Tuesday, August 5, 2008

Pre-Crime and Pre-emptive Civilian Disarmament

Why wait for a crime? Raiders from the Department of Pre-Crime in the film Minority Report carry out a pre-emptive strike in the name of public order.

No portents of violent tragedy were apparent when Matthew Beck arrived for work at the Connecticut Lottery Corporation the morning of March 7, 1998. But barely an hour would elapse before an eruption of criminal violence would take five lives and imperil the rights of thousands

Beck, a 35-year-old accountant, had become disenchanted with his job at the Corporation, which -- like its counterparts in other states -- is a government-run agency in the business of wheedling revenue from the mathematically impaired.

Over the months leading up to that deadly morning, Beck had applied for a promotion, only to have it turned down.
A few months earlier Beck had been given a leave of absence for stress-related medical reasons.

His office-mates knew he was a troubled employee. They didn't expect, however, that he could simply show up for work at the Hartford office one morning, take out a Glock, and start gunning down his supervisors. But that's precisely what he did, killing four and sending others
scurrying, terrified, into a nearby bosque.

The mass murder then ended, as such episodes almost always do, on the gunman's initiative, rather than that of the police: His victims being dead, Beck took his own life.
The security guard on scene did nothing to interdict the massacre; his only role was to urge would-be victims to seek safety in the woods.

The police, as they generally do, arrived just in time to see the assailant kill himself. In a moment of genuine heroism, Otho Brown, 54, the Lottery president, drew Beck's fire away from the others by leading the younger, fitter attacker on a brief chase before stumbling and being shot.

Beck's parents and close friends (
one of whom clearly anticipated a violent eruption of some sort) reported that the young man suffered from suicidal depression. On at least one occasion prior to the massacre, police had been called to his apartment. But he had no criminal record and did have a valid gun permit.

Within a few months, advocates of civilian disarmament, working their familiar cynical alchemy, transmuted the Connecticut Lottery tragedy into totalitarian policy: With the help of State Representative Michael Lawlor (now chairman of the Connecticut Legislature's Judiciary Committee), they enacted the nation's first preemptive gun seizure act. Under that "law," the police can confiscate firearms from their lawful owners
before a crime is committed.

"The value of this law is not so much that police will seize your guns," Lawlor explained when the measure went into effect in October 1999. "It gives police a system to investigate a person who poses a threat. If the police never confiscate a person's guns, they can at least look into the person's behavior and perhaps prevent a tragedy by intervening."

A recent wire service story celebrating the tenth anniversary of Connecticut's preemptive civilian disarmament measure reports that since it went into effect, "State police and 53 police departments have seized more than 1,700 guns.... Opponents of [that] gun seizure law expressed fears in 1999 that police would abuse the law. Today, the law's backers say the record shows that hasn't been the case."

To the contrary: The record, as described above, shows that there have been at least 1,700 incidents of abuse that grew out of that enactment. Each confiscation is an act of state theft perpetrated against someone who is innocent before the law.

Raising his hand to the square and lying through his teeth: Unless he's swearing allegiance to the Soviet Constitution and Penal Code, Connecticut legislator Michael Lawlor has no business taking an oath of any kind.

Lawlor, a former state prosecutor (color me unsurprised), is a standard-issue statist Democrat carved out from the familiar collectivist cookie cutter. I do find it of more than passing interest that he earned a Master's Degree from the University of London in Soviet-Area Studies, given that his perspective on the role of the law is close kindred to that of Lenin and Vyshinsky (the latter being the patron saint -- or the demonic analogue -- of public prosecutors).

When Connecticut's law went into effect nearly a decade ago, Lawlor pointed to the case of neo-Nazi cretin Benjamin Smith, who killed two and wounded nine in a two-state shooting spree, as the sort of person who would be disarmed under his measure.

According to Lawlor (as paraphrased in
a 1999 wire service story), "Smith's criminal record and reputation for passing out hate literature" would offer adequate probable cause to justify a preemptive gun seizure. Of course, this assumes that law enforcement agencies would be in charge of determining what constitutes "hate" literature, and who is responsible for disseminating the same.

What Lawlor clearly had in mind (as
I noted at the time) was Soviet-style political profiling and disarmament of specific kinds of people -- those deemed by the State to be "socially dangerous persons." This was the assumption embodied in Article 58 of the Soviet penal code, which specified (as pointed out in the authoritative scholarly study The Black Book of Communism) that the State "may use these measures of social protection to deal with anyone classified as a danger to society, either for a specific crime that has been committed or when, even if exonerated of a particular crime, the person is still reckoned to pose a threat to society." Lawlor's gun seizure measure was intended to be the first of many of its kind.

While thus far it remains unique among state laws, it is philosophically of a piece with many proto-totalitarian policies enacted as part of the "war on terror" and the "war on drugs."

The Connecticut gun seizure measure is obviously a sibling of civil asset forfeiture measures that permit police to steal money and property from people not convicted of a crime. And by permitting authorities to impose summary punishment on "dangerous" but legally innocent people without due process of law, the measure resembles one aspect of the Military Commissions Act (more appropriately called the Final Nail in the Coffin of the Republic Act). That act -- as we've
recently been reminded -- permits the government to imprison for life people acquitted of terrorism charges if they somehow avoid conviction in a proceeding that is unapologetically rigged in favor of the prosecution.

If those who rule us possess such oracular insight regarding crimes yet to be committed, and can exercise the power to abort those crimes while they're still gestating within the souls of lesser people, we should dispense outright with trials and the entire architecture of due process. The State should simply identify, expropriate, imprison, and if necessary liquidate "socially dangerous" people wherever they are found. And that, once again, is exactly what Lenin and his followers attempted.

This isn't to suggest that Lawlor and his like are stringing up the barbed wire and readying to round up political dissidents. It's to point out that the legal principles they're following would make an American gulag inevitable.

Ironically, it is quite simple to identify those who genuinely deserve to be designated "socially dangerous persons"; just look for those who wear State-issued costumes and expect the rest of us to obey their every whim. Significantly, Matthew Beck -- although he didn't wear a paramilitary costume -- was a government employee himself (and before working for the Connecticut Lottery, Beck worked for the world's most loathsome official criminal syndicate, the Internal Revenue Service).

Like every civilian disarmament measure, Connecticut's gun seizure program enhances the power of the single deadliest cohort in any society: Those who exercise lethal force on behalf of the state. In the months immediately prior to enactment of the gun seizure bill, unnecessary lethal shootings by police agencies in Connecticut had drawn international attention.

As is the case elsewhere, Connecticut has its share of police officers who are implicated in various kinds of abuse and criminal behavior, both felonious and petty. But usually the most acute danger is that posed by good -- or not-so-good -- police carrying out official duties, rather than bad cops pursuing private corruption. This is illustrated, ironically enough, by the case of a street homicide carried out by a cop who shares Rep. Lawlor's surname, and who was carrying out a policy connected to Lawlor's seizure law.

In May 2005, Officer Robert Lawlor was partnered up with Special Agent Daniel Prather of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. The pair was part of a federal task force called the Violent Crime Impact Team (VCIT), with Lawlor temporarily deputized as a federal agent.

Their assignment was to prowl the streets of Hartford in search of guns to confiscate.
On the evening of May 7, Lawlor and Prather were harassing somebody on the streets when the former spied a black Maxima with a young black male sitting in the passenger seat.

Beckoning Prather to come with him, Lawlor crossed the street, flashed his costume jewelry, and ordered the driver, a young man named Brandon Henry, to stop the car and keep his hands in plain sight.
Prather backed Lawlor's play, only to be startled a few seconds later when five shots rang out, and then Henry, in a panic, pulled away in the car. About a half-mile later, as Prather and Lawlor called for backup, Henry plowed into another car before dashing out and fleeing on foot, leaving a trail of blood.

According to Lawlor, Henry "tried to hit me and pulled a gun on me."Henry, though shot in the chest, survived. His passenger, 18-year-old Jashon Bryant, died at a nearby hospital.
Although a trivial quantity of cocaine was found in the car, a gun never turned up.

Testifying under oath later, Prather reported that he never saw a gun. An
official investigation by the State Division of Criminal Justice later verified that neither Henry nor Bryant had a gun, and concluded that "the use of deadly physical force was not appropriate" -- which is to say, it was an act of unmitigated murder.

While in the hospital recovering from Officer Lawlor's assault, Henry expressed disbelief that he could be shot and nearly killed over a small quantity of drugs. That fact may hint at a bigger story.
Prior to being tapped for the VCIT task force, Officer Lawlor -- whose exaggerated sense of self-importance is captured in his self-assigned nickname, "Robocop" -- was part of a street crime unit found to be illegally in possession of a large quantity of narcotics.

The Feds were willing to deputize Lawlor for VCIT despite his pungent, persistent aroma of corruption.
Some sense of how Officer Lawlor did business as a street cop is provided by the use he found for drug dealer Jaime Diaz, one of his "confidential informants," following the shooting of Henry and Bryant.

About a week after the incident, Diaz called the Hartford Police to report that he had the gun Lawlor had allegedly seen in Henry's car. He dictated a detailed statement to police in which he described how he supposedly came into possession of the weapon. He also insisted that he didn't know Lawlor or Prather.
Two weeks later, Diaz contacted the Police again to retract his statement, admitting that he had invented the story in order to repay Officer Lawlor for refusing to arrest him ten years earlier.

Robert Lawlor is still awaiting trial. Following his indictment, he received a kind of police attention few other murder suspects would expect.
In July 2006, after the State Division of Criminal Justice published its findings, Lawlor was "confronted" outside the Hartford Superior Court by Jashon Bryant's family; that is to say, he was treated to a small dose of well-deserved heckling and verbal abuse.

Cowering behind the "Wall of Blue": Robert Lawlor, the killer of Jashon Bryant, takes refuge from the verbal "attacks" of his victim's family.

The following week, when Lawlor returned for a second pre-trial hearing, "The entrance to the [courthouse] was lined with blue,"
reported the local NBC affiliate, WTNH. "State and local police in uniform were there to guard Officer Lawlor from friends and family of the man he's accused of killing...."

If Connecticut were serious about disarming those who threaten the innocent, taking the guns away from the officers who were willing to stand in professional solidarity with Robert Lawlor would have been a good start.

On sale now!

Dum spiro, pugno!


Anonymous said...

Will wrote:

"I do find it of more than passing interest that he earned a Master's Degree from the University of London in Soviet-Area Studies"

Not too surprising when one, which I am sure you are, has actually read the 'ten planks' of the communist manifesto. We have implemented them all. Bureaurats are more closely bound to them than to constitutional principles.

For myself, I do find it interesting that my journey to being an anarchist advocate started with the gun control issue (raised by a dem single parent dad, later swayed by Ronnie 'Ray Gun' much to Dad's disapproval, then libertarian, now none of the above and nearly at the half century mark I am proudly an anarchist as gov't is unredeemable).

Sic Semper Tyrannis

teacher.paris said...

U.S. federal agents have been given new powers to seize travelers' laptops and other electronic devices at the border and hold them for unspecified periods the Washington Post reported on Friday.

Under recently disclosed Department of Homeland Security policies, such seizures may be carried out without suspicion of wrongdoing, the newspaper said, quoting policies issued on July 16 by two DHS agencies.

Agents are empowered to share the contents of seized computers with other agencies and private entities for data decryption and other reasons, the newspaper said.

Anonymous said...

"Officer Lawlor -- whose exaggerated sense of self-importance is captured in his self-assigned nickname, "Robocop" -- was part of a street crime unit found to be illegally in possession of a large quantity of narcotics."
They're everywhere. I know a Federal Marshall, lives in my very rural area, he used to attend the local township trustee meetings with his holstered gun sitting on his thigh. He had a life-size figure of John Wayne in his office downtown (capital city of a midwest state) and he tried to get elected Sheriff of the rural county in which I live. Couldn't do that so got himself appointed to a board that dictates to others what they can do with their own property. Sent his goon squads to the homes of innocent housewives to terrorize them because they were acquaintances of a woman whose husband he was hunting down. Over a tax matter.

liberranter said...

U.S. federal agents have been given new powers to seize travelers' laptops and other electronic devices at the border and hold them for unspecified periods the Washington Post reported on Friday.

As I've warned my family and friends, now is the time for all computer owners to encrypt their hard drives with applications such as TrueCrypt(TM), SafeBoot(TM), or other commercially available disk encryption tools. While I'm not sure whether or not any of these tools contains a "back door" allowing the feds to bypass the encryption keys or passwords, the use of whole-disk encryption makes it that much harder for leviathan's thug-thieves to steal your personal data.

Anonymous said...

Probably the largest ongoing nationwide gun seizure program is in connection with domestic violence proceedings. Thanks to the unconstitutional Lautenberg amendment of 1994, conviction on a misdemeanor domestic violence charge -- without even a jury trial -- strips your Second Amendment rights for life.

In New Jersey (which elected Senator Lautenberg), even after a domestic violence acquittal (rare, with a conviction rate of about 99%) or (more often) dropped charges, the prosecution's policy is to move for suspension of weapons privileges. The practical result is that you have to pay $1,500 for a lawyer, and $1,500 for a court-appointed psychiatrist to administer a battery of tests to determine whether you're harboring rage or aggression. In other words, you are assumed guilty, and must prove your innocence.

An appalling scene which sticks in my memory involved a man in the aftermath of a divorce case. He was a gun collector and target shooter. Although his guns played absolutely no role in what had transpired between them, his wife vindictively claimed that he was dangerous, so that she could punish him by forever disqualifying him from his beloved avocation.

The man's lawyer presented his client's blameless criminal record, and the anodyne conclusions of the psychological test. Finally, he invoked the Second Amendment on his client's behalf. The judge stared in disbelief. Titters broke out in the courtroom.

"The Second Amendment? What do think this is -- DODGE CITY?!" This quip from the bench brought the house down.

As you can imagine, sitting in that Hackensack courtroom, listening to the U.S. Constitution being openly mocked from the bench, pretty much permanently dispelled some treasured illusions I had held until that time.

No wonder there used to be a sign on the Pennsylvania side of one of the Delaware River crossings, saying "America Starts here." But even on the "American" side of the Delaware, I wouldn't put too much stock in a funky old piece of parchment that judges laugh at. There are better ways to protect yourself.

liberranter said...

No wonder there used to be a sign on the Pennsylvania side of one of the Delaware River crossings, saying "America Starts here."

Or should that have read "Amerika?" If so, PA has some fierce competition for that "honor" from all of the other 49 puppet vassals of Washington, D.C.

Will Blalock said...

It's been said that there's "no
accounting for taste," but that
was before the science of police
profiling was created.

Laughing in an airport screening
line can get you arrested and now
bawling out your boss can get your
home invaded.

Remember the henhouse rules:
eyes front, head down, stay in
line and always peck to the left.

Anonymous said...

Keep pouring on the heat. The rise of the police state is the most pressing threat facing this nation right now. Good work. Keep the exposes coming.

got fascism said...

Doh! making the state into ubernanny has blown up in our faces and I was hoping the state could solve every problem keep me safe and comfortable since everything "the state" touches turns into brown err gold. I signed over my rights and agreed to drug testing hoping they would keep me safe and secure from those hairy hungry hippie dopesmoker cretins, now they want more damn bullies always want more don't they. A story out of Baltimore is interesting. A 32lb package of marijuana was delivered to the home of the mayor addressed to his wife. Eager beaver cops were of course behind the whole affair keeping us safe from the evil green menace that is *gasp!* marijuana. Drug task force knuckle draggers busted in with no announcement of warrant and shot down 2 dogs. Now the press has got a hold of it and civil liberties groups. Would they care if it was a single black man whose home was raided >?<

MoT said...

Will, I was just reminded, while looking at that picture taken from Minority Report, that the government, at least as portrayed in the film, had no misgivings in using and abusing the child by-products of drugs gone bad in their zealous pursuit of "safety". They would keep these kids in a near vegetative state in order to divine the future. They would even be willing to expose them to a nation wide psychic bombardment just to get their way. So i suppose child abuse isn't bad if the state is diddling you. What happens when they die or burn out? Do they "create" replacements? They'd have to because, and through PR, the public had spoken and given them a "mandate". Hmmmmmm. Which begs an even deeper question. Why does the public not even point out the hypocrisy? Because it too is willing to use someone, anyone, to get what it wants.

Anonymous said...

Are random police checkpoints around town compatible with a free society?


Can you say 'papers please?'

Who is really serving whom?

The Stark Raving Viking said...

I believe Michael Lawlor is a lying lawyer and should be voted out of the Connecticut Judiciary Committee and out of elected office.

[click here] for my thoughts on Michael Lawlor calling him a liar in an email to him.

And, on the "Teflon Badge" Robert Lawlor [here]