire lawyers, hand over fees and fines even though they had never committed a crime? How many actually ended up paying fees for the right of presumption of innocence?
I mean, I can’t even count the number of people who reach out to us who are struggling to fight back against law enforcement, but whose biggest impediment is not the law, but their bank accounts. It’s really a disturbing reality to contemplate. I mean, what is more ideally democratic than raising money to bail out people who’ve been wrongly incarcerated for protesting? What is less democratic than allowing the government to cage people for a fine?
To me, it’s just another way the government, no, our government, has devised a way to restrict our agency. A frightening law imposed Cash App for our rights that allows them to dole them out, but charge us for the privilege. To me, there seems to be no limit to their greed and no checks, so to speak, on their rapacious desire to take what is rightfully ours and charge us to access our human rights.
Remember, we live in a country where despite the Fourth Amendment, the government can seize your property without charging you with a crime and make you prove in court that they should give it back. They can literally come onto your property, take your belongings, and make you pay for the honor to reclaim what’s rightfully yours known under the benign title, Civil Asset Forfeiture.
When we see a man yelling at the cops, we have to remember that his frustration is more than the result of just a ticket. It’s a consequence of turning law enforcement into profit extraction. It is the result of allowing cops to act as debt collectors, allowing them to infringe upon our freedom and then charge us if we want it back. It’s like a pay-for-play democracy. The question is, how much are we willing to fork over before we finally say enough?
I want to thank Thomas Reader for coming forward and sharing his experience with us. Thank you, Thomas. And of course, I have to thank Intrepid reporter, Stephen Janis, for his writing, research and editing on this piece. Thank you, Stephen.
Stephen Janis:
Taya, thanks having me. I appreciate it.
Taya Graham:
I want to thank friends and mods of the show, Noli D and Lacey R for their support. Thank you. And a very special thanks to our Accountability Reports Patreons. We appreciate you and I look forward to thanking each and every one of you personally in our next live stream, especially Patreon Associate Producers, John ER, David K, Louis P, Lucy Garcia, and super friends Shane B, Kenneth K, Pineapple Girl, Matter of Rights, and Chris R.
I want you watching to know that if you have video evidence of police misconduct or brutality, please share it with us and we might be able to investigate. Please reach out to us. You can email us tips privately at par@therealnews.com and share your evidence of police misconduct. You can also message us at Police Accountability Report on Facebook or Instagram or @EyesOnPolice on Twitter. And of course, you can always message me directly @TayasBaltimore on Twitter or Facebook.
Please like and comment. I really do read your comments and appreciate them. Of course, we have the Patreon link pinned in the comments below for Accountability Reports. If you feel inspired to donate, please do. We don’t run ads or take corporate dollars so anything can spare is truly appreciated. My name is Taya Graham and I’m your host of the Police Accountability Report. Please be safe out there.
I remember, as a kid, hearing a story about a lone man, a mortal man, who had traveled to the underworld. He was a great warrior, and his name was Er. “He once upon a time was slain in battle,” Plato writes, “and when the corpses were taken up on the tenth day already decayed, his was found intact, and having been brought home, at the moment of his funeral, on the twelfth day as he lay upon the pyre, he revived, and after coming to life related what he had seen in the world beyond.”
Like a lot of kids, I was drawn, almost hypnotically, to all kinds of mythology: Greek mythology, Egyptian, Aztec. I had no firm sense of what “mythology” really meant, nor the negative connotations it had in the eyes of the adult world, the “modern” world, the “enlightened” condescension with which grownups mentioned the term. To me, much like the Bible, these were historical records, stories of worlds and people and gods and monsters that had all existed at some point… a long time from now, a long way from here. They were real to me.
And I remember, somewhere in the softest parts of my young brain, being absolutely haunted by this story. I was afraid to even walk into our garage at night. I couldn’t help but imagine myself walking into the blackness down there, at the edge of oblivion, into a hopeless abyss of endless pain. Imagine yourself literally, not figuratively, going to hell and back. How, I thought, could anyone endure that? How could someone as real as me, my siblings, or my parents, someone real enough to hurt as much as I knew real people could hurt, someone who was a kid once, too, like I was—how could they survive that experience? How could they bear the weight of everything they saw? How could they possibly be expected to communicate that experience to those who could never truly understand? How would that person be in daily life, how would they relate to other people after everything they had been through?
I have been forever changed after witnessing firsthand that Eddie, the Er of our time, bore all the weight of the underworld not with the crushing bitterness and disfigurement of the soul that I expected, but with unimaginable kindness, with a fierce and undying love for others, and with an unwavering commitment to the struggle to fix the world that had so unforgivably wronged him.
I never could have imagined that, decades later, the fates would be so kind as to give me answers to these questions when I was fortunate enough to cross paths with Eddie Conway. And I have been forever changed after witnessing firsthand that Eddie, the Er of our time, bore all the weight of the underworld not with the crushing bitterness and disfigurement of the soul that I expected, but with unimaginable kindness, with a fierce and undying love for others, and with an unwavering commitment to the struggle to fix the world that had so unforgivably wronged him. I never could have conceived that I would get the opportunity one day to hear him tell the story of hell that us fellow mortals need to hear, and to help him and our team at The Real News Network do that vital work. And when Eddie told that story, people listened. Because he didn’t just tell it himself—he committed himself, always, to lifting up the voices and struggles of those who have not only been victimized by, but who are themselves in the struggle to storm the gates and dismantle the man-made hell that is white supremacy, patriarchy, imperialism, and the monstrous, people-swallowing machine of the prison-industrial complex. Even now, as my heart breaks in unison with all who knew and loved him, I can hear Eddie in my head, speaking with all the tenderness of encouragement, but with all the seriousness of a command: Don’t stop doing this work, and never forget who we’re doing it for.
Even now, as my heart breaks in unison with all who knew and loved him, I can hear Eddie in my head, speaking with all the tenderness of encouragement, but with all the seriousness of a command: Don’t stop doing this work, and never forget who we’re doing it for.
Eddie was one of the main reasons I left my old job, in the middle of a deadly pandemic, to come work at The Real News. And in many ways, he is the reason I am still here. I took that leap in October of 2020 because, like Eddie, I believed in the mission of what we do here at TRNN, I believe that making media can and must play a vital role in the unending struggle for liberation, for a more just world, and for a future worth living in. But I came to TRNN specifically for the people at TRNN, present and past, people like Eddie, people like Mansa Musa, people like Cameron Granadino and Ericka Blount, and so many others, because they are the ones who have always made the mission something real, tangible, worthwhile—more than just words. Then, precisely one month after I started here as editor-in-chief, like many other media outlets, the financial shock of COVID-19 hit us hard, we lost a significant portion of our funding, and we lost half of the staff I had explicitly left my old job to come work with here. “Jesus,” I thought, “what the hell did I just walk into? What the hell are we going to do now?” I won’t lie, in the darkest moments during that very dark time, I wanted to leave. I never admitted that to anyone on our team, but Eddie was the one who heard it in my voice. When we spoke on the phone for the first time after we got the news, the first words out of his mouth were, “How are you holding up?” I was honest with him… there was no way not to be your most honest self when you were talking to Eddie.
“It’ll be alright, man,” he told me. “You and me, we soldiers. We can’t stop, and we won’t stop.” I’ll never forget that.
Eddie was a caretaker. He took care of us. He took care of everyone who passed through The Real News.
Eddie was a caretaker. He took care of us. He took care of everyone who passed through The Real News. Everyone I’ve spoken with, everyone who currently works or has worked at TRNN, has shared with me a version of the same story: they have told me that Eddie was their rock, he was their calm, he was their protector, the one who was always there to talk when they were feeling overwhelmed, when they were sad or frustrated, when they too were thinking of leaving, when the stress of the work was so intense that they could no longer remember why this work was important. We have come a long way here to rebuild TRNN in the past few years, and I realize now that, if it weren’t for Eddie, we would have had nothing and nobody to rebuild with. I will forever be grateful to him for that, for taking care of our people, and I have never been more committed than I am now to carrying on the work he believed in, and we will do that work in a way that would make him proud.
Eddie’s memorial service was held in Baltimore on Feb. 25, 2023. That was the first and only time I ever “met” Eddie in person, the first and only time we were ever in the same physical space together. Obviously, between COVID and dealing with the immeasurable toll that 44 years of incarceration as a political prisoner took on his body, Eddie had to stay remote during our time as colleagues. And even though we worked together every day, it was always through a screen. But, my God, I will always cherish those moments we got to share, or moments I simply got to witness, in those contexts. I got to see Eddie’s serious, stoic face melt into a smile when his dog Chunky ran in the room and interrupted a Zoom call. I got to hear him talk with a general’s precision about what stories we needed to cover on Rattling the Bars and why. But I think my favorite memories will always be the calls Eddie took on his porch, in his hanging chair, even when it was freezing-ass cold outside. I would glance down at my screen and see him listening to the call while looking off to the side, free, in the open air, looking out at the trees and street and cars with all the adoration and quiet gratitude of a child seeing the ocean for the first time, or of an elder seeing it for perhaps the last time…
I’ve spent much of the past year regretting all the conversations Eddie and I didn’t get to have (during our time as colleagues, we only published one conversation together). I still lament the time that was stolen from us, and I know I always will, but today I am grateful… “Many people see me only through a political lens,” Eddie wrote in his autobiography, which he coauthored from prison with his indomitable wife and fellow freedom fighter Dominque, “but I am a human being, with very human relationships.” Even though the most childish, self-pitying part of my heart is still upset about the questions I can no longer ask him myself, all the things I wanted to learn about him, I am so filled with gratitude that, before and after his passing, I have gotten to know Eddie better through those human relationships, by talking to the people whose lives he also touched—and he touched so, so many people’s lives. The world is in a dismal state, but it would be a lot worse off if we had never been blessed with Eddie’s light. I know that much.
The great Vassily Grossman once wrote:
“I have seen that it is not man who is impotent in the struggle against evil, but the power of evil that is impotent in the struggle against man. The powerlessness of kindness, of senseless kindness, is the secret of its immortality. It can never be conquered. The more stupid, the more senseless, the more helpless it may seem, the vaster it is. Evil is impotent before it. The prophets, religious teachers, reformers, social and political leaders are impotent before it. This dumb, blind love is man’s meaning. Human history is not the battle of good struggling to overcome evil. It is a battle fought by a great evil, struggling to crush a small kernel of human kindness. But if what is human in human beings has not been destroyed even now, then evil will never conquer.”
He was the best in all of us, the embodiment of everything that makes humans worth a damn, an awe-inspiring example of the most inextinguishable part of the human will and what horrors a person can endure in the fight to be free.
Anyone who knew Eddie knows that he was living proof of this. He was the best in all of us, the embodiment of everything that makes humans worth a damn, an awe-inspiring example of the most inextinguishable part of the human will and what horrors a person can endure in the fight to be free.
I will never lose faith in what humanity can be, in the world we can still build, because I knew Eddie Conway.
The crisis of mass incarceration is about more than the conduct of police officers—it’s a question of public expenditures, and how pouring taxpayer money into incarceration at the expense of other, more humanizing ventures takes a toll on society at large. As public schools and public health programs across the nation grapple with a host of preventable problems arising from underinvestment, state and local governments across the nation spend over $200 billion each year on prisons, jails, and police. Now, a new report from the Justice Policy Institute, “The Right Investment 2.0”, takes a detailed look at the “downward spiral” low-income, predominately Black and Brown communities across Maryland are forced into by this imbalance in public expenditures. T. Shekhinah Braveheart and Ryan King of the Justice Policy Institute join Rattling the Bars for a discussion on the report’s findings in Baltimore, and how an alternative model of community investment could combat poverty and crime without resorting to further policing.
Studio / Post-Production: Cameron Granadino
Transcript
The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. A proofread version will be made available as soon as possible.
Mansa Musa: Welcome to this edition of Rattling The Bars, a show that amplifies the voices of people who are disenfranchised, marginalized, and subjugated by offering solutions. Joining me today to talk about a report published by the Justice Policy Institute entitled The Right Investment, which examines how the lack of funding in neighborhoods, coupled with the lack of investment in housing, education, economic development, and public health devastates communities causing them into a downward spiral, is Shekhinah Braveheart, advocacy associate at the Justice Policy Institute, and Ryan King of Justice Policy Institute. Welcome to Rattling The Bars.
T. Shekhinah Braveheart: Thank you. Thank you. Glad to be here.
Ryan King: Thank you for having me.
Mansa Musa: So let’s dive right into it. Justice Policy Institute published a report called “The Right Investment 2.0: How Maryland Can Create Safe and Healthy Communities.” Let’s start with you, Shekhinah. The reason why I’m asking this question is because there’s a whole lot of reports that came out about poverty and impoverished situations; One of the most infamous reports that came out came out in 1970. The Coroner Report, I think it was, where it talked about poverty throughout the US. What is so unique about this report and all its implications that, when you juxtapose against other reports, it doesn’t replicate what they’re saying, it has some individuality to it?
T. Shekhinah Braveheart: Yeah. Right Investment 2.0, our newest report — And it’s an interactive report — Expands the scope of understanding by examining the impact of concentrated criminal legal involvement in specific neighborhoods coupled with the historic lack of investment in housing, education, economic development, public health, and how it creates this devastation and communities are locked into this downward spiral of disadvantage. And it’s historical, so this lack of investment and criminal legal involvement has this multi-generational impact. The one thing about this report is that it offers some perspective on how long-term and strategic investments can uplift even the most challenging neighborhoods. The problem is not insurmountable, that’s the difference. We’re not defining the problem, we’re looking and offering some perspective on how long-term — And I stress long-term because there’s been long-term investment in policing and prosecutors in prisons, but there’s rarely long-term in the points and the areas that I just mentioned to you — Strategic investments can improve the conditions that we found ourselves in in these Baltimore communities.
Mansa Musa: And, in terms of Baltimore, well, we recognize that — Me in particular, I’ve served 48 years in the prison system in Maryland in particular. For 48 years, I served a percentage of it in the Maryland Penitentiary, I served at basically every institution with the exception of a few. But the majority of the population that was there when I first came in, was in Baltimore. I went into Maryland Penitentiary in 1973. The Maryland Penitentiary population in 1973, 75-80% of the population came out of Baltimore. In terms of the identity of Baltimore, Ryan, why did y’all dive down on Baltimore and not look across the board? Why did the report isolate itself to Baltimore in particular?
Ryan King: Sure. There’s a couple of things: The first being Baltimore now is about 10% of the state population, but comprises about one in three people that are in state prison. So, a big chunk of the people that are locked up in state prisons in the state of Maryland came from the city of Baltimore. It is the largest city in the state. And it matters, I think, because it allows us, it gives us an opportunity, to dive deeply into specific neighborhoods. I think there’s this question about how policy affects crime, who’s being incarcerated, and to some degree, what effects that’s having on communities. And in a place like Baltimore, you’re able to go from neighborhood to neighborhood and see stark differences in a whole host of different indicators. So, you’re able to look at one neighborhood right next to another neighborhood, or a short distance away, that has high rates of incarceration, and then, as we’ve said earlier, is historically disadvantaged on education, on housing, healthcare, life expectancy. It’s just a myriad of different factors. And so, Baltimore gives us an opportunity to look at all these things. And I think what we see in the end picture is, really, this is what structural racism looks like. These are neighborhoods that are historically disadvantaged on almost every single indicator you can find. And oh, by the way, they also have the highest rates of incarceration. And that’s not some sort of coincidence, and so I think to be able to dive into a city, and then go neighborhood by neighborhood and be able to see that, “Wow, the neighborhoods that are having all of these problems also have these problems,” it allows us to step back and then, I think, begin to see that these things are all interrelated with one another. This is not a criminal legal issue, this is not a housing issue, it’s not an education issue, it’s how we invest in our communities.
Mansa Musa: Right.
Ryan King: And as Shekhinah mentions, when we think about police, prosecutors, and prisons, those are investments. We should be thinking about those as investments. Those are dollars going into the system and not into the communities; and these outcomes and negative outcomes that we see are direct reflection of that.
Mansa Musa: And I like that, the way you frame that, because this is what I thought was unique about the report. Like I said earlier, there’s other reports that came out. Well, this is what I thought was unique about the report, was that it’s saying that, if we take and invest in creating holistic environments for people, then we won’t have what we know to be the Maryland prison system. So, I like that concept of investment. But, let’s peel back some of the layers of this report. Because the way the report was set up, you have categories. And in each category, or each topic, y’all make an analysis of how the socioeconomic political conditions contribute to, and then how the lack of investment help aid and assist in penalizing poverty. Let’s start with the communities of disproportion impact. Shekhinah, talk about that… What exactly do that mean to the lay person?
T. Shekhinah Braveheart: Well, we looked at, I think it was, 60 socioeconomic indicators from each of the Baltimore neighborhoods that allowed us to explore the relationship more deeply between criminal legal system involvement and a lack of neighborhood investment. So, they’re broad. But, for instance, the same communities that are disadvantaged across the range of indicators are the ones with the highest incarceration, so they’re also the ones with a higher unemployment rate, the lowest of household incomes, the lower educational attainment, higher rates of violence, higher rates of health issues, cancer, other forms of mortality, lower life expectancy. These things parallel. Sadly. The same socioeconomic factors and public health across the board would equal the indicators or the conditions that I just outlined.
Mansa Musa: So, for example is Sandtown-Winchester versus maybe Bolton Hill, or one of the more affluent areas in Baltimore. We was… Eddie Conway and a few other people, they had what they called the Tubman House, and they had a community center in Sandtown at the Gilmour in Gilmour Projects. And we was down there last year doing an event, and the community had been decimated. There wasn’t a lot of kids there no more. They had a lot of areas is boarded up. But I knew this, when I came out and I was in that area, I remember this area. Only, the way I remember this area was, a lot of the guys that was locked up with me came out of Gilmour Projects. So is this an indicator of what you’re talking about?
T. Shekhinah Braveheart: Yes, it was, like you said, Sandtown-Winchester, Greater Rosemont, Harlan Park, Southwest Baltimore. We did the first TRI, The Right Investment, in 2015. Eight years later, those are still the top five most impacted communities. Eight years later.
Mansa Musa: Okay. And Ryan-
T. Shekhinah Braveheart: So, it hasn’t changed. If anything, it got worse.
Mansa Musa: Yeah, exactly. No, I agree, because, like I said, I did all that time in the prison system. When I came out, we was in Baltimore doing some work, and this was the first time I had actually been out in the street and wasn’t handcuffed or riding in the van. And when I got out the truck, I realized, “I can walk up and down the street,” in my mind. And as I was walking up and down the street, I seen, the area I was in, I seen the devastation. I seen trash everywhere, boarded up houses every four houses. So, how can people have, how can the people have the psyche, the sense of community, how can I have a sense of community if, on the block I live, there’s 20 houses on the block, 11 of them is boarded up, and I’m in between whatever, and people just throwing trash out, whatever? But Ryan, talk about the community indicators in terms of how this report focused on and looked at some of the community indicators and how did they see these things came about.
Ryan King: Sure. And let me just, share while I have an opportunity here to get a sense of the kind of numbers we’re talking about. We’ve mentioned a few neighborhoods here. And so, you mentioned Sandtown- Winchester, Harlem Park. So, just to give your viewers a sense, there’s a little under 11,000 people that live in that neighborhood. It’s 92.5% black, and there’s an incarceration rate of 2,562 per 100,000. So, 277 people in that neighborhood are incarcerated. Now, I’m going to compare that to Greater Roland Park, Poplar Hill, 7200 people live there. It is 74% white, only 9% black, and there’s one incarcerated person in the entire neighborhood. So, it gives you a little bit of a sense about what we’re talking about. And, your viewers can also go to our website, and Shekhinah mentioned it’s an interactive resource, so it actually allows you to go and float over each neighborhood and get a sense of what these numbers are. You’ll see time and time again, the neighborhoods they are 90-plus percent black are the ones that have all of the worst socioeconomic indicators and the highest rates of incarceration. And so, the community indicators, as you mentioned, we took a look at things like unemployment, household income, and poverty levels, but even things like Shekhinah had mentioned: health. So, around elevated blood levels. We looked at educational attainment, mortality rates, truancy rates, vacant-abandoned properties, and all of these, as you can imagine, the same neighborhoods I mentioned, Sandtown-Winchester, the highest arrest data, the highest calls for 911 service, the lowest rates of high school attainment. And then, if you were to flip to Greater Roland Park, Poplar Hill, you’ll see the exact opposite. I mean, it’s neighborhood after neighborhood. And these are all in the same city, all in the same state, so you should not be seeing these differences. Again, that’s getting back to your first question about the importance of being able to see it under one government in the city of Baltimore. These differences tells you that this is more than just a location. These are the results of direct decisions about where to invest resources and what types of resources to invest in.
Mansa Musa: And like I said, I recall when I first came into the system in Maryland, in Baltimore in particular. I recall where we see the harbors at now, all the more affluent areas, they was like warehouses down there. The guys that was from Baltimore, they had all the high rise projects they was in, all of them came out them areas that they ultimately demolished. But that earned them areas, they later on became prime real estate. And now, what we see is the inner harbor and the money they invested in the harbor, you go a couple of miles left or a couple of miles right and you don’t see nothing but blight. In terms of that, how do we reconcile that when we have… In the city of Baltimore, how do you reconcile that in the city of Baltimore you have, up until O’Malley, you’ve had predominantly black administration? How did y’all report deal with that? Was that a factor that y’all took into account in this report?
T. Shekhinah Braveheart: I would say, and I’m a Baltimore resident, I would offer that there are levels of leadership. Of course, there is the governor over the state, and then we have the various counties, and then we have the mayors of the city. It all comes down to where are they making the investments, what’s important to them. You talked about blight in these areas, just between a few blocks and another. I recently moved just 10 blocks. All I moved was 10 blocks. Where I live now, where I lived before, our streets were clean because there was a… What do you call it? Street sweeping truck? Sanitation truck; that came down our block twice a week and our block was clean. Now, just 10 blocks later, trash everywhere. But, this is a city service that our tax dollars pay for. Now, who decides what neighborhoods, what streets, get cleaned, and which ones do not? We would think that that would just be a service that’s offered across the board, but it’s not. So, it can be disheartening. It can be demoralizing for people who live in these communities, where half the block is boarded up, burned out buildings, busted windows, graffiti, all those things. It just creates that cycle. But decisions are made. So, one of the great things about this report, and others that are like it, is that it shines a light on what the problems are. And then we can make recommendations as to how to fix them, starting at the highest of the highest levels, all the way down to community partners, those who are closest to the problem, who can probably identify where the investment priorities should be better than anybody else because they’re closest to it.
Mansa Musa: Right. And in terms of the health and wellness, we recognize that the high rate in mortality, we recognize that, in terms of the psychic of the people that Baltimore is known for, this is how they describe Baltimore in the criminal element. Say Baltimore is known as a heroin town, in terms of they sell heroin in Baltimore. So, in terms of the trauma that’s associated with this poverty, Ryan, talk about the wellness and the health and how that impacts on impacts the community overall.
Ryan King: Absolutely. I mean, you’re talking about, in a lot of these communities we’ve been discussing, the actual state of the buildings, the street access to healthy food, which can be limited in a lot of these communities, and then also high rates of violence. Which, as you’re saying, it is traumatic to live in a neighborhood with high rates of violence; it is traumatic to live in a neighborhood with high rates of sickness and high mortality and lack of access to all the supports and services that an individual might need, that has access in other neighborhoods as close as 10 blocks away, as Shekhinah just mentioned. But I think that the reality of living in those communities, and what it is like, and what we hear consistently from people have to live in those communities, about the trauma of being subjected to the violence, the concern and worry for family members and loved ones going to school, going to work, those sorts of things, that has a cumulative effect. And, that when you have that concentrated to the degree that you do in the city of Baltimore and a lot of other cities across the country, it can be catastrophic for those neighborhoods. And, it really requires the kind of services supports for healing. We don’t have that in Baltimore. We don’t have that in a lot of places. So, when you ask people who live in a lot of these communities, what are they looking for? They’re not going to say, “Oh, we want 20% more people locked up.” They want to feel safe, they want to be healthy, they want strength and vibrancy in return to their community. And, that comes by investing in the people who live there. And that is, unfortunately, what we haven’t seen. I think why we are where we are, in a lot of ways, is precisely because we’ve had sort of this top-down approach. People from outside of Baltimore, for example, making decisions. We already know former governor Hogan. Baltimore was a popular punching bag for him whenever he needed to score political points. And, that is often the case for folks outside of the city; people thinking they know what’s best as opposed to saying, “Let’s talk to the people who are in these neighborhoods and let’s listen to them, ask them what they need. Let’s listen to them and then invest in those things.” And, that’s something that we haven’t tried, and that’s what this report is attempting to try to draw attention to. This is not about necessarily just police, prosecutors, and prisons. This is about how we invest in strength and strong communities, and we’re not doing that in places like Baltimore.
Mansa Musa: And I want our audience to be mindful of this, that we’re talking about a community that was… I remember at one point in Baltimore when they used to have clean blocks. They used to have, with the Air Force, used to take and they had a competition in the city, in Baltimore city, and everybody would took a lot of pride in it, in their neighborhoods, would clean their block. Then they would give block party, or the Air Force and other stores would sponsor block party, and the community was like real vibrant. And then now, we see what we see now, which leads me to the next element, the redlining. Shekhinah, talk about the redlining.
T. Shekhinah Braveheart: Yeah, I’m going to defer to Ryan on the history of redlining-
Mansa Musa: Come on, Ryan.
T. Shekhinah Braveheart: … In Maryland.
Ryan King: Sure, sure. I do want to pick up, though. Just, I’ll talk about that, but I want to pick up on the comment that you had just mentioned before. What you’re describing is, in the academic literature, they call it collective efficacy. And, collective efficacy means that the people in the community can come together collectively and can effectuate change, right? So, you’re talking about communities that were strong. Why? Because the community members themselves took pride in them. And, one of the things that we see is that, and there is research, quantitative research, to show that the more you have system involved, more people being arrested, people coming in and out, incarcerated, being yanked on and off supervision and in out of custody, it destabilizes communities and it destroys those bonds. So, in reality, by bringing in this external force of the police to bring in safety and not trusting the community members, you’re taking away the ability for the community members to do the kinds of things you were talking about, to collectively create their own community, in the same way that a lot of other safe, healthy neighborhoods… Again, where a parent can see another kid down the street, a neighbor says something, intervenes. That doesn’t happen in communities where you have such high level system involvement. And so, we actually see crime rates in the communities with the highest rates of incarceration are higher. And the reason they’re higher is because a lot of what we know works to prevent crime has been destabilized. So, I think that’s a really important point that you raised, and I wanted to place that in that broader context.
Mansa Musa: That’s an accurate articulation. Come on. Redline.
Ryan King: So, as far as redline is concerned, you mentioned earlier regarding the Inner Harbor and the investment there, and it’s a perfect example, right? There were actual decisions made by federal agencies that determined the risk of loans being given for people to buy homes. And so, if it was you were in a green neighborhood, literally circled with a green pen, then that was considered low risk where banks would be loaning. There’s yellow, and then there was red. And, you can probably guess what red is. Red means these are high risk loan areas. Those red lines were drawn in neighborhoods and communities that were historically majority black. And so, in doing so, what banks said at that time, and this is all really sort of post-World War II 1950s, so the kind of big baby boom, when all of these neighborhoods and suburbs were growing up, that black families that were looking to also build and expand in the same way white families were literally blocked because banks were being told by the federal government, that, “Don’t loan to these individuals, loan to these individuals. If you loan to these individuals over here in the redlined area, it’s a higher risk of them not paying.” And that obviously has had tremendous consequences for those communities. If you look at the redlined neighborhoods in Baltimore, in the latter of the last 50 years of the 20th century, and then coming into the beginning of the 21st century, unsurprisingly, the communities where there was investment, where there people were put down roots and built homes and built families of multi-generational, those communities are doing well. The ones that were redlined are not. So, those are… It’s critically important. This is not by some coincidence. These were direct, deliberate decisions made. They were made primarily because of racism, because these were neighborhoods that were predominantly black. And, here we are, 70-some years later, and we’re seeing all the consequences of that continue in a lot of these neighborhoods. So, we created these problems. But the good thing about that is we can fix them.
Mansa Musa: And I think… Then we moving now to the next step. Come on, Shekhinah, what is the next step? Because, we recognize, and let me frame this: we recognize that you’re being penalized for poverty. This report recognize that there are impoverished communities; the people that’s in impoverished communities, they’re going to be penalized, locked up, or subjugated to some type of social system that relegates them to being ineffective. In terms of the next step and investing in changing the narrative, talk about that.
T. Shekhinah Braveheart: The bottom line to me, and based on this report, is investing in communities is the best public safety strategy. We had just had, a few weeks ago, the state governor and his… I guess it was his official press conference of the year, 2024, talking about his policy priorities. And, a lot of it was around investments. I was happy to hear that he talked a bit about communities that have been traditionally historically disadvantaged, but I’m hoping that he really walks the walk in this situation. Because, this is what the problem is. They talk about the high crime rates, the violent crime, the gun violence, the youth violence, the issues with juvenile justice. They want to roll back all the reforms that we fought so hard for over the past 5-10 years around criminal justice reform and juvenile justice reform. And they sort of have it backwards, right? The investments should be on the front end, investing in these communities, and that is what builds the public safety. You talked a little bit, and Ryan talked a little bit, about the closeness in communities, people taking collective responsibility for what goes on in their communities. That’s a part of it, but there needs to be this… You need to establish sustainable funding sources to ensure support for both immediate and long-term investments.
Mansa Musa: Right. And, you know what I think as we get ready to close out on it? I think that we need to recognize that that really is the solution. Because, this is what y’all offering. Y’all saying 2.0, and we invest more monies into quality education institutions that provide quality education; stop having food deserts, invest in communities, and put stores in them communities, public housing. Because a person living in public housing don’t mean that they want to live in a rat infested environment or environment where trash is not collected. Ryan, talk about some of the solutions that y’all… Because y’all were saying, look at private funding, track and monitor policies and program development, to ensure that it’s improving the assets needed and scaling to the community. Talk about some of these things as y’all outlined how to make these investments, and more importantly, how to monitor and track them to ensure that we’re not giving lip service to a problem, or the money’s not going in the hands of poverty pimps.
Ryan King: Right. So, the simplest solution is we need to listen to people who live in these neighborhoods. There are examples of this in other states, what are called community public safety investment, where community leaders partner with elected officials, with practitioners in the local or state government, where they take some dollars and resources and they invest them in certain interventions. They work with the community. The community themselves builds a plan, where they’ll have community leaders will come and say, “Here are the things that we are looking for. Here are five things that we need.” And then you can have technical assistance. Individuals can come in and help work up a strategic plan, work up a budget. And, we’re not talking about… I mean, you think about the hundreds of millions of dollars that are spent every year on police and locking people up. For a small fraction, a small fraction of that, we can invest in these communities. A lot of times, people are talking about community centers. They want parks, they want better lighting on the streets. They want clean streets. They want abandoned buildings to be cleaned up. These are little things that can be done that have a tremendous impact on public safety. And that, to me, I want to pick up on the point that Shekhinah made. Community investment is our most and best, most effective public safety strategy. And, we have data to prove it. There has been research that has shown that, during declines in crime in the last 20-30 years, that community-based organizations were a huge factor, that neighborhoods that had more engaged, more involved community-based organizations had better outcomes when it comes to crime. This is not rocket science. This is basic stuff. You invest in people, you have better outcomes. We know that. That’s why we have an educational system. That’s why we do this all across the country in a lot of different spheres. We just have to have this orientation when we think about what we’re doing in our neighborhoods. And as I said earlier, it is an investment choice, a dollar in policing or a dollar to building a community center, pre-K, nurse home visiting for, and family partnerships, for young mothers; all of these factors out there that we’ve seen have effective outcomes long-term for individuals and reduce crime. That’s where our money needs to be going.
Mansa Musa: All right. And, as we close out, both of y’all can answer this. To the lay person… How do you want me to receive this report as a lay person? I’m the person living in Sandtown-Winchester. I’m the person that’s been raised, I’m the grandmother that raised the whole neighborhood, and I can’t move, but I know that I’ve got historical data to say that I lived in a [inaudible 00:30:12]. How do you want me to receive this report? Start us out, Shekhinah.
T. Shekhinah Braveheart: I would want you to receive the report, that grandmother, that mother, those people who live in the communities, to use this report or see it as a resource. Because, it provides the information. All it’s doing is confirming what you have seen your entire life. We’ve given you the numbers, the statistics around the reality that you have lived. Now, you can take that information and go to your leaders, elected officials, on a community level, on a local level, on a city level, county level, and state level, and take that information to them and demand that, “Okay, you put the investments. The money is here, you’re spending tax dollars on all this other stuff. The money’s there. We’re asking you to put it in these particular areas. And we can tell you from our firsthand experiences that this is the problem.”
Mansa Musa: Right.
T. Shekhinah Braveheart: “And this is the solution.”
Mansa Musa: Right. I like that. Ryan?
Ryan King: Yeah, I mean, I would just add, I think these are data that… Elected officials in Baltimore and elected officials in Annapolis need to see these and say, “What’s going on here? This is not defensible. We cannot be 2024 in the United States of America, the wealthiest nation on earth, and have these neighborhoods that are failing on every single possible social indicator.” It is unacceptable. And so, as a resident, we now have these data. I find them… We have known this stuff for a long time, but still, when you see these numbers, when you see it on a map and see how shocking it is, and to go and say, “What are we going to do? Explain this to me, as your constituent, and what are we going to do to make this differently? How do we get resources into these communities?” I would agree. I think that’s a resource to try to hold our elected officials and stakeholders accountable
Mansa Musa: And Shekhinah tell our audience how we get in touch with you, how they can get in touch with you and get a copy of the report.
T. Shekhinah Braveheart: Yes, you can just go to the Justice Policy Institute website, justicepolicy.org, and you can reach out to me directly at tbraveheart@justicepolicy.org
Mansa Musa: And Ryan, how they can connect with you?
Ryan King: Same web address. My email address is R King, R-K-I-N-G, at justicepolicy.org.
Mansa Musa: There you have it. The real news. Thank you, Shekhinah Braveheart and Ryan King for joining me as we rattle the bars. We ask that you continue to support the real news and rattling the bar, because guess what, we really are the news.
Edmonton police recently arrested award-winning Indigenous journalist Brandi Morin as she was covering their raid of a local homeless encampment. Morin, who has contributed a number of stories to The Real News, including original documentaries Killer Water and Thacker Pass—Mining the Sacred, speaks with Taya Graham, co-host of Police Accountability Report, on her arrest and the deeper systemic issues of police abuse and anti-Indigenous racism in Canada.
Transcript
Taya Graham: We all know that the incredible power we bestow upon police is easily abused. There are so many examples, it would take the entire podcast to recount just a sliver of them.
But when law enforcement overreach and journalism intersect, it’s particularly troubling for a variety of reasons. Least of all is simply the notion that if police feel empowered to arrest someone for reporting, it would be an all-too-easy way to suppress one of the most effective checks against the abuse of police powers.
And that’s why today we are talking to an incredible journalist who just experienced this type of abuse of police power. She’s someone who’s well known to Real News listeners for her outstanding work chronicling the fight of Indigenous communities against the greed of mining companies in both Canada and the US.
Her name is Brandi Morin. And she produced, in conjunction with Ricochet Media and The Real News, two outstanding documentaries, along with other pieces.
Her documentary, Killer Water, exposes the long-hidden truths of big oil’s operations on the health and environment of local First Nation communities. Her other film, Thacker Pass, exposes the efforts to mine Lithium from sacred land in Arizona, and asks hard questions about the lesser-known costs and impacts of green energy initiatives. Both films exemplify her brand of hard-hitting narrative storytelling.
But recently, while she was covering a police raid of a homeless encampment in Edmonton, Canada, she found herself in the unwelcome position of being arrested and charged simply for reporting.
At the time, she was doing what encapsulates the heart of her work: exposing the abuse of others at the hands of state power. And to discuss what happened, the consequences for independent journalists everywhere, and how she’s fighting back, we are so happy to be joined today by Brandi Morin for this special edition of the Police Accountability Report podcast. Brandi, thank you so much for joining me.
Brandi Morin: Tânisi [hello], it’s great to be here. Thank you for having me.
Taya Graham: So Brandi, first let me just get right to the heart of it. Can you tell me what happened on the day of your arrest? What were you documenting at that time before you were arrested?
Brandi Morin: Yes. So I was in the city of Edmonton in Treaty 6 territory, not far from where I live, documenting an Indigenous-led encampment that was being evicted by the city that had been doing a number of sweeps of tent encampments across the city. And police were enforcing these injunctions.
So, I had been at this particular camp for a couple of days. The police had been there the day before, and they had managed to negotiate with the Indigenous people camping there to only take down a few of the structures that were not inhabited by anybody living there.
So I’d gone back on the second day, which was last Wednesday, to do more in-depth interviews, to get the experiences of the people living there. I had been in a teepee structure, which was home to the camp leader, Roy Cardinal, he’s also known as Big Man, and was doing interviews. They were drumming and singing in there.
Somebody came in and said, the police are here. I went outside and saw that the police were putting up yellow crime scene tape around the perimeter of this approximately two-acre city-owned lot where this encampment was, and there was several of them amassing.
A few minutes later, Big Man, some other people that lived in the camp, as well as supporters, came to address the police. And the police said, we are here to dismantle this camp. We have warming buses waiting if you want to go and sit on these buses. Because it was extremely, extremely cold. And they said, you have the opportunity to leave peacefully, or you are going to be forcibly removed, and your encampment is going to be taken down anyway.
So Roy and the others, they refused to leave. Roy looked at a couple of other Indigenous men that were with him, and they were carrying ceremonial items. And he said, okay, eagle feathers up boys. And they put their hands up in the air with these eagle feathers.
So the police moved towards Roy. I was filming it with my iPhone, and chaos completely broke out. People were screaming, there was snow flying everywhere from the boots on the ground.
And one of the officers came up to me and said, move, you need to get back behind the yellow tape. And I stated that I was media, that I was there to document, that I wasn’t going behind the tape. Now, oftentimes police will create these, what they call exclusion zones for the media. But this yellow tape that they had created was too far away to be able to see and accurately document what was unfolding.
Taya Graham: Could you estimate what that distance is? Because I’m very interested in these exclusion zones.
Brandi Morin: Yeah. So one of them was at least 40, 50 feet away. The other one that they were pushing me towards the side was probably 30, maybe more feet away. It was pretty far.
Meanwhile, the scene is unfolding. There are other people there filming. There was no media inside. So I think that the media may have, the mainstream media, that they may have been tipped off that the police were coming to do this raid. Because before I went into the teepee, there was no mainstream media there. And then when I came out, there was some there with cameras behind the yellow tape, along with the police.
So I seen them way back there. I was already inside doing this work. And next thing I know I was handcuffed and led to a paddy wagon, and then taken to downtown police headquarters. Held for five hours, which I’m told by one of my lawyers that that’s pretty unprecedented for police to hold somebody with no criminal record for obstruction for five hours, when I should have been held for maybe a half an hour at the most.
So when I was released, they had me sign a form with a promise to appear in court and said that I was charged with obstruction.
Taya Graham: What’s interesting to me is that, as I was doing my research for this, I noticed that the police cited that this exclusion zone, and also the city of Edmonton said this as well, that this distance is for your own protection.
So you’re arrested, you’re cuffed, and you’re given a criminal offense: obstruction. Do you feel like you were protected during this experience?
Brandi Morin: Yeah, you know what? No. I felt like I was there doing my job. And from the people that I spoke to on the ground, who were dealing with police, they told me that they felt unsafe. Because the police had the power in this situation. The police had these weapons.
And in Canada, Indigenous people are 10 times more likely than a white person to be shot and killed by police. The violence against Native people in this country is massively high, especially in all of these different systems by police.
And again, this is not my first rodeo, so to speak. I have documented police actions on various land defense actions or blockades.
Taya Graham: That touches on something I wanted to ask you about. You mentioned that there’s a higher rate of police brutality, police violence against Indigenous people. You’ve documented some really forceful removal of residents from these encampments. Can you describe some of what you’ve witnessed and how it’s affected those who are living there?
Brandi Morin: Unfortunately, that day I was arrested and taken away and unable to see with my own eyes the full extent of what went down. I’d seen Big Man being jumped on by multiple officers. Afterwards, I saw footage of him being let away with blood in his mouth. He’s 51 years old.
And these are people that are experiencing a lot of different struggles. They are living in vulnerable situations, being unhoused many times, dealing with mental health or addictions and the fallouts from different traumas, especially Indigenous people — Which by the way, in the city of Edmonton, 60% of people that are living unhoused are Indigenous people, despite Native people only making up 6% of the total population.
Taya Graham: That’s incredible.
Brandi Morin: Yeah. Our people are very highly overrepresented in this situation, and they are roughed up by police on a continual basis.
The day before this happened, there was a young Blackfoot Dene man who was there just as an observer to support the campers. He’s a volunteer with the Bear Claw Patrol, which is an Indigenous-led organization that provides support and outreach to people living on the streets.
And he was arrested violently by police. Now, there is video footage that is circulated online about this whole experience. He had multiple officers piled on him. One officer had their knee on his neck. Very traumatic experience for him. So we know that this violence is there and we know that the potential is there for police to kill.
Even just in December, Edmonton City police shot and killed a young Indigenous man from Alexander First Nation on a wellness check. They shot him six times to death. And these are instances that are regular and the norm across the country for Indigenous people. So I felt that it’s my responsibility as a Native journalist who specializes in amplifying Indigenous experiences and stories to stay in that situation, to document what was going on.
Taya Graham: Something that, as an American and a criminal justice system reporter here, I have a tendency to focus on what’s happening within our borders. But I did have someone reach out to me about Taylor McNallie, who was a protester, who was imprisoned during a Calgary protest against police brutality against Indigenous people and people of color. And that she was accused of obstruction, among other charges.
And I think this protest was sparked by a horrific video of police brutality that occurred within a correctional center. I believe it was a woman of color named Dalia.
But then I also saw William Ahmo, who was forced to the ground by correction officers, I think in 2021 at the Headland Correctional Center in Manitoba. So I’m seeing these instances of brutality that are recent and are startling on video, but I can only imagine that this issue of brutality started long before then. Can you talk a little bit about this brutality that we’re seeing aimed against Indigenous communities?
Brandi Morin: Yeah. This is something that Native people have experienced since the policing systems were established in Canada. It started with the RCMP, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, that were established literally when this country was born. They were established to clear the plains of the “Indigenous problem”.
And all of these various policing systems stem from that oppressive and colonial system to enact the will of the interests of the state of Canada against Indigenous peoples, whether it was stealing Indigenous lands or porting our people onto reservations.
The policing system, the RCMP, played a role in forcibly removing Native children from their homes and sending them to Indigenous residential schools. There’s just a long and very troubled history between the police, between all of these various powers that be within this country.
Taya Graham: I have to admit, as an American, I thought we cornered the market on police brutality, but it seems like there is a fair share in Canada as well.
So when I look at police brutality in the US, I would say, as a gross oversimplification, we see a lot of physical violence against minority communities in the cities, but we see economic violence against white folks and lower income folks in the more rural areas. So I’m just curious what police aggression and misconduct looks like in Canada.
Brandi Morin: Wow. Okay. So when you’re saying economic, do you mean they’re more…?
Taya Graham: So when I say economic violence, let me give you an example. In West Virginia, there’s a small town of Milton, about 2,500 people. And one of the things that was occurring was severe traffic enforcement, where people were just a taillight out, not having a license plate light over their tag, just these tiny things that were causing people to get these traffic fees.
And they would have court costs, their cars would get impounded, they might get an FTA for failing to appear, and it would just suck them into the system and bleed folks dry. Folks who maybe have $500 in their savings account now are completely wiped out. So that’s what I mean by that economic violence, where they’re pulled into the system and that they’re just constantly extracting wealth.
Brandi Morin: From what I document and I witness, the tactics of police are more the physical violence and the rotating of people within these different systems. Like in Canada, the number of Indigenous people in the prison system is insanely high, even for women.
For Native women in Canada, they represent even more than Indigenous men in the prison system. They make up more than half of females in the prison system, but make up less than 5% of the total population. So this is a really widespread, systematic issue.
And then we have different policing systems that are tribally operating on different nations and different jurisdictional issues there, or communities trying to establish their own Indigenous justice systems.
But a lot of the violence is widespread. It doesn’t discriminate. They are targeted from coast to coast to coast in this country. From the beginning, the dominion of Canada established its army of a foreign force against Indigenous people to keep Indigenous people under its control through the RCMP and its foundational principles, which trickled out into all of these police forces under colonial rule.
Taya Graham: That’s incredible. And I really appreciate you giving me this background, and also the folks who are listening, giving them this really important background to understand the root of this so, when we see these flashes of violence, we understand the history that lies behind it.
Something that I just couldn’t let go of, you mentioned that you were inside the tent, and there weren’t any mainstream media there. But when you popped out the tent, there was a bunch of mainstream media behind the yellow tape safely standing there. And I’m wondering if you could talk to me a little bit about the differences you might see in the narratives when mainstream media is covering the story of the encampments being torn apart versus an independent journalist like yourself, and a journalist who is from an Indigenous community, as well.
Brandi Morin: They are doing the job that they’ve been trained to do, and they are telling these stories, a lot of the time, from that colonial status quo lens. They take, at face value, a lot of the time, the direction of police and the information from police and other authorities as to what is happening.
I do a lot of in-depth reporting. I was there inside with the experience of the people having an understanding of the culture, having an understanding of the discrimination and the different experiences that they are living through.
Honestly, though, when this was all going down, when I was inside, and arrested, the mainstream cameras, some of them were pointing at me as this was going down. Meanwhile, all of this chaos is happening with a group of people that are having this confrontation with the police, and people are being roughed up and taken down. And I was horrified and embarrassed and humiliated.
My dad called me later that night and said, hey, what’s happening? I saw you on the news and I saw them hollowing you away. What’s going on? What are you doing? I felt like I was some sort of renegade, and yet I felt that what I did in that moment was the right thing to do, that I wasn’t standing outside and behind these yellow lines to document from afar what was going on. But I was in there helping to give voice to the actual situation up close and not trying to focus in from afar.
But honestly, I heard from other journalists that had been covering these sweeps of the encampments that the police had previously been doing over the last couple of months, and they expressed frustration with the police for setting up these exclusion zones so that they couldn’t document what was happening.
Taya Graham: It’s interesting, because you mentioned the camera focusing on you, you being taken away, and to me it sounds like, what I’m getting is sort of the sense that this was humiliating, that this was —
Brandi Morin: Oh, absolutely.
Taya Graham: So that disappoints me and surprises me a little bit because, usually, even mainstream media will acknowledge, hey, one of ours, a journalist got taken in by police. We’ve all had the experience — Or well, maybe it’s just independent journalists who’ve experienced this, of getting yelled at for having a camera out or trying to ask a question, be told to be pushed back, had our First Amendment rights infringed upon.
So I’m curious, do you feel like, when they reported on you, it was in the lens of solidarity, or do you think they were just simply pointing at you?
Brandi Morin: It was pointing, and I honestly did feel like a criminal. However, that was happening on the scene. I have received an enormous amount of support from my colleagues at the Canadian Association of Journalists, Reporters Without Borders, and other organizations.
One of my good friends and colleagues who I’ve done extensive work with, by the way, we’ve won huge international awards for the work that we do, her name is Amber Bracken. Now, she had been embedded with Wet’suwet’en land defenders in November of 2022 and was arrested when the police came in there with assault rifles and attack guns to remove the land defenders. She was arrested and jailed for four days, and charged. This is something that she had experienced as well.
But it’s been a lot of different emotions. For me, I didn’t have the chance to go and take a breath. I needed to go back out there and finish the job that I was doing and chase the story and find out what was going on and happening with these people. I didn’t have a chance to unpack the experience.
And it hit me, it hit me days later, and I’m still dealing with it. It’s not fun, and I just want it to be behind me. I want to be able to do this work and be clear headed mentally, emotionally, and spiritually to be able to do it. And I wasn’t expecting to be affected as much as I have been by the situation.
Taya Graham: I do absolutely understand that. A lot of time as journalists, we absorb things, and we keep absorbing them, and we don’t realize the full impact that they’re having upon us and on our spirits. That’s something that I’ve been recently dealing with because, for my line of work, I consume a lot of body camera footage, and also autopsy reports, and that’s something that I am still learning how to process.
But that brings me to another question I had about being an independent journalist, which is, as independent journalists, we have a different set of tools at our disposal than the mainstream media does. We may be small, but we’re nimble. We have connections to the community that they don’t.
So I’m wondering, we do have some things in our corner, but do you think the tools that you have as an independent journalist, do you think they’re working? Do you think it’s having a meaningful impact on the national conversation around these issues? Or do you feel that the mainstream media is still dominating?
Brandi Morin: That is my hope. I’ve questioned a lot over the past week about the work that I do because I am extremely passionate and dedicated to this work. I’ve been doing it for 13-plus years. And I just called Amber last night, who had been arrested and jailed and went through this.
I called her. I was crying, and I said, is this worth it? Is this work even making a difference? Does anybody even give a crap? And she said, Brandi, just check your ego. Just, you got to step back and let the work speak for itself, and put it out there. I hope that it’s making a difference. I hope that this work is taken seriously, and I hope that me, as a journalist, and the work that I do is taken seriously, because I worry about the impact that this has had on my reputation and the work that I do.
Taya Graham: As I was thinking about mainstream media, one of the things that mainstream media does well is they repeat, sometimes word for word, press releases or the word that comes down from City Hall. So in this case, Edmonton’s mayor has said that there should be a declaration of an emergency around homelessness.
And I would say, well, considering that there’s freezing temperatures, people could literally die from exposure, I think it’s fair to say that there should be an emergency. That’s an immediate crisis. But what do you think the actions of the city should be? Because the declaration of emergency that’s coming from your mayor may continue to take the actions of encampments being torn apart, people taken only to temporary shelters. What would you like to see your city do to help the unhoused folks of Edmonton?
Brandi Morin: Yeah, I interviewed the grand chief of the Confederacy of Treaty Six just a couple of nights ago, and he was speaking to the intergenerational trauma that a lot of our people experience, and how important it is to address the crisis of the fallout of the Indian Residential School system and all of these different systemic injustices that our people continue to experience, and how the focus needs to be on providing the resources and Indigenous-led solutions for the healing of our people.
One thing that he said to me that really stood out was, how can we heal when we still have tears in our eyes? I think it would be helpful if a lot of these root issues were addressed, as well as the inadequacies in affordable housing and all of these complex intricacies in regards to funding shortfalls and such that are also service barriers.
Taya Graham: Affordable housing is an issue that we have been struggling with in my city, Baltimore, as well. I remember speaking to Jeff Singer, who was the director of Health Care for the Homeless here, and a great advocate for the community.
I said, well, Jeff, what do we need to help the homeless in our city? He said, put them in homes. He said, and not shelters — Homes, permanent homes. That’s what you can do. Don’t create these barriers to entry. Give them the housing and the rest can follow. The getting well, the healing of various issues and various traumas that people have to process.
If you didn’t have trauma before you were on the street, you’ve got trauma now that you’ve lived on the street. You need time to process that. So he said, just get them into homes. The rest will follow and I’ve always remembered that Dr. Singer said that to me.
You mentioned the trauma of being jailed, being held, and you didn’t know when you were going to be let go. Having your power taken away by that is an incredibly dehumanizing experience. I know your first court appearance, I believe, is in February. What are you hoping for the outcome, or rather, what are you expecting to be the outcome from this process?
Brandi Morin: Well, I’m hoping that the charges will be dropped and that I won’t have to go to court. I don’t want to show up to get fingerprinted before then and have my prints in their system. I am hoping that this will all be resolved so that I could just keep doing this work with a clear head.
Again, I don’t know. I don’t really know where they’re at, if they are planning to make an example out of the situation, or whether a prosecutor will look at this on his desk and say, well, this is not in the public interest to pursue these charges against a journalist, and throw it out, which I’m hoping will be the case.
Taya Graham: Well, I know we’re hoping that will be the case as well. I just wanted to thank you so much for your time and for the incredible work that you’re doing helping to highlight voices that are not just often ignored, but are actually suppressed. I just want to thank you for doing that with so much strength and with so much eloquence.
For anyone who’s listening right now, please make sure to read Brandi Morin. Don’t just watch her documentaries, which are beautiful, but also read her. You’re an incredibly eloquent writer.
Brandi Morin: Well, thank you. The first feature from the incidents that unfolded this last week is going to be published tomorrow, so please check that out. I bring you inside of the encampment, and you’ll get to know the people and be brought into the scenes of what went down there.
Taya Graham: Thank you so much. I’m looking forward to reading it. And I want to thank you for sharing your experience that also shows the value of this journalistic freedom of independent journalism. We’re going to continue to follow your story, and we, of course, wish you the very best in your upcoming court appearance.
I want to thank whoever is listening right now for taking the time to listen. Whether you have our shows on while you’re making coffee in the morning, or you put your podcasts on when you’re commuting, or during the workday. We’re committed to bringing you independent journalism that’s ad-free that you can count on, and we care a lot about what we do.
It’s through donations from dedicated listeners like you that we can keep doing it, so please consider becoming a monthly sustainer of The Real News by heading over to realnews.com/donate.
If you just want to stay in touch and get updates about our work, then sign up for our free newsletter at therealnews.com/sign-up. As always, we appreciate your support in whatever form it takes. I hope you will join me here for another podcast or another full video episode of the Police Accountability Report on YouTube. And as always, please be safe out there.
Disgraced former Baltimore Police Sgt. Ethan Newberg has pled guilty to making at least nine illegal arrests during his time as an active police officer—and, despite damning video evidence, faces no jail time. Police Accountability Report returns to the case of Newberg with a look at two videos released as a result of the Baltimore District Attorney’s 32-count indictment against Newberg. The footage demonstrates not just Newberg’s capricious and often violent use of police power, but the culture of obedience and corruption within the police department that fosters and enables such behavior. Taya Graham and Stephen Janis discuss the wider implications of the Newberg case on not just the city of Baltimore but the question of police violence at a national level.
Production: Stephen Janis Post-Production: Stephen Janis, Adam Coley
Transcript
The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. A proofread version will be made available as soon as possible.
Taya Graham:
Hello, my name is Taya Graham and welcome to the Police Accountability Report. As I always make clear, this show has a single purpose, holding the politically powerful institution of policing accountable. And to do so, we don’t just focus on the bad behavior of individual cops. Instead, we examine the system that makes bad policing possible. And today we’ll achieve that goal by showing not one but two arrests by an officer who believed he could arrest someone without an underlying crime, an illegal use of police power that when you hear and see how this officer justified putting innocent people in handcuffs, I think you’ll just be stunned. It’s an example of just how dangerous the power of law enforcement can be when it goes unchecked. But before we get started, I want you watching to know that if you have video evidence of police misconduct, please email it to us privately at par@therealnews.com or reach out to me on Facebook or Twitter @tayasbaltimore and we might be able to investigate for you.
And please like, share and comment on our videos. It helps us get the word out and it can even help our guests. And of course, you know I read your comments and appreciate them. You see those little hearts I give out down there, and I’ve even started doing a comment of the week to show you how much I appreciate your thoughts to show what a great community we have. And we do have a Patreon for accountability reports. So if you feel inspired to donate, please do. We do not run ads or take corporate dollars. So anything you can spare is truly appreciated. All right, we’ve gotten that out of the way.
Now, often on the show we focus on the video of a cop doing something inexplicable, jaw-dropping or just plain illegal, overreach through over-policing that needs to be exposed, but sometimes leaves us in the dark as to why it occurs at all. But now I’m happy to say that we have been able to obtain what could best be described as a video library of bad policing, a rare, and I mean rare glimpse into how unleashing unfettered police power on a community can be as poisonous as the social ills they purport to solve.
The videos themselves are the result of a 32 count indictment of Baltimore Police Sergeant Ethan Newberg. Newberg pleaded guilty to making nine illegal arrests, which were caught on body camera by the office of our former City State’s Attorney Marilyn Mosby. That’s why today I’m going to talk you through several videos that depict multiple arrests for simply standing on a sidewalk, talking back to an officer, and yes, allegedly running from him, which incidentally is not a crime, but it’s not just the unlawful detainment you’ll see as we review the evidence. Now, you’ll also witness, I think, with a profound clarity how bad policing works beyond the confines of a single corrupt cop. You’ll see a series of inexplicable decisions, bad faith actions, and outright illegal use of police power that will connect the dots in ways that, as I said, will pull back the curtain on how bad policing is designed to work, for lack of a better word.
Now, the first encounter begins in March of 2019. There a man had been placed on the sidewalk by police for reasons that remain mysterious. As the arrest unfolded, residents also happened to be on the sidewalk across the street, exercising their first amendment right to peaceably assemble. But shortly thereafter, Sergeant Ethan Newberg arrives on the scene and begins conversing with a fellow officer, and from there they make a fateful decision. Take a look.
Speaker 2:
This guy right here in the glasses.
Speaker 3:
Huh?
Speaker 2:
This guy in the glasses here. Remember him running from us that day?
Speaker 3:
I don’t think so.
Speaker 2:
Come on, take him.
[inaudible 00:03:48].
Taya Graham:
That’s right. Come on, take him. I mean, what does that even mean? The officers weren’t alleging the purported suspect was committing a crime or engaging in illegal behavior. In fact, the cop he talks to doesn’t even remember the so-called running crime that Newberg invokes. But they still continue without evidence. Just watch.
Speaker 2:
[inaudible 00:04:12].
Speaker 3:
Really?
Speaker 2:
Take him.
Speaker 3:
Put your hand behind your back, stop fighting.
Speaker 4:
I ain’t doing anything. I ain’t even [inaudible 00:04:38].
Speaker 2:
Disorderly.
Speaker 4:
Come on bro. You don’t got no right to lock me up, bro.
Speaker 2:
Well, that’s funny because I’m locking you up.
Taya Graham:
Now, I just want you to think about what you just witnessed, not just the act that despite the lack of evidence and multiple officers who participated in this illegal arrest, but something even more troubling. That a government, our government aided and abetted in the illegal caging of a human being, that this group of officers at the behest of a democratically elected government use the powers conferred upon them to illegally take a man’s freedom. Just look.
Speaker 4:
I think you don’t got nothing, bro. I’m just trying to… just chilling, bro.
Speaker 3:
You got nothing down here Keyshawn?
Speaker 4:
Come on, bro. I don’t got nothing, bro. I don’t know why I’m getting arrested, bro. Come on bro. I ain’t do nothing to this man.
Speaker 3:
Face me. Face me.
Speaker 4:
Ain’t do nothing to this man, bro.
Speaker 2:
Hey, you want to run him in?
Speaker 3:
Yeah.
Speaker 4:
No, wait.
Speaker 3:
Come on.
Speaker 4:
What the fuck, bro?
Speaker 3:
To the car, to your left. Where’s your car at?
Speaker 2:
You know me bud. You know better than that.
You got to show off? What happened?
Taya Graham:
Now remember, because this man that only Newberg recognized as a runner was never ID-ed, there is no confirmation that this is the same man. And again, simply running when you see a cop isn’t a crime. And you may have also noticed that the officers did not find anything illegal on his person. So now after illegally arresting one man, Newberg continues to threaten others. Just watch.
Speaker 2:
You guys going to walk? There’s plenty of room. Take a walk. Say something. I want you to.
Taya Graham:
And then of course Sergeant Newberg lied. And believe it or not, he did something even more troubling. Just look.
Speaker 4:
Can you tell me why I’m getting locked up?
Speaker 2:
I already told you why you’re getting locked up. Disorderly. You put my officer’s safety in jeopardy. You incited a crowd.
Speaker 4:
I’m over here, bro. Oh my God.
Speaker 2:
You incited a… you better take a walk. Okay, I’m going to treat you like a child on a count of three and then I’m going to put you in timeout.
Speaker 4:
Hey, yo.
Speaker 2:
Oh God.
Taya Graham:
Seriously? Time out? I’m going to treat you like a child? All of this, all of this, while he and the other officers laughed like this whole ordeal was funny, caging a man and twisting the law to suit their needs was just a lark, a fun story to tell the other officers at the water cooler later. But this is just the beginning of what I promised at the top of the show because just one month later, Newberg and his colleagues were at it again. This time in a different part of the city, both the exact same MO. Take a look.
Speaker 2:
He is. He’s going to bolt. Hey boss.
Hands behind your back. Put your…
Taya Graham:
Now notice that Sergeant Newberg does not ask the man to comply or says a single word about why he’s doing what he’s doing. He doesn’t announce or identify himself. Instead, he immediately turns to force as the arrest unfolds, grabbing the man by the shoulders without explanation. But that’s just the beginning of how this crime, and it literally was a crime, unfolds. Just look.
Speaker 5:
I am not going nowhere.
Speaker 3:
I see you guys, it’s fine.
Speaker 2:
Can you? Thank you.
Speaker 5:
[inaudible 00:08:51].
Speaker 2:
1032 is 2000 block of West Pratt. He’s in custody, 1032.
Taya Graham:
Now at this point, we have a man who at the time has committed no crime that we can see. And Officer Newberg and the other cops who violently took him to the ground seemed to have no idea exactly why they stopped him. But that didn’t prevent a massive show of force to effectuate the arrest.
Speaker 2:
It’s a warrant? Is it a warrant? What is it?
Speaker 5:
It’s nothing.
Speaker 2:
Negative.
Speaker 5:
What?
Speaker 2:
Get him ID-ed.
Taya Graham:
And then even though police had already made an illegal arrest, they decided to make another. A bystander who took issue with their illegal actions is arrested as well, a fellow resident of my city cuffed because he spoke up when he saw injustice. Just watch this.
Speaker 2:
[inaudible 00:09:49].
Taya Graham:
Now after making not one, but two illegal arrests, things get really interesting. That’s because when a supervisor comes to the scene, he asks a simple question, “Why did you arrest the man who is now forced to sit on the sidewalk?” And Newberg’s answer is stunning. Just listen.
Speaker 2:
With him? What’s that?
Speaker 6:
Casanso the primary? Who’s-
Speaker 2:
No, no, it was me and Valdez had it.
Speaker 6:
Okay, all right. All right. So y’all good? You okay?
Speaker 2:
He just fought us.
Speaker 6:
All right, so-
Speaker 2:
He fought us like he did the last time.
Speaker 6:
So we’ll get a car about… then we’ll clear this up. We’ll get car out to come do the UFF, if it’s one. What’s he wanted for?
Speaker 2:
He was the one these last couple of days ran from me and I saw him in the store. He was going to bolt again because the last time I had him stopped, he gave a bunch of different names and date of births that didn’t match. So that’s when he fought and ran last time. And I recognized him. I knew it was going to turn out… I knew he was going to fight. Stack, I guarantee nothing comes back on that info he gave you.
Speaker 3:
Yep, that’s all I’m waiting for them to come back down.
Taya Graham:
Okay, so let’s break down the crimes that prompted police to make a violent arrest. One, he allegedly ran from Newberg. But can you blame him? And two, he gave conflicting addresses and three… well, there was no three. But tell me this, what of any of this justifies a violent arrest? And why on earth would you need a dozen cops to put this man in cuffs? You saw the same man I did. Compliant, confused, just another person suffering the poverty and mental health issues in my city. Why would the supervisor simply accept the officer’s answer and not probe deeper, demanding details to justify the use of force in handcuffs and the exceptional waste of nearly 10 officers to control the scene? But again, there was no pushback at all. In fact, officer Newberg decides to light a cigarette and again, delight in the suffering of another Baltimore resident. He and the other officers are basically celebrating a useless, violent and illegal arrest.
Speaker 2:
What do you got? A warrant on you?
Speaker 5:
No, I don’t have a warrant on me.
Speaker 2:
So what’s your deal?
Speaker 5:
Because dude, I was down there, working in the corner for the people.
Speaker 2:
Yeah, but what about here? Did you started fighting here too? I don’t understand.
Speaker 5:
Because I didn’t really know what was going on and I see-
Speaker 2:
So I mean I guess that means you can fight the police.
Speaker 3:
I guess.
Speaker 2:
I don’t understand. What’s going on here?
Speaker 6:
Yeah. Unified police officers were enough for me.
Speaker 3:
People don’t run and carry on like that for no reason.
Speaker 2:
That’s what happened last time that we-
Speaker 3:
That’s not you. Nice try.
Speaker 2:
It’s the same thing when he fought me last week when he got away from me. How many times you rode from me during all this? Three times?
Speaker 6:
No. So his first thing-
Speaker 3:
Twice.
Speaker 2:
Twice? I told you he was going to fight.
Speaker 6:
Y’all want to switch now?
Speaker 3:
Yeah, that’s what I told him.
Speaker 6:
All right.
Speaker 2:
I told you. Hey, I tell you he was going to fight, bro. I told you.
Speaker 3:
He wasn’t going to get away. He wasn’t going to get away.
Speaker 6:
Dude, he wasn’t going anywhere. Dude, he was clogged up like a vice grip.
Speaker 2:
He was trying to fight in the beginning though. I got to give him credit, he was fighting.
Taya Graham:
So as I said at the beginning of the show, there is something unique about these videos when it comes to understanding policing and specifically how it goes wrong. Because what we just witnessed was a literal failings of cops executing crimeless arrests that have little to do with public safety. In fact, this is a textbook example of what happens when you trade the desire to be safe for basic constitutional protections, a policy that looks like it took half the police force to execute even as police partisans in our city and others argue we are desperately short of officers.
Seriously, I can’t even count how many cops it took to put this nonviolent man in a set of handcuffs. But there is much more to this story than just a couple problematic arrests, a history of how this policing came to be and how it affected the people who were subject to it, which we will be discussing shortly. But first, I need to speak to my reporting partner, Stephen Janis, who has been delving into some of the important records regarding this case, which reveal even when police are charged with crimes, there are loopholes that allow them to evade punishment. Stephen, thank you so much for joining me.
Stephen Janis:
Taya, thanks for having me. I appreciate it.
Taya Graham:
So Stephen, you’ve been digging into the payroll records for the Baltimore City Police Department. Tell me what you’ve uncovered.
Stephen Janis:
Well, it’s really interesting. Baltimore City has a database of employee salaries. It goes back years. So I looked into Ethan Newberg and he got paid in 2019 after he’s indicted. He got paid in 2020, over a hundred thousand dollars a year. He got paid in 2021 over a hundred thousand a year. So he’s charged with all these crimes, these offensive crimes that we’ve seen against people of the city and the city taxpayers were still funding his salary. I can’t think of anyone, any of us who had a job who did what he did would actually get paid for it. So yeah, he had two-
Taya Graham:
So wait a second. While this case was making its way through the legal system, he was being paid?
Stephen Janis:
Yeah, yeah. I mean it’s kind of amazing. It’s right there in black and white. I’m showing you on the screen, roughly $200,000, this guy was making money. And I think what happened is in 2021, he might have retired. A lot of police do that. They get charged with something, they write it out until retirement, and then they take two thirds of their last salary so he could conceivably be making 60, $70,000 a year in a pension, which cannot be taken back because of criminal charges. So really he did quite well, thanks and courtesy of the taxpayers that he was arresting.
Taya Graham:
Stephen, as a reporter who’s covered policing in cities like Baltimore, what do you make of what you just saw and how does it jive with your reporting and your experience?
Stephen Janis:
Well, it’s funny because I think there we saw the total futility of this idea, that just unleashing police on a neighborhood would somehow tamp down crime. Because really when you leave police to their own devices in this situation, I think they picked the easiest target. And in that sense, I think we saw how they just bully someone, book a stat, put them in the back of the car and feel like they did some work, which really isn’t true. And I think that in a sense, like you said in the script, this was a glimpse into something that people have never seen before. For me it was like that, even though I’ve reported on it and written about it and written about tons of bad arrests. For me, it was kind of the first time I’ve seen how that mentality and the psychology of zero tolerance just makes people do bad policing. But I’m going to throw this one back at you Taya, because you actually lived in a neighborhood that was under that kind of policing. So why don’t you give us some sense of what that was like?
Taya Graham:
Stephen, that’s a really interesting question. Let me try to answer it, but I might have to leave my basement and my bookcase.
So for once, I’m the one outside. I’m here in my old neighborhood on Middle Street, just a block down from where I used to live on Mira. And as I would take the bus to work and walk home, I was often stopped by a police officer. I’d be asked to provide ID, I would be asked where I had come from and where I was going. And you would think this is really inappropriate to be asked these questions and provide papers. Well, it’s because of something known as zero tolerance. For about a decade in my city, people were stopped for crimes like loitering, for drinking an open container of beer on a stoop, not having ID or believe it or not, expectorating, which is spitting. Now these kinds of crimes which are considered quality of life crimes or low level crimes or nuisance crimes, they were used to try to stop more violent crime in our city and it resulted in over a hundred thousand people a year being arrested, people just like me.
Take a look around. Does this look better? Does this look healthier to you? Does this look like a community that’s thriving? Well, I have to say, it doesn’t look like this kind of policing really made this community stronger. Now, I’m not saying policing is the cause of all ills, and I’m not saying there’s a solution to all ills, but I am saying it had a devastating effect on this community and it had an impact on people like me. And let me say this, I have to thank the cop watchers out there because they showed me that I had the right to say no. I had the right to say I don’t have to provide ID. But now thanks to cop watchers and a lot of people who’ve been advocating for change, we can.
Okay, now that I’ve given my little tour, I think I’m about to embark on what might be the most important rant of my life, an argument I will make about the broader implications of the arrest that we have just witnessed, that I dare say is the whole reason this show exists. But first I want to make another important point about our show. Often when I try to analyze the broader implications of bad policing during this segment, I get a little pushback. People who disagree or think I push things a bit too far or just simply don’t like the way I frame my arguments about a variety of phenomena that I believe are tied to bad policing. Among them are the people who thought that my discussion of the high price of asthma inhalers as an intrinsic part of an unequal system that fuels rampant inequality and by extension bad policing was just a step too far, that I should stick to talking about the cops and not the inequality in our economy.
So they disagreed with that analysis. Fair enough. But let me say this, I am more than okay with that. In fact, I invite it. I mean the whole reason we produce this show is to generate discussion. Better yet, embrace a fulsome debate and thoughtful disagreement on a variety of issues. I read your comments because I want to understand. I need your comments because I want to learn. So even if I disagree with your disagreement with my work, I welcome your thoughts. To me, it’s not the sign of some sort of deeper problem that we can’t agree on everything. In fact, it makes me feel more assured in my work when you push back and say, “Hey Taya, wait a second, here’s another way to think about the issue.” It’s okay to disagree. It’s okay to criticize. All we have to agree on is that we all have the right to respectfully debate and express ourselves.
So keep on commenting because I welcome you, even if you disagree with my analysis of the information I present. Okay, I had to get that off my chest before I said this. Now, as you’ve just witnessed, the indiscriminate arrest powers deployed by the police and the video we just dissected was not the result of some random decision by a couple of cops. It was not, to be clear, the result of a couple overeager officers trying out illegal arrests as some sort of devious sociology experiment. No. It was in fact an intentional government policy based upon the dubious premise that has wreaked havoc on this country for decades. An idea that is so powerful, it is in part responsible for most of the acrimony surrounding the debate over law enforcement that continues to prevent clear-headed thinking about the difficult task of keeping our communities safe.
Namely this, more cops mean less crime, more aggressive policing is even better. And when cops don’t do their jobs, crime goes up. I mean, that’s the idea that’s been the impetus behind some of the worst aspects of American policing that I can think of. It was a core philosophy behind zero tolerance that turned my former neighborhood into a wasteland. It’s the primary imperative that encourages cities to allocate the bulk of their budgets to new cop cars. And it’s why even in rural communities like Milton, West Virginia, the police budget swelled into the single largest line item for a town mired in poverty. Now wait, again, I can hear the naysayers saying, “But Taya, what about the last few years? Police departments struggled with staffing while crime went up.” The protests against policing across the country in the wake of George Floyd’s death and many other victims made cops too afraid to do their jobs, and as a result, crime was rampant.
Well, not really. That’s not the whole story because while it’s true that police departments have had problems filling jobs and staffing in some departments like our own city’s has dropped dramatically, there is something curious that happened as law enforcement struggled to fill vacancies. A change in the rate of crime that belies the argument that more cops automatically equals more safety. That’s because while cops kept quitting, crime went down and not just down by little, down by a lot. Murder dropped at the fastest rate ever according to statistics released by the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report, crimes of violence dropped practically in every major city in the country. Now, there are some caveats. For example, in our city, car thefts are way up as [inaudible 00:22:58] really take advantage of the lack of security of Kias and Hyundais, for example. And the perception that crime is up, which is also important, continues to linger.
But again, big picture, crime is actually down across the board even though there are less police on the street. And as we reported in our last show, Ethan Newberg himself says police are taking the proverbial knee because according to him, effective cops like himself are being prosecuted for doing their jobs. I’ll stay no comment on that assertion. In fact, in this just released audit of overtime spending by the Baltimore Police Department, we learned that the agency has a record 762 vacancies, and yet city leaders just held a press conference touting a 20% drop in homicide. How does that happen in a world where aggressive policing is the elixir to the crime laden anxieties of police boosters who would have us place a cop on every corner? It just doesn’t make sense, which is why I said at the beginning of this rant, this might be one of the most important arguments I’ve ever made.
The reason we have so many videos, so many examples, and so much over-policing is based upon the simple premise that the recent crime stats have made dubious at best that somehow some way crime can only be stopped by throwing more cops and more money and having more law enforcement. And when that’s not enough, tell them to book stats, make more arrests, lock up more low level offenders, lock up more innocent people, and as a result, crime will suddenly disappear. As I said earlier in the show, that attitude has led to some of the most unimaginative public policies in the annals of human history. I mean, why in my city where vacant homes are more prevalent than well-paying jobs, have we spent billions, and I do mean billions, putting cops on the street and paying them hundreds of millions of dollars in overtime? Why do we have brand new SUV cop cars roaming around neighborhoods that are blighted to the point of terminal despair?
And for those who might’ve missed our last report, why do we pay officers like Sergeant Newberg over a quarter million dollars a year? I mean, all the rhetoric surrounding policing, defund, underfund, refund, I don’t know, take your pick, drives right past a simple point. Does it work? Can it ever work? Is it the most effective and just important fiscally sound prescription for reducing crime? Will we be better off taking some of that money and funding other priorities that might actually build something like a park or community garden, afterschool programs, a mental healthcare center, or maybe we should even just pass the cash out to residents to spend on themselves? And please don’t start posting comments about how I am surreptitiously touting some sort of clandestine socialism. I’m talking about making our communities healthier and therefore safer. And I’m just making a point about what I’ve witnessed firsthand.
Investing in policing instead of the people is emphasizing chaos over community. Showering cash on cops prioritizes punishment over productivity and trying to solve complex social problems by locking them away and throwing away the key puts our minds, our communal creativity in a cage of our own making. This is why if I achieve anything through doing this show, I want to dispel the myth that the relationship between crime and cops is as simple as police partisans would want you to believe, that our country’s addiction to law enforcement is as pernicious and implausible as a flat earth geolocation system that not only doesn’t make sense, but is flat out delusional. Okay, that pun might’ve been intended. It’s actually a point Stephen made 10 years ago when he co-wrote a book with a former Baltimore homicide detective called You Can’t Stop Murder. The book recounted how a detective who was steeped in constitutional policing during his career was shocked after he retired and taught at the city’s police academy.
There he administered a test to sergeants and lieutenants on the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments. They all failed, every single one. But it gets worse. He discovered at that same academy, the top brass was training officers to be soldiers, not students of the law or investigators. It was a process he felt was far field from the best and the only way to prevent future crimes, by solving the crimes of the past. This again, was a rare glimpse inside how American law enforcement intentionally abandoned the principles on which our country was founded. It’s a firsthand look at how often the expedient desire for some sort of fix for rampant poverty and communal abandonment was effectuated by cops chasing innocent people, making bogus arrests and otherwise sowing chaos with cuffs and their capriciousness. Well, as the book pointed out, it won’t work. Because two years after the book was published and its warnings were ignored, Freddie Gray died in police custody.
My city was set on fire, figuratively and literally. And the world watched as our police department tried to justify the death of a handcuffed man who died in the back of a van after being chased, yes, chased, because officers didn’t like the way he looked at them. Interesting that four years later they were still doing the same thing. And that’s why we’ll keep reporting on bad policing, and that’s why we’ll keep reporting for you because someone has to tell the truth and try to build hope for something different no matter how painful that can sometimes be. I have to thank Intrepid reporter Stephen Janis for his writing, research and editing on this piece and for going to my old stomping grounds and interviewing me. Thank you so much, Stephen.
Stephen Janis:
Taya, thanks for having me. I appreciate it.
Taya Graham:
And I want to thank mods of the show, NOLA D and Lacey R for their support. Thank you and a very special thanks to our accountability report Patreons. We appreciate you and I look forward to thanking each and every one of you personally in our next live stream, especially Patreon associate producers, Johnny R., David K., Louis P., and Lucita G., and super friends Shane B., Pineapple Girl, Chris R., and Matter of Rights. And I want you watching to know that if you have video evidence of police misconduct or brutality, please share it with us and we might be able to investigate for you.
Please reach out to us. You can email us tips privately at par@therealnews.com and share your evidence of police misconduct. You can also message us at Police Accountability Report on Facebook or Instagram or @eyesonpolice on Twitter. And of course you can always message me directly @tayasbaltimore on Twitter or Facebook. And please like and comment, you know I read your comments and appreciate them. And we do have a Patreon link pinned in the comments below. So if you feel inspired to donate, please do. We don’t run ads or take corporate dollars, so anything you can spare is truly appreciated. My name is Taya Graham and I’m your host of the Police Accountability Report. Please be safe out there.
Last June, the state of Wisconsin placed two correctional institutions in Green Bay and Waupun on lockdown due to concerns about overcrowding and the quality of facilities. In the ensuing months, several other Wisconsin state prisons have been affected by the lockdown, and Gov. Evers has yet to present a clear plan to end it. Meanwhile, thousands of incarcerated people have been trapped in horrendous conditions. Inmates are spending 23 hours a day in their cells, without access to in-person visitation, regular programming, or even daily showers. Mark Rice, coordinator of the Wisconsin Transformational Justice Campaign at the grassroots network, WISDOM, joins Rattling the Bars to discuss the crisis in Wisconsin prisons and the clear solution Evers has ignored so far: to wield his authority as governor to reduce the state’s prison population.
Studio / Post-Production: Cameron Granadino
Transcript
Mansa Musa: Welcome to this edition of Rattling the Bars, a show that amplifies the voice of people who are disenfranchised, marginalized, and subjugated while offering solutions. I’m your host, Mansa Musa.
Today, we’re going to talk about the current state of Wisconsin prisons, the people incarcerated in them, and we’re going to be talking with our guest, Mark Rice.
Mark spent 26 months incarcerated in the Wisconsin prison system and eight years under the supervision of the Wisconsin Department of Corrections. His experience with the state carceral system inspired him to become a leader in the movement to dismantle this unjust system. Today, he serves as the coordinator of the Wisconsin Transformational Justice Campaign at the grassroots network WISDOM. This campaign aims to advance racial justice, decarcerate Wisconsin, and redirect resources away from the prison-industrial complex and into building safer, stronger, and healthier community.
Welcome to Rattling the Bars.
Mark Rice: Thanks for the invitation.
Mansa Musa: Let’s unpack this conversation by first briefly telling our audience about what’s currently going on within the prison system.
Mark Rice: Right now what’s going on in the prison system in the state of Wisconsin is a human rights crisis. At least two prisons in the state have been on lockdown now for nearly a year. It’s having a devastating impact on people who are incarcerated in those two prisons. One is Waupun Correctional Institution, the other is Green Bay Correctional Institution. There have been other prisons as well that have been impacted by lockdowns, but most of the attention has been on Green Bay and Waupun.
We’re talking about people who have been locked in cells for 23 hours a day, sometimes 24 hours a day. Getting meals in their cells. They’ve had programming totally disrupted. The most basic of human needs have been taken away, have been limited or completely taken away.
There have been no in-person visits. They’ve had recreation taken away or extremely limited. There’s been a lack of access to medical care, lack of access to psychological services, to treatment programming, educational programming. Even showers have been limited, so we’re talking about, like I said, the most basic human needs are taken away.
Wisconsin has a problem with overpopulation in the prisons. There’s not a problem with under-staffing, it’s overpopulation.
There’s many ways that Wisconsin can reduce the prison population that policy makers are refusing to move forward. The state legislature has many ways to reduce the prison population. Governor Evers can use his executive authority to bring down the population, he can commute sentences. The Department of Corrections has authority over some of the areas, like they can stop sending people back for technical violations.
There’s some really common sense policy changes that they could move forward to bring down the population. If the population was brought down, then there would be no lockdowns.
One of the primary root causes of the lockdowns is having so many people needlessly being incarcerated for too long. Excessive sentences. In Wisconsin, there’s a huge amount of racial injustice within Wisconsin’s system.
By some measures, Wisconsin detains Black people and Indigenous people at a higher rate than any other state. Some of the neighborhoods in Milwaukee, by some statistical measures, are the most incarcerated neighborhoods ever in the United States. In Milwaukee, there’s a zip code, 53206, which is predominantly Black, that has the highest incarceration rate of any zip code in the United States by some measures. Really, there’s a lot of change that’s really urgently needed in this state, for sure.
Mansa Musa: Let’s talk about… Let’s go and examine these two institutions in the state of Wisconsin. Are both these institutions maximum security?
Mark Rice: Yes, they’re both maximum.
Mansa Musa: Okay. Now, in terms of the reason why they’ve been on lockdown so long is because they’re claiming it’s understaffed. But as you articulated, it’s not understaffed, it’s overpopulated. How long have this been going on, in terms of them utilizing this particular excuse to basically turn these institutions into control units? How long have they been using this excuse?
Mark Rice: Over eight months now, so almost a year going on. Definitely, long-term lockdowns are torture. Definitely, there’s been suicides. We work with a lot of folks who have loved ones currently incarcerated in Wisconsin prisons.
We’ve launched an entire campaign to challenge what’s going on within the Wisconsin State Prison System. We have a campaign called In the Lockdowns campaign, led by formerly incarcerated people and people who have loved ones who are currently incarcerated and being impacted by the lockdowns. There’s been stories of suicides, it’s led to suicides. Like I said, it’s having a devastating impact on people psychologically. Definitely, the root cause is the overpopulation.
That’s something that WISDOM, I work for an organization called WISDOM in Wisconsin, and one of our goals for a long time has been to cut the state’s prison population in half. We actually have a policy agenda that lays out how Wisconsin can do this.
On the front end, Wisconsin can expand treatment alternatives to incarceration. There’s a program, Treatment Alternatives and Diversions, in Wisconsin, which is really underfunded, under utilized, which can get people out. On the front end, it could divert thousands of people from even going in in the first place.
There’s some in-prison issues. There’s some people who were sentenced under the old law in Wisconsin are still eligible for parole. There’s almost 2,000 people who’ve been incarcerated for over 20 years now. Just got really long, excessive sentences with the expectation that they would be given a fair chance to be released under parole. But then, parole essentially shut down in Wisconsin after Wisconsin went to Truth in Sentencing in the year 2000. That’s another way that people can be given early release through parole.
We also have an earned release program for people who were sentenced under Truth in Sentencing, where they can participate in programming to get time taken off their sentences by participating in that program. That program’s really underfunded, under utilized.
There’s a compassionate release program where people having health problems can be released. That’s underutilized.
On the back end, there’s thousands of people going back for technical violations [crosstalk] —
Mansa Musa: Right, I know. Answer this here, then. Based on this common sense approach, as you had just outlined, why is there such an apprehension to invest in the ideas, and the policies, and the programs as you just outlined? Two, where are these two particular institutions located? Are they located in an urban part of Wisconsin, or are they located in the rural part of Wisconsin?
Mark Rice: Waupun is located in rural Wisconsin. Green Bay is in Green Bay, which is a somewhat urban area. It’s located right in the city of Green Bay.
There’s definitely been some momentum around closing them. I think people are starting to realize that these prisons need to be closed because they’re so old. Both of them were built over 100 years ago, and they’re falling apart. It’s going to become extremely expensive to keep them open, to put in the resources needed to renovate those places so that people continue to… It’s not going to be a good investment to even keep these places open. I think that’s part of the conversation that people will start to…
But, there’s also some who want to build new prisons. There’s some of the legislatures, particularly Republicans, who want to close Green Bay down, and they want to do economic projects on that land where it sits, but then they also want to build a new prison.
That’s the fight that we have as well, is we have to stop the construction of a new prison and get people to realize that, by implementing some of these common sense policy changes that I’m talking about, simply, there’s 5,200 people Wisconsin prisons for revocation without a new conviction, sent back for violating the rules [crosstalk] —
Mansa Musa: Yeah. Okay, let me ask you this here. Again, why the state of Wisconsin isn’t investing in the common sense approaches that you outlined? For example, I read where the number one thing that they’re utilizing is, because so many people are on parole and probation, they’re utilizing technical violations to get people back in the system. I think they said they only release like 5.28% of people a year.
What is it about the state of Wisconsin’s attitude to be so intransigent about recognizing the need to become more objective? And, it would be more cost-efficient, because right now they’re saying $1.5 billion is being allocated towards the prison system. $1.5 billion could be allocated, you could take that money, allocate it towards schools, education, hospitals, employment, and also investing in some of the things that you talked about.
Why is it that the state of Wisconsin is so adamant about not investing in eliminating and eradicating the overpopulation of the prison system?
Mark Rice: For one thing, there’s definitely financial incentive. There’s definitely a lot of corporations, a lot of companies making money off the system. As you know, they’re charging people really outrageous prices for phone calls, for food. There’s the financial incentive. A lot of powerful interests want to maintain the status quo, keep that going, to ensure that they’re continuing to make money off the system.
The status quo within the Department of Corrections has been really powerful. There’s many people who are administrators in the Department of Corrections that have been there for years, for decades, and are really resistant to any change to a better approach.
Then, there’s the political as well. There’s still legislators in the state — It’s a very gerrymandered state, it’s one of the most gerrymandered states. There’s been politicians who’ve built their careers off of increasing incarceration rates, on building more prisons. That’s part of it.
I think a central piece of it is the dehumanization of people who’ve been convicted of crimes. I feel like they cannot treat people like this and incarcerate people at the rate that they’re doing without dehumanizing them first. I feel like that’s a central part of the work that we do, is working to change and challenge the narratives that are really dehumanizing people with conviction records. I feel like that’s central.
The more that we can get our stories out — And many of us are out in the community flourishing. Many of us have done years in prison. I’ve been incarcerated myself, many of my colleagues have been incarcerated for a long time. But when we were given a chance to get back out and get in the community, and we’re provided with support services, many of us are now flourishing in the community. The more that we can get those stories out, and to really challenge those narratives, those stereotypes that people have of those who’ve been through the system, then that’s going to change things for the better. I feel like that’s a central part of the work.
Then, we need to change the overall narrative as well. That there’s still that narrative out there which is really powerful, and it’s hard to change, is that many people in the state still believe that building more prisons and filling them up is keeping us safer, and it’s not. We know that.
We actually create safety by investing in jobs, investing in healthcare, housing. We really need to reimagine the entire system and the way resources are allocated in the state, and that starts with cutting back on spending.
For far too long, the state has relied on, really, courts, prisons, police as responses to some of these problems. But instead, it’s really time to start reallocating those resources, putting them especially in the neighborhoods that have been most harmed by incarceration.
Especially Black and Brown neighborhoods, Indigenous communities across Wisconsin, to really start investing in those neighborhoods that have been most impacted by incarceration, most neglected over time, and put those resources then to programs and services we know are going to create public safety.
A lot of these initiatives now are being led by formerly incarcerated people as well. We have a lot of organizations in Wisconsin that are led by people who’ve been through the system [crosstalk] really know how to do this in a way that’s really going to help people flourish in the community.
The more that we can invest in those organizations that are led by directly impacted people, that are providing the services, that are working to change the system, that’s going to really help to start to shift this and change things for the better.
Mansa Musa: Talk about y’alls strategy going forward, in terms of… We recognize that, based on what you’re saying, that it’s overpopulation. It’s not a lack of staffing. The fact that wanted to bring the National Guard in to oversee the population.
One, address whether or not, if that do in fact take shape, is that going to allow for the two institutions that you talked about to open back up and allow the men to be able to have their basic human rights acknowledged? And two, going forward, what is y’alls strategy in terms of how y’all intend on getting the state of Wisconsin to recognize that it’s more cost-efficient to invest in people’s getting out and staying out, as opposed to chasing people that’s out, running them down, and putting them back in to maintain the count?
Mark Rice: The first priority for us is that we’re working to get immediate decarceration to happen. We know Governor Evers has the authority to immediately bring down the prison population by using his commutation powers. In an emergency situation like this, there’s definitely a need for them to start using those powers.
The Department of Corrections has the ability to also immediately reduce the prison population. They did that during the beginning of the COVID crisis in Wisconsin prisons. Wiconson secretary, the DOC secretary, Kevin Carr, he brought down the population by 1,200 people with one policy change. He put forward this policy change to release people who were in for technical violations, and that led to one prison that we were working to close down, Waukesha Detention Facility, the population at that prison was cut by more than half during COVID.
But they started to reverse back to normal policies and practices over the last year, and the population started coming back up.
That’s the priority right now, is to get the population down. Then, there would be no need to bring in the National Guard. If they brought down the population, they could actually close down Waupun Correctional Institution, they could close down Green Bay Correctional Institution. By immediately bringing the population down.
Governor Evers, we definitely need him to step up and start using his commutation powers. He ran on a platform, when he first ran for Governor, he promised to work with us to cut the state’s prison population in half. There’s been very little follow through on that.
Now is the time we feel that he really needs to step up and start following through with that promise, and to use his executive authority that he has to do that. The Department of Corrections can cut way down on the number of people who are being sent back for supervision violations, for crimeless revocations, we call it in Wisconsin.
Also, they also have the power to immediately end lockdowns as well. There’s definitely the capacity, even immediately, before those changes are made. They can immediately end the lockdowns without that. Because there’s definitely no logical explanation, no reason —
Mansa Musa: Yeah, justification there.
Mark Rice: — To take away people’s basic services and needs, that should never be disrupted. People should always have access to showers, in-person visits, to educational programming, medical care that they need, psychological care. That should never be taken away in any circumstances. The state has the responsibility to care for people who are incarcerated and they’re not doing — A lawsuit, in Waupun right now. They’re facing a lawsuit.
Mansa Musa: The reality is that Eighth Amendment violations, it’s cruel and unusual punishment. Now, I’m being punished, I got a sentence, I’m doing my time. But now I’m being punished not because of an incident that took place in the institutions — I was locked up 48 years prior to being released. I’ve been in institutions where we’ve been locked down eight, nine months on end.
In most cases, you could trace it back to some type of incident or some type of problem going on in the environment, that they could justify locking us down. Just to say they locked us down because the population’s overcrowded, and you’re claiming that you don’t have enough staff, that in and of itself is cruel and unusual. The explanation shouldn’t even wash.
But talk about, from what you’ve been able to gather, in terms of the people that’s locked in these environments, how are they responding? You mentioned earlier about the suicide rate. But how are they responding overall? And more importantly, how are the families? How is it impacting the families?
Mark Rice: It’s really having a devastating impact on people who are incarcerated right now. We’ve been hearing that a lot of people are becoming suicidal. A lot of people are having problems with their mental health. A lot of people have not been able to get access to medical care that they need to survive.
One of the leaders who’s been involved with the campaign, her name is Megan Kolb, her father actually committed suicide in Waupun Correctional Institution. He was there during the lockdown right as it was starting, but also got put in solitary confinement on top of that.
They have records now that he was denied several medications that he needed over time. He was diagnosed with serious mental illness, had several health problems. It was denied for months. He was not given access to medication that he needed, and ended up hanging himself while he was in solitary confinement. She’s been involved to really lift up the impact that it’s had on her and her family, how devastating that experience was, and is really working to hold Governor Evers accountable.
Governor Evers actually called 2023 the Year of Mental Health, that he was going to push forward mental health initiatives. Then, there was something like that happens that’s totally in contradiction with that. Mental health, that should extend to not only people who are outside, but also to people who are incarcerated. There’s this language that they use, they call people who are incarcerated “people under their care”, which I feel is not accurate.
Mansa Musa: Yeah, sanitized. Yeah, sanitized.
Mark Rice: I feel like that’s an oppressive term. It’s an oppressive term that’s pushing forward a narrative of benevolent owners of slave people.
Mansa Musa: Yeah, that’s why I say sanitized.
Mark Rice: There’s a lack of care too, so definitely, we’re pushing back against that. Definitely, we want humanizing language, to call people people, but the people under our care piece, when they add the under our care, it becomes an oppressive term.
But also, there’s others that are involved right now who still have loved ones who are in there. They’re really worried as well, that some of their loved ones have become suicidal. They’re worried that their loved ones could be next, where there could be another tragedy happening. We’re hearing from people all the time. There’s a sense of urgency, and that’s why we’ve been taking so much action.
We’ve been organizing actions and community forums, almost on a weekly basis in Wisconsin, due to the facts of what we’re hearing from people who are personally impacted.
Then, we also have many people who’ve been incarcerated in these places themselves, so they know exactly what’s going on. We’re stepping up to several organizations, like EXPO, Ex-incarcerated People Organizing in Wisconsin, whose been really stepping up. Many of their staff people and leaders have been incarcerated in Green Bay and Waupun.
One of our organizers from Madison, he actually was contemplating suicide while he was locked up in Waupun Correctional Institution. I feel like we really have people who understand and empathize due to their personal experience of being incarcerated in those places.
It’s really important for the work to be led by those who are most impacted, and also the strategies to be developed by those who’ve been most impacted. I feel like that’s what we’re really doing in pushing this out.
Mansa Musa: Let me ask you this here. As we close out, what can our audience, anyone that want to get involved with this fight in Milwaukee, to get some justice and some relief for the men that’s locked up in these plantations, how can they get involved? In terms of helping y’all get the word out, but more importantly, change the conditions that the men are now being subjected to?
Mark Rice: Definitely. They can check out our website, wisdomwisconsin.org. Definitely, you can sign up. There’s information about the Transformational Justice Campaign at WISDOM, definitely sign up and get on the email list to get more information.
We’re on social media as well, on Facebook, on X, on several other platforms. I’m on several platforms myself under ricermark, R-I-C-E-R-M-A-R-K. You can find me on X, on Facebook, on LinkedIn. Definitely reach out, connect with me on those platforms.
We have community forums coming up, there’s going to be one in Madison, Wisconsin on Feb. 1, 6:00 PM. I can get you more information about that. We had a forum recently, in Milwaukee.
Our format, we’re really focusing on engaging directly with elected officials now. We’re inviting representatives to come to these forums. We’re giving people a chance to share testimonies, three-minute long testimonies, about anything related to the lockdown. A lot of people who have been directly impacted are showing up, sharing these testimonies.
The one in Milwaukee, I talked to one person afterwards. He said, after hearing all these testimonies, there’s no way anyone could support continuing these lockdowns, because they heard about the suicides, the devastating impact it’s had on people and families. I feel like it’s very important to hear from those who are being impacted and their loved ones. These community forums are providing a platform for that to happen.
But also, we’re taking it to people who have the power to make the changes. We’re taking it to Department of Corrections administrators, to the Governor’s office, to state legislators. We’re going to be having some meetings with the Governor’s policy advisors with the Department of Corrections coming up and definitely need people, as many people as possible, we need them to reach out and contact Governor Evers, contact the Department of Corrections, contact their state legislators throughout the state, and let them know what’s going on right now is a human rights crisis that needs to be ended immediately.
We really need to demand that, to say what’s going on right now is not acceptable. We really need to start demanding that they implement these common sense policy changes to reduce the prison population and put resources back into communities that have been most harmed by incarcerations so we can really start to build safer, stronger, and healthier communities by making smarter investments with public resources.
Definitely, direct engagement with elected officials, but also organize. Definitely, people can get involved. We have several different task forces, ways to get involved. We have a structure with this campaign that, definitely, anyone that wants to get involved and show leadership, which is based in Wisconsin or even nationally, but definitely it would be helpful for people to get involved nationally. Put pressure on from outside Wisconsin too, to let them know that people across the country are looking at this and saying, this is really a stain on the reputation of Wisconsin, nationally. I think to have that national spotlight put on it is going to be really powerful as well.
Mansa Musa: All right, Mark. Thank you. There you have it. The Real News, just like the name say. I’m your host, Mansa Musa. That’s going to do it for us today. But you can find us here every Monday as we continue to rattle the bars for truth and justice.
I want to thank our guest, Mark Rice, for joining me as we rattled the bars today. We ask that you continue to support The Real News and Rattling the Bars, which you can do by clicking the donate button next to this video. Or, by going to therealnews.com/donate. Because guess what? we really are the news.
This article originally appeared in Scheerpost on Jan. 23, 2024. It is shared here with permission under a Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) license.
On May 19, 2023, Virgilio Aguilar Méndez, an 18-year-old Indigenous-Maya farmworker, was eating and talking to his mother on the phone outside of his Super 8 motel room in St. Augustine, Florida, where he was staying with three other farmworkers. He was working to send money to his family in Guatemala. St. Johns County police Sergeant Michael Kunovich approached Aguilar Méndez and described him to the dispatcher as a “suspicious Hispanic male” according to an ABC News reporter who reviewed the body camera and audio of the incident.
As Kunovich began to question Aguilar Méndez, who speaks the Mayan language Mam, the young man couldn’t understand the questions and started apologizing. He expressed multiple times that he did not speak English and that he was residing in the motel.
Kunovich started searching the teenager for weapons, according to the Florida Times-Union. Startled, the confused 5-foot-4, 115-pound teen resisted. During the eight minute struggle, Kunovich called two other deputies to assist him. They pushed and pinned Aguilar Méndez to the ground, held him in a chokehold, and stunned him with his taser six times in two minutes.
Five minutes after they handcuffed the teenager and put him in a patrol car, Kunovich collapsed and was transported to a hospital where he died. Medical examiners found this to be cardiac arrest and ruled Kunovich’s death to be by natural causes. The ABC reporter, who obtained a copy of Kunovich’s autopsy report, wrote that it said, “These cardiac changes, while recent, predate the struggle with the subject. The circumstances do not fully meet the criteria for a homicide manner of death.”
Still, the St. John’s County Sheriff’s Office and the Office of the State Attorney for the 7th Judicial Circuit of Florida charged Aguilar Méndez with aggravated murder, which is punishable by life in prison.
In the time after Kunovich’s death, St. John County Sheriff Robert Hardwick held a press conference in which he said that Aguilar Méndez was stopped because he was trespassing and that he had pulled a knife on Kunovich. After the press conference, body camera footage was released showing that a small pocket knife was found in his pants pocket after he was handcuffed was never pulled on Kunovich. Aguilar Méndez said the knife was “para sandía,” or “for watermelon,” alluding to his job.
The teen has been held without bail for eight months, even after circuit judge R. Lee Smith in December found him incompetent to stand trial because he does not understand English or Spanish and is unable to understand the criminal justice system, the Times-Union reported. The prosecution disagreed and the judge said he needed “more time to mull the complicated issues.” Since then, the public defender’s office filed an amended motion to set bond, which would ask for him to be released, and is expected to file a motion to dismiss the charges soon, said Phillip Arroyo, Aguilar Méndez’s lawyer.
“This is a great injustice. It is a violation of his constitutional and civil rights, which, contrary to popular belief, also protect undocumented immigrants,” Arroyo told ScheerPost. “Although this case has nothing to do with immigration, our client’s right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure was violated that day, in addition to being a victim of excessive force.”
Arroyo also has stated to the ABC reporter that the state would have to prove that Aguilar Méndez knew the officer had a heart condition and did something negligent that caused his death.
According to a report from the CUNY Institute for State & Local Governance, “Immigrants, particularly undocumented immigrants, are likely to be victimized far more often than native-born U.S. citizens,” even though they are less likely to commit serious crimes or be behind bars than the native-born citizens.
In addition, the U.S. has a diverse population in which more than 67 million people, or one in five, speak a language other than English. An estimated 25 million people in the United States have limited English proficiency. Scholars and advocates of criminal justice reform have questioned if law enforcement is doing enough to provide proper resources to ensure language services for those who need it.
Arroyo urges people to sign the Change.org petition to free Aguilar Méndez, created on Jan. 3 by Mariana Blanco of the nonprofit The Guatemalan-Maya Center. The petition calls for Aguilar Méndez’s immediate release and charges to be dropped, and is to Governor Ron DeSantis and 7th circuit state attorney, RJ Larizza. It has generated over 549,000 signatures since it was started.
“If Virgilio is convicted and sentenced to prison for this incident, it will create an extremely dangerous precedent in this country; because if a police officer dies from a heart attack during a police-citizen encounter, anyone in this country can be charged, convicted and sentenced to life in prison for that officer’s death,” reads the petition.
The nightmarish reality of the prison industrial complex depends on a vast array of stereotypes and tropes about incarcerated people that have proliferated through our culture. From the myth of the ‘superpredator’ to other racist and anti-poor constructions of the prisoner, the real stories and lives of the human beings trapped in the prison system are obscured by a veil of assumptions propagated by the institutions and interests most invested in maintaining mass incarceration. Fred Winn, a former librarian, correctional officer, and case manager at California’s Soledad Prison has attempted to peel back this veil with the true stories of the human beings he encountered behind guards in his memoir, For the Least of These. Winn joins Rattling the Bars for a discussion on his book and the humanity that clings on in prisons in spite of constant repression.
Studio Production / Post-Production: Cameron Granadino
Transcript
The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. A proofread version will be made available as soon as possible.
Mansa Musa: When you hear the term, “For the least of them,” you might think of a biblical scenario where Jesus talks about for the least of them. Fred Winn wrote a book called For the Least of These. Fred Winn served as a correctional officer, a librarian, and a case managemer in Soledad Prison. In this book, he talks about how the prison-industrial complex, the penal system treats for the least of them. Thank you for joining me, Fred.
Fred Winn: Well, thank you. Good to be here. Thanks for having me.
Mansa Musa: All right, Fred, let’s talk about the title of the book. The Least of These comes out as a biblical term. Explain this title and why did you take this particular title?
Fred Winn: Well, it comes from the 25 chapter of the Book of Matthew. And in this chapter, in this particular passage, Jesus is talking to his disciples; He’s giving an illustration about who’s going to make it to heaven and who will not. And he says that when you show kindness to different groups, you’re showing kindness to him. He uses the example of refugees, or the term stranger. He says, prisoners, when you came to visit me in prison, then you were being kind to me. And people would say well, we never visited you in prison. He said when you did it for the least of these, then you did it for me. So Christ identifies with people that are at the bottom of society. He identifies with the have-nots, he identifies with people that are othered, that are mistreated, and the down-trodden. So that’s why I chose the title because that’s the image that inmates have and other groups too: refugees and poor people. Yeah. That’s why I chose it.
Mansa Musa: Okay. All right. Tell us a little bit about yourself. Who is Fred Winn?
Fred Winn: Good question. Well, I was born in the ’50s, grew up in the Bay Area: Oakland, California, and went to Oakland Public Schools. When I finished high school, I went to Cal State Hayward, which is called something else now. I went there for a couple years and I finished up my undergraduate work at UC Santa Barbara, which is a beautiful campus out in Southern California. In Oakland, when I was growing up, the Black Panthers were very active. There was the King assassination, the Malcolm X assassination, and the upheaval that was taking place in society in general. So I was a product of all that and I saw major changes the Civil Rights Movement produced. And that’s who I am.
Mansa Musa: Okay. When I was reading the book, and I did some cliff notes, I noticed that your storytelling method — And I want our audience to be mindful of this particular method that you use — Is that you’re taking stories and events, and you introduce it as saying, well, this is a story about… Then you do a postscript on it, more or less explaining what you thought of it. But the body of it is the story of the individual or person. Why did you use this particular method? Which is very effective.
Fred Winn: Thank you. I had an agenda. I wanted to convey certain concepts in each story. Now, to be fair, that stories that I talk about are not one person. For example, we talked about inmate education, inmate college; There were quite a few inmates that had a similar experience so I wanted to highlight that educational opportunities, the vocational training, psychological counseling, and these things are very important for inmates to develop the skills and to move on, and move forward in life. But a lot of people, too many people, are against that. It’s wasting money. But most inmates are returned to society at some point so it’s to our own advantage to have them be able to have a successful reentry and to have a better shot at being successful. Otherwise, they’re going to return and that’s a waste of their life and society will suffer because that’s one person that’s not contributing to the extent of his or her abilities. So that’s why I did that. I wanted to convey a certain message.
Mansa Musa: I was laughing at some of the stories because I see myself in those stories. Like Oliver; I was Oliver in the Maryland prison system. I came in, I was a substance abuser prior to being arrested, I had opted out of society in and of itself. When I went to prison, they tested you when you first come in and I had a third grade reading level and a sixth grade math level. Back when I went through the system, they didn’t have mandatory education but in California they had mandatory education. Like you say, this is Oliver: Oliver is everybody that’s had the same educational background. Oliver chose not to go to school and because he chose not to go to school, they put him in a restrictive housing area that minimized his activities. But once he decided and was able to go to school, he got privileges. Do you think this was because the California prison system was concerned about men and women being educated and would help them have a better chance of surviving in society? Or was this something that was mandated by the state legislators?
Fred Winn: I believe this was mandated. I would have to check but I know it was required. You had to have a security level. But many people did not want that. A lot of inmates would say yeah, I want to go to the yard and make some money. And you can understand them wanting to work to get money to buy their soap and all that, however, I believe it was the legislature that required this but I could be wrong. Yeah.
Mansa Musa: Okay. Let’s unpack some of the stories. Going back to what you said about the education system, because they took the Pell Grant out. I’m digressing a little bit. When they took the Pell Grant out under the Crime Bill, that opened the door in the prison system for the proliferation of gangs because prior to the Pell Grant being taken out, most people were going to colleges. Most people had seen the value in education. Education had transformed the prison population. Let’s talk about how one of your jobs in the corrections system was a librarian. I was going over how you were talking about the process of being the librarian or trying to get a clerk. We’ll talk about the clerk; That was another story in and of itself. But I want you to talk about when you came in and you decided to overhaul the library and get more books. Talk about the Black books.
Fred Winn: I was living in the Bay Area prior to moving down there and I worked in a library and it was standard practice: Whatever library you’re working at, if you’re working in a Hispanic area, then you want to have books about Hispanics. You have other books too, but you want to cater to your audience. You’re working in an Asian neighborhood, you want to have those books. So we’re at a prison and it was still like a public library. We had a large percentage of Hispanics, Blacks, and we had others, then we had whites. I wanted to build a collection to reflect that so I didn’t give that any thought. I went and started ordering books. I went to a bookstore in Oakland called Marcus Books, I believe, and ordered some books and I was with some other librarians throughout the state. Then I get a call from my supervisor, hey, I need to talk to you. I go in there thinking, okay, what’s up? And he said, hey, warehouse says that you ordered some Black books? And I’m thinking, okay. There’s more to the story, right? And I look at it and go, yeah. And he goes, well, we’ve never had Black books here before. What do you mean you guys haven’t had Black books? You’ve had Black inmates, right? Well yeah, we have Black inmates. We had them when I came here 20 years ago. So he went on and what happened was that somebody in the warehouse had written a letter to the warden, complaining about having Black books. My supervisor had to justify the books so he was trying to get from me why I ordered Black books. So I told him, hey, these are not just Black books, these are books from American history and the reason why they exist is because American history books do not include the stories of people of color. And that’s when I was building a collection to reflect the inmate population. I had some Hispanic books coming, I had some Native American books on order, and that solved this problem. Oh, no problem. He had this answer for the warden. So that was a lesson for me that he was not anti-Black books, he needed an answer to his problem at that moment to respond to the warden. I had other issues too with folks but that’s that story.
Mansa Musa: For the benefit of our audience, you’re in Soledad, you’re in the California prison system. This is in the ’80s, this is on the heels of George Jackson, this is on the heels of the San Quentin Six, this is on the heels of a serious upheaval in San Quentin, Folsom, and these other institutions. We were talking earlier and you said when you came in, the number of prisons that existed versus when you left the number of prisons that existed. I can identify what you’re saying about individuals but the general politics of the correction system back then was that… Because of George Jackson, because of the education, they looked at prisons as being more of an incubator for alternative revolutionary thoughts. So that might’ve had a lot to do with it. But talk about the Space Cadet and the reason why I want you to talk about the Space Cadet, because in prison, and when he was talking about it, I thought about a guy that was in the prison where I was at, and he was real knowledgeable of the Bible when he first came in. He was really into that going to church and worshiping his God as he saw him. But he was real knowledgeable. He was real well-read in the Bible. For whatever reason, he had a mental health issue. So he lost his faculty to deal with reality. And so he used to walk around and just randomly, wherever you was at, just start spewing out Bible verses. And wasn’t nobody there, wasn’t nobody looking at him or nothing. He’d just be like… And so we had a term for it. We had a term that we used to call him, to our ignorance, that we would call them. But then they started calling them the Prophet. So talk about the Space Cadet.
Fred Winn: Okay, well, my point in that story was the fact that we needed mental health counseling and training and awareness and all that kind of stuff. This inmate that came to the library, and we had all kinds of people there, and he wanted to talk to me. And sometimes they had issues that they needed to address or things they thought I could help them with. So he comes in and he’s from outer space and he has this issue he’s trying to address. They want him to get back on the mothership and head out. And I’m looking at him thinking, “This guy is…” but then my mentor comes in and I said, “Hey, maybe you can help us with this problem.” So the inmate, Space Cadet, talks to my mentor and tells him, “Hey, I’m from out of space,” and blah, blah, blah, blah. And so my colleague, “Hey, guess what? I’m from out of space too.” And he said, “Hey, you know what you need to is put your hat on a certain way to block the radio wave.” And he said, “Now they’re going to call you into mental health office pretty soon. I need you to go there and talk to them.” And so he calmed the guy down. The guy was all happy because somebody else was from outer space too and we could take care of his problem. So then he called the office, the mental health department, and came and took him away and put him somewhere else.
Mansa Musa: Yeah and-
Fred Winn: So my point of that story is… Go ahead.
Mansa Musa: Yeah. Nah, nah. And I think that for the benefit of our listeners and our audience is that this is the part of the book, or this is part of the storytelling, that shows the underbelly of the prison system, the prison industrial complex, in terms of the precedent. A lot of the trauma that we go through while we’re incarcerated and the evil in most institutions. They don’t have people that’s sensitive towards a person that succumbed to the pressure of being incarcerated for lengthy periods of time. In some institutions they do. In this case, it looked like, it seemed that y’all had, with you and your mentor, y’all had a sense of humanity towards the person and ensured that they got the proper treatment that they needed. Was that the case?
Fred Winn: Well, yes, because there are a lot of people that have issues, right? And they didn’t really have that program set up at Soledad at that time. But the mental health department, the psychologist, psychiatrist, interviewed him and then they removed him from that prison and they sent him somewhere else where he could get help. That has really changed though. Now they have so many different programs, and due to lawsuits that occurred while I was there, they have whole institutions that deal just with mental health issues and with medical issues. So I’m happy to say that that is no longer, when I left anyway, that was no longer a major, major issue. They had entire units that only housed mental health inmates. And they got training, and they got daily activities geared for them, and they’re able to address their concerns.
Mansa Musa: And then too, in your storytelling, you go from… And like I say, it’s effective. For me, it was an effective writing style. You go from, you got a story, but then you come and you do what might be considered social commentary on historical conditions, transition in prison. I think that was one of the topics. Talk about why did you see the need to interject these subject matters within this book, when it’s like, even though it’s premised on a lot of actual events that’s taking place, the historical information that you provide, or the commentary you provide, is consistent with what’s going on in society. Why do you see the need to do it like that? Or bring that in like that? Or not just write a book on historical perspective of prison and social conditions as it relate to why prisons are like they are? Why’d you use this particular matter?
Fred Winn: I wanted to humanize it. I wanted to put it in a way that people could relate to it and understand it. There are a lot of things I did not understand about their lives, the inmate lives prior to coming to prison. And for example, I think somewhere in the book I talked about the fact that inmates, prior to coming to prison, they’d be in the car with their friends, the police would pull them over, line them up against the wall, photograph them, get their AKAs, get their information, and then let them go, because they hadn’t done anything. They were not suspected of any crime. The police were just getting information about them. And if you grow up in that environment, what are you going to think about the country that you live in? You go to school, the teacher tells you that you have all these rights, and then you realize these rights do not extend to you. You have the right against seizure, being stopped and searched and all that stuff without cause, but this doesn’t extend to you. So what are your views of America? So I wanted people to see that, because most people really are not aware of that. And the war on drugs in prison, hundreds of thousands of African Americans, during the period where I was working there, it was alleged that members of a certain administration in Washington was instrumental in dumping crack cocaine in Southern California in Black communities. So they dumped the crack there, people got addicted to it, then other agencies came and arrested them and put them in prison. That was a setup. And people don’t really understand that. If you’re not from that environment, if you don’t have anyone that’s went through that, you don’t believe that kind of stuff. But it really does happen. It really did happen.
Mansa Musa: Right. And I think that that’s why I was asking about why did you use this particular method? Because that’s what it does. It gives a story, it gives events, and then so when you come with the commentary, a person can be able to make an objective decision on to believe or not to believe, but at least they have enough information to say, “Well, if you putting the crack cocaine in the neighborhood, the prison population explodes. And then these are the things that go on in this population that you created.” But talk about Grant’s Tomb, because one of the things I noticed when I was locked up, and I spoke on this earlier, was about the literacy rate in the prison. And after I got got my GED, I started teaching reading and writing. But before I started teaching reading and writing, I really didn’t know that people couldn’t read. And I was in a cell with a guy that couldn’t read. And when he got letters from his female friend about his daughter, he would always have to get somebody to read him. And I wound up in a cell with him and ultimately, we got him to be able to read any guy’s GED. But talk about Grant’s Tomb, because this is another part of the storytelling method and information that’s being conveyed that I think our audience would be able to understand, mainly when it come to their family members, that the necessity for investing in certain things, when it come to the prison industrial complex.
Fred Winn: Well, when I got there, I invited teachers to come and bring their classrooms to the library. So like a little field trip. But I wanted to expand the library services and I wanted the inmates to know that the library was a useful place for them to hang out. It contained information that they could use. So one of the first classes to come over, I had developed a little quiz, right, as a teaching method. I had different reference tools, I think current biographies and almanacs, things like that. And one of the questions was like, “What’s the address of…” I think it was popular singer. I forget her name, but a popular singer at the time, was is her address. So they all excited, because they’ll thought, “Oh, I’ll get to write to her.” And I had other little questions, but at the start I wanted to give them confidence in using the library. So I put what I thought was a very easy question for number one. The question was, “Who is buried in Grant’s Tomb?” I figured it would give confidence, [inaudible 00:23:08] question number two, right? And then number three. But after a half hour, I walked around the room and they were all on the first question. They were going through the books trying to find out who was buried in Grant’s Tomb. So anyway, [inaudible 00:23:22], boom, boom, boom, boom. And one guy said, “Oh, this test insults my intelligence.” But they all kind of laughed. And I had kept and saved up some magazines I was going to throw out. I said, “I’ll give them magazines if you get the answers right.” So I gave out some magazines anyway. But out of that class, several members, they all either finished, reached the sixth grade, or they transferred out before they did, and some of them stayed and they got their GED. At least one person stayed there and he became a college graduate from the local community college. And then others went on and went to the vocational trades and got a vocation. That’s when they had that there. So I want to show that, once again, these programs are worthwhile. Once the inmate has the skill that he can market and get a job, then he has a better chance of surviving, making it on his own once he gets out. So that was the point of that story. I wanted make it… That really did happen. I was to try to make it amusing so people would read it, but then they would make the connection, “Well, maybe we should have money for educational purposes, or have money for vocational training, and have college back in there.” Because they had all these college programs, but then they stopped all that. And that was horrible. That was one of the worst things they could have done.
Mansa Musa: Right. Right. Yeah, because when they took that Pell, I remember the crime. Because I was going to a college in the Maryland prison system we had what they called the extension college, extension program. In the district, in this area region down here, each college took the prison population. Like if the institutions was in the one region, then where Morgan State was at, Morgan State HBCU would be the college that serviced them. If it’s in Baltimore area, Coppin State would be the HBCU that would service them. If you in western Maryland Park, it was Frostburg. But what happened, and what was going on during that time, all of us that was in the institution, it changed the institution, because now people are more educated and the conversations are more along the line of being more informed. Once they took them Pell Grants out, that opened the door for the proliferation and infestation of gangs. Fred, talk about why all lives don’t matter? Because as you go on, you delve deep into a lot of the social agenda issues. And you do it from a perspective that it has a slight religious overtone in and of itself. But I want you to explain that. Your view on that and why you chose to interject it in this book.
Fred Winn: Well, originally, I was just going to write about different stories about inmates, in hopes to dissuade young people from traveling down certain paths, right? But then while I was writing, it took me several years, I’d write a bit, then I’d put it down for a month or two, the pandemic hit. But the George Floyd tragedy occurred. And I didn’t watch the whole video. I saw that initial part. And they said he had a $20 counterfeit bill, I think it was. But you don’t get the death penalty for having a counterfeit bill. You don’t even get the death penalty if you have a machine in your house pumping out money. You don’t die. They don’t kill you for that. Yet he was killed. And I thought that was unfortunate. Tragic. But what was just as bad was the fact that so many of my fellow Christians didn’t seem to think… it was nothing wrong with that. So the concept of Black lives matter came up. And many Christians said, “No, no, no. All lives matter. All lives matter.” And I just thought that was just disgusting. How can you say all lives matter when he lost his life over $20? So I just thought that was horrible. So I started writing about that and I realized that during the civil rights struggle when I was growing up, you were growing up too, it took place in the Bible Belt, the place with strong Christian values, the Bible Belt, right? But the Christians in the Bible Belt were totally against that achievement for Black people. And these were Christians. But then you go back a little bit further, the Christians in the Bible Belt were in full support of the enslavement of Black people. And they were Christians. Then you go back even further, in 1493, Pope Alexander put out a Doctrine of Discovery. And he spoke for the Christian Church. He was to Pope, but at that time, that was before the Protestant movement. So he spoke for all Christians that were in the West. He said that if you go to an area like Columbus did, into, he thought he was in India, but he was not in India. If you go to an area that does not have Christians, you can kill them, basically, take their land, enslave them, take all their resources, and et cetera. And so you have things like the King of England was selling land in the States… or not the States at that point… to North America, to people [inaudible 00:29:38]. They’d come up with a piece of paper, said, “Hey, I own this plot of land.” But he didn’t have the right to sell that land. That wasn’t his land. It was already being occupied. It was already belonged to somebody else. So I just kind of brought all those things in, showing the hypocrisy, and the fact that Christians have done harm to society, to the body of Christ, and the people who claim they’re Christians are not necessarily following Christ. So that was my whole thing with that. I wanted to talk about the church, the role of the church, the role of the media in portraying Black people and people of color the way that they do. It’s much better now, but the way that it was. The criminal justice system, all right? I went on how… well, for just example, Ronald Reagan, President Reagan, he was Governor Reagan at the time, he wasn’t President, he was a normal governor. He went to Philadelphia, Mississippi to announce that he was running for President. Now, he could have went to Sacramento, announced he could have went to Washington and announced it. He went to Philadelphia, Mississippi. That place was only famous for the killing of civil rights workers, right? And there was two whites that got killed. And it caused a great deal of attention because two whites got killed, along with, I think a Black, African-American. And the whites came down from the north. And so Regan was saying, “Hey, I believe in states’ rights.” In other words, to my way of thinking, he was saying, “You can treat people any way you want to. When I’m President, I’m going to ensure that that’s the case.” And I think that he followed up on it. So I wanted to show that he had full support of the Christians. The Christian supported him. They had a guy named President Carter, who I believe was a Christian, but the Christians abandoned Carter and went to Regan. So I just found how a lot of the people that claim to be Christians are anything but.
Mansa Musa: Right. And in that regard, right, you spoke on Dr. King, and I remember Dr. King’s letter from, I think it was in Birmingham, Alabama, or where he wrote where he was being criticized by the clergy for having a social agenda and being a Christian. They were saying that it’s a contradiction. That you can’t be a Christian and have a civil rights agenda where you opposing the government, or that you asking for equity. That you cannot do this. And he wrote the letter telling that, basically what you’re saying. But why did you bring Dr. King into the analysis? Because like I said, you showing the effects of the prison industrial complex on people, and you humanizing the people, in terms of how they adjust. You showing the connection between the church and, as far as you perceive it to be, in terms of the least of these, and their perspective towards the least of these. And as their doctrine say, they should be concerned with the least. Why’d you bring Dr. King in this?
Fred Winn: Well, I think right before that I talked about a guy that, who I can’t think of his name, but he was returning from World War II. And he was on the Greyhound bus coming back and he asked the driver, “Hey, let me stop and use the restroom.” And the driver got mad, but I guess he stopped and let me use the restroom. And then he called him a boy. And the soldier goes, “Hey, I’m not a boy. I just came back from the war.” And so he was talking back to the bus driver. So the bus driver gets to the town, he gets off and calls the police. The chief of police shows up, grabs the guy, they take him to the jail, and they put his eyes out. And then they pour liquor on him to say he was drunk. Okay? So then they have this trial. The police chief, no one does anything. Then finally the federal government steps in and brings charges against him. Within five minutes after the prosecution, the trial, the court proceedings, the jury gets together. Then five minutes later they come back and say, “Not guilty,” right? And that was common, very common. This guy lost his sight. He’s a veteran and yada, yada, yada. So then King is in jail. After that I talk about King, several pages later probably, and how he was in jail, right? And several of the leading preachers in the town said, “Hey, if there are grievances that you have, you should go to court.” But that’s insane. That’s absurd. That soldier, they tried the guy that did that to him, and they found him not guilty. That was common. Most of the time they didn’t even do anything to people. The KKK. They didn’t do anything to them for all the people they killed or lynched and all that stuff. Medgar Evers was killed in his front yard. And years, years, years later, they finally… so that was coming. So my point was that King was right. He was right to protest and do what he’s doing. And the people that told him, “Hey, you need to go to court.” They were full of crap. They knew that nothing would happen. But there were a couple, I put this in, there were a couple of white ministers that were true Christians. And they got run out of town because, you know? And one guy, I think he stayed, but they put sugar in his gas tank, they bombed his house, or threw bricks through his window, and they did all kind of horrible things to him. So yeah, the Bible Belt is not a place that people believe in the Bible, basically is my point.
Mansa Musa: Right. Right. I got you. And as we close out, what do you want our audience to know about The Least of These? They takeaway. Are they taking away that this is a Christian book, a religious book? Are they taking away to be that this is a social commentary on prison industrial complex? What do you think their takeaway should be?
Fred Winn: Well, it could be all those things. I think that we should think about the things that we hear. We’re constantly told today that we’re a Christian nation, but when did the Christianity start? Did it start in 1493 when they came over here and started stealing and killing? Or did it start when the Native Americans were forced off their land, the Trail of Tears? Did it occur when Blacks were brought over here to be enslaved for hundreds of years? I mean, when did this Christianity thing start? And all lives matter. When did all lives start to matter? I mean, I don’t see that. I don’t think all lives matters today. I don’t think they’ve ever mattered in this country. But I want people to see that, first of all, we have an opportunity to change the way we do prisons. And we need to start doing that. Otherwise, we’re going to still have people come in, not receive any type of training, go out, and then come right back in. We need to have resources for them. We need to invest in underperforming schools. We need to bring them up to par so that every student has a shot at being the best that they can be. And we need to get back to the church. If you say you’re a Christian, you need to start acting like a Christian. You need to start believing in what Jesus said. And you need to stop going to churches that preach the opposite. There’s ministers, I think I mentioned two in the book, I won’t call them out now, but they were anything but Christian ministers, although they were under people [inaudible 00:38:35] that they were, the abortion movement started because of opposition to integration. The leaders of the anti-integration movement, they couldn’t get people to get on board until they found the abortion issue. And then people said, “Oh, yeah, yeah.” So then they kind of did the abortion thing, “We’re against that.” And then, “Oh yeah, well, so I guess we’re also against this other thing over here too.” And that has worked completely ever since. People that oppose abortion tend to also be conservative on social issues. Not always, but that’s a major part of that group. So my thing is, who do you listen to? Who are you paying attention to? Be careful who you follow.
Mansa Musa: Okay. And Fred, how can our audience get in touch with you and learn more about your works?
Fred Winn: Well, the book is available on Amazon or wherever books are sold. E-book is on Amazon. It’s only seven bucks. The E-book is $7. I have a website, fredawynn.com. So those are my contacts.
Mansa Musa: There you have it. The real news, rattling the bar. This is not a interview about a religion. This is not an interview about someone’s opinion. This interview is about humanity and how we look at humanity. And Fred gave us some insight too, from his own experience, from being in the correction system as a guard, a case manager, and a librarian. And in these three areas, you see the prison system from the ground up. And he was able to give us some insight into how the prison industrial complex impacts people and how it doesn’t invest in their return to society. But more importantly, how we take our belief systems and interject them into the prison industrial complex, or into society, to oppress and suppress people. Thank you, Fred. Thank you for this enlightened interview. And we wish you much success in your endeavors as you go forward.
Fred Winn: Well, thank you for having me. Have a great day. Thank you.
In 2023, Sgt. Ethan Newberg of the Baltimore Police Department pled guilty to misconduct in office—a charge he was initially given four years before. Now, body camera footage of one of Newberg’s nine known illegal arrests has been recovered by Police Accountability Report. The video shows Newberg escalating a parking ticket given to a FedEx driver to the arrest of a bystander who attempted to attempted to intervene on his coworkers behalf. But Newberg didn’t stop there—he even contacted FedEx in an effort to get the man he was arresting fired. Taya Graham and Stephen Janis discuss the case and the lengthy investigation and trial process that followed, throwing light on just how difficult it really is to hold police accountable for abuses of power.
Production: Taya Graham, Stephen Janis Post-Production: Stephen Janis, Adam Coley
Transcript
The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. A proofread version will be made available as soon as possible.
Taya Graham:
Hello, my name is Taya Graham and welcome to the Police Accountability Report. As I always make clear, this show has a single purpose, holding the politically powerful institution of policing accountable. To do so, we don’t just focus on the bad behavior of individual cops. Instead, we examine the system that makes bad policing possible. Today we’ll achieve that goal by showing you this video of a police officer arresting a man for talking. I am not kidding. But it’s why this cop felt empowered to abuse him and how the justice system fought to protect the officer that we will be unpacking for you today. It’s a story that reveals a troubling truism that this video goes a long way towards revealing. When police break the law, it can be challenging to hold them accountable.
But before I get started, I want you to know that if you have video evidence of police misconduct, please email it to us privately at par@therealnews.com or reach out to me on Facebook or Twitter @tayasbaltimore and we might be able to investigate for you. Please like, share and comment on our videos. It helps us get the word out and it can even help our guests, and you know I read your comments and appreciate them. You see those little hearts I give out down there and I’ve even started doing a comment of the week to show how much I appreciate your thoughts and to show what a great community we have. We do have a Patreon called Accountability Reports, so if you feel inspired to donate, please do. We don’t take corporate dollars or run ads, so anything you can spare is truly appreciated.
All right, we’ve gotten that out of the way. Now, as we often discuss on this show, holding police accountable is not just difficult, but an ongoing challenge. Part of the reason for this is simple. Even when cops are caught breaking the law, the justice system often seems reluctant to punish them. This just isn’t my opinion. Today we have undeniable proof. That’s because the video I’m showing you now reveals how that system actually works. It depicts a former Baltimore police officer named Ethan Newberg making an illegal arrest that nearly destroyed a man’s life. An abuse of police power that is just as shocking as it is matter of fact. But what makes this video even more troubling is how we had to fight to obtain the video and why our state’s law enforcement establishment wanted to keep it secret.
But first, we need to review the evidence in detail and for that, we have this, the body worn camera video of one of nine illegal arrests made by Baltimore Police Sergeant Ethan Newberg. Newberg pled guilty to misconduct in office in 2023. Those charges were brought by the office of former state’s attorney Marilyn Mosby in 2019, whose body-worn camera review office caught the illegal encounters and outlined charges that same year. The story of this illegal arrest actually begins in 2019 in a parking lot of a Baltimore city shopping center. There, police were writing a ticket to a FedEx driver who had stopped next to a curb to deliver a package. Obviously, ticketing a person delivering a package is questionable at best, but this video is not about a parking ticket. Not hardly.
That’s because another FedEx driver arrived on the scene and began to argue on his coworker’s behalf, a show of driver solidarity that police soon determined was unacceptable. Now, just a note, some of the audio from Officer Newberg’s camera is distorted, which we could not fix, but we still thought it was important enough for you to hear it regardless. Take a look and a listen.
Video:
All right. I see this man writing me a ticket. There’s a car behind me. I run out here, I tell him I’m ready to move my car. He tell me he can’t. He got to finish it. He started writing it. Man, you don’t have to finish that. I sat there and say, “Well, did you give the person behind me … There was a car right behind me. Did you give the person behind me a ticket and write that stuff up for them?” He’s like, “What car? “Man, you seen it.” He turned right there and said, “Oh, that car?” “Man, stop playing with me. I came out here to move my car. Stop it.”
Come on, now. I literally walked and saw him writing and I came right out here and said I’m going to move my car. He going to tell me, “Oh, I got to finish writing it.” You don’t got to finish writing that.
[inaudible 00:04:22]
I’ll tell you what, you got about three seconds to stop him. Pull him over, pull him over. Stop him. Stop him.
Taya Graham:
Now, I’m sure like me, you were confused by this video. What exactly was the crime that the driver committed? Since when did speaking to police constitute a crime? But that brief exercise of the constitutional rights of the driver was met with a resounding show of force, cuffs and detainment. Just watch.
Video:
Driver’s license and registration. No, no. Driver’s license and registration.
What’s up? What’s up?
Driver license?
Come take it. You a bitch, man. Like I said.
Take him.
For what? For what? For what? I ain’t do shit. For what?
[inaudible 00:05:10]. Call the FedEx company. Tell him his driver’s under arrest.
For what? For what? I see another FedEx driver getting in trouble.
You’re not going to curse at officers and create a disturbance out here. Your truck’s gone. Your job’s gone, I hope.
That’s cool.
You have no right to even have this job.
You have no right to assault me like that. For talking to another employee? Yeah, I ain’t do shit.
You’re not going to cuss at the police.
Taya Graham:
Now, even after the driver was pushed into the back of a patrol car, Sergeant Newberg was not done. What you’re about to see next is a point we make on this show that is often ignored or at best underestimated. That’s because even after Officer Newberg had clearly made an illegal arrest, the next step he took was even more disturbing. Just take a look.
Video:
Stop for another FedEx employee. Both of us works for FedEx, yo. Both of us work for FedEx. This man asked me for my ID.
Well, hopefully you won’t be working for them long.
I gave this man in my ID, right? He took my ID out my hand and grabbed my other hand and said I’m under arrest. For nothing. For nothing.
You’re under arrest.
For nothing.
Disorderly conduct.
For nothing.
Sir, step in the vehicle. Sir.
That’s crazy.
Have a good day.
That’s crazy. I’m going to work.
I need someone to pick up the phone. I need your boss’s number.
That’s what I’m asking them. I’m saying can I get my phone out of my car so I can get you all that information?
No.
I’ll walk with you and all that. I’m not even going to do none of that. You already got me cuffed up, man.
No, you’re going to jail and I’m calling your boss to come get your truck.
That’s okay.
What’s your boss’s number?
It’s in my phone in my truck. That’s what I’m saying to you.
What happens if I call the one 800 FedEx number?
It’s going to send you to a hotline and they going to send you through a runaround. That’s all they going to do. I can literally get out the truck … I mean, get out this car and go with you. Yes, sir.
No.
It’s right there inside the GPS thing.
No.
That’s what I’m saying. Man, I don’t have no problem with going to jail, sir. I have no issue with that. If you’re going to lock me up, lock me up. It’s okay. I understand you’re frustrated. I understand you’re mad.
No, I’m not frustrated, man. You’re not going to cuss at my officers. You’re not going to put their life at risk.
How did I put his life at risk?
You caused all these people to start coming out and cussing and carrying and … we have one guy now threatening us of that.
No, I didn’t cause any of this. I didn’t cause any of that.
Yeah, you did.
I stopped for another employee who I know is another employee and said, “Yo, stop moving your hands around, yo. You don’t want to get [inaudible 00:07:32] dumb ass.”
It’s all on body camera.
I know that.
Police are a bunch of bitches, you’re bitches.
All this crime going on and y’all stopping a man for a ticket?
Taya Graham:
That’s right. Sergeant Newberg told police to call FedEx with what we can only imagine is an attempt to cost the driver his job. I’m not kidding. Literally, for the crime of exercising his constitutional rights and talking. The officer decides that being put into a cage in the back of a patrol car and disrupting this young man’s life is simply not enough. That saddling him with a criminal record and court costs, legal fees, and perhaps bail was still insufficient. Just watch.
Video:
Oh, this was unbelievable with this guy.
Look, what I’m saying to him is like, yo, he right. He right. I’m not sitting here disputing saying, “Yo, you wrong.” I could have handled things differently. Same way this man could have handled things differently. We all could have handled things differently.
I’m done with him. I’m just calling the 1-800 number now?
What’s the number, boss?
I don’t know the number.
Don’t worry about. Don’t worry about it.
Crew. What does he … Do you guys … Eddie, what are you doing?
[inaudible 00:08:40].
But why is he over at this truck?
Because I work for these guys. FedEx.
Get him away from the truck.
What I’m doing [inaudible 00:08:48].
Yeah. This is Sergeant Newberg from the Baltimore City Police Department. Do you understand that? You understand what I’m saying? Your FedEx driver in one of your trucks is under arrest and his truck is just sitting out here. I need someone to come get it.
Taya Graham:
But that’s not where the misconduct, and I am not mischaracterizing this here, of the unrelenting overreach of Sergeant Newberg ended. That’s because when another resident exercised their first amendment rights, criticizing him for what was clearly an illegal arrest, again Newberg threatened to make the situation worse. Just look.
Video:
You get ready to go too.
Freedom of speech!
You get ready to go too, big, man.
[inaudible 00:09:27], officer. Make sure your camera on. Make sure your camera on.
Go away and take your balloons!
Taya Graham:
Now, there are two types of police behavior that I think are worth breaking down in this encounter. Two aspects of how police behave when confronted with wrongdoing of a fellow officer that need to be examined. First, the victim of this illegal arrest shows more dignity than the police who arrested him. I mean, he literally tries to be understanding and even show respect for the officer after he had not had the same done for him. But above and beyond that act of empathy is how many officers who witnessed and worked with Newberg and how they stood by and allowed this illegal act to unfold. Even worse, finding ways to justify it on camera and bolster Newberg’s flimsy case that this driver had committed a crime. Just watch.
Video:
Yo, you don’t got to treat us like this. You don’t have to treat people like this. We are human beings. That’s all it is. Y’all want to act … y’all all pulled up here deep. Literally. Literally. Literally. Yo, I didn’t-
What?
That’s your FedEx driver.
We weren’t doing anything to him. He was complaining. He just stopped the other dude.
It make no sense, dude.
Bro, you could have just said, “Hey, Kevin, what you do to [inaudible 00:10:43]”, and kept it moving, but you wanted to keep jabbing on him.
Oh, this was unbelievable with this guy.
Look, what I’m saying is like, yo, he right. He right. I’m not sitting here disputing saying, “Yo, you wrong.” I could have handled things differently. Same way this man could have handled things differently. We all could have handled things differently.
Taya Graham:
But even after sowing all the chaos that upended this young man’s life, Newberg is not done. At least not finished with exaggerating and portraying the driver to his employer as a reckless individual with contempt for the law. Just listen.
Video:
So you got locked up for him, but what’s he doing for you? He’s over there and ain’t saying a word.
You right, man. You right. Sir, sir. You right, because he obviously got more common sense than me. That’s literally what I-
You really just lost your job probably. Well, I can try to fill you in on what’s going on with your driver, if you’d like to know. A supervisor was called, which would be me, the supervisor, because an employee, I guess he’s on his lunch break, I don’t know what his deal was, was parked in a fire lane in his personal car. An officer was giving him a parking ticket. He was hooting and hollering out here. It turns out he’s a FedEx employee, which whatever, he’s carrying on, didn’t want his ticket. Whatever, that’s his prerogative. The problem became when your FedEx driver pulled up in a truck, I guess he is a fellow employee of this gentleman, stops in his FedEx truck and starts cussing at the police and making a heck of a scene. He’s told to knock it off, he continues, and now he’s cussing at the police and people are gathering. I don’t know what this guy’s deal was, but it got to the point where based for safety issues for the police involved, he was taken into custody. I don’t know what this guy’s deal was or what his problem was with the police, but now we have a FedEx truck running here sitting in the middle of the roadway in the shopping center, and we got him in handcuffs in the back of a car. That’s where we’re at.
Taya Graham:
Just to put an exclamation point on how troubling this entire encounter is, I want you to watch how this arrest actually unfolded and compare it to how Officer Newberg described it to his employer. Let’s watch the arrest and then play back Officer Berg’s description as we play the video of what actually happened.
Video:
A supervisor was called, which would be me, the supervisor, because an employee, I guess he’s on his lunch break, I don’t know what his deal was, was parked in a fire lane in his personal car. An officer was giving him a parking ticket. He was hooting and hollering out here. It turns out he’s a FedEx employee, which whatever, he’s carrying on, didn’t want his ticket. Whatever, that’s his prerogative. The problem became when your FedEx driver pulled up in a truck, I guess he is a fellow employee of this gentleman, stops in his FedEx truck and starts cussing at the police and making a heck of a scene. He’s told to knock it off, he continues, and now he’s cussing at the police and people are gathering.
I don’t know what this guy’s deal was, but it got to the point where based for safety issues for the police involved, he was taken into custody. I don’t know what this guy’s deal is or what his problem was with the police, but now we have a FedEx truck running here sitting in the middle of the roadway in the shopping center, and we got him in handcuffs in the back of a car. That’s where we’re at.
Taya Graham:
Even after all this, I think the most troubling moment of this entire ordeal occurs when Newberg, using the weapons of handcuffs, jail time, and the loss of a job to force, and I mean force, the driver to confess that he was wrong on body-worn camera. In this short ordeal of time, Newberg literally manages to violate the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth amendments of the Constitution in a single conversation, shredding the civil rights of this young man and the Constitution simultaneously. Just look.
Video:
Well, what I should have done is just towed the thing and not wasted my time making any of these phone calls.
Sir, I understand. I understand. I understand.
I’m trying to help your company out. I don’t have to do all this stuff.
I understand that, man. I understand.
Now I’m just trying to figure out now that you’ve calmed down whether to still take you to jail or let you go on your merry way with this truck.
I wish you would let me go on my merry way with this truck.
But the issue I had-
[inaudible 00:14:52].
Hold on a minute. The issue I have with this whole situation is I honestly believe that you think you did nothing wrong, and that’s the problem I have with this.
No, I know what I did wrong.
What do you think you did wrong? I don’t even care if you pulled up and said to your compadre there, “Hey, let the punk police do what they got-“
See, that’s what I’m-
You’re not even letting me talk. I don’t even care. “Let the punk police write you your ticket. I’m surprised they have nothing better to do” and drove away. That’s not exactly what you did. What you did was you took it to the next level and your anger just came spewing out of you and the cussing and the carrying on and people … it’s all on camera, sir.
No, I said the fuss and the stuff.
It was ridiculous. Do you have children?
Yes.
You support them with your job?
Yes.
Why would anybody risk that to do what you did for him? What is he, your brother? Were we kicking his face in?
No. Y’all weren’t doing none of that, man.
Were we choking him?
It was [inaudible 00:15:57] happening with him.
You’re a grown man.
Right, sir.
You have a family. This isn’t the street corner down here where it’s like a bunch of knuckleheads jumping all over the police and you have nothing to lose. You have a job, a good job with probably a good company with benefits. What are you doing? Get your head on straight.
Taya Graham:
Now oddly in the end, Sergeant Newberg lets the driver go, only after he humiliated him, told his boss that he was a lawless instigator and made him confess to a crime he didn’t even commit. But this particular encounter is not the end of this story. There is much, much more to tell about the crimes of Newberg, a story that has to do with the system we often discuss that makes bad policing possible. For more on that, I’m joined by my reporting partner, Stephen Janis, who was in the courtroom with me when Newberg was sentenced, and he’s reviewed the other videos that were released by the Baltimore City Police Department. Stephen, thank you so much for joining me.
Stephen Janis:
Taya, thanks for having me. I appreciate it.
Taya Graham:
Stephen, you were at the sentencing hearing for Sergeant Newberg. What did he say just before he was sentenced? Was he remorseful? Did he apologize?
Stephen Janis:
Taya, we watched his entire proceeding. He was anything but remorseful. He really blamed what he did on the culture of Baltimore policing. That is old school style policing where police were supposed to go into neighborhoods, sow disorder, sort of order people around and he said that was the problem. It wasn’t him. In fact, he said, “It’s amazing that my whole career has come down to a couple arrests on video.” He said, “If it wasn’t for the video, I wouldn’t be here.” It was not a remorseful or I think a man who really put the blame on himself.
Taya Graham:
What type of sentence did the prosecutors ask for? What did they think was fair for the crimes he committed against the public?
Stephen Janis:
Taya, the prosecutors were quite emphatic that he deserved 36 months in prison. They said that an officer like Ethan Newberg makes it more difficult for officers to go out and do their jobs because people see him, see what he does and think that’s the Baltimore Police Department, it erodes trust in the community. He asked the judge to actually reaffirm that faith in the justice system by giving him a sentence of three years, making him spend some time behind bars like some of the people that he arrested himself.
Taya Graham:
Now, Newberg’s attorney argued that in some sense Newberg was just doing what he was ordered to do. In other words, this was just Baltimore policing as it was designed to work. Can you talk a little bit about that?
Stephen Janis:
I mean, Ethan Newberg’s lawyer was very emphatic too, saying that, “Hey, this is the culture of Baltimore Police.” Police were supposed to do what I think former police commissioner Ed Norris said, go into a corner and disrupt. That is disrupt whatever’s going on in the community. At that point, I think it was supposed to be targeted at drug dealers, but of course, as we both know who have covered zero tolerance in Baltimore, it was much more widespread and pretty much was applied to any situation where people in the city congregated. Drinking a beer on a stoop, any sort of relatively innocent activity suddenly became criminalized. But his lawyer said that’s what they were told to do. Even Ethan Newberg said in his statement that now officers aren’t going out and being proactive like he was, and that’s why crime has gone up in the city. It really was an interesting argument in the sense that there was very little remorse or very little taking account for their own actions.
Taya Graham:
Stephen, as a reporter who has covered the city of Baltimore for 20 years, you saw some of that type of policing before, but it’s extraordinary that’s occurring now because wasn’t the police department under a consent decree when this happened?
Stephen Janis:
I mean, Taya, since 2016 the city has been under consent decree with the Department of Justice based upon an investigation that found the Baltimore Police Department engaged in unconstitutional and racist policing for years. This happened way after that. Let’s remember also the Gun Trace Task Force, seven officers, eight officers who robbed residents and stole overtime also occurred during the investigation by the Justice Department. Really it seems like the Justice Department doesn’t have a lot of effect on some individual officers, especially those officers who are used to what we call the old school style of policing in Baltimore.
Taya Graham:
Stephen, finally, what did the judge do? What was the sentence for Sergeant Newberg?
Stephen Janis:
Well, Taya, here’s what all the ideas put forward by the prosecutor that this is going to show some sort of accountability to the public, Ethan Newberg got just six months of home detention.
Taya Graham:
Wait, excuse me.
Stephen Janis:
Yeah.
Taya Graham:
No jail time for nine different illegal arrests caught on camera?
Stephen Janis:
Yeah. Six months of home detention, Taya. No jail time for Ethan Newberg. Not a second in jail. Nothing. Even when I think he was actually arraigned, he went to jail for one, maybe a couple hours and got out. Despite the fact that we’ve caught nine arrests like this on video and that the suffering of the people in the community because of his actions, Ethan Newberg will never see the inside of a jail cell. In fact, at the time his lawyer said that he could serve his time not in Baltimore City where the crimes occurred, but in Carroll County, a suburb of Baltimore, which he said would be much safer for Mr. Newberg. Really it was from the beginning, even though the judge seemed like he was going to sentence him to some time, the judge gave him six months home detention. That’s what the result of what you’ve seen. That’s why people are raising questions about this sentence because they’re saying, “How on earth can we hold officers accountable if someone who’s been caught on video breaking the law doesn’t serve any jail time?”
Taya Graham:
Thank you, Stephen. I want you to think about what Stephen just revealed regarding Sergeant Newberg’s punishment, or lack thereof, in the context of the idea I raised at the beginning of the show, how difficult it is to hold police accountable. I mean, the video we just watched was a perfect example of what happens when police powers are allowed to be abused, unchecked, and what it means when we allow our fear of crime to justify law enforcement that is neither lawful or effective. But there is a deeper problem here embedded in the crimes of this officer, an idea that informs why we are still dealing with these types of tactics amid efforts to reform policing across the country. To put it as plainly as possible, I have a very simple reason why police tactics like this proliferate and that despite the best efforts of activists and in some cases even elected representatives, they will continue to persist, a fight over something that may seem entirely unrelated to policing, but if we probe deeper, is actually one of the primary reasons this debate rages on. Asthma.
Oh, that’s right. You heard me. Your computer, your phone, it’s not malfunctioning. I actually said asthma, a terrible disease that afflicts people from all walks of life that requires them to use an inhaler to survive. It’s a byproduct of industrialization and poverty that consigns people who’ve been affected to dependence upon a medical product that has now been subject to a different sort of conflict, a fight that might seem peripheral, but in fact speaks to the core reason we accept, and in some ways bolster, bad policing in communities that already are under siege. That’s because Senator Bernie Sanders, chairman of the Senate’s Education and Welfare Committee, recently sent a letter to the CEOs of four major pharmaceutical companies. The letter, the contents of which he released publicly this week, asked one simple question; why? Why do four of the largest major drug companies in the US charge up to 10 times more for an inhaler here than they do in other countries?
Why, he wondered, do the sick people in the US often go without inhalers due to their steep price when a citizen of Germany, for example, pays just $9 for the same lifesaving care? It’s a critical question because according to that same letter, some 25 million Americans suffer from asthma and another 16 million Americans with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and both require an inhaler to survive and both must pay multiple times, no exponential times, what their counterparts in European countries have to fork over for the exact same medication. But of course, at this part of my rant, you’re probably asking, “Taya, what the heck does this have to do with a crooked cop? What does the exorbitant price of an asthma inhaler have to do with one rogue officer who decided to make one man’s life utterly miserable?”
That is a fair question. Please allow me to answer. Both are related because ultimately both are acts of violence. One, of course, is economic violence and the other, a matter of criminal justice, violence against our liberties and civil rights, but both seek to degrade our agency, our quality of life, and erode the rights of the people who are subject to them. I mean, I think we make a fundamental mistake when we limit our conversations about rights to just as specific guarantees outlined in the Constitution, those rights are important, but they mean little to the people who can’t breathe or can’t afford the medicine to prevent them from suffocating. I think the point where both of these injustices intersect is often less tangible, but just as important to comprehend because the unchecked power of officers like Newberg stems from the same pathos of the ability of wealthy pharma companies to gouge the sick and the poor.
It’s the disease called inequality. While it starts with the big companies charging outrageous prices, it’s enforced by agents of the government like Newberg who uses power to erode our political efficacy and thus our ability to fight back. I mean, if we spend all our time defending our basic rights from one cop, how on earth can we fight the bigger battle for the right to affordable healthcare? If an officer of the law can break the law to break us, what chance do we have to advance or expand our rights not to be overcharged for life-saving healthcare? Seriously, when you think about it, the rights that Newberg assaulted should be the starting point, not the culmination, of our rights. I mean, guaranteeing that the government can’t rifle through our belongings, whatever they want, or that we don’t have to testify against ourselves are not exactly the key to a happy existence. It’s just a basic safeguard from tyranny.
Which is why I brought up the idea of the extractive expense of asthma inhalers in the context of over-policing. Because what community, what group of reasonable people would decide that the right to breathe should be prohibitively expensive? What type of society would overcharge people for a lifesaving medication while a person in another country with the same ailment pays a fraction of the cost? Is that the policy of the greatest and wealthiest nation on earth? Is that how we perpetuate freedom and democracy, by gouging desperately ill people? Of course, there is one place where our great nation doesn’t mind being generous. Yes, we might overcharge sick people, but there is a group we don’t mind showering with cash and thrusting them into the 1%, and that group are cops, or more specifically Sergeant Ethan Newberg himself.
That’s right, because the same officer whose crimes were captured on the video that we just showed you was actually notorious for one other rather intriguing distinction. The man who decided to cost another man his livelihood actually held a singular position in the city for which he worked that I think is entirely relevant to the topic of this show. Ethan Newberg, it turns out, was one of the highest paid employees in the entire city. In the year he made all those illegal arrests, he gained roughly $239,000 in pay in overtime, a salary that put him on par with the mayor and the police commissioner, money he made making illegal arrests and ruining people’s lives. He made over a quarter million dollars while violating the rights of Baltimore City residents just like me.
If I take the precepts of capitalism to its logical conclusion that are free and fair market puts obvious values on goods services and people, there are a few conclusions that I can draw from these facts. One, a crooked cop who makes a legal arrest is exceptionally valuable to society. His ability to conjure reasons to put innocent people in cages actually gives him a real chance of being part of the luminous 1%. Conversely, if you are sick with asthma, it is perfectly acceptable to gouge you for illicit gains. Your life-threatening condition, through no fault of your own, deserves not one cent of compassion from the richest nation on earth. Hardly. In fact, the powers that be have made it impossible for the government to regulate or protect your right to breathe. Instead, they have all but assured companies that they can charge you whatever they want, that they, the rich CEOs and greedy shareholders, can reach into your pockets and extract every single penny in exchange for lifesaving medicine you cannot live without.
As you can see, it’s easy to ascertain what this country values and what rights really amount to. A calculus I can outline for you before, if you’re keeping score at home. The crooked cop, he is enriched. The sick, they are impoverished. The innocent, jailed. The CEOs, showered with cash. The people, ignored. Our rights, diminished. Our health, monetized and our freedoms, limited. These are the inequities we have to fight. These are the values we must rethink. This is the justice that we deserve and we must demand because all of it is worth fighting for.
I have to thank Stephen Janis for his intrepid reporting, research and writing and standing with me in that courtroom and helping me fight to get those body camera videos. Stephen, thank you so much.
Stephen Janis:
Taya, thanks for having me. I appreciate it.
Taya Graham:
I want to thank Mods and friends of the show, Noli D and Lacy R for their support. Hi, Noli D. A very special thanks to our Accountability Reports Patreons. We appreciate you and I look forward to thanking each and every one of you personally in our next live stream, especially Patreon associate producers John E.R, David K, Louis P, Lucita G, and super friends Shane B, Pineapple Gold, Chris R, and Matter of Rights. I want you watching to know that if you have video evidence of police misconduct or brutality, please share it with us and we might be able to investigate for you. Please reach out to us. You can email us tips privately at par@therealnews.com and share your evidence of police misconduct.
You can also message us at Police Accountability Report on Facebook or Instagram or @eyesonpolice on Twitter. Of course, you can always message me directly @tayasbaltimore on Twitter or Facebook. Please like and comment. I really do read your comments and appreciate them. We do have the Patreon link pinned below, so if you feel inspired to donate, please do. Anything you can spare is truly appreciated. My name is Taya Graham and I’m your host of the Police Accountability Report. Please be safe out there.
Outro:
Thank you so much for watching The Real News Network, where we lift up the voices, stories and struggles that you care about most. We need your help to keep doing this work, so please tap your screen now, subscribe and donate to the Real News Network. Solidarity forever.
Regarded by many as a form of torture, abolishing solitary confinement has become a goal for many activists for prison reform and abolition. In Washington, DC, the End Solitary Confinement 2023 bill would seek to end the practice in District facilities by requiring incarcerated people have access to at least eight hours a day outside their cells. Herbert Robinson, co-facilitator of the Unlock the Box campaign in DC, joins Rattling the Bars to speak on his personal experiences with solitary confinement and the campaign to abolish it in DC.
Studio / Post-Production: Cameron Granadino
Transcript
The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. A proofread version will be made available as soon as possible.
Mansa Musa:
Throughout the country, efforts are being made to erase, ban, or abolish the use of solitary confinement within the prison industrial complex. Men and women, even to this day, are being held in solitary confinement for years on end. Here to talk about one initiative that’s taking place in the District of Columbia called ERASE Solitary Confinement 2023 is Herbert Robinson. Thank you Mr. Robinson for joining me.
Herbert Robinson:
All right, I appreciate that. How you doing there Mansa?
Mansa Musa:
I’m doing good. Tell our audience a little bit about yourself.
Herbert Robinson:
I’m the co-facilitator of Unlock the Box campaign here in Washington DC. I’m also a Georgetown Pivot fellow, cohort six. Right now I do advocacy work in the Washington DC area. Now one of our biggest focuses is ending solitary confinement here in DC, which most of the city considers torture.
Mansa Musa:
All right. Full disclosure, I came out of the cohort, I think it was Pivot cohort three. Dave, Ms. Moore, we came out the cohort three. Welcome bro. Look, so for the benefit of our audience, you work with DC Justice Lab, explain what DC Justice Lab is.
Herbert Robinson:
DC Justice Lab. It’s a policy and advocacy organization here in DC that’s fighting to change some of the laws. They work with returning citizens, as well as college students and anyone throughout the Washington DC area that has an idea, that has a suggestion about the policy or the laws and is willing to fight for that change. They give you the tools and the resources through their library that they have right there 12th and U Street. They also have the assistance with their policy and training courses that they offer.
Mansa Musa:
Right. I’m familiar with DC Justice Lab. I’m in the DC [inaudible 00:02:30] area. The studio where I’m at is in Baltimore, but I work for a group over there called Voices for a Second Chance. I’m familiar with DC Justice Lab. I’ve been in this space with the leadership. DC Justice Lab, like you say, I like their advocacy because, one, they’re aggressive in terms of identifying the issue and we are more so aggressive in terms of impact and policy and changing policy. Which brings me to End Solitary Confinement 2023, the legislation that’s being proposed to end solitary confinement. How is solitary confinement? What do you know about, or have you ever experienced solitary confinement first? And what is it in DC?
Herbert Robinson:
Yes, I’ve experienced solitary confinement. I actually had firsthand lived experience with it. I’ve been in a SMU program in the federal system. I’ve been in South 1 in DC Jail. I’ve been in Northeast 1 in DC Jail. Solitary confinement is 23 and one in DC Jail with solitary confinement was 71 and one.
Mansa Musa:
Yeah. 24 and none.
Herbert Robinson:
Yeah, you came out for your hour rec every three days because they spoke about it being overcrowded or short of staff and things of that nature. So yeah, I got firsthand experience with solitary confinement. Solitary confinement is torture. It’s been some torturous times spent in South 1. When you sitting on that tier listening to people yell and scream and throw feces and things of that nature. Man, that ain’t no way a man should be. That ain’t no way a human should be.
Mansa Musa:
Right. I think when I seen this report come out, End Solitary Confinement 2023, I was thinking about how this is a continuation of a national campaign and an international campaign to abolish solitary confinement because the United Nations says it is torture and it shouldn’t be used. When people think about imprisonment, that in and of itself is a dehumanization in and of itself. Solitary confinement is a different animal all together. I did four and a half years in supermax. I did countless years on segregation, which had the same characteristics as solitary confinement in that, like you say, you’re in a small confined area. You hear people that can’t handle that kind of control and confinement. You hear them just all night long screaming, yelling, banging. But then they start playing with their feces and that became a whole another animal. When y’all decided to take this up, where was you at in terms of educating people on why this is necessary?
Herbert Robinson:
So right now where we at, what we did is we formed a working group, a centering directly impacted people working group, those with lived experiences and I was one of those members of that group. We used that group to do outreach. We all filled out a survey that basically shared some of our experiences and the things we went through while we were in solitary confinement. We allowed the research team to go through it and analyze some things and help create what would help benefit us in those conditions with that bill that we are putting forth to pass. As well as doing outreach with the community, going into the community, speaking to those with lived experience, speaking to some of their family members. We ran across some children of parents that had experienced solitary confinement and just listening to them share their stories about their interactions with their mother for those years that she was incarcerated. Most females spend a lot of their time in solitary confinement, especially at DC Jail and CTF and stuff like that.
So having those experiences shared and putting a platform out there, giving people a chance to share those experiences and letting everybody know that this is an issue. So the ACLU, they work with Lake Research Partners and did a poll. This poll, it showed that at one time when people didn’t know nothing about solitary confinement or whatever, and it was just spoke to them about it being 22 to 24 hours a day and locked in the cell. You had 31 people who supported it solitary confinement. You had 62 opposed that… No, I’m sorry, I got my numbers wrong. So it was 32 supported and 55 opposed, and 13 just didn’t know where they led at either way. So now after hearing about solitary confinement and a person being held under these conditions and that these conditions doesn’t do nothing to help with rehabilitation, that these conditions, they actually hinder a person’s mental state. When you don’t have nobody to talk to, when you don’t got too many books to read, and everything is at a minimum to you, if you don’t use it, you lose it.
Mansa Musa:
Right. Not to cut you off, but in that regard, that’s the traumatic part of that process because I recall when I went to supermax, they ain’t had no library system. It’s 12 of us on the pod and they ain’t had no library system. But more importantly, when you came into the supermax, this is what you knew when you got there, the average person did five years. When you came in, the average amount of time that you was expected to do in supermax was five years. So you went in there, thinking I’m going to be in here for five years.
But then when you get there and realize what here is, then the reality, it [inaudible 00:08:56]. But one thing when I got in there was there was no library and everything was controlled in terms of books and how many books you could get, if your family could send you any books. I didn’t have no TV. I didn’t want none of that. Man, you talking about somebody starving for something to read. Man, I was just reading anything that had words on it. But let me ask you this here, in terms of give us an outline on what are y’all proposing in the End Solitary Confinement 2023, if you can?
Herbert Robinson:
Well, our biggest goal is to try to get everyone eight hours a day out of cell. We feel as though eight hours is a substantial enough time and it gives everyone a good amount of time to do any reading they need to do, any studying they need to do, any communication with their families, any hygiene they need to take care of, any actions with other humans. Solitary confinement hasn’t proved anything. Only thing solitary confinement has proved is the torture of a human to put you in a depressed state. If this is what you’re calling punishment, put me in a depressed state, a miserable state, then that ain’t right, man. That’s something that should be abolished, it’s something that should be banned. So again, so we’re trying to get everybody eight hours out the cell.
We’re trying to get those with mental health issues and that need assistance, you’re trapping them in this cell and you putting them there. If the problem isn’t solved in 48 hours, then they need to be transferred out of your institution to a facility that can help them. You feeding them medication two to three times a day and not assisting them, not giving them the treatment they need, not allow them to talk through their problems and giving them the assistance to learn how to work through their problems. These are some of the things we’re proposing to try to give people that time out they cell, trying to get people transferred to hospitals if it needs be. We do understand that when it comes to disciplinary actions and things like that, it needs to be a punishment. But you can take what you call privileges from a person. If you don’t want a person to have a certain amount of commissary or put them on commissary restriction, it’s ways where they can write letters and-
Mansa Musa:
Other than torture. Like you said, if the intent is to torture, brutalize you, break you, then yes, solitary confinement is doing all that. But if the intent is going to be for it to correct a behavior, then that’s not doing that. Talk about the aspect of it as it relates to how they’re going about putting… If you got this information, who do they primarily target for solitary confinement? Because my study come up with a certain class, certain [inaudible 00:12:07], they be navigating it and utilizing solitary confinement primarily for a torturous reason. Were you able to discern, is it certain individuals or certain class or certain type of people they primarily use for solitary, or just across the board?
Herbert Robinson:
No, I can give you my understanding of it, but DC Jail don’t actually put out the data on that to be specific. From my experience, like a lot of who’s there, are those with mental issues. Those with minor infractions. Might’ve disrespected the CO, incidents to staff, didn’t lock in on time, might’ve stolen an extra tray. Things like this, being disrespectful. These are the people that’s being targeted. Or those that has a fear of being in population, they’re being put in solitary confinement because they have a fear being put in population. They don’t want to be around certain individuals. So now you punish them because they don’t have the aggression.
Mansa Musa:
I know when I was in supermax what they did, and you maybe can address this, when I was in supermax, what they did, every year, they brought you up for evaluation to determine if you should be released from supermax. Because when you’re in supermax, like [inaudible 00:13:38], it’s indefinite. It’s not like you get 90 days for a shot, you get 30 days for a shot, 90 days for a ticket, 30 days for a ticket, 60 days for a ticket in solitary confinement. I know in supermax, they sent you there, it was indefinite. You there until they determined that they’re going to let you go. But every year they would bring you up for evaluation. From your studies, was that the case with solitary confinement as you was exposed to it? Or is that the case what’s going on in the DC Jail?
Herbert Robinson:
No, that’s not the case in DC Jail. So in DC Jail, it’s more so they use it for punitive reasons for people with disciplinary issues. But those that’s been trapped there for the most part mental health and maybe for whatever they crime was in the streets. Nah, they ain’t checking back for. But like you spoke about earlier, United Nations and the Mandela rule, which part of that rule is rule forty-four that says being confined to a cell for 22 hours a day for 14 days or more, is considered torture. Being in them conditions for 14 days, the 15th day, United Nations saying that’s torture. So the supermax is in violation of United Nations, the Mandela rule. They don’t have no care or concern about standing on the Mandela rule. They’re doing what they want to.
Mansa Musa:
I recall when I was in the pen back in the eighties when they first came up with admin seg, the concept of admin seg, which was another concept of leaving you locked down for indefinite. Prior to the cases that came out of that, they was using solitary confinement like this here towards women. They were dealing with sleep deprivation. They was taking them and putting them in cells I think in Kentucky and kept the lights on all day long. They isolated and kept them in there 24 and none. They filed and had got that reverse, which led to the admin seg. The Supreme Court went in on the admin seg, a case called Sandin versus Conner where it said that at some point in time they called it atypical and significant hardship. Said at some point in time during the course of your conservation, you expect to be in some type of arduous, treacherous, torturous environment. But in terms of where y’all at, in terms going forward, walk us through y’all proposing the bill and y’all proposing it to DC City Council. Is that where it’s at?
Herbert Robinson:
Actually right now we’re waiting on a scheduled hearing. So a Councilmember Nadeau, Brianne Nadeau, she actually partnered with us and she introduced the bill. We’ve had several other council members sign on. I want to say it’s eight all in together so far that actually signed on to partner with it. But we’ve sat down and spoke to every council member, their staff, and actually had a few council members we got to speak to one-on-one in person. But for the most part we spoke to staff members. But actually, we did get to speak to all council members in entirety. So that was a great thing. So far it seems everybody has a concern and everybody sees solitary confinement as torture and knows that it does hinder those that’s returning home from them conditions. That plays a part on society. Everybody wants to see and do what it takes to help better society, and also give those others returning home and those that stuck under them conditions a better opportunity in life. So, we’re all working together to try to figure some things out.
Mansa Musa:
We know from what’s going on in the country in general, but in the District of Columbia in particular, this history of crime mainly around our kids. To your knowledge, are they using solitary confinement because they confine the juveniles in isolation and solitary confinement type situation?
Herbert Robinson:
In DC right now? Yes. To my understanding, they are. They have their reasons. They’ll try to tell you because of over crowdedness or lack of staff. But punishment, is it? That’s what it is. It’s a punishment.
Mansa Musa:
The Supreme Court already came out and say that you can’t use the budget as a reason for continue to inflict inhumane conditions on people. You can’t use over crowdedness as a pretext for why you subject people to inhumane conditions. That’s just not a reality. That’s something that you use to get away with. Talk about y’all interaction with people now, just right now in the system. Do y’all have any connection with anybody in the system right now that’s undergoing the process or giving y’all information to keep y’all abreast of what’s going on to help with the advocacy?
Herbert Robinson:
Like I said, we passed our surveys out and a lot of our communication went through that way as far as DC Jail was through the surveys. We don’t actually have no one that we direct in our contact with communication to inside of DC Jail. In that sense, our connection is more so once they get home and through the surveys that we sent in, they all came back out. Like general surveys. You filled that out anonymously. We didn’t want to put nobody under no… We both understand what goes on inside them conditions. So, a lot of that’s anonymous. So I couldn’t have that. But what I can say, I do outreach work with More Than Our Crimes, which is another org here in DC, and they give a voice to the incarcerated individuals. They got a podcast and everything, she shares and allows them to speak on. So that’s where that bridge goes and that we get to speak to the brothers from that point of view and allow them to shift.
Mansa Musa:
You had spoke earlier about all sorts of campaign, Unlock the Box. What is that?
Herbert Robinson:
Unlock the Box. That’s the End Solitary Confinement.
Mansa Musa:
Okay. That is what it’s called?
Herbert Robinson:
Yeah. That’s the national campaign. So Unlock the box is a national campaign. That’s the End Solitary Confinement. Unlock the Box DC is our local branch of that organization.
Mansa Musa:
Okay. I track Solitary Watch and Solitary Watch is in the forefront in terms of highlighting solitary confinement, highlighting where it’s being utilized, and highlighting what advocacy is going on around the abolition of it. So that’s why I said I know it’s a national conversation. It’s a national initiative.
Herbert Robinson:
States like New Jersey, New York, Wyoming, it’s states that’s already passed legislation to end solitary confinements. It’s states like West Virginia, that’s what they do. You’re in there, in solitary confinement, after 14 days they have to release you. Then if you commit another act you can come back for 14 days. You can’t be stuck there for 30 days, 90. You can’t be stuck there for a year at a time. It’s states that’s already moved in this direction, brother, that supports ending this solitary confinement, ending this torture of these humans.
Mansa Musa:
You know what? Herb, it’s nothing more traumatized than that. We adjust to it in the system. Don’t get me wrong. You going on lock, we adjust to it, because we don’t have no way of changing it. We don’t have no way of reversing it. That’s why we make the adjustment. But in terms of the psychological aspect of it, that’s the most traumatic thing ever. Because I knew, when they told me I was going to supermax, I had that in the back of my head that I’m going to be there for five years. I didn’t know what that was, that five year was. But when I got in there and realized that if I don’t stay focused on maintaining my sanity, I’m going to be a babbling maniac when I come out there, because nothing was going on there to reinforce any type of social interaction or social skills.
Everything was magnified by being locked down. All the information that came out of that experience and out of that space was distorted because I’m frustrated. So the least little thing, I’m off the chain, the least little thing. We could be talking about basketball and you could say LeBron James is a punk, for lack of a better word, that become contentious enough for me and you wanting kill each other because of being in that environment. You know what I’m saying? It could be anything other than we talking about baloney and you saying ain’t no such thing as chicken baloney. Right after that, we ready to kill each other over that. That come out of that environment. You know what I mean?
Herbert Robinson:
Another scenario of that is how possessive we become because you locked in them conditions, everything is yours. You don’t have to share nothing. Then you get out here in society, and you might be in a work setting or something, they pick up the pen off your desk to write something down. But that’s your pen to you. You not used to nobody just picking up your pen. To someone else out here in society, bro, they looking at us like that’s a pen. You really going to feel some type of way because I touched your pen? I needed to write something down. But they don’t know the conditions you’ve been under and how it’s mentally draining.
Mansa Musa:
That’s the torture.
Herbert Robinson:
Like you say, we adapt at that time. Right. But think about the premature deaths that’s caused by those that returned home from solitary confinement and they’ve committed suicide. You got to look at the brother Kalief Browder, brother. He was locked in solitary confinement like that and went home and committed suicide.
Mansa Musa:
Yeah, I know.
Herbert Robinson:
You know what I’m saying? It’s so many of us like that brother, man, and put they self in these positions, man. When they come home from this solitary confinement and they don’t have the resources or the help, but shouldn’t have never been in them conditions in the first place, man. It’s torture, man. The premature deaths of those that come home, man, and has to face these consequences of society. Like you say, the examples we just gave, how the arguments can just pop up out of nowhere. Then the spur of the moment, you don’t know what it can lead to.
Mansa Musa:
Yeah, because the guy told me-
Herbert Robinson:
But that’s because we lack the social and emotional intelligence to communicate, to be able to bond and work together in society. We don’t have it because we’ve been trapped inside the boxes for so long.
Mansa Musa:
God told me that when I went to supermax, he said, man, when you leave out here… He had been there a couple of times. You ain’t going to be the same. When I got out when and I was in one prison and the movement was more controlled so it wasn’t a lot of activity around you. They moved me from there to another jail. The other jail, the place they moved me, it was like everything was moving rapidly around you. Everybody knew me in the spot. I’m standing still. People that hadn’t seen me for a long time, they coming up to me saying stuff. I got a friend with me, I’m like, “Man, what the…” He said, “Man, look. Come on, let’s go out in the yard.” Because I was stuck.
Herbert Robinson:
You was trying to get back to your unit.
Mansa Musa:
Yeah, really. I was stuck.
Herbert Robinson:
You ain’t up here around them people. You ain’t adjusted yet.
Mansa Musa:
You got the last word on this. What you want our audience to know going forward on what the DC Justice Lab is doing, and how y’all want people to support this effort, this nationwide effort to ban the box?
Herbert Robinson:
For one, the Unlock the Box campaign, it’s the ERASE bit. You go on to the ERASE hearing. There’s a bit, if you go on and do it, you can sign up and get your council members, especially those from here in Washington DC, you get your council members to help you with the hearing. Send them the email and tell them that you support End Solitary Confinement and we need Councilmember Pinto, who is the chair of the judiciary committee, we need her to schedule a hearing for us.
Mansa Musa:
Okay.
Herbert Robinson:
We get a hearing scheduled, man, and get those that has the experience, the lived experience, or family members with the experience or can know the impact of it. Especially those that might have worked over the jail or have family members that’s been over the jail and understand what’s going on and the significance that solitary confinement plays in hindering us. We need their support. We need them to step up and share.
Mansa Musa:
Okay, there you have it. Rattling The Bars, the real news. Thank you brother Herbert. We want people to be mindful of this, that we’re talking about humanity. We’re not talking about people living comfortable. If you have this notion that if you in prison that you should be subjected to certain things, no, you shouldn’t be subjected to being tortured. You shouldn’t be subjected to inhumanity. You shouldn’t be subjected to a system where they put you in a box and leave you there 24 and none, or let you out every three days for rec. No, you shouldn’t be in there. That’s not what penology is about. It says crime and punishment, the crime that you committed, the punishment is the sinners, the punishment is not to be sent into a prison and tortured. Thank you brother Herbert. We ask you to continue to support Rattling The Bars, the real news. Thank you.
Herbert Robinson:
Thank you man. Appreciate y’all for having me on. Enjoy rest of your day.
Less than 15 percent of parole-eligible prisoners serving life sentences in Maryland have been released since 2015. With advocates across the state clamoring for parole reform, Maryland’s legislature has the opportunity to address the state’s soul-crushing parole system this legislative session. Al Brown and Tyrone Little, who each served decades in Maryland’s prison system, join Rattling the Bars to share their firsthand experiences with the parole system.
Studio Production: Cameron Granadino, Adam Coley, David Hebden Post-Production: Cameron Granadino
Transcript
Mansa Musa:
Welcome to this edition of Rattling the Bars. I’m your host, Mansa Musa. Today I have two of my comrades, I’m going to say, and the reason why I call them comrades is because we come out of the Maryland penitentiary and did an extensive amount of time in that environment together under some of the most dubious audience and oppressive circumstances. Joining me today is Yaya Hakisemaya. Welcome Yaya.
Tyrone Litte:
How you doing, brother? Appreciate it.
Mansa Musa:
And our colleague and our friend Al Brown. Al, how you doing, Al?
Al Brown:
I’m doing fine, sir.
Tyrone Litte:
Hey.
Mansa Musa:
All right. You know I got Yaya in here with me, Al. Say hi to Yaya.
Tyrone Litte:
Hey, Al.
Al Brown:
I hear you.
Tyrone Litte:
What’s going on, man?
Al Brown:
How you doing, Yaya?
Tyrone Litte:
Oh, pretty, pretty good, man. I was hoping to see you in person. It’s been many, many, years, bro.
Al Brown:
Yes. I’m still hanging in.
Tyrone Litte:
Oh, I know that. I understand that. I appreciate that. Yes, sir. Thank you.
Mansa Musa:
So today the purpose and the intent of this show is I call both of these brothers in so we can give a perspective of how the Maryland parole system is. And because the legislative session is coming up, we want to be able to put on the legislative agenda or put in their thought how they should be dealing with the Maryland parole system. More importantly, how they should be dealing with men and women that are eligible for parole that have life sentences and they serve astronomical amount of time. It’s against that backdrop, Al. Al, you just got out right?
Al Brown:
Yes, sir.
Mansa Musa:
How long you been out?
Al Brown:
I just got out September the 7th.
Mansa Musa:
How long was you incarcerated prior to getting out?
Al Brown:
46 years.
Mansa Musa:
You was in 46 years now. When I got out…
Al Brown:
46 years.
Mansa Musa:
Right. I got out December the 5th of 2019, I had 48 years in. Yaya, when you got out?
Tyrone Litte:
I had 38 years.
Mansa Musa:
So we talking about over 100 something years amongst the three of us.
Tyrone Litte:
Absolutely.
Mansa Musa:
Or close to that. Right. So Al, while you was incarcerated, and this is for the benefit of our audience, for me and Yaya we already know, for the benefit of our audience. All right, how old was you when you went in this Maryland penitentiary?
Al Brown:
19, 1977.
Mansa Musa:
You was 19 years old in 1977. All right.
Al Brown:
Yes, sir.
Mansa Musa:
Did you graduate from school prior to coming to the system?
Al Brown:
No, sir. I was in the ninth grade but they said I was reading on a fourth grade reading level.
Mansa Musa:
Right. So in the course of being incarcerated, tell us some of the things that you have accomplished.
Al Brown:
I’ve accomplished my GED, Hagerstown Junior College. I was an aide in the masonry program for years and right before I got out I was working at MCE Petition Shop for 27 years.
Mansa Musa:
Right. But now let’s talk about, because we was up MCTC, the Maryland Correctional Training Center or commonly called the new jail, we was up the new jail together in the masonry capacity. Right? Tell our audience about what your skill level was and how that skill level evolved. It is important for them to know who you were in this 47 or this 40 odd years and before we get to the why you took so long before you get out.
Al Brown:
Yeah, because I left the Pen to go there because I had a masonry background. So they put me in the masonry program and as we did, I graduated, became an aide and we started working there at MCE Construction. So we started building actual buildings on the property and on other properties. We built the petition shop in 1991, we finished that and we built the meat plant over at the old jail in 90… I think that was in ’92. And once we finished that, the end of ’92 I left and went to camp before all the lifers got checked in. And at that time I was working at the Waterloo Police Bureau and once they checked us in, I went back to Hagerstown to MCTC at the masonry program and then we built the classification center there.
Mansa Musa:
All right. So now how many times did you go up for parole before they ultimately gave you parole? Not mentioning the fact that you was on work release and you got sent back. They sent everybody back from work. The governor Glendening sent everybody back under the pretest that life… He wanted to give everybody life sentences without parole. How many times did you go for parole before you was ultimately released?
Al Brown:
12 times.
Mansa Musa:
12 times. And each time they…
Al Brown:
Yes, I went up 12 times.
Mansa Musa:
Each time that they denied you parole, what was their reason?
Al Brown:
They never gave a reason and the thing about that is I went up 12 times for parole. My paperwork went to the governor’s desk’s five times of the 12 and every time I would get denied there was never a reason why they denied me.
Mansa Musa:
And this was in the face of everything you have done. The fact that one, we going back to the fact that you was out on the street on work release going back and forth between institutions. Two, you had a significant amount of time served already and now then you fast-forward they took it out the hands of the governor. How many times did you go up after they took it out the hands of the governor and by me saying that, I mean the governor in the Maryland system, the governor had to sign your papers before you be released?
Al Brown:
Yes. Now after the governor left, I went back up one more time and that was the reason why they released me because they said the governor was out of the process. But I had to do the evaluations and I think I’ve done five evaluations since they opened the program in Patuxent in ’03. And the commissioner let me know that most of my parole hearings were unanimous decision but the governor would always shoot me down.
Mansa Musa:
Yaya.
Al Brown:
And my last infraction…
Mansa Musa:
Go ahead. Go ahead, go ahead, Yaya.
Al Brown:
Yeah, my last infraction was back in 1984 in the penitentiary.
Mansa Musa:
Yeah.
Al Brown:
That was just for having too much money. I had $10 over what I was supposed to have.
Mansa Musa:
Hey look, we know that all those things didn’t take account because I know when I went up when the governor took and denied us parole, I supposed went up in ’92. I didn’t go back up for parole until 2015 and they denied me parole and say don’t get no more infractions. The last infraction I had during that time was in ’92. So we around would make it to… But Yaya, look, talk about how many times did you go up for parole? First of all, you was serving a life sentence?
Tyrone Litte:
Yes, I was serving a life sentence.
Mansa Musa:
How many times you went up for parole during the course of your incarceration?
Tyrone Litte:
I never went up for parole.
Mansa Musa:
Okay.
Tyrone Litte:
During the whole 38 years I was incarcerated. I never went up for parole.
Mansa Musa:
And why was that?
Tyrone Litte:
I didn’t believe in the parole system. I knew from a pattern of behavior of numerous people being constantly denied, as Al had articulated just now, about the governor constantly denying them parole and how they was playing games with sending people to evaluations and here and there and giving them false promises and hopes. I didn’t even subject myself to that. What I did is I subject myself to studying my case, went in a new trial although the other case helped me, I want a new trial in my case and I was released from prison after 38 years. The parole system I think was very harsh. I think the parole system was very discriminatory.
I think that the parole system didn’t take into consideration certain individuals and then in instance where they did take into certain individuals based on that Glendening announcement that life meant life or a lot of the people, although they say that governors wasn’t following that pattern, they were absolutely adopting that pattern. He made that announcement in front of the now Graves, Maryland House Correction and this was a result of all of the violence that had occurred or metastasized in the community based on Rodney and Al and Dahaka and different brothers that’s still in the bounds of the system suffering, were unjustly placed back into the bounds of the system again.
Mansa Musa:
Talk about this, Yaya, in terms of okay so we know that we were successful as a result of Lomax’s advocacy and we give Lomax much respect and regard.
Tyrone Litte:
Absolutely.
Mansa Musa:
Because he fought that fight for us when he got out, when they sent men and women back in, we was up in the new jail, me, Lomax, Gerald Fuller and George Smith, we would always get together in the library. But Lomax was the one person that was constantly lobbying the legislator to take the parole system out the hands of the governor. We’re talk about [inaudible 00:10:17] taken out the hands of the governor and it stands to reason that it should be more expeditious and why isn’t it more expeditious? Because it’s taken out the hands of the governor.
Tyrone Litte:
I think that now that it’s taken out of the hands of the governor considering certain prisoners that are still incarcerated, that was checked into the system under that Rodney Stokes stuff should be really expedited out of the system. These are people man you talking about got 40 almost 50 years.
Mansa Musa:
Yeah, 50 years, talk about 50 years.
Tyrone Litte:
And did everything that you possibly can do. And when you’re talking about penological objectives, there are certain domains that you experience as a result of the crimes you committed and they have done that. Rehabilitation, deterrence, man, all of that, man. Deprivations, they’ve experienced all of that. And so for the parole board not to look at those cases and to expedite those cases, man, I think that what they’re doing in terms of the implementation of the new parole policies which they published and all of that, I think what they’re doing is they’re going by that same old process, man, that same old process. Go to Patuxent, do this, do that, go through here, do that, do that. And that is actually what you would call a delay in release. You got three, four years, you got to wait for that. You got two years that you might not go to your evaluation in Patuxent. Then you got a year, it may come and it may not be the accurate numbers but just the process itself.
Mansa Musa:
Yeah.
Tyrone Litte:
The process itself, man, is delaying injustice even in the light of the fact…
Mansa Musa:
Add on top of that, we talking about people that’s like, because we saying the amount of times we talking about people that’s 60, 70 years old. Al, talk about… Because we spoke about the evaluation, talk about the evaluation, Al. Talk about when they say they send you down Patuxent and the numerous amount of times for eval. What was the purpose of the evaluation, what was they looking for when they sent you repeatedly at there? Because you didn’t do nothing, the time it took you send the first time and the time they send you the second time and third, you didn’t do nothing different than you was doing before, was you?
Al Brown:
No. If anything my record was even better.
Mansa Musa:
So what was the purpose of evaluation?
Al Brown:
The purpose of evaluation, they said it’s part of your parole and then they tell you that the evaluation is only good for three years if the three years time run up, you have to go back. I always looked at it as just a stall tactic.
Mansa Musa:
Right.
Al Brown:
It’s like they put a piece of sugar out in front of you where it gives a guy hope. When you go off for parole, “Okay, we’re going not make a decision until after your evaluation”, and you have to wait and the waiting list right now is 18 months anywhere to three years.
Mansa Musa:
Come on, man.
Al Brown:
Once you go down there, once you go there they only see you one day. You sit down at usually three months, you sit there, you only see the people one day for three hours and then they send you back and it’s almost like you wait a year before the decision actually come back.
Mansa Musa:
That’s crazy.
Al Brown:
And I always looked at it as just a stall tactic to give you hope for a minute and after about three years then went by and they deny you and then it’s like you’re starting all over again.
Tyrone Litte:
Let me…
Mansa Musa:
Yaya, talk about impact.
Tyrone Litte:
Yeah. Let me add to what he’s saying. The reason that they do those evaluations is because, man, it is undeniable that when you in that type of environment inundated with all types of violence and foolishness and stuff that you’re not going to be psychologically affected by it to some degree. And so these different domains or actions that they’re dealing with to evaluate that, man, you got some guys that are subjected to those type of things and you got some guys that have the strong and the power and the will to do positive things in the institution that don’t succumb to that. We’re living examples of it.
And so what Al is saying, to piggyback off what he’s saying, here you got a man that did everything, everything that you possibly can do and being out there in the community that went through these evaluations five times and still have to go through the same process before he was ultimately released. So the brothers that’s still caught up in the system, they don’t have to go through that same arduous process. And what we’re appealing and what we are trying to say is that the parole board need to be more expeditious in evaluating those circumstances because they done already met all penological domains. They done already satisfied penological domain and to continuously keep them incarcerated going through this arduous, tedious process to say, “Okay we are going to release them.” That’s injustice, man.
Mansa Musa:
It is injustice.
Tyrone Litte:
It’s injustice.
Mansa Musa:
See, I don’t claim to be or have no impeccable record while I was incarcerated. I know I never was going to make parole. That just was me. Right. But my cell buddy, Hercules Williams, he was working in pre-release. Thomas Gaither, he was working in pre-release. Walter Lomax was working in pre-release. They brought back 120 something people that was working in pre-release.
Tyrone Litte:
Absolutely.
Mansa Musa:
And then you turn around and say… And this is really the insanity and dehumanization of it is, these men was working in pre-release for three, four and five years prior to Glendening saying what he said and never was given parole. And the evaluation wasn’t even in the process back then, they wasn’t even looking at that. And a lot of these men had got family leave, was going out on family leave, having what they call weekends. And yet they turned around when they bring them back in they say, “Oh yeah. Well, look you going to have to stay another year. We’re going to give you a year return.” First they was giving a year set-off. Hey Al, when they was giving you a set-off, what was your set-off? What was your set-off normally?
Al Brown:
Mines was a year. My first one I went up for, yeah, my first one was a three year and they told me to do everything that they wanted me to do and that’s when I got my GED, my college program and in ’92 they sent me to camp. And after we were checked in they would tell me, “We going to give you a year hit and hopefully if they let everybody back to camp we’ll call you right back up.”
Mansa Musa:
Yes. It occurred again. Yeah.
Al Brown:
Yes. And that went on until Glendening came out in ’94 and said it because I had just went up the month before that and was recommended for parole to the governor’s desk. But when Glendening came out and said that, they called me back up the following month and said, “The governor said don’t send any paperwork to his desk desk so we’re going to give you a four year re-hear and hopefully he’ll be out of office.”
Mansa Musa:
And you know what? Before I go to you, Yaya.
Tyrone Litte:
Political.
Mansa Musa:
Before I go… Yeah, that’s what I’m ready to say before I go to you, Yaya. And then he had the audacity, Glendening, had the audacity after he did that to come back out when we mobilized and was getting position for that bill and Lomax was able to get him to recant that. He had the audacity to say, “I was wrong” but you didn’t say, “I was wrong and that you should send all these men back.” Come on, Yaya.
Tyrone Litte:
Yeah. We got to look at the greatness that Lomax developed in that process. But it’s also some other things that I don’t think that they really take into consideration concerning even after they parole lifers come back into the community. For example, all right, so parolees with Post Incarceration Syndrome face a significant uphill battle once they return to society as noted earlier, find a job, housing can be extremely difficulty as in all of these other things. We faced with a lot of health problems.
Mansa Musa:
That’s right.
Tyrone Litte:
And there’s a lot of guys that’s still in the system that’s faced with health problems and their dream and their hope is to least get some liberation out here in the community. But even when they come out here, there’s so many stigmatizations that follow people that release after long incarcerations. But look at the ratio in terms of recidivism.
Mansa Musa:
Right. Come on.
Tyrone Litte:
This population has produced magnificent things.
Mansa Musa:
Talk about that. We want to talk about that.
Tyrone Litte:
We in good positions.
Mansa Musa:
We want you talk about that though and Al’s going to be another example of the continuum of that. The reason why I want you to talk about that is because every time it came up for us to get out, they had this drumbeat, this hysteria, drumbeat. Rapists, murderers, killers coming out. All right, so now we are geriatric, we are more match rated. Why are they not talking about all the success of the things that we’re doing there and that this population can be successful in that regard?
Tyrone Litte:
Because when you look at research, when I was in the master’s program, because I came out and I went to the master’s program currently at Morgan, interdisciplinary human health and human sciences, PhD. And when you look at the population of prison, when I did my research paper on that, I was saying that education improves the behavior of prisoners.
Mansa Musa:
Yeah, yeah.
Tyrone Litte:
So when I took it to the professor, he said, “Well, we need cases in the 2000s” and something I said, “Well you approved my topic and that’s what I’m going to do my topic on.” And what I learned, what I learned is that prison population is a neglected population, man. It is, as far as studies are concerned, as far as the systemic problems that families loved ones, children face, even in terms of the revolving door of recidivism, releasing people back into the community with no job opportunities, no housing, no employment. And if they don’t have family that’s actually there to help them, they’d be homeless. Those are things that are not taken into consideration even when you parole individuals. So they make you have a home plan, they make families step up. But what about the trauma that the families experience? What about the economic factors in all of this and none of that’s taken into consideration. So what I’m saying in so many words is that it is a population that’s neglected. It’s a population that still operate by antiquated beliefs. Going all the way back to the ’30s.
Mansa Musa:
Yeah, Draconian.
Tyrone Litte:
You basically do the crime, you do the time, they don’t care if you die in the system. They don’t care if you got all types of disease. They don’t care what type of condition that you in because they still operating by that old philosophy, man. And so the example, to answer your question, they don’t study this population. I did a research paper with Dr. Hutchins that’s published in a psychological journal and can be looked at and the population of older men, it’s already shown that they are less receptive to committing crimes as opposed to young people that keep on going back and forth through the revolving door. The population of men we talking about are in their 60s where their maturity levels, what they’ve done in the prison system is outstanding. What they were doing before they got back, checked into the prison system was outstanding. And the population is out here now that come from that, you and I and the various other brothers that’s out here that’s doing remarkable things in the community from an academic and experiential base. Come on, man.
Mansa Musa:
I know. And you know what? And I like what you said about the education because before they took the Pell grant out, we was in the Pen and we was going copping and we would go in the dining room, remember we had to go in the dining room before we go ahead and get plates? When we got in the dining room, everybody was in huddles talking about either midterms or somebody was tutoring somebody on they couldn’t comprehend the subject matter. But the Maryland penitentiary population, it became a university. That’s the population that Eddie would, to say your own words, came out of, that was the population that you came out. That was a population that I came out that was a population where Saleem Alameen mean came out where people was going out on speaking engagements. Hey Al, what you doing now since you been out? What you doing there other than eating a whole lot of chicken?
Al Brown:
Hey, man, I’m trying to get on with life because right now because I had a big family support and that’s one thing that I was blessed with because I had organizations, even politicians, the news media, they went to bat for me. They did stories on my case while I was in there. My family went to [inaudible 00:24:28] that was doing the legislator with the ‘Free Al Brown’ shirts on.
Mansa Musa:
That’s right. That’s right.
Al Brown:
Even the day that I walked out, the media was outside the jail in Jessup the news media was and they had the ‘Al Brown was free’ shirts on. But since I’ve been out, I got my health, got a physical because I never had a physical while I was in prison because you know the way the system is, I didn’t trust.
Mansa Musa:
That’s right.
Al Brown:
Yeah. So I got that. I got my driver’s license last week.
Mansa Musa:
Okay, you ain’t ran into nothing yet?
Al Brown:
No. Matter of fact, I’m about to buy a car this weekend…
Tyrone Litte:
You on the road, man.
Al Brown:
And thinking about buying a truck the following week.
Tyrone Litte:
We going to buy a truck the following week.
Mansa Musa:
Hey, Al. Plus, look, talk about… Hey, but I also know that you working on Junior’s case, right? Or trying to help his sister and for the benefit of our audience, Junior’s another individual that’s been locked up a significant amount of time doing impeccable things in the institution. And the reason why they saying that he can’t get paroled is because he has a learning disability. He has a learning disability that they saying that until he gets his GED that they not going to let him, that he can’t come on. But he has a learning disability, instead of them saying let’s find out what his learning disability is and craft something around that to give him some help. They holding up. What’s his status, Al?
Al Brown:
Right now Junior, matter of fact, his sister contacted my family once I got out, once they seen the story on the news and they said his case is just like mine. I’m from Calvert County, he is from Charles County and Junior was 19 when he went in. He’s 63 now. Excellent, never had a ticket since he’s been locked up. But the thing of it is, and he’s been running MCE, the tag shop, for about the last 27, 30 years.
Mansa Musa:
Yeah. I was in there, man.
Al Brown:
No infractions and he went up for parole. They gave him a two-year re-hear because they say he doesn’t have a GED and after us researching, he sent paperwork out where he was in school but they put him out of school because they say he couldn’t get his GED but he’s running the shop. And his sister’s about the only one that still left and she needs help and a lot of folks didn’t have the type of help that I had, that I had a family group and politicians that was fighting hard for me. So my thing is a lot of those guys need help. And if anything with Junior’s case is he’s been, like I said, it’s been 43 years. If anything parole him and make part of his parole that he gets his GED.
Mansa Musa:
Yeah, Yaya.
Tyrone Litte:
But Al, to add to what you’re saying, man, you’d be surprised how many individuals are borderline retarded in the system right now. Right now I’m reading the case of a brother, I’m not going to mention the name and he borderline mental retarded. I went in front of parole board for Derrick White just recently because Eli called me and asked me to go there and testify for him to try to get the parole board to give him a hearing because they denied him about 9 to 10 years ago, no parole.
Mansa Musa:
Right, right, right, right. I remember because we was in the system.
Tyrone Litte:
Yeah. So we fighting, trying to just get him a parole hearing and this man, he went in the system, like Al was just saying, when he was 19 years old for a bicycle, the circumstances. So I’m saying his mindset now, he done evolved into controlling these departments like that recreation department, building programs and everything. He done did everything he possibly can do, but he’s still in the system.
Mansa Musa:
And you know what? As we close out, Al, you gone have the last word, but I want to say something. I’m going to tell our audience something about you. Al was like Ronnie Lott on that football field, Al was breaking people up on that football field. Hey, all that aggression, all that stuff that people did to you, whoever was in front of you with that ball. You took it out and moved that ball, Al. Thank God that you got old and you can’t play football no more like that. But you got the last word on this, Al. What you want to tell our audience, and I definitely love you, bro. Appreciate you coming in. What you want to tell our audience, bro?
Al Brown:
My thing is we made it, us three, we made it. But there’s so many people back there that we left behind that deserve the same opportunity we had. A lot of them didn’t have the knowledge of the law, a lot of them don’t have the family members or the people that’s willing to fight for them as we had. And my thing is I don’t want to leave them guys behind because I want them to enjoy the same thing I’m enjoying now.
Mansa Musa:
That’s right. Okay. Yaya, Doctor. We’ll be calling Yaya a doctor in a couple more years. Dr. Yaya.
Tyrone Litte:
And I tell you, my brain hurting too. I’ll be glad when that process comes up.
Mansa Musa:
Yaya, what you got to say?
Tyrone Litte:
No, I think man, it’s much more the need to be said about this. I know we only had a certain amount of time to do it, but I agree with everything that was said. I think that Al gave a very good example of what people that’s trying to get out have to go through to get out, man. And it’s appalling. Here you got people that did everything that you possibly can do and they’re still being stigmatized for their crimes. They’re still being judged and looked at as if they hadn’t grown and developed and they got these guys that took advantage of education, they took advantage of all the programs, they’re making remarkable strides behind the door. And these are the same people that came out to the community because like you said, if the hunger [inaudible 00:30:46] didn’t occur, the guys that’s doing remarkable things in the community right now wouldn’t have been able to do that.
They’d have still been there, they’d still be in the prison system doing the things that we were doing behind the wall. So these are guys made to fit in that classification that deserve, like Al said, the same opportunities. But the parole board has taken through such an arduous, strenuous, unnecessary process in a lot of cases where these guys may be subject to dying there, man, maybe because of the age, because some of them have health issues. Many of the guys coming out in society today that was in there, they dying away.
Mansa Musa:
They’re dying right here. Yeah.
Tyrone Litte:
They’re dying away. Look at Raul, look at Monye, look at these guys coming out, man, with Hep C and all these other diagnosed things that’s at stage fours where they just die. So that’s what I got to say.
Mansa Musa:
And you know what? There you have it. The Real News, when we rattling the bars, then we shaking that south wing, we shaking the bars on south wing, see down, throwing them lock up sales, right? And we want our audience to know that when we talking about this subject matter, we saying that the legislative session is coming into existence, back into existence in January. We’re saying the money that you’re going to invest in building more prisons or adding more prisons invest that money into the men and women that are on their way out. Invest that money into making sure that the parole will be more expeditious in giving these people relief quick because they dying a death of a thousand cuts as they continue. We ask you to continue to support Rattling the Bars and continue to support The Real News. And we thank you. Thank you, Al. Thank you, Yaya.
Content warning: This story contains descriptions of police violence and the use of a homophobic slur.
It was about to get dark.
In the summer of 2003, Devin was 19 years old and living in West Baltimore with his mom and two brothers, just a few blocks away from the Western District Baltimore Police station. Every night around 9 or 10 p.m., Baltimore cops patrolled the area heavily. They drove in marked and unmarked cop cars searching for signs of disorder, ready to round up people for mass arrest. It was all part of a policing strategy introduced in the late ’90s called “zero tolerance.”
“It always happened around sundown,” Devin told The Real News. “The police see you out with even just one or two people and they just looked at you and you knew they were gonna wild out.”
One night, Devin and his older brother were on their stoop, arguing. “Brother argument type shit,” Devin explained. Then, an unmarked cop car drove the wrong way up their one-way street and pulled in front of them.
Officers jumped out. They grabbed Devin’s brother and slammed him against their car. They put Devin in a chokehold and threw him to the ground. A neighbor sitting on their stoop was rounded up just for being nearby. Devin and his older brother were in handcuffs and the whole block was outside, including Devin’s mom. “They’re not doing anything,” she told the officers from the stoop. “They were just talking.”
Police ordered everybody back inside. Devin’s mother called a family friend. Her sons were about to go to jail and she was going to need help getting them out. Officers who saw Devin’s mom on the phone inside broke down the door, terrifying his youngest brother. “My brother has autism and there’s cops in the house,” Devin said. “It was madness.”
Devin’s experience was not unusual in Baltimore under zero tolerance, a policy enacted by Martin O’Malley, who served as the city’s mayor from 1999 to 2007. The policy was based on the New York Police Department’s “broken windows” approach to crime, which encouraged police to make arrests for smaller infractions. Broken windows proponents argued that a police department that did not engage in drastically reducing low-level offense ceded cities to disorder leading to more, sometimes serious, crime.
Devin’s mom wasn’t taken away in handcuffs that night but she was left with a front door off its hinges, her middle and oldest children in jail, and her youngest terrified.
Devin and his older brother sat in Central Booking for nearly a day. Then, without ever seeing any charging documents, they were released. “No papers—nothing. After 19 hours, they let us go,” Devin said. “And my mom paid for our broken door. We didn’t have the money to keep fighting that shit in court.”
This is the second in a series of stories from The Real News examining the past three decades of police and crime data in Baltimore City. Since 1990, Baltimore has been in an extended period of elevated murder rates, even as violence declined in other major cities. As The Real News reported in the first part of this series: In years when police have solved a large number of homicides, murders have still been high, and murder remains high amid plummeting clearance rates. Similarly, when police made over 100,000 arrests per year violence was high, and violence remains high even as arrest numbers hover around 20,000 per year.
In the early 2000s, the city’s political and law enforcement establishments credited slight declines in violence to increased arrest policies under zero tolerance. But zero tolerance did not substantively reduce crime. Especially when accounting for the city’s population decline, its reductions were even less significant than police and politicians claimed.
State Senator Jill Carter told The Real News that zero tolerance further frayed the relationship between police and communities. “Zero tolerance had a direct effect on the destabilization of the Black family in poor neighborhoods that is still present to this day,” Carter said.
Breaking Balls, Broken Windows
In a 1982 article in The Atlantic, “Broken Windows: The Police and Neighborhood Safety,” political scientist James Wilson and criminologist George Kelling presented the “broken windows” theory of crime reduction: increasing arrests for low-level crimes, the theory argued, reduces the likelihood of more serious crimes occurring. “Many citizens, of course, are primarily frightened by crime, especially crime involving a sudden, violent attack by a stranger. This risk is very real, in Newark as in many large cities,” Wilson and Kelling wrote. “But we tend to overlook another source of fear—the fear of being bothered by disorderly people. Not violent people, nor, necessarily, criminals, but disreputable or obstreperous or unpredictable people: panhandlers, drunks, addicts, rowdy teenagers, prostitutes, loiterers, the mentally disturbed.”
Broken windows effectively gussied up a standard police tactic of stopping and harassing people like “rowdy teenagers” to make them feel unwelcome and get them off the street. Jack Maple, a lieutenant for the New York Transit Authority in the ’80s, later wrote in his memoir that broken windows was “merely an extension of what [cops] used to call the ‘breaking balls’ theory.”
Maple had been breaking balls for years. As a subway cop, he mapped where crime occurred— he called the maps “charts of the future”—and sent officers to those areas in order to make the police presence known, and to intimidate and clear out those deemed undesirable. Maple and others claimed “breaking balls” in the subways had reduced crime, especially robberies.
In 1994, under newly-elected Mayor Rudy Giuliani, broken windows went above ground and citywide. Giuliani made Maple an NYPD deputy commissioner and William Bratton, the New York Transit Authority commander, the new police commissioner. “We are going to flush [homeless people] off the street in the same successful manner in which we flushed them out of the subway system,” Bratton said. More importantly, Maple’s “breaking balls” was given a technocratic sheen. They called their crime fighting program COMPSTAT (short for “computer statistics”). The computerization and quantification program made it much easier for crime statistics to be closely reviewed and calculated. Paired with broken windows, the focus on week-to-week statistics emboldened officers to make an increasing number of arrests.
“Broken windows” boosters argued that, after the policy was enacted, crime in New York City decreased. From 1993 to 1994 (Giuliani’s first year in office) the number of murders declined from 1,946 to 1,561. But homicides were already on the decline before broken windows—and before Giuliani’s tenure as mayor. New York City’s homicide rate peaked in 1990 at 2,245 murders, and after that began its drastic decline under Mayor David Dinkins, Giuliani’s predecessor and a broken windows skeptic.
“The amazing facts of New York City’s crime decline have been condensed into a sound bite in which a heroic mayor and aggressive police created a zero tolerance law enforcement regime that drove crime rates down in the 1990s. Close scrutiny of the data reveals this popular fable to be almost equal parts truth and fantasy.”
“The amazing facts of New York City’s crime decline have been condensed into a sound bite in which a heroic mayor and aggressive police created a zero tolerance law enforcement regime that drove crime rates down in the 1990s,” criminologist Franklin Zimring wrote in his book The City That Became Safe. “Close scrutiny of the data reveals this popular fable to be almost equal parts truth and fantasy.”
Nevertheless, Giuliani and his police department credited broken windows with the city’s historic drop in crime. Soon, Maple, along with Bratton aide John Linder, started a consulting firm where they took COMPSTAT and broken windows to other cities. In 1996, New Orleans hired Maple and Linder to show the New Orleans Police Department how to “go get the scumbags.”
At the same time, Baltimore City Councilperson Martin O’Malley and City Council President Lawrence Bell argued that Baltimore needed to study New York’s success in crime fighting. The duo criticized Mayor Kurt Schmoke and Baltimore Police Commissioner Thomas Frazier for the city’s high levels of violence. In 1990, Baltimore City surpassed 300 homicides for the first time and stayed above that number for years.
In August 1996, Baltimore City Council’s Legislative Investigations Committee took a trip to New York where they witnessed broken windows-style policing in action. Soon, the committee issued a report, “The Success of New York City’s Quality of Life/Zero Tolerance Policing Strategy,” which, as its title suggests, argued for broken windows-style policing in Baltimore.
Schmoke and Frazier opposed the idea. They argued that Baltimore courts couldn’t handle an increase in people coming through the system, and that the approach encouraged officers to make questionable arrests. But after O’Malley’s fact-finding mission, they began to reconsider.
In October 1996, three Baltimore police districts enacted a “limited citation experiment” in which several offenses (open container, littering, disorderly conduct) were prioritized by officers who began handing out citations that brought small fines and possible jail time.
Arrests increased. In 1996, Baltimore Police made 55,662 arrests. In 1997, there were 71,709 arrests; in 1998, 82,377; and in 1999, 80,775.
In 1999, Schmoke announced he was not going to run for a third term as mayor. A dozen-plus Democratic candidates entered the mayor’s race, including Bell and O’Malley. O’Malley’s 1999 campaign literature argued that “the use of citations,which make fewer arrests necessary,” would make Baltimore less violent and its jails less full. He argued “fewer people may actually be locked up using quality-of-life policing strategies.”
What actually transpired under O’Malley was an experiment in mass incarceration that, by the time Devin and his brother were stopped by police in front of their homes in 2003, resulted in over 100,000 arrests a year in a majority-Black city of only 630,000 people.
“O’Malley Is A Killer”
In November 1999, O’Malley was elected mayor. After winning the Democratic primary with 53% of the vote, he took 90% of the general election vote. In his inauguration speech, O’Malley avoided tough-on-crime rhetoric and instead promised “a future where justice is not a dream deferred, but a goal achieved.” He declared Baltimore “the greatest city in America.” He then put the slogan on benches across the city.
But as arrests increased under O’Malley, police violence escalated. In February 2000, Ralph Chambers was chased and then shot by police after he was spotted dealing drugs. Chambers, who was unarmed, died. His brother Paul connected zero tolerance policing to the killing. “O’Malley made it clear it was not going to happen like this,” Chambers told The Baltimore Sun. “They don’t have to kill them to get them off the corner.”
At the scene of the shooting, protesters chanted, “O’Malley is a killer.”
Broken windows policing in New York was yielding similar problems. While crime continued to decline, between 1993 and 1995 complaints of illegal search increased by 135%, excessive force complaints against police increased by 61%, and abuse of authority by 86%. NYPD brutality became national news. In 1997, NYPD officers arrested Abner Louima, punched him, beat him with a police radio, and then, at the precinct, stripped him and sodomized him with a plunger. Justin Volpe, the officer who assaulted Louima, was indicted in federal court and sentenced to 30 years in prison. Prosecutors called the attack “one of the most heinous crimes in New York City’s history” (Volpe was released from federal prison in June 2023 after serving 24 years of his sentence).
In 1999, the NYPD killed Amadou Diallo, shooting at him 41 times, hitting him 19 times. The four officers charged in the Diallo shooting were acquitted in federal court in 2000. “Sure, crime is down. There wasn’t much crime in the Soviet Union, either,” one protester said. “Unfortunately, our mayor has reinforced the attitude that police can do whatever they want to young Black males as long as the crime rate goes down.” Even after Diallo and Louima, the police remained so emboldened under Giuliani—and unaccustomed to any criticism of their broken windows tactics—that they staged angry protests over the release of Bruce Springsteen’s song about Diallo, “American Skin (41 Shots).” At Springsteen concerts, they heckled him, pulled a police escort for one of his major shows, and a Fraternal Order of Police official called Springsteen “a floating fag.”
Nevertheless, O’Malley courted the NYPD brains behind broken windows. Maple and Linder’s consulting firm came to Baltimore to review the police department. They found that it was “dysfunctional” and “to no small degree corrupt.” Maple and Linder said the department and the city’s crime problem could be fixed by instituting COMPSTAT and zero tolerance policing. O’Malley agreed.
In 2000, O’Malley imported more New York City cops. Ed Norris, who helped implement COMPSTAT and broken windows in New York, became the next police commissioner of Baltimore City. Norris replaced Ron Daniel, whom O’Malley and others perceived as insufficiently supportive of zero tolerance. Daniel had replaced Thomas Frazier, who was also critical of zero tolerance.
In 2001, both the number of arrests and murders in Baltimore were high: there were 256 murders, 684 nonfatal shootings, and 93,778 arrests. The homicide clearance rate, meanwhile, began to decrease. In 2000, it was 77.8%, and in 2001, 66%—a sign that the single-minded focus on low-level arrests was a distraction from addressing much more serious crime.
In 2002, former NYPD commander Kevin Clark replaced Norris, who went to work for the Maryland State Police (in 2003, Norris was federally indicted for using police money for personal matters and was sentenced the next year to six months in federal prison). In 2001, three years and four police commissioners into the O’Malley administration, the murder rate had slightly declined from 46.9 murders per 100,000 people in 1999 to 38.7 murders per 100,000.
That decline put the murder rate back to where it was in the early ’90s, when O’Malley criticized Schmoke. In 1991, there were 304 murders and a murder rate of 40.4 per 100,000.
O’Malley and his NYPD consultants promised that the homicide number would drop to 175 by 2002. O’Malley believed that getting there required increases in arrests—and some good PR.
NYPD consultant Linder created Baltimore’s “BELIEVE” campaign, funded with $2 million from the Baltimore Police Foundation.Those words in white on a black background showed up on billboards all over the city. O’Malley called the campaign “spiritual warfare.” The slogan promised positivity and a sense of a better future at a moment when the promises of zero tolerance had failed to materialize—and police were increasingly out of control.
The peak of zero tolerance was 2003. That year, there were 110,164 recorded arrests in Baltimore, along with 20,000 more people who, like Devin and his brother, were released without charges—but not before spending time in jail. Those who weren’t part of this “catch and release” form of enforcement went through a criminal legal system clogged by the high numbers of arrests, waiting for weeks or even months to see a judge. “They actually had police supervisors stationed with printed forms at the city jail—forms that said, essentially, you can go home now if you sign away any liability the city has for false arrest, or you can not sign the form and spend the weekend in jail until you see a court commissioner,” Baltimore reporter and The Wire showrunner David Simon said in a 2015 interview. “And tens of thousands of people signed that form.”
Carter, now a state senator, was then a ṡtate delegate, and criticized O’Malley’s zero tolerance strategy. “There were hundreds of thousands of arrests throughout O’Malley’s term as mayor. And one third to one half of those were illegal,” Carter said. “Either they were arrests without charges—because there was no probable cause—or they were ‘abated by arrest’ because after they took the person to jail, they were held in Central Booking for months before the court date.”
“Stop the Illegal Arrests”
In 2004, O’Malley was reelected, in part due to the city’s modest reductions to violence. That year there were 276 murders with a murder rate of 43.5 people per 100,000. Arrests were soaring: there were 100,388 arrests in 2004. One person out of every five arrested were released without being charged.
Concerns from Carter and others about zero tolerance and mass arrests grew too large for the city’s leadership to ignore. Defense attorney Warren Brown was often spotted in West Baltimore by commuters holding a sign that said, “Mr. Mayor, Stop the Illegal Arrests.” In 2005, there were 99,980 arrests, and in 2006, there were 90,823.
In 2006, the American Civil Liberties Union of Maryland and the Baltimore chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People sued the city and the police over unconstitutional arrests. “The Baltimore City Police Department rewards police officers with more arrests and punishes officers with fewer arrests, regardless of the number or success of resulting prosecutions,” the ACLU said in June 2006. “As a consequence, Baltimore prosecutors decided to drop the charges against approximately 30 percent of those arrested without a warrant in 2005 prior to any involvement by a defense attorney.”
Zero tolerance effectively ended in 2007, not long after the ACLU/NAACP lawsuit against the BPD (the plaintiffs in the ACLU lawsuit were later awarded $870,000).
Meanwhile, O’Malley ran for governor of Maryland and won. New Mayor Sheila Dixon and her Police Commissioner Frederick Bealefeld sought to reduce violence—and arrests. Between 2007 and 2011, murders and nonfatal shootings steadily declined. Murders and nonfatal shootings declined from 282 murders and 636 nonfatal shootings in 2007 to 223 murders and 419 nonfatal shootings in 2010. Arrests also declined. In 2007, there were 82,529 total arrests, and by 2010, 64,524 total arrests. Dixon and Bealefield attributed the success to a focus on people who committed violent crime.
This was more than a continuation of the slight decline under zero tolerance: it was the most significant decrease the city had seen in decades. It was a rare moment of stability in the police department. Bealefeld was the first commissioner to last more than three years since Frazier, four commissioners earlier. But City Hall was in turmoil. Mayor Sheila Dixon was federally charged with corruption and served a year under indictment before pleading guilty and stepping down in early 2010. She was replaced by then-City Council President Stephanie Rawlings-Blake.
Despite the chaos in City Hall, Baltimore chipped away at the staggering arrest numbers from O’Malley’s time in office, and at the same time decreased violence.
In 2011, Baltimore City recorded only 196 murders with 60,008 arrests, removing Baltimore, at last, from the list of top five deadliest cities in the United States. It was also the first time the homicide number dropped below 200 since 1978. The murder rate declined to 31.3 per 100,000 people, putting the city back where it was in the late ’80s (in 1989, there were 259 homicides, with a murder rate of 33.9).
“Widespread Community Disillusionment”
For Governor O’Malley, 196 murders in Baltimore in 2011 during a period of decreased arrests was evidence that zero tolerance worked. Its effects just took a little longer, O’Malley suggested.
“To see that 175 mark on the horizon, to think of all the moms and all the dads that aren’t going to be standing by graves of their kids, I don’t think there’s anything about which I will ever be more grateful in public service, and I’m not going to quibble with God over the timing,” O’Malley said.
O’Malley’s celebration of Baltimore’s 2011 murder rate did not acknowledge the many more moms and dads whose kids were locked up. The amount of jobs and housing lost as a result of an arrest, or lost because that arrest precluded housing and employment opportunities in perpetuity, seemed to not matter to the city’s leadership—and has never been quantified.
“People were arrested. They were held in Central Booking for months before the court date. That was why it was so devastating,” Carter said. “You’re in there for two months, and then you get released—because it’s either without charges, or abated by arrest because the charge was something like trespass. You were working, you had an apartment. Now you lost both your house and your job.”
“The city made about a hundred thousand arrests. Now, some of them were the same people over and over again, but think about that: 100,000 adult arrests in a city of [600,000] people,” former Police Commissioner Bealefeld said. “It’s incredible. And it didn’t move the needle.”
For Bealefeld, strategic, targeted policing was how murders and shootings were reduced. Under Bealefeld, the police department’s targeting of violent offenders relied on aggressive, specialized units in plainclothes—called “knockers” on the street. The since-disgraced Gun Trace Task Force was formed in 2007. The killings of Anthony Anderson in 2011 and Tyrone West in 2013 were by Baltimore’s “knockers.”
O’Malley spent his final years as governor telling Rawlings-Blake to increase arrests because the homicide numbers for 2012 (218), 2013 (233), and 2014 (211) were higher than the 2011 low point.
In 2015, O’Malley ran for president. He announced in late May of 2015, amid the headiest days of the Black Lives Matter movement; Mike Brown was fatally shot by police in Ferguson in 2014, and Freddie Gray was killed by police in Baltimore in April 2015.
During O’Malley’s speech announcing his presidential run, he called the Baltimore Uprising a “scourge of hopelessness that happened to ignite” when it did. He stressed that hopelessness “transcends race.” Activists protested O’Malley’s announcement, complete with a “die-in” to represent the harms of the zero tolerance era. In a moment of widespread insurrectionary rage at cops and calls for police reform from elected officials, O’Malley struggled to defend zero tolerance and was swamped with negative press about the policy.
In a widely read April 2015 interview, Simon blasted O’Malley and the zero tolerance era. “The department began sweeping the streets of the inner city, taking bodies on ridiculous [misdemeanor charges], mass arrests, sending thousands of people to city jail, hundreds every night, thousands in a month,” Simon said. Support from centrist pundits like Matthew Yglesias did little to boost O’Malley’s flagging campaign: In February 2016, he suspended his campaign after receiving just 0.54% of the vote in the Iowa caucus.
That same year, the US Department Of Justice’s Civil Rights Division issued a report on the Baltimore Police that blamed zero tolerance for the divisions between residents and the police. “The Department’s current relationship with certain Baltimore communities is broken… This fractured relationship exists in part because of the Department’s legacy of zero tolerance enforcement,” the report said. “‘Zero tolerance’ enforcement made police interaction a daily fact of life for some Baltimore residents and provoked widespread community disillusionment with BPD.”
“Here We Go Again”
In June of this year, newly elected Baltimore City State’s Attorney Ivan Bates encouraged Baltimore officers to once again ramp up enforcement of low-level offenses. This time, officers wouldn’t make arrests for “quality of life” offenses. Instead, they would give Baltimoreans citations and have them appear before the newly-established Citation Court. There, they could face a fine or jail time—though mostly likely community service—and with it, Bates claimed, access to “wraparound services.”
A Baltimore Police department that has failed to reduce violence and regularly claims it lacks the manpower to do so is now being told to write tickets for violations such as sleeping outside or drinking beer in public.
Health Care for the Homeless CEO Kevin Lindamood told The Real News that this is the sort of policy he hoped would not return to Baltimore.
“I think it’s fair to say that we sort of brace ourselves for this type of policy to return. We’re aware that the lives of those that we’re working with are poised to become more complicated,” Lindamood said. “By virtue of living private lives in public spaces, they’re going to be collecting citations: loitering, open container, peeing in public. And we are talking about folks that don’t have stable addresses, and so they don’t get the notice, that then turns into a failure to appear, that then turns into a more serious set of escalations.”
What had been for decades promoted as the key to all things violent crime reduction—arresting low-level offenders—now had nothing to do with violence reduction. This was simply about reducing citizen complaints.
Last year, arrests increased in Baltimore City for the first time since 2010. Politicians and police stress that current calls for increased enforcement are not the same as zero tolerance because they are not currently engaged in a mass arrest program. But these kinds of policies should not be happening at all, Peter Sabonis, co-founder of the Homeless Peoples’ Representation Project, told The Real News.
“Oh, so it’s going to be ‘a humane citation.’ You’ll go to ‘a special court,’” Sabonis said. “The whole issue with law enforcement, especially with the low-level offenses, is it brings people who are living lives that are relatively unstructured and it is imposing these deadlines, appointments, court appearances that are a challenge for those folks to make.”
At a hearing in June about a proposed $15 million increase to the Baltimore Police Department budget, City Council President Nick Mosby asked then-Baltimore City Police Commissioner Micheal Harrison about the new policy: “The idea that now we’re going after and starting to do engagement on low-level citations, how will that affect violent crime? How will that affect officer response?” Mosby said.
“This is not a strategy to reduce violent crime,” Harrison told Mosby. “This is a strategy to reduce the number of complaints for those quality of life offenses.”
According to Harrison, the policy described by the State’s Attorney’s Office as a way “to change the culture of accountability and improve safety in the City” was not about violent crime or safety at all. What had been for decades promoted as the key to all things violent crime reduction—arresting low-level offenders—now had nothing to do with violence reduction. This was simply about reducing citizen complaints.
During the first month of Citation Court in July, The Daily Record reported that nearly everyone cited was Black and the charges were what many expected: selling bottled water without a license, drug possession, open container. Some who received citations showed up in court only to be arrested for an outstanding warrant. Those who believed they were wrongly cited often realized it was easier to plead guilty to something you didn’t do and reduce the charge rather than try and fight it in court. The Daily Record noted that, at the very moment one man stood before a judge to answer for drinking in public, there were “white baseball fans openly drinking beers on Baltimore’s light rail.”
The second month of Citation Court in August was more of the same. The Baltimore Sun reported that some people cited showed up only to learn their charges had already been dropped. Those who did not show up had a warrant out for their arrest. “Only one of 16 people who had cases scheduled… showed up to court that day,” the Sun reported. “Over the three days of citation dockets in the week of Aug. 21, [judges] issued arrest warrants for offenses such as open containers, drug possession, theft, and disorderly conduct.”
The Real News’ requests to the police department and State’s Attorney’s Office for comprehensive data about citations so far have not been answered.
The policy is not substantively addressing residents’ complaints, as Harrison suggested. And it isn’t getting those who were cited the help they need, as Bates claimed: Policing of low-level offenses undermines the outreach work already being done, especially when police are stopping people, ticketing them, and sending them to court.
The amount of jobs and housing lost as a result of an arrest, or lost because that arrest precluded housing and employment opportunities in perpetuity, seemed to not matter to the city’s leadership—and has never been quantified.
“An outreach worker tries to build a relationship of trust in a context where—rightly or wrongly—those in uniform (any kind of uniform) are often perceived as someone that has caused someone living on the streets trauma,” Lindamood said. “All that work to get someone to talk to us, can sometimes take months or even years—and it can take 20 seconds to completely fragment. Once that’s fragmented, it takes an awful lot of time for us to reestablish those relationships.”
Lindamood said that a man in his seventies who has used Health Care ḟor the Homeless’ resources for decades and experienced the destructive zero tolerance era responded with resignation when he heard about the return to policing low-level offenses.
“Here we go again,” he told Lindamood.
“A Grave Human Rights Error”
At the same June hearing where Harrison was asked about citations, he, along with then-Deputy Commissioner Richard Worley, was also pressed on violence by the City Council. The clearance rate was once again low—around 40%. Just weeks before the hearing, on Memorial Day weekend, five people were shot near Lexington Market in the middle of the day, a few feet from police officers sitting in their cars.
Overall, murders and nonfatal shootings were declining, though the police command admitted that there were more people being shot in each incident. “There is one incident that made the nonfatal shooting numbers higher,” Harrison argued. “One incident where one person pulled the trigger but six people were shot. So it was one incident. We’ve had a decrease in the number of incidents. Now that does not make it less violent… but it was a decrease in the number of incidents, but more victims were shot.”
Two days later, Harrison announced he was stepping down as police commissioner. He was replaced by Worley, a Baltimore Police veteran of 25 years—nearly the entire three-decade period of police failure covered by The Real News for this project.
A week later, the Baltimore Police Department’s $15 million budget increase was approved, putting police spending at a record-breaking $594 million for the next fiscal year.
With the current population of Baltimore City hovering around 565,000, the murder rate is 46 murders per 100,000 people—near where the homicide rate was in the early ’90s when O’Malley and others deemed the violence unacceptable and called for “zero tolerance.”
A little after midnight on July 2, 30 people were shot and two were killed in the Brooklyn Park area of South Baltimore. They were the 139th and 140th homicides of 2023.
The shooting happened at the end of Brooklyn Day, an annual Fourth of July weekend tradition in the Brooklyn Homes public housing complex that brings hundreds of attendees. There were no police present and they seemingly weren’t interested in being there—even after it was reported that some in the crowd had weapons.
Reviews of police scanner audio that night reveal that, as early as three hours before the shooting, there were reports of people armed at the party, and one cop joked that the National Guard should handle it rather than the Baltimore Police Department. An hour later there were more reports of possible violence, including claims of people fighting and shooting.
“We’re not going in that crowd,” a cop announced over the police scanner.
As of press time, there have been 255 murders in Baltimore this year. More than 100 more people have been murdered since July’s mass shooting. However, this also means Baltimore will not surpass 300 homicides in 2023 for the first time since 2014.
Keeping the homicide number under 300 has been a top priority for Baltimore Police, if not the entire city government, since around 1990. While 300 is a shocking number of murders, far too much of the city’s policy-making is centered around this threshold. Baltimore saw 305 murders in 1990, and as violence increased it became easier to focus on that number—which O’Malley did, becoming mayor and governor and, for a brief moment, a Democratic hopeful for president. In 1990, 305 murders in a city of 730,000 residents equaled a murder rate of 41.5.
There are many other significant problems that go largely unaddressed. Baltimore had over 730,000 residents in 1990, which dropped to 648,000 by 2000, and then to 583,000 by 2020. The most recent census data for the city—2022—put the city at an even further reduced 569,000. A Baltimore that shrinks by 20% should adjust its threshold for what constitutes an unacceptable number of homicides. 240 murders per year in a city of less than 570,000 is the equivalent of 300 in 1990.
The ideal number of murders, of course, is zero. And nobody would reasonably feel safer in a city that experiences 290 murders instead of 300, especially when major cities like New York have a murder rate that hovers around only 3.5 per 100,000 residents.
As long as less-than-300 murders per year is central to police and politicians’ conception of a safe Baltimore, “zero tolerance-style” approaches will always be a tempting option for city government. There can never be too many arrests—even when too many is defined as nearly one-sixth of the city’s population, as was the case during the O’Malley era.
“What I am still struggling with today, 20 years later, is that in this majority Black city—with so many intelligent, active Black people in positions of power and leadership—such a grave human rights violation occurred with no repercussions,” Carter told The Real News. “It is truly something that will never not bother me.”
The recent soft return to zero tolerance makes a cynical kind of sense. Barring the ability to actually make the city significantly safer through policing, officers can at least harass and possibly even arrest those that make people feel unsafe. The Baltimore Brew reported that at an October fundraiser Mayor Brandon Scott provided a laundry list of his crime fighting accomplishments, including the removal of squeegee workers from many Baltimore streets. “We don’t see squeegees anymore,” Scott declared.
As of November, Baltimore murders for 2023 were down 18.9% and nonfatal shootings were down 9.9% from the previous year. This has the mayor, police, and advocates taking a victory lap. But violence reductions are happening nationwide. New Orleans had more than a 20% murder reduction this year. Detroit is on track for its lowest number of homicides in more than 50 years. Baltimore’s homicide reduction puts the city at around 260 murders for 2023. With the current population of Baltimore City hovering around 565,000, the murder rate is 46 murders per 100,000 people—near where the homicide rate was in the early ’90s when O’Malley and others deemed the violence unacceptable and called for “zero tolerance.”
Two recent surveys illustrate little improvement in how Baltimoreans feel about their police department. A Consent Decree community survey report found that, “when it comes to BPD and public safety and crime, participants reported that they disagree that BPD quickly solves crimes and arrests criminals, that BPD effectively reduces crime, or that BPD has a good working relationship with the community on matters of public safety.” A Johns Hopkins University survey found that 74% of Black Baltimoreans fear the police.
“Why do we have to do this through law enforcement? If our desire is to help people, there are better structural ways to engage people,” Health Care for the Homeless’ Lindamood said. “We’re seeing the pendulum swinging back and you know, it’s frustrating. Have we learned nothing?”
This story was produced in partnership with The Garrison Project, an independent, nonpartisan organization addressing the crisis of mass incarceration and policing. The investigation was supported with funding from the Data-Driven Reporting Project. The Data-Driven Reporting Project is funded by the Google News Initiative in partnership with Northwestern University | Medill.
The 13th Amendment of the US Constitution makes an exception to the abolition of slavery in order to permit the use of “involuntary servitude” as punishment for a crime. The modern system of mass incarceration depends on this exception to justify paying millions of incarcerated people subminimum wages that many advocates say is virtually indistinguishable from forms of slavery. Various US states also have their own constitutional “exception clauses” that mirror the language of the 13th Amendment, providing an additional layer of legal justification for the exploitation of prisoners. Jeronimo Aguilar and John Cannon of the organizations Legal Services for Prisoners with Children—All of Us or None join Rattling the Bars to discuss the years-long campaign to eliminate the exception clauses in California.
Studio Production: Cameron Granadino Post-Production: Cameron Granadino
Transcript
Mansa Musa: The 13th Amendment of the US Constitution legitimized slavery with its exception clause, which states that slavery is legal for anyone convicted of a crime. The prison population far exceeds the number of people that were held in slavery.
When you look at the number of people on parole or probation who had other legal obligations to the various states, the impact of the exception clause becomes clear. Here to talk about the 13th Amendment and the organizational push to change it in California are Jeronimo Aguilar and John Cannon of Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, All of Us or None. Welcome to Rattling the Bars.
Jeronimo Aguilar: Thank you so much, man. It’s an honor. I appreciate the opportunity for us to come back on here and talk some truth.
Mansa Musa: Okay. We’ll start with you, John. Tell us a little bit about yourself and your organization.
John Cannon: My name is John Cannon. I’m here at Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, and I’m an All of Us or None organizer. I am formally incarcerated. I did 10 years in the system starting when I was 16 years old. I was certified as an adult and sent to an adult prison. When I got out, I was given the opportunity to join the Elder Freeman Policy Fellowship, at Legal Services for Prisoners with Children. And now, I’m the outreach coordinator and the organizer at All of Us or None.
Mansa Musa: Okay. That’s good work. Jeronimo?
Jeronimo Aguilar: Yes, sir. Yes, sir. So, similar to John, I joined the Policy Fellowship going on three years ago now. I was fortunate enough to dodge the plantation per se, but spent a substantial time in county jail and saw the ills of mass incarceration throughout my family. Generations of us have been incarcerated and stuck in the system.
Yeah, I joined the fellowship and it’s been hitting the ground running since. I work as a policy analyst now for Legal Services for Prisoners with Children. We’ve been around for a long time. The organization celebrated its 45th anniversary and All of Us or None, we’ve been around for 20 years now. So we have a legacy, sir.
Mansa Musa: Right. As you identified, y’all been around 45-odd years?
Jeronimo Aguilar: Yes, sir.
Mansa Musa: Okay. Let’s start with this here. Let’s frame this conversation about getting people to understand what the 13th Amendment is and more importantly, broaden the conversation about when we talk about the prison-industrial complex and mass incarceration, how it’s interconnected with all aspects of anybody that’s in the criminal injustice system. Do you want to go first, John?
John Cannon: So, the 13th Amendment is in the Constitution and it gives the right for slavery to still exist, but it exists under, I would say, sneaky ways. So, they say once you’re convicted of a crime, then you’re legally able to be a slave or involuntary servitude. So, that’s the 13th Amendment. A lot of states replicated the 13th Amendment and put it into their own Constitutions under different laws. And here in California, it’s under Section –
Jeronimo Aguilar: Article 1.
John Cannon: – Article 1, Section 6.
Mansa Musa: Okay. Jeronimo, go ahead and flush that out a little bit more.
Jeronimo Aguilar: Yeah, yeah. So, like John mentioned, man, it’s different in every state. So, in some states, it’s not there at all. That’s not to say they’re not practicing slavery in those states; They defer to the Federal Constitution.
Mansa Musa: Right.
Jeronimo Aguilar: Yeah. Some states took the extra step of codifying it in their own Constitution. So, California is one of those states that codified it through Article, 1 Section 6. It’s a little different in California being that it says that, “Slavery is prohibited, involuntary servitude is prohibited except for punishment for a crime.”
So, it gives the opposition, I would say, a little more insulation to say, oh, well, there’s no exception to slavery. The exception is involuntary servitude. So, one of the campaign slogans and narratives that we’ve been pushing in California is that involuntary servitude is slavery. It’s another word for it.
Mansa Musa: Once we look at the 13th Amendment, as you say, each state adopted it in their form and manner. What we notice is that we call it the exception clause, being the exception that I cannot do this except if this exists. And this exists if a person has been allegedly duly convicted of a crime.
Now, in terms of the prison population that’s subjected to the exception clause, how do y’all see the California landscape? What’s the overall prison population in California if y’all have any knowledge of that?
Jeronimo Aguilar: Yeah. It’s at about 100,000 right now, the population. But as far as the extraction of labor and exploitation, it’s like every other state. They have all different jobs in there, different industries. You’ve got what’s called CALPIA, it’s the Prison Industry Authority, they contract out with corporations and the like. And they come in and they pay pennies on the dollar, man, to get labor that, otherwise, they’d have to pay at least minimum wage for.
So, one of the things I wanted to mention, Mansa, is that we’ve been intentional about making sure folks understand that the constitutional amendment doesn’t automatically achieve wages for folks. We have a wage campaign. We learned this as we ran ACA 3 a couple of years ago. We lost in the Senate out here. And the opposition was saying, it’s going to cost too much money to do this. We agree that slavery is wrong and we need to change the Constitution, but it’ll cost the state $1.5 billion. It’s the fiscal analysis that they gave us.
It’s a false argument because changing the Constitution doesn’t automatically mean that you get wages. What we did is we introduced wage legislation at the same time to say, look, if you want to talk about wages, that’s fine. We can argue how much folks should get paid and all of those things. It’s a good dialogue to have but that’s attached to our other Bill, AB1516, which is our wage campaign.
When it comes to the issue of involuntary servitude and slavery, it’s about consent. We’re trying to introduce the idea that incarcerated people deserve the right to consent to labor and should have the right to withdraw their consent at any time. It’s not a part of their punishment or their sentence. It’s not the 1800s where they say, you’re sentenced to 20 years and 20 years of hard labor. That’s what it is in practice.
Mansa Musa: John, you said that you did eight years but you went in as a juvenile? And they certified you as an adult. Our audience has a tendency to think if you did the crime, then you should do the time, but tell our audience exactly what type of work you did while you were in prison, and what skills you came out with, if any, that helped you adjust in society?
John Cannon: Right. So, I did 10 years altogether. When I first went in, I was 16. The first thing they do is you come from the county jail, you get to prison, they strip you naked in front of everybody, and it’s reminiscent –
Mansa Musa: Like you were on an auction block. Like you’re on an auction block.
John Cannon: – Yeah. Like an auction block. It’s reminiscent of slavery. The next thing they do is assign you a job. Me being 16, at that time, I didn’t have family support and I was homeless when I was younger so I didn’t have any money.
When they assigned the job, I was excited that I was going to be able to get some commissary or something. Then come to find out, you only get 8 cents an hour. But the thing is they assign you to any job; You don’t pick the job. They assign you. I did yard labor, I started as. Then I worked in the kitchen, for long hours. Then I did a porter. I did all types of jobs. Eventually, I ended up going to a fire camp and I fought fires in the state of California.
Mansa Musa: Right, right. When I’m looking at the job landscape, at no time were you allowed minimum wage and at no time were you allowed to buy into the social security system where when you get your quarter. 10 years, you got enough quarters that when you came out, you probably could have gotten SSI or social security benefits. This is the part of the 13th Amendment that helps to validate the slavery concept.
But more importantly, as you said, when you went in, you didn’t have any skills, you didn’t have a job. I went in when I was 20. I did 48 years. I was functionally illiterate. I was a drug addict. When I got in the system I was being rescued from, like George Jackson said, you’re going to find your unclaimed body in the alley or you die in the prison by the death of a thousand cuts.
But the fact of the matter is that this is the population that they draw on, it’s the same population they drew on when they had the Black code laws. When they first put this 13th Amendment in there, when they had Black code laws where if they found you walking down the street and asked you where you going and you say, I’m going home or say where you live, I live two blocks down, a mile and a half down. Oh, you got caught. You trespassing on somebody’s property, and lock you up.
But Jeronimo, going forward, let’s unpack the ACA 8. You mentioned that this is an initiative that y’all have been systematically trying to get some traction on this issue. Give us a historical perspective and walk us up to where we at now if you can.
Jeronimo Aguilar: Yes, sir. Yes, sir. We introduced ACA 3 with Senator Kamlager, who’s now, I believe a congresswoman over on your side of town there, Mansa, in DC. But at that time, she was a senator here in California and she introduced ACA 3. And we were able to successfully get it to the last leg of the legislature, which is the Senate floor.
I’m sorry, at that time she was an assembly member. So, it started in the assembly and it moved on to the Senate and it got to the Senate floor. And ironically, man, it was in June when everybody was celebrating Juneteenth. So, we were getting that message hard to let folks, hey, while you’re out there barbecuing and having your cookouts, man, realize that slavery is still happening. Still snatching up our people, man.
We were hopeful that we’d be able to pass it in June and have that celebration with our folks, man. But as I said, there was a real damning fiscal analysis that was put out by what’s called the Appropriations Committee out here, where they look at what’s the money breakdown and how it’s going to affect the economy of California. It’s the same argument that you could hear back in the 18th century, the economic part of it. And that’s why we can’t end plantation slavery. It’s the same argument being made today saying, hey, we can’t end this prison slavery because of the money.
And so, there was an analysis that said it would cost $1.5 billion. I would say that and a combination of misinformation that was being put out there, there were a lot of characters, legislators, and elected officials that were arguing that it was an ambiguous amendment, that it could have potentially a lot of different, what they call the unintended consequences.
They weren’t opposing it straight out by saying, oh, we don’t agree with this. They were trying to underhandedly oppose it. We had a lot of folks who didn’t vote no on it, but they didn’t come out and vote. They abstained from voting. So, we lost ACA 3 and it was damaging, man. It was damaging to the movement but it didn’t stop our resolve.
We went back to the drawing board and we came back. We found a very strong champion and assemblymember, Lori Wilson, who’s the chair of the legislative Black Caucus out here in California. And we came back with ACA 8. It’s a blessing in disguise, I’d say because since ACA 3, we’ve learned a lot about the Constitution and about the language. We’ve been able to see some of these other states that have passed amendments, but they haven’t had the effect that we’ve wanted. Like in Colorado and other states, where the plantation is continuing to flourish even after the amendment has passed.
It’s challenged us in California to say, we don’t want a symbolic change of the Constitution. We don’t want, oh, we’re getting this nasty language out of the Constitution and we can go on about our way. If this doesn’t have a material effect on incarcerated people, then we’re not going to support it. That’s the challenge that we’ve put out there, that we got to have strong language, we’ve got to have consent, and incarcerated people got to have a new right once we pass this thing.
Mansa Musa: All right. In that regard, John, because you say you deal with the advocacy aspect, how are y’all mobilizing the prison population in terms of getting your families involved? I recognize what you’re saying, Jeronimo, that lesson learned, go back when you lose a battle, it’s only a battle. It’s not the war, so lesson learned. Go back and restrategize on how you want to take and approach it and then get a language that’s more policy-orientated in terms of application as opposed to some symbolism like, oh yeah, this is not in there no more, and hail to the king.
But, John, talk about what y’all are doing in terms of getting the prison population to be involved in mobilizing or helping mobilize the families to be able to have a voice in this decision. Because we know that the prison-industrial complex and mass incarceration devastate the family.
John Cannon: Right. When All of Us or None was started, it was started by formerly incarcerated people to give us a platform to raise our voices. So, we do have a lot of in-custody members as well as members outside.
So, we send a monthly newsletter to our members. We’re interactive with our members about what policies we’re pushing and what needs to be done from the inside and the outside. We’re involving our members on the inside with their voices. A lot of the communications that we’re pushing out here are personal stories from our members on the inside to show people on the outside what slavery looks like today, and what effects it has on a person, and on their family that are on the outside.
A lot of people get incarcerated and are the breadwinners of their families, some of these people. And they’re going down and they’re working 30 years. Working, working. They’re not able to take care of their family but they’re working. It’s not like they’re begging for a chance it’s that they’re working. So, they should be able to take care of their family.
So, we’re uplifting a lot of their voices and stories even as we’re going through the legislation because a lot of senators or assemblypersons, don’t know how it is to be inside there. They don’t see it from that perspective. So, being able to lift those voices and to give people another look and a different insight on the inside. It’s powerful to be able to include our members and to activate their family members on the outside and mobilize them.
Mansa Musa: Right. I can see the effect of the information coming out of the institution. Like you say, the personal stories give evidence, and become a more evidence-based argument than a feel-good argument. I’ve been locked up for 40 years or I’ve been locked up for 38 years, I’m working in the industry, and I’m not afforded the opportunity to get minimum wage, but the few pennies that I have, I’m sending out to my family to try to help them. And to try to stop my family from becoming dependent on the system, which is a collateral aspect of the prison-industrial complex and mass incarceration.
Jeronimo, going forward, where are we standing now with ACA 8?
Jeronimo Aguilar: Yes, sir. So, we were able to clear the assembly this past year; 2023. So, the session ended but we were able to get the bill through the assembly floor. Now we have to clear the Senate. We got the Senate to clear, which was our big fight last time. So, we’re gearing up for that and getting ready for the Senate battle.
But we have to get through the Senate by June of 2025 for us to qualify this thing for the November ballot. And we want to get this on the November ballot because it’s an election year, which means that we will have more turnout from our people.
Also, we’re doing a lot: a lot of voter registration, a lot of voter education. We’re in what’s called the low voter turnout or the low propensity voters which is the barrios, ghettos, the hoods, and the places that are marginalized and ignored. So, we’re going into the trenches to make sure that our folks know that this is huge, man. This could be the first time that we have a chance to vote on the issue of slavery in our lifetime.
Mansa Musa: Right. And the more important the narrative is, the more impact that this policy change going to have. We know that if I’m on parole or if I’m on probation, I’m still under the guise of the 13th Amendment. If I’ve been duly convicted of a crime until my obligation to the state no longer exists, I can be subjected to whatever they tell me to do. They could subject me to say, that one of the conditions of your parole and probation is to go fight fires. One of the conditions of your parole and probation is to go somewhere and do free labor.
It’s not like that. I have a right to say I’m not going to do that. Or if I owe court costs, one of the conditions of paying my court costs would be to do involuntary servitude or work that I don’t have any control over or I’m not getting paid for. In the District of Columbia, prisoners have the right to vote. Is this the same in California? Does the prison population have the right to vote in California, John?
John Cannon: No. Prisoners don’t have the right to vote. Incarcerated folks that are in county jail, and prisoners in county jail can vote. A few years ago, we were able to restore the right to vote for people on parole. But anybody who’s incarcerated in the state prison cannot vote.
Mansa Musa: Okay. Those two mechanisms right there, because you got a large population that’s out on parole, what we call paper, and you got a large population that’s in them detention centers made the white wealthy, so we know you got a lot of people that are locked up in the county jails. How are y’all networking with them, John?
John Cannon: So, for our people on parole, we’re doing outreach, raising awareness, and doing voter education, letting people know how important it is. Because when we did restore that right, it restored it to about 50,000 people on parole.
With the county jails, that’s another fight that we’re having. Although the right is given to vote, they don’t make it easily accessible to vote in these county jails. We’re fighting now to be able to make it accessible for people to vote. So, that’s another part of the fight right there.
Mansa Musa: Go ahead, Jeronimo.
Jeronimo Aguilar: Yeah. I would like to add real quick, Mansa if I could.
Mansa Musa: Go ahead.
Jeronimo Aguilar: We’re in the process as well… There’s a bill called ACA 4 and ACA 4 would give the right to incarcerated folks in prison to be able to vote. So, we’re trying to catch up to y’all in DC with ACA 4. It’s been introduced by Assemblymember Isaac Bryan. He’s a great champion. We’re very hopeful that we can champion that soon.
Mansa Musa: As we close out, John, what do you want our audience to know about the fight, going forward? And how they can support what’s going on with y’all?
John Cannon: I want everybody to know that this fight is not only about people who are incarcerated. This fight is about everybody. It’s for all of humanity. This is a humanitarian issue. And like back in the slavery days or right now when slavery was back when it was on plantations, you could think like that, how did people sit by and let this happen? Well, even to this day slavery is going on, and we can’t sit by and let it happen.
And if you do want to get involved, you could check us out on prisonerswithchildren.org. You could become a member. We have a membership. We have chapters in 32 different cities across America. So, you can go on our website and check us out, All of Us or None.
Mansa Musa: Okay. Jeronimo, you got the last word on this. As you close out, emphasize how important it is for people to be aware of this form of slavery, as we know it.
Jeronimo Aguilar: Yes, sir. Yes, sir. I didn’t get a chance to touch on the history of California. So, if I could real quick.
Mansa Musa: Go ahead, go ahead. Yeah.
Jeronimo Aguilar: I want folks to understand and be educated that California was never a free state. They talk about that; The folks in California love to talk about the South and, oh, we’re not like those Confederate states and all that stuff. But the reality is that Indigenous people have been enslaved in California since the Europeans came onto this land.
You could look back at the 1850 Act for Government and Protection of Indians. These were statutes and legislations that were put out that were vagrancy laws. You had the Greaser Act and these are all different laws that were put in place that meant that if you were caught loitering, you were caught unemployed, you were caught spitting on the sidewalk, petty stuff like that, you would be criminalized and your labor would be extracted.
There were vibrant slave markets in LA and all across the state of Indigenous people, and later, our African brothers and sisters. So, I love to make sure folks know that California has a lot of wrongs to right. You know what I mean? As far as the history, we’re not any better than any other state, man. We have a very, very illustrious history with slavery and it’s continued to this day. That’s why we’re the fifth-largest economy in the world and the prison-industrial complex is a huge part of that.
There were the red codes out here in California that predated the Black codes. Our Black and Brown connection and struggle are tied through colonization. We’ve been riding together since back then. So, it’s important that African and Indigenous peoples today lead the struggle to end this, being that in California, we make up 70% of the incarcerated population.
To close it out, ACA 8, we got the last leg of this struggle to get through so that we can get this on the ballot. Please mobilize and get involved. This is not just in California, but this is a movement that’s going across the whole country. So, wherever you’re at, wherever you’re hearing this, tap in with either an organization like ours, All of Us or None, the End Slavery in California Act. There are lots of organizations and folks out there that are pushing this, even in other states.
We created a campaign called ABC, Abolish Bondage Collectively, and started that in California. But now we have ABC National where we’re organizing in Kentucky, Wisconsin, Philadelphia, and all over the country. So, we implore people, man, get involved. Let’s make sure that we end this legacy and let’s make sure that this happens in our lifetime. That we don’t pass this ugly and very oppressive stuff down to our children because it’s not fair. It’s not right. And like John said, this is a human rights issue. It’s not an economic issue. It’s not a criminal justice issue. This is a human rights issue.
Mansa Musa: All right. Thank you. There you have it. We like to remind people that we’re talking about humanity here. We’re not, cry me a river about people that have been convicted of a crime. We’re talking about a country that always goes around the world and talks about everybody else’s dirty laundry and how they’re treating their citizens.
But we have in the US where slavery was founded in the form that we know it. We have it right here in America, right this day where they have established an exception clause in the US Constitution that allows them to continue to enslave people under the guise of being duly convicted of a crime.
But then when you look at a lot of the crimes that people allegedly have committed how many people have been exonerated and how faulty this criminal injustice system is, it stands to question why are we continuing down this path?
So, we implore everyone to support what’s going on in California. We implore everyone to educate themselves on what’s going on with the 13th Amendment. We implore everyone that if you have a family member and the family member is locked up, chances are he or she is doing slave labor for slave wages. And this is not right. This is inhumane. And as John said, this is not cry me a river.
Thank y’all for coming on. We ask you to continue to support Rattling the Bars and The Real News. It’s only on Rattling the Bars and The Real News that you get this coverage where you have these men coming on explaining how they’re making a concerted effort to change a narrative that this country said was changed with the emancipation proclamation. Was it? Thank you very much. Continue to support Rattling the Bars and The Real News.
The weather outside is frightful, and so is the behavior of police departments around the country! In a special holiday-themed livestream, Police Accountability Report looks at a series of police abuse incidents around the country. From a Washington state trooper’s car crash to a botched raid in Kentucky, Stephen and Taya report live on the latest incidents of cops behaving badly and what it tells us about policing in the US today.
Production: Stephen Janis, Taya Graham Studio Production: David Hebden, Cameron Granadino
Transcript
The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. A proofread version will be made available as soon as possible.
Taya Graham:
Hello, my name is Taya Graham, and welcome to the PAR, Police Accountability Report, end-of-the-year accountability livestream. What’s an accountability livestream? Well, it’s one of our shows where we hold police accountable, but in this case, we do so completely live. And that is we highlight cops who are abusing people’s rights in real time and let you, our viewers, weigh in. And that’s why today we will be reporting on several stories of cops who have used the powers of policing to engage in questionable behavior. And as we do, we will unpack some of the broader issues that, as we always say, makes bad policing possible.
And in the process, of course, we want to engage with you, our viewers. I mean, the whole point of producing this show week after week is for you, the people who watch us. We value what you say and think, and we want to understand your perspective on all these questions. So to get started, we have posted a poll in our community tab, and we’ll share a link in the livestream chat for you to weigh in. It’s a very important question about the efforts to reform police that we will be discussing at the end of the show when we will show you the results and, of course, share some of your comments. But first, just a preview of what we will be reporting on today.
So this is a video of an accident caused by a Washington state trooper. But despite the evidence of what you are seeing on the screen, police tried to frame an innocent truck driver and blame him for the collision. It’s a perfect example of how the cover-up is often worse than the crime. Then we will be talking to Chris Reiter, the copwatcher, otherwise known as For Public Safety, who has been documenting and investigating the misconduct of an Indiana sheriff who raided their home but is now facing serious charges himself. And finally, we will close out the show with one of our favorite guests, Otto the Watchdog. And he will be giving us an update on his fight for justice with Royse City Texas law enforcement. And he will share what his years-long ordeal fighting the law enforcement establishment there has taught him about the challenges of holding police accountable, and he might have some good news as well.
But first, as usual, even though we’ve been planning the show for weeks, I have to find Stephen. I mean, he knows he’s supposed to be here, but right now, he’s simply MIA. Fortunately, our excellent show director David Hebden has been looking for him too. Dave, do you have any updates? Oh, you found him? Thanks, Dave.
Stephen Janis:
[inaudible 00:02:32] so good. I’m going to have such a great Stephen outdoor-
Taya Graham:
Stephen. Stephen.
Stephen Janis:
… one over here. One over here-
Taya Graham:
Stephen.
Stephen Janis:
… one over here… Oh.
Taya Graham:
I cannot believe this.
Stephen Janis:
Oh, hey, Taya, what’s going on? How you doing? Do you like what I’m doing with the Christmas tree-
Taya Graham:
Stephen, what are you doing with the corn nuts? What are you doing?
Stephen Janis:
Well, I’m putting them up on the Christmas tree. Max gave them to me as a Christmas bonus and I thought it looked good to have a little Christmas thing for myself outside, as you know, it gets-
Taya Graham:
Stephen, we have a live stream tonight.
Stephen Janis:
Oh, we have a live stream tonight?
Taya Graham:
Yes, we do.
Stephen Janis:
Wow, I didn’t know that. So should I come inside?
Taya Graham:
Absolutely. Get in here right now.
Stephen Janis:
I’m coming, I’m coming, but I want to just finish with the corn thing and-
Taya Graham:
Yeah. No. No. Get in here.
Stephen Janis:
I want to finish my corn nuts-
Taya Graham:
No. And Max wants the corn nuts back. Get back in here. Seriously.
Stephen Janis:
He wants them back?
Taya Graham:
Yes, he does.
Stephen Janis:
All right, I guess I have to come inside then. All right.
Taya Graham:
Please, just come inside.
Stephen Janis:
Fine. Fine. Fine. Fine.
Taya Graham:
Thank you.
Stephen Janis:
I’m coming in.
Taya Graham:
Thank you, Stephen.
Stephen Janis:
I’m coming in. I’ll be inside.
Taya Graham:
Oh, my gosh. I can’t even believe this. He’s a hard-nosed investigative journalist and he’s just used to being in the outdoors and beating the pavement for stories. It’s hard to get him back into the studio. Dave, thank you for locating him. As we wait, and this is live, you just have technical difficulties like this sometime. So as we wait for him to make his way into the studio, I think we probably just need to keep rolling.
So as I said before, we posted a new poll on our community tab, which we would love for you to respond to. It asks a question that is related to our last poll, but with a twist. Remember last week we asked you if you thought body-worn cameras had changed police behavior. Interestingly, more than half of you thought they did. But tonight, we have a slight iteration on that question that is related to the guests we will be speaking to later. And the question is, do you think copwatchers have had an impact on how police behave? That is, have copwatchers made police think twice before abusing their power? Have they made things better or worse? And obviously, we have done extensive reporting on copwatchers, but the controversy and, of course, their struggle to film police, and in doing so, hold police accountable. But we wanted to know what you think… Wait. Oh, thank you for gracing us with your presence.
Stephen Janis:
Yeah, I brought some corn nuts with me, so we can-
Taya Graham:
Thank you.
Stephen Janis:
Yeah. Are you okay?
Taya Graham:
Yeah. Stephen, I think you have the wrong mic in your hand.
Stephen Janis:
I don’t want to use this one. I can’t use my outdoor mic?
Taya Graham:
No.
Stephen Janis:
I’m pretty tapped.
Taya Graham:
You’re indoor now.
Stephen Janis:
Okay. All right.
Taya Graham:
Yeah. Thanks.
Stephen Janis:
You sure? Okay.
Taya Graham:
Yeah, it’s cool. It’s cool. Since you finally decide to grace us with your presence, I’m going to ask you the question-
Stephen Janis:
Me?
Taya Graham:
Yes. That we had in our poll. I know you’ve covered this topic before, but what are your thoughts?
Stephen Janis:
Well, I’ve done a lot of thinking about copwatching. And to be honest with you, it’s a bit of an obsession with me because we’ve covered so much of it. And it’s, as we’ve talked about before, watching a movement unfold. But I was thinking about it in a very different light this morning when I was contemplating some of our guests and what they’ve been up to. And I was thinking about a concept that was known as gonzo journalism, right? Back in the ’60s, the ’70s, Hunter S. Thompson, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, where the idea was a reporter puts himself in the story and says, “I’m not objective. I’m experiencing this firsthand.” And why I think that’s relevant to copwatchers is because if you look at the period where it evolved and where gonzo journalism became a big thing and a dominant cultural theme, it was a time when people didn’t trust government very much, where there was a lot of mistrust of the establishment, so to speak.
So I think in a way, copwatchers are very much a gonzo journalism. The other thing they do that I think is quite interesting and very important is that they turn the panopticon around on the establishment. In other words, the power, the establishment, the police that are used to observing us and watching us suddenly had that reverse. A reverse in balance of power where they’re being watched, but they’re being watched by people who aren’t part of the establishment, right? I mean, let’s be honest, mainstream media sometimes works with police in ways that I think is deleterious to the process of journalism. But a copwatcher doesn’t really belong to an institution. And a copwatcher is a wild card. And I think that’s really important to remember that that’s what’s cool about it. It’s a wild card where you have people like Otto who we’ll be talking to, who’s very creative, or Chris Reiter, who is also very creative about the way… They’re approaching this with their own, as you will say later, inimitable style, their own way and context of doing it. They’re reinventing their own form of gonzo journalism at this point.
And so I think it’s very important to the whole… As we see journalism in this crisis, we see newspapers closing, we see this tremendous crisis of journalism, now we’ve got these guys and women who are stepping up and filling the void, in a way, I think that responds to what’s actually going on. You can’t always cover these extreme abuses of power with just neutral journalism. And they’re saying neutral journalism doesn’t apply. So I know we both watched the movie Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas with Johnny Depp. And I’m not saying they’re that extreme, but there is a sense that something else is needed to fight the establishment narrative that ignores people’s true problems. And policing, of course, is a great lens through which to see that, but I think copwatchers fill a void, so to speak, from that perspective.
Taya Graham:
You have some support out here. Snark and Sass said, “He’s adorable.” I’ve never heard Stephen called adorable before, but I’m sure he appreciates it.
Stephen Janis:
Yeah.
Taya Graham:
So if you don’t know, I’m trying to put your comments on the screen while I’m running the stream. And I wanted to say to Linda… Let me make sure she’s up there. Linda, I got your contribution. That was awesome and thank you so much. Your card absolutely made my day.
Stephen Janis:
Oh, that was her card?
Taya Graham:
Yeah, I think it was her card.
Stephen Janis:
Oh, wow.
Taya Graham:
And I think I took her card and made a community post with it. It was a card that said thanks on it. So I just want you to know that if you send me mail or a donation, that I really appreciate it. We appreciate it a great deal.
Stephen Janis:
And we should point out right now that we’re in our fundraiser and that anything you donate to The Real News right now, which I was going to say… Is it okay if I ask for something for the tree? Because as you can see, my tree has got a bunch of corn nuts, but there are no lights. And so if people want to donate, I’m not saying I’m actually probably wouldn’t be approved to spend them on the lights, but nevertheless, if you donate now, your donation is matched by very generous donor. So if you donate $50, it’ll be $100 for us, and it’s really important… As we’re talking about journalism, journalism is in a really difficult place and it’s wonderful to have something independent like The Real News and have independent journalists who are not tied to any institutions really going out there and telling people’s stories. So if you can donate, we would really appreciate it. And I think it would be good for everyone to contribute to journalism.
Taya Graham:
You know what? I think I’m seeing some amazing people in our live chat right now. I think James Freeman, the James Freeman-
Stephen Janis:
The James Freeman?
Taya Graham:
The James Freeman-
Stephen Janis:
Oh, my God.
Taya Graham:
… also known as the GOAT, is in the live chat. I think we’ve got HBO Matt, Texas copwatcher there too. And I think I see [inaudible 00:09:40] from out in Colorado.
Stephen Janis:
So this is an impromptu copwatcher summit.
Taya Graham:
This might be a copwatcher convention.
Stephen Janis:
Yeah, we need to change the title.
Taya Graham:
And you know what? I think I saw Mrs. Justice too. Blind Justice has a YouTube channel. He’s a First Amendment activist, and a well-known copwatcher and disability activist. And also, Mrs. Justice has joined him on his First Amendment activities and adventures. So hello to you, Mrs. Justice. And hello, [inaudible 00:10:04]. So one thing, Stephen brought up the donations, and I just want to say, I just have to reiterate, what’s actually amazing right now is that if you donate a dollar, any dollar you will donate will actually be matched, and so we’re very fortunate right now. So if you’ve ever felt inspired to donate, now is a terrific time. So I think the donate button is here directly underneath the live chat.
But I want you to know that if funds are tight for you and even a $2 donation is just too much right now, it’s okay. I understand how that can be. You can also help us by just taking the time to leave a comment, giving us a thumbs up, subscribing to the channel, and making sure to share this with your friends. Invite your friends to our live chat so they can be part of the conversation and hopefully eventually they’ll want to be part of the PAR family as well.
Stephen Janis:
Yeah. And if you want a voice of the people, so to speak, a journalism organization that responds to people, that’s what we do with The Real News. We are not the voice of power. We are not the voice of the elites or the establishment. We literally go and talk to people and flip the script, really. Sometimes we describe the police accountability as cops, the show, in reverse, where cops that show the reality show that it’s always shot from the perspective of cops, tells a cop narrative, but doesn’t tell the narrative of the people who are experiencing what it’s like to be under the oppressive thumb of policing. So if you support us, there’s an independent voice out there for you, and that’s why we’re here. So-
Taya Graham:
Oh, my gosh. Joe Cool.
Stephen Janis:
Joe Cool.
Taya Graham:
Joe Cool’s in there.
Stephen Janis:
Oh, my God. We have-
Taya Graham:
Oh, my gosh. Okay, that’s so cool.
Stephen Janis:
The Luminaries.
Taya Graham:
Hey, Joe Cool. And I also just want to say hi to Julia Clark. I know that fight to get body camera is something else, so we’re still there with you. And we’re wishing you the best in getting that body camera.
Stephen Janis:
We care.
Taya Graham:
We do. And I also want to thank our mods, Lacey R. and… Hi, Noli D. in the chat, make sure to show our mods some love.
Stephen Janis:
I also hope Michael Willis is in the chat. He better be in there.
Taya Graham:
He might be in there. Oh, Oklahoma Outlaw Audits? Oh, my gosh. It is just happening in the chat right now. This is awesome. Hi, Oregon Rogue.
Stephen Janis:
We’re going to officially declare this a copwatcher summit at this point. I think we need to change the title of the show. I like the livestream accountability holiday special, but we’re going to declare this de facto-
Taya Graham:
I think we’re going to have to.
Stephen Janis:
We should check with Maximillian. Max, is it okay if we change the title to Copwatcher Summit?
Taya Graham:
Look, there’s Official MissConduct.
Stephen Janis:
Whoa.
Taya Graham:
Look at that. I’m pointing at the-
Stephen Janis:
Right. Don’t point. You’re going to confuse me. I’m trying to look at you.
Taya Graham:
Okay. I’m sorry. But just so you know, all these great copwatchers are in the chat, so you might want to just go and check out their channels later. But let’s get back to our first story of the PAR accountability livestream. Okay. So it’s a cautionary tale about what happens when law enforcement investigates itself. It’s a story that reveals that when it comes to deciding their own guilt, police have very little incentive and very few checks that force them to be truthful. So this story starts with a video. It depicts an accident involving a Washington state trooper who made an illegal turn and crashed into an oncoming vehicle. Just watch.
So even though the evidence was clear that the state trooper, and might I add, a rookie state trooper, had turned into the oncoming truck while attempting to perform a technique known as a rolling stop. Despite this, the state police hatched a plan. They decided to pin the blame for the accident on an innocent truck driver named Shawn Foutch. He’s a man who worked tirelessly as a commercial truck driver, crisscrossing the state to earn a living for his family. And as you may have guessed, the traffic violations would have a serious impact on his ability to earn a living. In fact, negligent driving, which is what he was initially charged with, could have cost him his CDL, his license, and that’s why he chose to fight back. And his lawyer found that the Washington state troopers had ignored evidence, tried to cover up the facts, and used their power to pin the blame on an innocent man.
And there was a collision technician who was also part of Washington state who examined the case and concluded it was not his fault. And that’s because of a public records request. So shout out to the lawyer and shout out to the local journalists at KING 5 who did an amazing public records request that helped Shawn as well. That request revealed that the collision technician working for the state examined the evidence and concluded it was all the fault of the trooper. In fact, emails from the Washington State Police show, despite this conclusion, commanders attempted to get a more favorable opinion on the case, and it also uncovered additional emails that they sent to prosecutors insisting they move forward against Mr. Foutch, despite the evidence showing he was innocent.
And it actually gets worse because despite the fact that Mr. Foutch does not drink, he’s a diabetic and he has not had a single drink for 30 years, state troopers forced him to do a field sobriety test, blow a breathalyzer, and have blood drawn, all of which came back negative. They even charged him with negligent driving in the second degree, which could have cost him his job. All of this to frame a man who relied on his ability to drive a truck to feed his family. And it also should be noted that Mr. Foutch spent months recuperating from the accident while living in fear he would be falsely accused of causing an accident that was not his fault. Now, I interviewed him before the show to get a sense of how this case affected his life and how it has changed his perception of law enforcement. Let’s listen to him as he explains just some of the impact this ordeal had on him.
Shawn Foutch:
In their reports, they put that they could smell alcohol. I haven’t drank since I was in my mid-20s, and I’m 53 now. So they did a breathalyzer, which came up all zeros. They did the field sobriety test, which I passed. And then they asked me if I would go down and do a voluntary blood draw, and they made it seem like it wasn’t such a voluntary thing.
And then a few months went by, and then all of a sudden, I get a negligent driving ticket in the mail. They sent it directly to the courts. They didn’t write me up or cite me or anything on-scene. [inaudible 00:16:48] financially, emotionally, all of it. Financially, because I couldn’t work. I was on light duty. And with my particular job, I couldn’t do it. So it affected me financially because I was out on labor and industries, and they were paying me less than 50% of my original wages. And then emotionally is because I was stressed all the time about whether I was going to be able to keep my CDL, whether I was going to have a job to go back to. And then physically because of my injuries and because of all of the pain that I was going through. My fingers going numb at times, not being able to sleep because of the pain and everything else.
Taya Graham:
Now, as we said before, Mr. Foutch fought back. And as a result, an independent investigation was launched, and it came to quite a different conclusion. Stephen, what eventually happened with this case?
Stephen Janis:
Well, he was totally cleared. I mean, eventually. Now this is eventually after he’d gone through this entire ordeal of having to face a breathalyzer test, of having to face the idea that he could lose his livelihood. He was cleared and the investigation was revealed because of good local journalism, and because of his lawyer, it was revealed that the cops had tried to cover this up, tried to use the levers of power to frame an innocent man and destroy his livelihood. So it was severe, but in the end, he triumphed because of the work of people who wanted to hold police accountable.
Taya Graham:
I’m sorry. I was just looking at some of these great comments. James Freeman had quite a good one. And I just have to say hi, Munkay 83. And just to acknowledge that I witnessed a copwatch by Munkay 83, the gentleman who’s in the live chat now, and I watched a police officer disappear in under 60 seconds.
Stephen Janis:
Yes.
Taya Graham:
So there’s a certain level of skill, and Munkay 83 has it. But let me get back to the topic at hand-
Stephen Janis:
Yeah, sure. Of course.
Taya Graham:
… Mr. Foutch. So what amazed me is how widespread the effort was to take away his livelihood. Have you ever witnessed anything similar in your reporting?
Stephen Janis:
Yeah. I mean, I’ve seen so many incidents where police, if they feel threatened, they’ll take a very minor, minor thing or try to frame someone, and they have so many buttons to push. I call it something like asymmetrical situating, where you are so immune to any of the tools of oppression that you use that you become completely… You become pathological. Now, there was a homicide detective in Baltimore named Kelvin Sewell, who we covered for years, who had instituted community policing down in small city called Pocomoke. And it was very successful. But they came after him really hard. And after he was fired for, I think, reasons that are completely nefarious, they looked into a 2014 accident, two years after he was fired, and charged him with misconduct in office because he didn’t charge somebody. Because he didn’t charge somebody.
So I have seen the tools of criminal justice system, the power, all the attendant power and force of criminal justice used in these ways to take, by people, who feel, I think, that they’re completely immune from any of the consequences of the power that they’re using. It’s almost like the psychology of being in this bubble where you know there’s no way you’re ever going to get arrested or charged. Any of these horrifying consequences are just improbable to you. And by being improbable, I think it creates a psychopathy, because I’ve seen it in so many ways. And this is just a perfect example. I mean, it wouldn’t have been any problem for the trooper to accept responsibility other than maybe… I don’t know. But here they’re going to destroy a man’s life, take his livelihood. So, yeah.
Taya Graham:
And there’s another good point that this trooper was a rookie. From my understanding, rookies are known… They’re told, “Look, you’re going to have a car accident your first year out there being a trooper.” So basically, it’s understood. And someone asked about the police officer… I just want you to know, the police officer walked away from the accident. And as far as I know, he had no injuries that were sustained other than perhaps just being a bit shaken up. And you can also see him walking away from the accident. So I just want to let you know that the police officer wasn’t seriously injured. And I understand your concern.
Stephen Janis:
I think if there’d been a serious injury of the police, they would’ve come down even harder. So you know by the way they just eventually-
Taya Graham:
Yes.
Stephen Janis:
If they didn’t charge him with possible, I don’t know, reckless manslaughter… Something crazy. I think you know that the trooper was… Believe me, if there were serious injuries, there would’ve been even worse consequences.
Taya Graham:
Right. And someone asked in the chat, I believe it’s my Patreon patron, Matter of Rights… Hi, Matter of Rights. Asked in the chat, “What were the consequences for the police officer? Did he actually win any money back for lost wages?” And as far as I know, the last time I spoke with Shawn, he hadn’t told me that he had been reimbursed for his wages in any way, shape or form.
Stephen Janis:
And he was getting disability pay, but it was one half of his regular pay.
Taya Graham:
Exactly. So, I mean, what he won was his right to still be a truck driver. That’s what he won.
Stephen Janis:
Yes. What he already had at that time.
Taya Graham:
Right. And as far as I know, there has not been any disciplinary action taken against the officer who was involved in attempting to push these charges against Shawn. And as far as I know, there isn’t any discipline. But if there is, I will be happy to update you because tonight is a livestream for accountability.
And speaking of a prolonged effort to hold errant police accountable, no one knows how difficult and vexing that process can be than our next guest. So earlier this year, we told the story of Indiana resident Chris Reiter and his wife Tiffany, better known as For Public Safety. So the couple were home one night when police conducted a raid. Startled at first, and later, distraught, the raid turned up nothing, prompting Chris to push back as well. And his question was simple. Why would Clark County Sheriffs target his home with the often deadly and intrusive tactic of a SWAT raid? What had he done to deserve such a troubling violation of his rights, a violation that led to Tiffany being seriously reinjured?
Well, that’s what started his years-long effort to fight back. Now, part of that fight was for public records requests for himself and to help others in his community. That led Chris to the sheriff’s department where he was also helping Joe, a father of a young man who had been severely beaten by police. He was there to help him file a complaint. But an hour after he arrived, and after multiple requests for a supervisor, police decided to arrest Chris for an outstanding warrant from 1999. I repeat, an outstanding warrant from 1999, for a single marijuana cigarette. I could not make this up, people. Take a look. First, you’ll see the raid, and then you’ll see their records request. Just watch for yourself.
Tiffany:
Coming. I’m coming. Wait.
Speaker 1:
Hold on.
Tiffany:
Wait.
Speaker 1:
Hey, we’re opening it.
Tiffany:
Wait. Wait.
Speaker 1:
Okay.
Tiffany:
Oh, my God. Oh, my God-
Speaker 2:
Oh, my God! Oh, my God!
Shawn Foutch:
Can you hear me? We’ll try this one more time. We need some assistance out here please if there’s a clerk available. Okay. Yeah, probably. Would you mind coming out and speaking with us, sir? Well we’re going to have to talk about an incident we’re going to need records on. [inaudible 00:24:21]. Oh, there you are. I’m Chris.
John:
John.
Shawn Foutch:
Nice to meet you, John.
John:
Well you mind turning around and putting your hands behind your back? You have an active warrant.
Shawn Foutch:
For what?
John:
From 1999, possession of marijuana.
Shawn Foutch:
You’re full of shit.
John:
No, I’m not.
Shawn Foutch:
Yeah, you are. I have never had marijuana.
John:
Turn around and put your hands behind your back.
Shawn Foutch:
All right. Yeah, he can film.
John:
You got to put that phone down.
Shawn Foutch:
I don’t even do marijuana.
Taya Graham:
You heard it, a warrant from 1999. To explain why this has happened and what he has uncovered since, we are joined by the man himself, For Public Safety. Chris, thank you for joining me.
Shawn Foutch:
Hey, Taya. Thanks for having me.
Taya Graham:
So we’re so happy to have you back and let me just take you back. I know this raid happened a little while ago, but we have to address it. Just for the people who don’t know, tell us a little bit about the raid, what it was like, and what steps you are taking to address it.
Shawn Foutch:
Well the steps I’m taking to address it makes it where I can’t talk about it a whole lot.
Taya Graham:
Right. You don’t have to go into specific details.
Shawn Foutch:
We’re in a very active lawsuit which we’re doing very well. We’ve got great attorneys who are handling business with this as it needs to be done. It’s been a long, tough three-year road on that whole situation.
Stephen Janis:
I was going to ask you and I didn’t mean to interrupt you, but when you first experienced this raid and had these things happen to you, did you have any idea how difficult it would be to push back and what a toll it would take on you personally? Because I think sometimes people go into this and they have no idea and it’d just be interesting to hear how it has changed your perception of law enforcement.
Shawn Foutch:
It’s changed my perception of everything. First of all, I’d like to say I was one of those people who never thought something like that could happen to me. It came right very shortly after the Breonna Taylor incident happened less than 20 miles from my house. That was on everybody’s mind at the time, that raid was. Then they came through our door. To us, it was just like unreal this can happen to us and here it is. It is very violent and destructive and it turns your whole world upside down. I remember one detail I will talk about is after the five hours of them completely destroying everything and hurting us, they just left and I remember saying, “You’re just going to leave?” They said, “Yeah, you didn’t do anything. We’re leaving.” That’s how it works and then you have to figure out how to pick up all the pieces on your own.
Taya Graham:
Let me ask you a question. Someone asked, [inaudible 00:27:11] asked was this a no-knock warrant?
Shawn Foutch:
Yes, it was a no-knock warrant. They tried to bust in the door. I opened the door while they were trying to bust it in.
Taya Graham:
Okay. From my understanding, this raid is why you started your channel, not just to help you and Tiffany, but to help other community members in their efforts for transparency. Tell me a little bit about what we saw when you and Joe were attempting to file a complaint and make a records request in Hardin County. Why were you there and why did it go so poorly?
Shawn Foutch:
There was an FBI investigation being conducted on Joe’s son’s incident.
Taya Graham:
Okay.
Shawn Foutch:
I have been in touch with the FBI after our raid because we reported our particular situation to the FBI which put us kind of in conjunction with some investigators from the DOJ. So I kind of had a little bit of an open line of communication with some of those investigators. I learned by talking to one of them about Joe’s son’s incident that no complaints, there wasn’t any paper trail on the Kentucky State Police office that they were wanting to investigate, and I thought, “Well I should look into this because it doesn’t seem right that an officer would behave this way that has no complaints on him whatsoever filed.” So I contacted Joe and he told me that every time his family members or anybody had tried to go to KSP to file a complaint that they were getting turned around and pushed out and told no. I thought, “Well Joe, let me strap a camera on and I’ll come with you and see what happens.” You all saw what happened.
Stephen Janis:
Yeah. I mean I was stunned they tried to pull up, say you had a 1999 warrant. I mean first of all, was that true and what on earth, how on earth can they unearth a warrant for a marijuana cigarette? Is that even possible legally?
Shawn Foutch:
I mean it makes no sense. The charge, the whole story, it never happened. None of that ever happened. I was never cited for a marijuana cigarette in 1998 or ’99. I was never on probation. I’d never gone to court, none of that. I think they just made the whole thing up just to try to get me the heck out of their lobby.
Stephen Janis:
Do you get the sense that they grasped the gravity of what they were saying and doing? Conjuring something from your past even if it was true is so unbelievably not a crime of any sort that would impact society in any way. Do you think they grasped what they were doing to you? It’s just so hard for me to believe they say, “We’re going to go out and take a man’s freedom for something that happened in 1998.” It’s beyond my understanding. Do you think they’re just … What is wrong with the police that you were dealing with at that point?
Shawn Foutch:
Well here’s the way I think they’re seeing it, Stephen. I think they see it as, “We’re trying to protect our officers from getting federally indicted for the reason this dude’s here.” So they’re willing to fabricate a little marijuana cigarette case on somebody in order to protect one of their officers for potentially getting charged with-
Stephen Janis:
Yeah.
Shawn Foutch:
… at minimum an assault, a very heavy assault and then at maximum potentially maybe attempted murder.
Stephen Janis:
Wow.
Shawn Foutch:
They hit Josh in the face with a Maglite, one of the big, huge Maglites 28 times that you can count in the video.
Stephen Janis:
And this is a young man who was pulled over just so we understand what you’re talking about right now. Who is Josh just so I know?
Shawn Foutch:
Josh is a young man that was pulled over.
Stephen Janis:
Right. Okay.
Shawn Foutch:
He was trying to flee in his car and then he decided, “I’m not going to run anymore,” pulled over-
Stephen Janis:
Got it.
Shawn Foutch:
… and the cops yanked him out and beat him up.
Stephen Janis:
Okay. Taya, you want to-
Taya Graham:
Yeah, it was that incredibly brutal video that we saw that also involved tasering that tasered the young woman who was in the car as well who was pregnant. I mean it was really a terrible scenario.
Stephen Janis:
Let me just ask you a question. Do you feel safe now given that you’ve caused so much commotion with law enforcement in your area? Do you feel like your personal safety is in jeopardy at all honestly? Because if they’re willing to conjure up a 1998 bogus charge, what else are they willing to do?
Shawn Foutch:
Stephen, I think Tiffany and I are like the dogs backed in the corner where we got nothing left, but to bite. No, we’re not safe obviously. They’re always trying to get us somehow hemmed up whether it be a direct violence situation which we’ve encountered recently with Tiffany. She was almost … She was beaten up and almost tased in the heart by a cop just a couple weeks ago. Our direct physical safety is in jeopardy regularly, but I think more so they tend to want to utilize their positions and their authority to sort of cause damages. When you’re always recording and you’re on your toes always looking to catch them doing something wrong, it makes it very hard for them to pin anything on you because you’re transparent and they’re not. So transparency has been our protection system.
Taya Graham:
Let me go back a little to the sheriff at the heart of the raid. From my understanding, it was that raid that made you start your channel. This is really an epic sage. I think you’re aware he was hoping to be a TV star. I think he was involved with the show 90 Days In. He was hoping to maybe star on Narcoland, but instead, he’s starring in a court case with 15 felony charges. Tell us a little bit more about Sheriff Noel, the charges he’s facing, and how vindicating it is to see this accountability from the sheriff that caused you and Tiffany so much pain and so much strife.
Shawn Foutch:
Yeah. So that sheriff was responsible for it. He is the author of the show 60 Days In. They were trying to do a show, spinoff show called Narcoland, and in that, there was a few of his officers that were heavily involved in the television drama series that fabricated a lot of paperwork to do a bunch of these raids on people. That’s how ours ended up happening, but we started digging, Tiffany and I, because we needed the records from our own case. As we were finally getting somewhere with records and finally starting to see what actually happened and what was happening to other people, like I said, we were in contact with the FBI from the DOJ. As I would find things and as people would reach out to me and say, “That’s not all. What you’re exposing isn’t anything else. There’s more,” then we would find that proof and we would give that to the feds and the feds were giving it to the Indiana State Police. Ultimately, it blew up into this investigation and now you’re starting to see the outcome, which it took several years. I mean we’re almost three years in now and you’re seeing some of the charges that we have effectively as a team in this area uncovered and a lot of it was used, exposure through my and Tiffany’s YouTube channels.
Taya Graham:
Chris, I have to interrupt you right here because someone in our live chat … Because we address all comments whether positive, negative, or neutral, someone said, “15 trumped up charges. Geez.” I feel like, Chris, we need to help people understand what type of charges he’s facing. Let me start out. For example, Sheriff Jamey Noel was found with over 130 cars on his property. He was also pressuring police officers and other employees of the state to do work for him around his house like fix his HVAC system or pour concrete, all types of things, and the taxpayers paid this tab for him and the employees didn’t feel like they could say no because he was their boss. So using taxpayer money to pay people to do renovations around your house and also the 130 cars, where exactly did that come from? You know what, Chris? Let me let you take the wheel here because there’s a lot behind these 15 felony charges. To say they’re trumped up does not do them justice at all.
Shawn Foutch:
Matter of fact, they were lightened up a little bit in what was published on the mainstream news because here’s what avenue I was looking at. Yes, Jamey was ghost employing people to come work on his own properties, but do you know where those people came from, Taya? Those were people who were supposed to be watching the inmates at the jail. That’s what we reported.
Taya Graham:
Oh, my goodness.
Shawn Foutch:
We said, “Look, you’re under-staffing that jail and it’s causing problems.” There were 28 women that were victim of a really bad incident because that jail was so severely understaffed. That’s where the staff was, out lollygagging, working for Jamey.
Stephen Janis:
How do you think he became so powerful? How did this one individual able to accumulate all these cars, have people work for him? Was it sort of the hybrid … Was it becoming Mr. Hollywood? What made him so powerful?
Taya Graham:
I think him wiretapping his own office might have had something to do with it. Chris, what do you think?
Shawn Foutch:
That was the sheriff’s department that decided the wiretapping, but no, here’s what it really is. So Jamey is very established in different political roles. I mean one, he’s the Republican Party chairman for the state here, and then of course he has all these affiliates and he came from the Indiana State Police originally. So you’ve got the Indiana State Police position. You’ve got all these county politicians that he’s been involved with. Then you get the state politicians that he’s ran alongside of. Then he gets the state’s Republican Party chair. Then he takes office for sheriff and then he’s doing the TV show with the other sheriffs in all these other districts. You get a lot of political power in a position like that when you’re-
Stephen Janis:
Yeah, it’s amazing because it kind of shows how America is constantly fed this constant stream of a law enforcement entertainment industrial complex.
Taya Graham:
Yes.
Shawn Foutch:
Yeah.
Stephen Janis:
It shows you how unhealthy that can be to be combined like the power of Hollywood with the power of policing. It’s not really a good mix and it seems to be quite toxic particularly in this case. Right?
Shawn Foutch:
Yes. Yeah, absolutely. I mean they should have learned their lesson 10 years previous because Jeffersonville, Indiana, Clark County was also the epicenter of where the TV show Live PD started and that one tanked because-
Stephen Janis:
Oh, right.
Shawn Foutch:
… of all the conflict of interest.
Stephen Janis:
Right. Right. It’s really amazing to me that people think this is entertainment, watching the worst moment of someone’s life, and that Cops has existed for 30 years, kind of becoming anti-working class propaganda basically, anti-working class propaganda machine that they use sort of the fodder of an average person having a bad day as entertainment grist for billionaires in Hollywood. It’s amazing, but it is interesting to see. I mean listen. You deserve a lot of credit.
Taya Graham:
Absolutely.
Stephen Janis:
The work that you have done is astounding and it just shows that cop watching is not just about going out and filming someone from a sidewalk. You have done the hard work and you deserve a lot of appreciation from the people in your community and appreciation from journalists because you’re doing real work here. That’s an amazing accomplishment to sort of put someone in check who obviously needed to be in check.
Taya Graham:
You know what? Let me just-
Shawn Foutch:
Thank you, Stephen. Oh, I’m sorry, Taya.
Taya Graham:
No, no. I’m so sorry I interrupted you thanking Stephen because, first, I just wanted to add my kudos as well. Some of the things that you’ve uncovered, I mean we honestly-
Stephen Janis:
A reporter would win a Pulitzer for this, you know?
Taya Graham:
A reporter would win a Pulitzer for this and honestly-
Stephen Janis:
Or maybe.
Taya Graham:
… we could spend four hours in the livestream just talking to Chris just unwinding all the things that he has uncovered seriously and I tell you you wouldn’t be bored for a moment. Make sure you go check out his channel, For Public Safety-
Stephen Janis:
For Public Safety.
Taya Graham:
… because he has some amazing videos there, some playlists that’ll help you understand it, help you learn it all. I just want to ask you one final question before we let you go. A lot of people ask me and I’m sure you’ve had people turn to you and ask you this as well. When you were going through your process of filing your lawsuit, you had two lawyers who didn’t do you justice to say the least. You actually ended up having to file pro se. I just want to not ask about the specifics of the lawsuit at all, but just what the process is like to try to file your own pro se lawsuit, a little bit about your experience, and if you have any advice for people who want to file a lawsuit for harm.
Shawn Foutch:
Yeah. Well Official Misconduct sitting here with me, she was the one that was able to actually figure out how to get it in documentation form and get it turned in. It took the two of us as a team working our butts off to figure out how to do a lawsuit of that size and stature. I guess my biggest recommendation is if you truly have a situation that really requires a full-blown lawsuit like that like back injuries and major damages and property that’s been destroyed, of course I’m going to recommend try to find an attorney. That is not as easy as it sounds. You need to stay on the phone 24 hours a … Well they’re not open 24 hours.
Stephen Janis:
Right.
Shawn Foutch:
From 8:00 AM until 5:00 PM, five days a week until you get that lawyer established and make sure that it’s a good civil rights lawyer, but if you do have to do it yourself, study, study, study, and you need allies. You need people that you can talk to. You need to be involved. You need to get out there and become one with the people in the legal system, other attorneys, even police officers and chiefs of police and people at the courthouse and the clerks. You need to get involved because you need to learn their world and you need to learn it quick if you’re going to file a lawsuit.
Stephen Janis:
Wow.
Shawn Foutch:
There’s a lot.
Stephen Janis:
It’s interesting to me because there’s so much cynicism in this world and yet you see people like Chris and we’ll be talking to Otto who have fought back one way or another whether it be using the system, the system that seems unavailable to them, but they’ve been smart and courageous and also innovative enough to actually turn that system around. That’s what I love about the story of cop watchers and stories like Chris because he really just said, “I don’t have a high-priced lawyer. I’m just going to find a way to do it,” and then he finally got a lawyer and now look at the results. This is a testament to the power of cop watching, the power of grassroots movements and organizing. I think it’s pretty amazing, Chris.
Shawn Foutch:
Yeah. Thank you, Stephen. I just want people to know you can do it if you put your mind to it.
Stephen Janis:
That’s a beautiful thing.
Shawn Foutch:
If you would let me address you were talking about the support, I do want to say this while I have the opportunity on such an amazing platform as what you all have for me here. Thank you so much for allowing me to come up here and say this. We couldn’t be, Tiffany and I could not be more happy and grateful for the amount of support that we’ve got from all the people in this world, on television, and from our locals and even some of the people in the government system that have been helpful for us, including the attorneys. We couldn’t have done it without you.
Stephen Janis:
Well that’s great.
Taya Graham:
Aw, that’s beautiful, Chris.
Stephen Janis:
That’s a great note to end on.
Taya Graham:
That’s a beautiful note to end on especially considering the season we’re in. I just want to say you might have noticed I threw up a comment from Official Misconduct. That’s Chris’s other half.
Stephen Janis:
Yes, Tiffany.
Taya Graham:
You know what? I think … I know her name.
Stephen Janis:
No, I was just saying. Yeah, yeah. It’s true. You do.
Taya Graham:
I’m just saying we might have to do a ladies night Cop Watcher special. So let me know if that’s something you might be interested in. I’m thinking Laura Shark. I’m thinking Official Misconduct. If there are any lady cop watchers that you think I should talk to, please let me know because I think it might be cool to have a ladies night.
Stephen Janis:
Well thank you, Chris.
Taya Graham:
Thank you so much, Chris.
Stephen Janis:
Please-
Shawn Foutch:
Thank you all and it’s always such a pleasure to talk to you two. Love you guys.
Stephen Janis:
Love you too.
Taya Graham:
Aw. The pleasure’s ours.
Stephen Janis:
Yeah.
Taya Graham:
Now, this is … Okay. I’m getting the warm fuzzies right now. Okay.
Stephen Janis:
Well Taya, just to … People are very jaded about our system.
Taya Graham:
Yeah.
Stephen Janis:
But in a way, Cop Watchers and the people who do this themselves are affirmation of our system-
Taya Graham:
Yes.
Stephen Janis:
… that a single person, a husband and wife who have faced an oppressive police can turn it around on their very own with a YouTube channel and their own ingenuity. I feel like that’s a pretty wonderful message in a world where we feel kind of like we’re all incapable of changing things. It’s something to think about, right?
Taya Graham:
Absolutely. I think I’m starting to see some support for the idea so I’m very excited.
Stephen Janis:
Okay. Good.
Taya Graham:
This is a perfect segue from Chris is our next guest, another cop watcher who’s experienced firsthand the extreme lengths the police will go to to pursue someone who refuses to be cowed by them and perhaps would even dare to make fun of them. He’s one of our favorite regulars, a longtime cop watcher and a bit of a comedian, and his run-ins with Texas Police are legendary. What started as a dispute over a sign that some residents allegedly deemed offensive in Royse, Texas turned into a years-long ordeal for him which has finally come to some resolution and some good news, more good news like I promised you. But first before we talk to Otto, we want to show you, our audience, how absurd the battle with law enforcement has been. I just want to play a small clip of Otto being threatened for holding a sign. Just look.
Speaker 3:
We’ve been through this before.
Otto:
Yes, we have. So why are you here?
Speaker 3:
I’m here because I got a call, a complaint from people of the city, citizens. They’re complaining about you.
Otto:
What are they complaining of?
Speaker 3:
Your sign.
Otto:
Okay. Looks pretty peaceful to me, man.
Speaker 3:
We got phone calls. People come by. They’re not going to stand here and confront you because they don’t know what kind of idiot you are.
Otto:
Wait. Hey, fuck you. I’m not an idiot.
Speaker 3:
I didn’t say you were.
Otto:
Yes, you did.
Speaker 3:
I said they don’t know what kind you are.
Otto:
Okay. Well why don’t you get back in your car and go away?
Speaker 3:
Why don’t you want to try something?
Otto:
What do you mean try something? Try what?
Speaker 3:
You telling me what I’ve got to do. No, I don’t have to-
Otto:
I’m not breaking the law.
Speaker 3:
I said-
Otto:
So go away.
Speaker 3:
… you told me to go away, what you wanted to do.
Otto:
I want you to go away. I want you to leave me alone.
Speaker 3:
No, I’m not going to. I’m not going to at all.
Otto:
You’re now impeding my First Amendment right to free speech.
Speaker 3:
No, I’m not. I’m asking you what you’re doing here.
Otto:
I’m giving away food. I told you that.
Speaker 3:
I have seen no one come up here for food.
Otto:
How long have you been here?
Speaker 3:
How long? Well I’m going to stay here to see how long it takes you to find one person.
Speaker 4:
You know you’re soliciting without a permit. You text me earlier, Otto.
Otto:
Yeah, I told you that I was going to give food away.
Speaker 4:
Which is not your real name by the way. We do have a complainant that’s willing to sign a statement against you.
Otto:
Okay.
Speaker 4:
… for the language on the sign.
Otto:
Oh, well that’s not even a crime, is it? So what if I get somebody that says they’re not offended by the sign?
Speaker 4:
Doesn’t matter. I have a complainant.
Otto:
How does that make it-
Speaker 4:
Either you’re not going to use the sign or you are. If you’re going to use the sign, then you’re going to be under arrest for disorderly conduct.
Taya Graham:
And now joining us as our final guest of 2023 is the inimicable, the incomparable Otto the Watchdog. Otto, thank you for being here.
Otto:
Hey, I’m glad to be here. Thanks for having me.
Taya Graham:
So that first video clip comes from a playlist on your channel called Otto versus Hawk Cove and it’s where you experience some police pushback for your sign allegedly because it had profanity on it although I do think it’s debatable if any drivers were truly offended enough to call the police. But be that as it may, this isn’t your only infringement of your First Amendment rights for holding a sign on the side of the road. I just want to mention to people these signs did not contain threats, mentions of specific political parties. They simply explained a simple, heartfelt truism. Otto, tell me about the lawsuit you filed that you just won and I believe it’s in Royse City. You’ve got to tell me about the flop, the nonviolent resistance.
Stephen Janis:
That’s a lot of questions. Why don’t we answer the Royse City-
Taya Graham:
Okay. Tell me about Royse City and then later tell me about the flop.
Otto:
Okay. I filed the lawsuit against Royse City.
Shawn Foutch:
So, I filed the lawsuit against Royse City. It was actually not from that specific incident that you just showed. It was the next day. I was holding the same signs, and they arrested for displaying those signs. So, the flop. I was charged with felony resisting arrest on that, and in depositions, they said I was resisting because I was using the force of gravity against the officers.
Taya Graham:
Sorry. I’m sorry.
Shawn Foutch:
So, gravity.
Stephen Janis:
The force of gravity. Sorry, Otto.
Taya Graham:
I’m sorry. That’s so unprofessional, but that is so crazy.
Stephen Janis:
Wait, Otto. Go ahead, go ahead. Finish what you were saying. I’m sorry. We were laughing.
Shawn Foutch:
I could not have written that as a joke. You know what I mean?
Taya Graham:
So good.
Shawn Foutch:
It’s just too ridiculous. I wouldn’t have written that. It wouldn’t have been funny if it didn’t come out of their mouth, you know what I mean?
Stephen Janis:
Right.
Shawn Foutch:
Right.
Stephen Janis:
Go ahead. I’m sorry. Go ahead.
Shawn Foutch:
No, they were serious.
Stephen Janis:
Yeah. Yeah.
Shawn Foutch:
It wasn’t a joke for them.
Stephen Janis:
Right.
Shawn Foutch:
Yeah.
Stephen Janis:
It was interesting, because when I was watching the video, the first video, it was interesting because the police officer says something that I hear over and over again, and I want you to talk about this. He says, “You’re not going to tell me what to do.” And it seems cop watchers have a penchant for challenging that idea. Do you notice that cops get pretty upset when you say, when you start telling them go away or something? That seems to really trigger them?
Shawn Foutch:
Oh, absolutely. They don’t like it one bit. As a matter of fact, James Freeman has probably one of the most triggering phrases that there is, and that is, “You are dismissed.”
Taya Graham:
Ooh.
Shawn Foutch:
They absolutely hate it, and it’s true. I mean, there’s no reason for them to be there. They’re putting themselves there. They just will not leave.
Stephen Janis:
Right.
Shawn Foutch:
So, go away. I mean, just stop.
Stephen Janis:
Right.
Shawn Foutch:
It wouldn’t have been an incident if they had just left.
Stephen Janis:
Wow. I mean, because I think some of the things about cop watchers, as we talked about them tonight, and particularly in your case, is that you kind of, by challenging that authority that they seem to have over space, where they can tell anyone what to do, you bring out an absurdity of police power in supposedly a constitutional democracy or whatever. And it seems like every time you push them on that, they seem to do something crazier. It almost seems to make them crazy, right?
Shawn Foutch:
I don’t know what it is.
Stephen Janis:
Yeah.
Shawn Foutch:
I guess.
Stephen Janis:
I’m thinking of the time-
Shawn Foutch:
I don’t know why they just can’t let it go. I guess it might be part of their training or something. But if they start, if they initiate the process, they can’t just stop doing it. They have to continue.
Stephen Janis:
Right.
Shawn Foutch:
It never stops with let me see your ID. Then you hand them your ID, and then they have another question. There’s always another question.
Stephen Janis:
Right.
Shawn Foutch:
That is part of their training, to continuously have another question. It doesn’t matter what the answer is.
Stephen Janis:
But is it their training, or is just something about the power, the cultural power of policing? Because what I love about your video is, the time you were bowing down to the cop, you kind of exposed that sense of if I come into a situation, I can control all the events, even though there’s a Constitution that says they can’t do that. It’s almost like you’re kind of delving into the psychology of police, which is showing how absurd is it they can order someone around for apparently no reason.
Shawn Foutch:
Right. Well, I was not arrested for bowing to them. Okay? So, keep that in mind. Take it for what it is.
Stephen Janis:
Right, right. Right.
Shawn Foutch:
And as you said, I’m a comedian. I got in this trying to tell jokes. I just wanted to be funny. I don’t align with a political party specifically. I try to stay in the middle and just make fun of whatever it is that’s funny, and sometimes, that’s hard. Sometimes it’s real hard.
Stephen Janis:
Yeah.
Shawn Foutch:
And you have to get a little bit dark on it.
Stephen Janis:
Yeah.
Shawn Foutch:
But I’m just out there telling jokes, and if they don’t like it, they could look away. They don’t have to be there. They can leave. They can just go away. It’s fine.
Stephen Janis:
Yeah.
Taya Graham:
That’s a really good point. There’s a lot of situations I’ve seen on body camera or cell phone camera where the police officers actually had the discretion to just leave. They were under no obligation to keep pressing or escalating the situation, and sometimes I wonder, why didn’t they just walk away?
Shawn Foutch:
Did we get Otto’s information about what happened with his lawsuit? Did he say?
Taya Graham:
Oh. Well, you know what? Oh, by the way. The channel is Otto the Watchdog. Someone asked, and I wanted to answer.
Stephen Janis:
Yeah.
Taya Graham:
If you want to go see, it’s Otto the Watchdog. It’s on the YouTube, and it’s on the Facebook as well.
Stephen Janis:
But, yeah. Otto, did you tell us, did you win your lawsuit, or what happened?
Shawn Foutch:
Oh, I filed a lawsuit against Royse City specifically, and also in Rockwall, which is the town next door, and I won both of those lawsuits.
Stephen Janis:
Wow, congratulations.
Shawn Foutch:
The payout was a little over $100,000 combined.
Stephen Janis:
Whoa.
Taya Graham:
Oh my gosh, I’m so happy for you.
Stephen Janis:
Are you going to become a monthly sustainer of The Real News?
Shawn Foutch:
Well, I mean. Yeah, I guess so. I guess so. But the problem is that I wanted them to stop violating people. I was initially irritated at my local sheriff’s department because they would drive fast and down in front of the road, they would speed, in front of the road, constantly pull people over on that road. License plate, lights, pre-textual stops, a lot of that. And it bothered me. And then I started looking. I found that you can look up public information, and I looked up the blotter, and I found that most of the people who are arrested are from out of town, right? So, it’s just people passing through town.
Stephen Janis:
Yeah.
Shawn Foutch:
Probably going to work or something like that.
Stephen Janis:
That is true. Yeah.
Shawn Foutch:
And heaven forbid they should have a license plate light that went out.
Stephen Janis:
Yeah.
Shawn Foutch:
Or things of that sort. And it just spiraled into people sending me reports of corruption, and then I would look into that, and it just continued into what you have today.
Stephen Janis:
Yeah. Otto, I want to get a little personal with you.
Shawn Foutch:
Sure.
Stephen Janis:
Because you told me a story, when we were working on a bigger project about cop watching, and you told me a story that I thought was really interesting. You said, “I was kind of feeling like.” It was about the signs. You said, “I was kind of feeling angry. I was angry, but I didn’t want to be an angry person. So I started creating signs, and that’s when I came up with the, I won’t say the word, and stuff.”
Shawn Foutch:
Right.
Stephen Janis:
Can you talk a little bit about that? Because I think that’s really interesting that you decided to channel that into what you were doing, kind of your art, so to speak.
Shawn Foutch:
Yeah. So, I’ve always tried to make things funny, tried to make bad things, lighten it up so that nobody feels crummy. And when you talk about problems, nobody really wants to listen. They don’t really care what the problem is or what the solution is. They just want to talk about it. So, I was trying to figure out a way to get people engaged in something, just engaged at all. And I thought that something that had absolutely no meaning when you just looked at it, but it does have a meaning. Everybody, you can understand the meaning, but it doesn’t tell you what I’m talking about. And then you can just fill in the blank. And that took me some time to come up with, a couple of phrases that fit that bill. And I wrote them down on signs, poster boards from the dollar store. And it was funny.
Stephen Janis:
Yeah.
Shawn Foutch:
It was funny. Most of the people would stop and just take a photo and post it on Facebook.
Stephen Janis:
Wow.
Shawn Foutch:
So, it was mostly just an impromptu stopping and getting it kind of thing.
Taya Graham:
You know, I wish I could play this for folks, but perhaps someone in the chat can let people know where, if they want to hear a song that Otto and another cop watcher and activist named Eric Grant in Colorado created. It was called Happy Something the Cops Day. And if you would like to find out about it, I am sure there’s someone in the chat that can direct you either to Otto’s channel or the song itself, if you’re interested in some of the ways that Otto uses humor to express himself.
Now, because one of the themes tonight is when the coverup is worse than the crime, in the case of the city of Hawk Cove, it seems to me that the police department and city hall’s attempt to cover up the crime of misusing the law caused a judge to be forced out of office. I mean, he wasn’t even allowed to resign. He was terminated after he signed his resignation in protest, and this is an amazing case, because this happened when a judge was standing up for the law, and he was punished for it, and you’re right in the middle of this case. You’ve got to tell us more about it.
Stephen Janis:
Yes.
Shawn Foutch:
Yeah. So, the very first time I brought out the sign was, so, I have to back up a little bit. I was giving away, I was going to food banks and collecting food for several houses and taking it to them because they didn’t have a car. And then, the church where I was picking up the food boxes found out about that and decided that I could do more, I could help more people, if I had more stuff, and for whatever reason, they gave me a truckload of potatoes and carrots and stuff like that. And I had already been looking into some stories in Hawk Cove, and I’ve got friends and family there. Hi, by the way. So, I went out there and I’d called the chief, or I’d texted the Chief of Police, Rhonda McKean, that morning and let her know that I was going to be doing that, and she told me I’d need a permit, which I disagreed with, and that was what brought the signs with me that morning.
And anyway, so they ended up giving me a ticket. It took four officers an hour and a half to decide that the most appropriate ticket, or the most appropriate thing to do to me was to issue me a citation for solicitation, because I didn’t have a permit to give the food away. Well, there was no ordinance by which to cite me under, so they wrote it after the fact and just kind of slipped it in there, into the rule book. So, they wrote the ordinance after they wrote me the ticket.
Stephen Janis:
What?
Shawn Foutch:
And then back dated it and slipped it into the code book.
Stephen Janis:
So, who’s they?
Taya Graham:
Okay, so this is incredible. Okay. Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, one second. Because I was trying to look up ordinance 100-11 online. This explains why I can’t find it, because it doesn’t actually exist. It was written just for you, back dated, and slipped into a pile of files? Just for you?
Shawn Foutch:
Yes.
Stephen Janis:
Without any sort of legislative function? It wasn’t the council that passed this? The police department literally just made up a law?
Taya Graham:
Well, I think the city council was in on it. Right, Otto?
Stephen Janis:
Were they in on it?
Shawn Foutch:
Yeah, but so, the council, you’re correct, Steven. That’s the proper method, right?
Stephen Janis:
Yeah.
Shawn Foutch:
It is written, and then it is read twice at council meeting.
Stephen Janis:
Right.
Shawn Foutch:
In an open council meeting.
Stephen Janis:
Yeah.
Shawn Foutch:
And then the council votes on it.
Stephen Janis:
And adopts it.
Shawn Foutch:
And then it becomes an official ordinance.
Stephen Janis:
Yup.
Shawn Foutch:
None of that was done. They just wrote it, back dated it for the day before, because there was a council meeting the night before.
Stephen Janis:
Wow.
Shawn Foutch:
So, they back dated it for the day before, and then wrote me a ticket for it the next.
Stephen Janis:
So, they back dated as if the council had approved it when they had not.
Shawn Foutch:
Yes. As if the process had been done.
Stephen Janis:
Right, yeah. Wow.
Shawn Foutch:
And I had, my local contact there let me know that this was happening, and then that was the day that Freeman and I showed up.
Stephen Janis:
Wow.
Shawn Foutch:
To attend the council meeting in which they were discussing the termination of the judge.
Stephen Janis:
Wow.
Shawn Foutch:
Right. So, the judge actually had written, or had contacted the mayor, and told the mayor that this ordinance was invalid, and what had been done with it, and he didn’t do anything about it. He didn’t say anything or make any changes. And then I go to court on that, and the ordinance was still in place as if it was okay. And the judge dismissed my citation. And if I had the experience and education that I do now at the time, I would have filed official complaints and lawsuits on that, because it’s, this is absolutely egregious. I just wasn’t capable at the time.
Stephen Janis:
But you know, it’s really interesting you should say that.
Shawn Foutch:
Yeah.
Stephen Janis:
Because just as we talked to Chris Reader, you were someone, again, who was unfamiliar with the law, and now you’re quite familiar with the law, right? So, you kind of taught yourself, just like he did, just like Eric Brant, who we’ll talk about a little bit later. You kind of taught yourself the law, right? This is all something you’ve learned in the process.
Shawn Foutch:
Absolutely.
Stephen Janis:
And I guess what’s interesting, what have you learned? I mean, what’s your big takeaway from all the things you’ve gone through? Through the lawsuits, the charges of felony camping. All the crazy stuff that’s been thrown at you as a person, what’s your takeaway from it? Just out of curiosity.
Shawn Foutch:
Oh, man. Trying to narrow it down would be-
Stephen Janis:
I know. I know.
Shawn Foutch:
Oh, man. So, getting past the intellectual stuff, learning law and the process of the law, and actually, more about my rights than I ever could have imagined when I picked up the sign for the first time. And besides all the intellectual stuff, I’ve learned that random strangers can come out of the woodwork and absolutely save your bacon. And if it wasn’t for people coming around and helping people that need it when they need it, there would be a lot of us.
Stephen Janis:
Yeah.
Shawn Foutch:
Victims of police. I don’t even want to say misconduct or whatever, because it’s never misconduct according to them, right?
Stephen Janis:
True.
Shawn Foutch:
But victims of police behavior.
Stephen Janis:
Yeah.
Shawn Foutch:
We would be in a much tighter spot.
Stephen Janis:
Okay.
Taya Graham:
I just want to ask, and actually, this is a question for both you and Steven, because I think Hawk Cove might be an example of the over-policing that we see in a lot of small towns and rural areas, where police departments really have to work to justify their salaries, and they struggle to generate fines and revenues for the city, and the way they do it is usually by ticketing and citing just the regular folks. And in the beginning of this exploitation of the small town, and this is according to a change.org petition. This town’s roughly 500 people. Property taxes were increased by 53% in 2022. Their sewer bill was increased by 52%, and they had an intake of one million dollars in January 2023, and this is a town of 500 people. So, I mean, Hawk Cove actually has the highest rate for taxes on sewers in all of north Texas. So there’s just so many ways that governance works to exploit the population, and policing is often the tip of the spear. I mean, taxation, water tax. I mean, that’s all part of it.
Stephen Janis:
Well.
Taya Graham:
So, Steven, Otto, what are some examples to you that come to mind when it comes to seeing over-policing and aggressive taxation? It seems like it’s a pattern to me.
Stephen Janis:
Well, Otto, do you want to go first? Or you want me to go?
Shawn Foutch:
I’m going to say that all those things that you just mentioned are the least of the problems in Hawk Cove.
Taya Graham:
Wow.
Stephen Janis:
Wow.
Taya Graham:
Wow.
Stephen Janis:
Yeah.
Shawn Foutch:
I mean, the tax rate. Who really cares about the tax rate? I mean, the sewers are jacked up. They’ve never worked. There was a multi-million dollar project on those sewers. It never worked.
Taya Graham:
Oh my gosh.
Shawn Foutch:
The city maintenance has been accused, and they say that it’s not true, but there’s so many things that are going on, all right? The tax rate being way higher than it’s actually even legally allowed to be for a town that size. The city has fudged their residence numbers for years.
Stephen Janis:
Wow.
Shawn Foutch:
In order to get more funding and qualify for grants and things of that sort. So, even their population numbers are inaccurate. I don’t trust the 500 number. I’ve also heard 741, and I don’t trust either one of those numbers. I don’t think we have an accurate count. And that’s just the beginning. It can just continue on from there.
Stephen Janis:
Yeah. I mean, one thing I’ve noticed about policing in small towns is that there are many small towns we report on like Milton, West Virginia, or even Pocomoke City, Maryland, where they have a very well-funded police department but, as Otto points out, their water systems in both cities are completely below grade, and have serious problems cited by the EPA. And it seems like policing sucks up a lot of resources that would be better spent on improving a community. So, don’t worry about your drinking water, but there is someone standing by a stop sign who will write you a ticket if you roll through it. And I think it’s exemplar of the disconnect between the people who have the power and the working class who does not, and police are the perfect boundary setters for that. And that’s why you see these situations today.
Taya Graham:
I think Otto, and please correct me if I’m wrong, you mentioned something in that Hawk Cove case, that these officers who were involved in creating a new ordinance and being a part of that, that each one of those officers actually has received a promotion. Is that correct?
Shawn Foutch:
I’m not sure about that. They don’t really have, in Hawk Cove, they don’t really have far to be promoted.
Taya Graham:
Oh, okay.
Shawn Foutch:
They already rule absolutely everything.
Taya Graham:
Oh, okay.
Stephen Janis:
Right.
Shawn Foutch:
But in my other cases, in the sign case with the flop in Roy City.
Taya Graham:
Okay.
Shawn Foutch:
Officer Dial is now a Lieutenant.
Taya Graham:
Wow.
Shawn Foutch:
And he is in charge of receiving the complaints for the department.
Taya Graham:
Oh my gosh.
Shawn Foutch:
Which must be very convenient.
Stephen Janis:
That’s ironic.
Taya Graham:
Oh, that’s horrifying. Ironic, indeed.
Shawn Foutch:
Yeah. Short was elected Mayor, re-elected Mayor after that. So he’s Mayor of McClendon-Chisholm. He’s also a Sergeant at a different police department down the road. And Officer Landingrock in Rockwall that arrested me for flipping her off has also been promoted, so she’s now a Sergeant and doing field training for other officers.
Taya Graham:
So incredible.
Stephen Janis:
Hey, Otto. I want to ask you a question, because I’ve always wondered. When you do the flop, I can kind of, there’s not much audio. What do the cops around you say when you flop? Just so people know, Otto just, they came up to him, he had the sign, they were going to arrest him, and he just flops down on the ground. It’s kind of a technique of many activists. But what do they say when you do that? Do they say anything to you?
Shawn Foutch:
I don’t think they said anything immediately. Dial told me to roll over, which I wasn’t going to move. I didn’t want to be resisting any further.
Stephen Janis:
Right, right.
Shawn Foutch:
You know what I mean? Or assaulting an officer. I’d hate to roll over one of their toes. I think everybody was just pretty stunned. Maybe a little bit disappointed. Maybe they were afraid that they were going to have to carry me to the car. I don’t know.
Stephen Janis:
Okay.
Shawn Foutch:
I don’t know. I just knew that-
Stephen Janis:
I’m sorry to throw it in there. I was just curious.
Shawn Foutch:
Yeah. I just knew that I didn’t want to participate in their shenanigans.
Stephen Janis:
Understood.
Taya Graham:
Fair enough. That is honestly quite fair.
Shawn Foutch:
I tell everybody, of course talk to your attorney. I am not an attorney, and I’m damn sure not your attorney. But talk to your attorney. If you feel like flopping is good for you, take a couple practice runs before you do it.
Taya Graham:
Well, I have to admit, something I thought was really interesting when you told me about it is that you said that a lot of civil rights activists use passive non-resistance. You don’t resist, but you don’t participate in your own, as some people call it, in your own kidnapping or your own false imprisonment. And you just took it to another level.
Shawn Foutch:
I did. I did.
Taya Graham:
Like Otto just has a way of doing. I just wanted to make sure, because I think you touched on this, there’s a court case that I’m sure must be near and dear to your heart, and actually someone in the chat mentioned it. It’s Cohen v. California, and that’s the Supreme Court case that famously held one man’s vulgarity is another’s lyric. And so, this court case is so important because even speech that is undignified or offensive to others is still worthy of protection, and without this protection, the government almost has limitless power over our speech. So, you recently, I believe, won another lawsuit to protect freedom of speech. Can you just tell us a little bit about the process and just let people know how hard it is to fight one of these cases? Because I think people hear a cop watcher won a lawsuit here, or a cop watcher won a lawsuit there, and they don’t know how many years it takes, the process.
Shawn Foutch:
I was arrested on December 16th of 2018, and the case finally settled in, actually it was either February or June of 2023. So, you can add that up. That’s pretty typical. It takes a lot. I, of course, recommend an attorney. Well, I would recommend an attorney, but then I would preface that by saying a competent attorney. And those are even more rare than an attorney that’s willing to take a case that’s going against the establishment. So, it is definitely a challenge, and you do have to work very hard. I was fortunate enough, about halfway through my process, my court cases, that I found an attorney that was willing to help me find a criminal defense attorney, because my criminal cases just dragged on forever. No convictions, by the way. No convictions. I have no criminal convictions. I did plead guilty to a speeding ticket, which I was speeding, so. It was a speed trap, and we can discuss speed traps and their efficacy at a later time.
Stephen Janis:
That is a whole show.
Shawn Foutch:
But, I think that’s pretty good for a person who’s been arrested at least a dozen times.
Stephen Janis:
Yeah.
Shawn Foutch:
Probably somewhere around 15 or 20. So, I’m very well-versed on how the discretion of an officer can turn your life around, and if I had stood up for my rights every time that they were about to violated or was violated, I would have been probably 30 or 40 times that I’ve been taken to jail. Because it truly does depend on the education level of the individual officer that you happen to be dealing with at the time.
Taya Graham:
Let me just ask you a very quick question, because someone in the chat asked this. Joe Deed, she said, “Can nothing be done to help Eric Brant?”
Stephen Janis:
Yeah, [inaudible 01:12:00] Eric Brant. Yeah.
Taya Graham:
If you can just give me a-
Taya Graham:
Eric Brandt.
Stephen Janis:
Yeah. I do want to bring up Eric Brandt.
Taya Graham:
If you can just give me…
Stephen Janis:
An update.
Taya Graham:
Just a quick update. Just for people who don’t know, Eric Brandt was an activist for the unhoused in Denver, Colorado. He was a First Amendment activist. He was known for some of his more impressive stunts. He would dress up in a Pikachu onesie or go to court wearing an American flag as a sarong.
Shawn Foutch:
Or spaghetti strainer.
Taya Graham:
Or spaghetti strainer on his head because his religion was Pastafarianism. He was a very creative person. But unfortunately, he was imprisoned for violent threats against judges. It was a matter of speech. The courts unfortunately decided that instead of just receiving three years for the threats, he would receive three years, three years, three years, three years consecutively, meaning a twelve-year sentence for speech. So just for people who didn’t know Eric Brandt’s story. In the chat was asked, how is Eric doing? Is there any update on his case?
Shawn Foutch:
So he’s still appealing some of the details of that case, and that of course takes a very long time. Usually, it takes just about as long as it does just to get out of jail on your own. They’re going to stick him for as long as possible, for sure. Other than that, he’s in good spirits. He’s currently in a leadership role and writing bylaws for the Committee of Inmates, so he never quit. He’s still very much an activist. He’s still helping people out just like he always has, just a little bit different now. Taking things a little bit slower.
Taya Graham:
Yeah. Well, thank you so much for sharing that.
Stephen Janis:
Yeah, thank you, Otto.
Taya Graham:
And for that update. I’m sure there are quite a few people in the chat who really appreciated that. And Otto, I just want to thank you for joining us and showing everyone that even if it’s a long fight, even if it’s a struggle, you can win it. And also giving us the good news. I mean, unfortunately that judge being terminated isn’t good news, but we shouldn’t be surprised that Otto was smack in the middle of it. So we just want to thank you again for your humor, for your activism for the First Amendment, and just in general being a good friend to us. So thank you, Otto.
Stephen Janis:
Yeah, thanks, Otto.
Shawn Foutch:
I appreciate you guys. I hope that everything works out well for you.
Taya Graham:
Thank you. Thank you so much.
Shawn Foutch:
Have a good night.
Stephen Janis:
Good night.
Taya Graham:
Good night. So just so for anyone who didn’t know, you might have seen it in the live chat, his YouTube channel is Otto The Watchdog, and you can find that on YouTube or Facebook.
Stephen Janis:
Absolutely. It’s one of my favorite channels.
Taya Graham:
Stephen, before I share my final thoughts, I wanted to refer back to the poll. I promised at the beginning we were going to take a look at our community post the poll and see what the results are to see how important copwatchers are to people. Well, look at that. Yes, copwatchers affect police behavior, a good effect, too, 73%. Yes, copwatchers affect police behavior with bad results, 7%. No, copwatchers have little to no effect on police behavior, 20%.
Stephen Janis:
Okay, I think that’s a resounding yes that copwatching is an important function, is an important part of the accountability process and an involving part of the journalism process. Several times we’ve talked about it being sort of a movement, right?
Taya Graham:
Yes.
Stephen Janis:
And we likened it, and you likened it in some of our shows to punk music because of the way it thwarts conventions. But as Otto was saying, it’s almost like each copwatcher is their own individual artist in some way, because Otto’s response to what he felt… And also, I think Otto showed that it’s deeper than just the idea of going out and watching a cop, because the first thing he did wasn’t to go out and put a camera on a police officer, but the first thing he did was to make a sign. A sign that expressed how he was feeling. And his expression of dismay with the current state of affairs turned out to attract police of all things.
And so I think that shows that there’s more to copwatching than just simply putting a cell phone on a police officer. Even when you’re talking about Eric Brandt, I mean, he was a prolific filer of lawsuits. He was a winner of many lawsuits, First Amendment lawsuits against a variety of Denver institutions. One time he actually won a lawsuit with the Colorado State Supreme Court because they had arrested him and charged him for trying to inform jurors of juror notification outside the courthouse in Denver. So copwatching, to call it just about copwatching, I think is something that we’ve talked about a lot. But you can see from Otto or from Chris Ryder, there’s a lot more going on.
And even when we’re talking about James Freeman, which I think is a really good example, we wrote a very extensive article about copwatching, about how people like James Freeman were taking it inside the courts and watching the court process. Because as they confronted police, they realized that the courts were basically the final arbiter on what would happen out in the streets. And so James has started covering a courthouse in New Mexico and they pushed back on him and tried to eject him from the courthouse or make it so that he could not go to the courthouse.
But that just shows you how adaptable this is, because I think James had realized that when we talked to him and we interviewed him on the show, that he had realized that if he didn’t go into the courtroom and there was just more problems with the judicial process itself than what was going out in the street, was actually where the real power was. And he adopted his methods to deal with that. So I think copwatchers in a way, and I know you were going to ask me this question and I jumped the gun. I am sorry.
Taya Graham:
That’s okay.
Stephen Janis:
But I think it’s reflective of there’s two things going on with it. Number one is there is dismay that we live in a society where people go broke when they get sick. And that you have a guy who can drive his truck and no fault of his own get into accident and they’ll take away his license. People put in jail out of retribution. So there’s that dismay that governance is not working and is not working for the people, but also an affirmation that it can be changed by the people. We can flip the script, reverse the roles, and it’s not all the power does not belong to the people who actually have it right now that we can in a great American tradition, subvert power. And I think that’s why I kind of…
Okay, I’m a journalist. I’m supposed to be, as you would call objective, but I kind of fall in love with cop watching in a lot of ways because it’s so creative. And I think that’s partly missing from journalism too, because journalism can be sort of administrative and institutional and can become bureaucratic in its own way. Though not at the Real News because we have a lot of creative people who do a lot of wonderful things.
But copwatchers invigorate me because I see people just adapting. They’re adapting to the technology of YouTube, James Freeman’s skits and Otto’s signs and Eric Brandt. I mean, some people love him, some people hate him. But Eric Brandt is singular. And from that perspective, I feel in a way that it is inspiring and they have taken the system that was foreign to them, and they have learned it better than the police and the people who are trying to thwart them. And that is significant. And that just shows that we’re a creative country. People gave us rights 225 years ago, and we’ve learned how to use them and use them against the people who don’t want us to have them. So that’s kind of how I feel about it.
Taya Graham:
I think you made, of course, excellent points. And I think one of the things that we see is that copwatchers first, they’re reshaping the narrative. They’re showing people that they have some power, they can take their power back. Secondly, when copwatchers go out into the world and they turn the camera on police and they’re changing the narrative, we know because we were reporting on it.
Stephen Janis:
We’re we the storytellers.
Taya Graham:
Ten years ago when someone had an incident where there was police brutality or police misconduct, the first thing they do would print someone’s mugshot in criminal record. Whether it was a traffic ticket 20 years previously, they would make sure that you would see the criminal history of the person to sort of invalidate any claims they might have that this police officer violated their constitutional rights. So it shows people reframing the narrative.
Stephen Janis:
I think it’s a good point.
Taya Graham:
I think it’s really inspiring.
Stephen Janis:
I mean, the greatest tool against a working class is the criminal code, right?
Taya Graham:
Absolutely.
Stephen Janis:
You can ensnare someone eventually in something, and we see it over and over again where people who are struggling or struggling with this sometimes oppressive economy that we have created are struggling, and police are right there to throw them right down the street and end it all. I can’t tell you how many stories we’ve had where people who were in precarious situations found not help from our government or help from society, but a cop sitting there at a stop sign ready to get them for rolling up too close or not putting their blinker on 150 feet before a turn. It is extraordinary. And I think it is exemplar of what’s wrong and why copwatchers exist at all. Because if government was doing their job and we lived in an equitable society, I don’t think they’d be necessary.
Taya Graham:
And I think copwatchers, and the good ones, because there are a few folks who let’s say don’t know the law.
Stephen Janis:
It’s not pretty.
Taya Graham:
Don’t know the law quite as well as they should. Of course, I won’t name any names. But in general, they’re really helping educate people. I mean, I learned from copwatchers that police officers in Baltimore actually don’t have the right to stop me and ask for my ID, and it was just de rigueur. That was just something I had to live with. And copwatchers really let me know. I could say, No, you don’t have the right to ask me for my papers.
Stephen Janis:
Well, and Abade Liberty Freak and Eric Brandt.
Taya Graham:
And I think Irizarry might be in the chat. So if you are Liberty Freak, great to see you.
Stephen Janis:
Well, Liberty Freak changed 10th circuit made it legal or made an established right, excuse me, and overcame qualified immunity to make an established right to film police, which is another… So we can’t even get into qualified immunity right now, but it was their work of filming police officer that made it possible for the 10th Circuit to say, yeah, that’s absurd. Of course, it’s an established right to be able to film police. So that’s copwatchers, that’s not us. Journalists, for example. This is the work of people who are just doing this completely on their own and with very little support.
Taya Graham:
It’s amazing. And the last thing I’ll say about it is copwatchers are learning something that I felt that we only knew as journalists, that the closer you get up to the system, the more you learn, the better you understand it, and the better you realize the power that people actually have to change it. A lot of times when you don’t see how governance works, when you don’t see how the criminal justice system works up close, it is completely mystified.
Stephen Janis:
That’s a good point.
Taya Graham:
It’s like you need a high priest to interpret what is happening in those courtrooms for you. So the further away you are from it, the further you feel like you can’t affect any change. That distance makes you feel disempowered.
Stephen Janis:
Or cynical.
Taya Graham:
Or cynical. But the closer you get, the more you understand that the levers of power are there for you to affect as well. So I think it speaks to political efficacy. It speaks to people getting their power back. And the closer we get to seeing how our government works, the more we can actually hold it accountable and have our government treat us and serve us the way it should. Okay. Last of our proselytizing on the benefits of copwatching, and before I beg you… Oh, by the way, Odin, who’s been talking about Norwegian police, how they’re educated, their lack of guns, I would want the next fundraiser for me to go and study the Norwegian police and do a comparison.
Stephen Janis:
Can we please do a fundraiser on that?
Taya Graham:
Between the Baltimore City police department and any Norwegian police department you choose. I would like to select that as my next report.
Stephen Janis:
We will do a full length documentary on Norwegian police if you send us there.
Taya Graham:
Oh my gosh, I can’t even imagine being given the opportunity to do something like that and to see a cop without a gun. My goodness. Okay, before we beg you for another match donation or Lacey shares my Patreon account again, I just want to share something with you heartfelt that I thought about, and hopefully in keeping with the season. It’s time for the final rant of the year, but it’s not really going to be a rant. Instead, I want to make a plea to all of us, for all of us. I want us to collectively decide that while law enforcement is flawed and sometimes destructive, our mutual work to fix it is a sign that there is still hope and many things to be thankful for.
I mean, if there is one lesson I could draw from this year of coverage is that despite all the injustice the people who appear on our show have suffered, they have one thing in common. They’re willing to step forward and fight back. And they do so even while having to face perhaps one of the worst moments of their lives. They stand up for themselves and their community at great risk. And what strikes me the most about this courage is how often I see it, even the midst of other problems in the lives of our guests. And what I mean is that mistreatment by law enforcement often comes at the most inopportune time. It seems that when a person is suffering through economic hard times and personal troubles, cops are always at the ready to make a bad problem even worse.
I cannot tell you how many stories I’ve recounted on this show of a person who is in a precarious financial situation or struggling with a family crisis and how this was made worse, much worse by the chaos of an ill-timed arrest or a problematic encounter with police. But what also astounds me again, is the people who I speak to, the people who take the time to tell me their stories despite suffering through this kind of stress, the regular citizens who in the face of police pushback and the general scorn of a society fixated on the elites, they fight to tell their stories.
And what I have learned from their words and their tales and their tears is a concept that I think we all forget, but is essential to the functioning of a healthy society that we all deserve redemption. A second chance. That a world without the possibility of redemption is inhumane. In other words, a world without the possibility of personal growth or evolution, without empathy, without room to acknowledge our common humanity and similarities is a world that can only be sustained by cruelty. So what I’m trying to say is that our guests who appear on our show, what they’re fighting for is more than just the hope that police will be transformed or changed.
What they’re fighting for is a better world for all of us. And what they’re struggling to build is a world where a person is not measured by charging documents or handcuffs or tinted windows or a false arrest, where law enforcement and the indiscriminate power of government does not define us, confine us, or proscribe how we live, where the people are empowered to shape our own lives and to build our communities as we see fit. And we are even free to make mistakes without continual and ongoing harassment. I know it’s a concept that is rarely raised in the context of law enforcement, but it’s a question we have to ask ourselves. And it’s also a debate that I think is at the heart of our show and speaks to the core beliefs of the people who appear on it. I know that there are people, no matter what you do and how to try to help, they will continue to wreak havoc on the lives of others.
And I understand that the world contains evil that must be subdued, and we must protect ourselves from this destructive force. But you can’t build a community based solely on cynicism. I mean, you can’t improve the lives of the people by just embracing the worst of us or expecting the worst of us, policing by the exception, not the rule. In other words, you can’t construct a society around managing the most destructive human impulses. And worse yet, you can institutionalize that type of mentality by creating a law enforcement industrial complex that monetizes the lack of faith that we have, meaning the lack of faith that we are all worthy.
So I think what I’m trying to say here is something that I have learned in my own life, and that is if cruelty is your currency, all you will purchase is sorrow. If you expect the worst, you imprison your own mind in a world of low expectations. And if you build a world replete with fines and fees and cages and cuffs, it’s going to be your own imagination that will be locked away in a cell, permanently inhibited by your obsession with retribution. And so that is why I’m so inspired week after week by the people who take the time to appear on our show. It’s why I post a comment of the week and try to answer all of your thoughts and perspectives. It’s why I look forward to each and every live chat to join in a discussion about what needs to be done, not just to improve policing and improve public safety but to improve our lives in general. And it’s why I have learned so much from all of you. Yes, all of you, the people who watch us.
And that is the amazing thing about constructing a community as you have with us, premised on the idea that we are worthy of better. It’s honestly kind of a miracle, and it’s a testament to what people from all over the country, from big cities to small towns, from east coast to west, from middle America to deep south can do when we organize ourselves around the simple premise that we can and should expect better. That idea motivates me every week, and it’s what keeps me going day in and day out when I watch sometimes very brutal videos of police malfeasance. And it keeps me responding to your emails and investigating your stories, and it motivates me to call police departments and records clerks and prosecutors and community liaisons and to demand answers. It is the reason I do what I do.
So today or tonight rather, I want to thank you. I want to thank all of you for making me believe that with enough fighting for positive change, we can make a difference. And I want to thank you for sustaining me and Stephen as we fight for the truth, for giving me hope and for encouraging me to continue to report and not give up. You all do that every day in the comments. You and your hope for a better and fairer world is what keeps us going. It’s your collective demand that police and our government be better, that helps make us better as well. So thank you from my heart. I want to thank you first and I want to let you know I appreciate and cherish your support. And I want you to understand that our audience is why we are here. And it is you, our audience that will keep us going.
So hopefully we can all fashion a world where the police accountability report is no longer needed. And believe it or not, we would be happy to never ever have to report on police brutality or corruption again. We would love to see the day when there simply isn’t any to report on. I would be the happiest unemployed person ever. This is the time of year for redemption and second chances and to remember we’re deserving of something better for our government, but we’re going to have to work for it. I want to thank my guests, Chris Ryder of For Public Safety and his wife Tiffany of Official Misconduct for letting us borrow him. And perhaps next time I will speak to her for the ladies’ nights. And of course, I have to thank Otto The Watchdog for his time, his incredible energy, and his ability to make even a depressing topic like police overreach somehow never lose its humor. Thank you Otto.
And I have to thank amazing mods of the show and my dear friend, Noli D. Hi, Noli D. And my mod and new friend, Lacey R. Thank you both for being here and for your help tonight. And now I’m going to wish you all good. Well to all and to all a good night, but especially my amazing Patreon who I promised earlier that I would personally thank. Patreons who sign up for accountability reports get some extra perks, and one of them is my personal and heartfelt thank you and being mentioned in the PR shows. So please indulge me as I do my best to thank each and every one of your beautiful Patreons. And I only say your first name and the last letter because I don’t want to accidentally release any private information.
Lucida G, my PR Associate Producer, John E.R., PR Associate Producer, Matter of Rights, my super friend, Kenneth Lawrence K, my super friend, my other super friend, Pineapple Girl. And my official Patreons, Michael W, Marvin G, Nope, Zira M, XXX, Dante K Small, Rod B, Celeste DS, P.T., Tamera A, Friends of Par Like Liz S, Gary T, Ronald H, Marcia E, Bill D, Nin Nin N, David W, Regina O, Hodes, Frank FK, Mary M, Dean C, Shannon P, Cameron J, Farmer Jane USA, Daniel W, Stephen B, Keith, Bernard M, Mark, William L, Guy B, Alan J, Trey P, John P, Ryan, Lacey R, Andrea J.O., RBMH, Stephen J, Artemis L.A., and David B. And since it’s the season, goodwill to all and to all a goodnight. And as always, please be safe out there. Thanks for joining us.
