It’s not clear when exactly it happens. Some of my younger buddies on twitter and in the blawgosphere tell me that a lawyer is “pretty good” because they’ve become friends with them, followed their twits, read their posts, and, well, like them.  Maybe it’s age 40? 50?

As the sage curmudgeon, Mark Herrmann writes at Above the Law, there comes a point when the glass is no longer half full.

I don’t live in Lake Wobegon.

I live in Lake WoeIsMe: All of the children are a little below average.

Or maybe I just have a bad attitude.

I’ll be frank: If I just met you, I assume that you’re inept. Not because you necessarily are inept, but because I’ve been blindsided too often in the past by the mistakes of people who I foolishly believed to be competent. That ain’t gonna happen again.

I live next door to Mark. The other day, a lawyer asked me for some advice on where to take his practice. We spoke on the phone for a while, during which I asked a bunch of questions about where his practice was and how he got there. It did nothing to answer his questions, but then, it wasn’t my purpose. Before discussing where he wanted to go, I needed to know who he was, how he thought, what his motivations were. I could not simply assume he was a great young lawyer who had a clear understanding of his purpose.  As it turned out, his answers made it clear to me that this was a lawyer with a great future, and someone I wanted to help.  But I didn’t take it for granted.

As I’ve written before, I don’t assume that you’re inept because I know that you’re inept. When we first meet, I don’t know you at all. Rather, I assume that you’re inept because you’re haunted by the ghosts of incompetents past, whose memories stick in my craw. I don’t have to hedge against you being good; that would be a welcome surprise. I have to hedge against you being bad; that would ruin my life (as has happened too often in years gone by).

Nearly every young lawyer attributes fabulous skills to herself.  Just ask and they’ll tell you how awesome they are.  When you question their self-assessment, they get angry. Old jerk. Douche. Mean curmudgeon. It’s understandable, as no one has ever doubted their awesomeness before, and every young lawyer knows how stupid and incompetent old lawyers are.

But Herrmann’s message isn’t that you aren’t a great lawyer; it’s that old lawyers have been burned by self-proclaimed geniuses too many times to assume it’s true. We don’t take it for granted with each other. We don’t take it for granted with new lawyers. We assume the worst. Horrible.

When confronted by a young lawyer whose skills are unproven, and whose reaction to my questioning their abilities and work ethic is to inform me how much better she is than all those miserable, lazy, incompetent old lawyers she’s seen, I pose a question: If inexperienced lawyers are so smart and hardworking, far more so than old lawyers, how does it happen that the young lawyer grows so much stupider and lazier after a decade or two of experience?  They hate this question. 

The guy (or gal) who I’ve worked with before and who has proven (as opposed to asserted) that he’s a fine lawyer. Assertions don’t mean anything; the proof is in the summary judgment papers.

If I don’t know the right lawyer for a matter, then I locate someone who’s proven himself to be competent, and I ask that person for a recommendation. It’s true this makes me nervous, but it’s far better than the alternative of trusting some unknown clown who tells me that he thinks he’s a good lawyer.

Curmudgeons call people “guys” and “gals.” It’s not sexist, just the language we were raised with.  But some old lawyers, this one included, has no plans to refer a case to anyone I know from twitter. I take referrals seriously, and won’t send a human being to a lawyer I assume to be inept. So your twits are cute? Informative? Cool?  That’s wonderful, but it doesn’t make you a good lawyer. 

This isn’t a slap in the face to new lawyers. I know it feels that way, but it’s really not. You haven’t suffered the experience of the screw-up that should never happen, the simplest of things that can never go wrong going wrong.  Stick around for a while and you will. When you look into the eyes of a client and offer solace by saying “I thought she knew what she was doing,” there will be no comfort taken. The rest of the world won’t be as forgiving of your mistakes as you are.  The rest of world doesn’t really care about you. Just like you, people really only care about themselves.

And so the glass will be half-full, and you will be inept, and something will go wrong, and curmudgeons expect it, anticipate it, and do everything in their power to stop it from happening.  This means we nudge you, tell you stuff that you think is obvious and make you feel as if we’re treating you like some monumentally dumb fool.  “You don’t trust me?” you say. No. I don’t. I can’t afford to trust you, and I have no intention of letting things go south and then, after the mistake that can never happen happens, have to clean up your mess.

Does this happen to a person at age 40? It’s hard to say, but it comes with the experience of having seen too much go wrong to assume that things will go right.  The sooner this realization happens, however, the sooner you can be trusted. Once you recognize that Reagan was right about one thing, hope for the best but prepare for the worst, you have half a chance of getting things done right.

Until then, when you’re still filled with your awesomeness, you can’t be trusted and curmudgeons, like me, will assume the worst.

In his State of the Judiciary message, New York Court of Appeals Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman announced a proposal to overhaul New York’s bail scheme, long castigated for keeping poor defendants charged with trivial offenses in jail for the inability to make bail. 

The current bail structure has pushed defendants to agree to guilty pleas to nonincarceratory sentences as a quicker way to get out of jail than fighting the charges.  Better to be guilty and free than innocent and in jail for the year or more that it takes to win. From the New York Law Journal :

“Our overriding goal must be to ensure that pretrial detention is reserved only for those defendants who cannot safely be released or who cannot be relied upon to return to court—and to do all we can to eliminate the risk that New Yorkers are incarcerated simply because they lack the financial means to make bail,” Lippman said.

But as so often happens with any proposed “correction” to criminal law, one hand giveth and the other taketh away.  The takeaway here, unfortunately, is huge.

The chief judge urged passage of an amendment to the bail statute that would allow judges to consider the risk that defendants will commit additional offenses while awaiting trial in addition to the risk that they will not appear in court.

The current bail statute, Criminal Procedure Law §510.30(2)(a), only permits judges to consider whether bail is needed and sufficient to secure a defendant’s return to court.  The new proposal authorizes judges to enjoy psychic powers, seeing into the future to divine whether a defendant will commit crimes while out. 

On the plus side, the chief judge proposes a presumption that nonviolent defendants be released:

At the same time, he called for the creation of a statutory presumption to make clear that where defendants are charged with non-violent offenses they will be released pretrial with the least restrictive requirements possible unless prosecutors demonstrate they poses a legitimate risk to public safety or of flight.

While a statutory presumption is a step forward, the caveat sucks much of the wind out of its sails. While it’s unclear what showing would be needed to overcome the presumption, it’s fairly easy to imagine that most low-level defendants have a rap sheet in the land of Stop-and-Frisk that will make it easy to show a persistent life of crime, petty though it may be. 

Aside from the problem of more than a few judges lacking the mystical power to do so, for a great many of the same defendants now held inappropriately, who are drug addicts held on possession, the answer is almost invariably going to be that they are extremely like to go out and buy more drugs. They’re addicts. What else are they going to do?  And thus, the new criterion suggests that they be subject to bail again. Problem solved.

The impetus for these changes appear to be the elimination of bail bondsmen, who Lippman sees as a blight on the system.

Critics of the current system complain that it effectively keeps poor people accused of low-level, non-violent offenses in jail because they cannot get bonds for relatively small amounts, such as $1,000 or $2,000. It is unprofitable for bondsmen to deal with such clients, said Steven Banks, attorney-in-chief of the Legal Aid Society.

In his address, Lippman said his reforms would lessen the reliance of the criminal justice system on a bail bond industry that exercises “enormous influence over who is released pending trial and who stays in jail” with “precious little public accountability.”

While the point about bail bondsmen is well taken, the focus seems misdirected. The concern ought to be the defendants held on $1,000 bail rather than the bondsmen who won’t bail them out.  Poor defendants are often considered poor risks, given a lack of sufficient community ties, unstable residences, unemployment, few family ties. 

Even when charged with low-level nonviolent offenses, bail is commonly set at $500 or $1,000, far more money than they can possibly make. Why? These aren’t hardened criminals determined to flee justice, but just poor. The solution has always been at hand, to stop knee-jerk setting bail without any real basis to believe they’re going to abscond. If they can’t make $1,000 bail, chances are they won’t flee to a Caribbean paradise to avoid the consequences of public urination.

Notably missing from CJ Lippman’s explanation is a concern that these same defendants happily plead guilty just to get out.  When faced with $500 bail, which they can’t make, and three days community service and they’re free in minutes, opting for the latter is a no-brainer. Far better to avoid a year in jail awaiting trial than to take a trivial hit. Guilt or innocence? That’s only a concern for people who can afford such luxuries.

And after a plea of convenience or two, the same defendant who would otherwise be subject to the presumption of release now falls into the recidivist category, where the arraignment assistant holds up the rap sheet to demonstrate his risk of committing additional offense. We’re right back to where we started.

One of the pieces of the system that’s too often ignored is that complaints about the current state of affairs doesn’t necessarily mean change will be better. While this proposal certainly means change, particularly by adding a previously unavailable consideration as a reason to impose bail (no doubt as a hat tip to the constant public fear for safety) that will make reasonable bail increasingly more difficult for any defendant charged with a violent crime, and thus a potential threat to community safety, it doesn’t necessarily mean change for the better.

While there is no doubt that something needs to be done about dubiously-needed bail set for the poor that coerces guilty pleas, the problem isn’t evil bail bondsmen and the solution has nothing to do with their elimination.  Judges have always had the ability, indeed the obligation, to set reasonable bail or release, and the answer lies with the use of that authority to stop punishing the poor to keep the wheels of justice grinding. 

As for the new community safety prong, that’s a disaster waiting to happen, where pseudo-omniscient judges and prosecutors will enjoy untestable magical skills to see into the future, making challenges to crimes that have yet to happen impossible to sustain. 

So we have change. It’s just not good change. In fact, it’s likely to be pretty bad change. Happy now?

Ever get that run down feeling?  You know, the one where a police car going very fast without its lights or sirens on runs you down.  It’s happening with some frequency in Wichita, Kansas lately, and apparently the locals aren’t entirely thrilled about it.

Since 2007, three people in Wichita have been killed in accidents with officers who were allegedly speeding and did not have their lights and sirens on. The city has paid out $500,000 to settle two lawsuits. A third lawsuit, filed in December, is pending.

Two attorneys representing families of the people killed and one attorney defending one of the officers involved say the department needs to recognize that officers speed and change its policy to allow officers to use lights and sirens more often to warn other motorists.“Why can’t we just acknowledge that there’s a tendency to speed … sometimes a tendency to speed greatly, because they’re out there doing a service?” asked Wichita lawyer Craig Shultz, who represented the family of a person killed in 2007.

In reality, they speed.

“We know that officers speed, we don’t like it, and we will aggressively pursue officers that are speeding,” said Lt. Doug Nolte, a department spokesman.

The department limits the use of lights and sirens because it can distract motorists and officers and cause accidents, Nolte said. Lights and sirens aren’t always effective because sometimes motorists don’t see, hear or heed the equipment, he said.

The department wants the public to report officers who are speeding without lights and sirens or driving unsafely, he said.

There are so many ways in which the Department could address the problem, whether from a policy against their officers speeding with a sufficient sanction in place to make it in the cop’s interest to slow down, to technological solutions such as GPS or “snapshot” type registers of speed and equipment usage. But instead of doing what they can on their end, they’ve chosen the pacify the public solution of telling people they should report cops to cops for speeding.

At least they will have a good laugh about it back at the stationhouse, but the problem remains that cops speed:

One of the root problems is that “police routinely speed,” said Geoffrey Alpert, a University of South Carolina professor of criminology who has studied traffic issues for 20 years. In a world where police don’t get ticketed by fellow officers when they break traffic laws while off-duty, it gives officers a “sense of impunity,” Alpert said.

Apparently, they have a GPS system in place to monitor police driving already:

A lot of departments have GPS capability to check speeds of their patrol cars. “It’s a problem that needs to be monitored,” he said.

The Wichita Police Department uses a countywide system that allows supervisors to check patrol car speeds and officers’ driving, and some officers have been disciplined as a result, Nolte said.

What apparently isn’t happening, despite the systems and alleged discipline is that the root problem of police culture, that they can break the law with impunity, has not changed.  So what if they run down a few people from time to time. Them’s the breaks.

There are certain risks inherent in police work, which many refuse to accept and most don’t like one bit. But as police perform their function, they are entitled to be defensive rather than allow themselves to be put at risk of harm.  As much as people fear the police entering a location where a potentially dangerous suspect may be with their guns drawn, and as experience dictates they should, there is a sound reason for permitting them to do so, and we can only hope they have the training and experience not to pull the trigger first and determine who they’re shooting at second.

But there is no excuse for running people down.  Much as cops consider the right to speed a perk of the job, killing people for the sake of your convenience is just plain stupid and sick.  That Wichita shifts the duty to the public, as if there is any chance of that changing things, is foolish and reflects a lack of concern and respect for their citizens. 

If they want to stop improper speeding by cops, just do it. This is public pacification, which will last only until they run down the next person.

H/T FritzMuffKnuckle

NBC has obtained a  New York Times :

Obama administration lawyers have asserted that it would be lawful to kill a United States citizen if “an informed, high-level official” of the government decided that the target was a ranking figure in Al Qaeda who posed “an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States” and if his capture was not feasible.

It adopts an elastic definition of an “imminent” threat, saying it is not necessary for a specific attack to be in process when a target is found if the target is generally engaged in terrorist activities aimed at the United States. And it asserts that courts should not play a role in reviewing or restraining such decisions.

The white paper states that “judicial enforcement of such orders would require the court to supervise inherently predictive judgments by the president and his national security advisers as to when and how to use force against a member of an enemy force against which Congress has authorized the use of force.”

Targeting a member of an enemy force who poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States is not unlawful. It is a lawful act of national self defense.

Were the target of a lethal operation a U.S. citizen who may have rights under the Due Process Clause and the Fourth Amendment, that individual’s citizenship would not immunize him from a lethaI operation. Under the traditional due process balancing analysis of Mathews v. Eldridge, we recognize that there is no private interest more weighty than a person’s interest in his life. But that interest must be balanced against the United States’ interest in forestalling the threat of violence and death to other Americans that arises from an individual who is a senior operational leader of al-Q’aida or an associated force of al-Q’aida and who is engaged in plotting against the United States.

Hina Shamsi, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s National Security Project, called the paper “a profoundly disturbing document,” and said: “It’s hard to believe that it was produced in a democracy built on a system of checks and balances. It summarizes in cold legal terms a stunning overreach of executive authority — the claimed power to declare Americans a threat and kill them far from a recognized battlefield and without any judicial involvement.”

Old school American philosophy was that necessity is the mother of invention, which explains why Zappa’s admonition about yellow snow remains true to this very day.  Yet, at the Legal Whiteboard, Bill Henderson subscribes to a very different philosophy.  Perhaps this is due to ornithological challenge, as he mistakes vultures for blue jays.

Bill posts a big picture of the list of exhibitors at Legal Tech New York:

It’s a long list. A very long list, which is a testament to the great number of enterprises ALM’s Sheila Brennan was able to get to pony up the exhibitor fee. She is good, far better than ALM deserves, but I digress.

From this very long list, Bill concludes:

There was a lot of money sloshing around this trade show.  What do these companies sell?  How do they make money?  Who are their clients? Who founded these companies and who financed their growth? Are lawyer-employees a key part of their business models?  These are the questions I am asking.
If you think that the ethics rules (MR 5.4) are keeping nonlawyers out the legal industry, you need to come to LegalTech.

I’m here to help, Bill. The long list doesn’t so much reflect nonlawyers engagement in the legal industry, but vultures feasting on a dying carcass.  The scent of death is in the air, and they flock. They are failed lawyers. They are lawyers tired of scratching for a buck and coming up empty. They are the philosophy majors in college who couldn’t find work. They are the tech wonders who were told that this billion dollar industry is floundering, but with some fancy software they can skim a few pennies off the top.

As long a list as this might be, it’s puny in comparison to the number of lawyers in this fine nation.  As every venture capitalist has heard a million times, all they need do is get one-tenth of one percent to buy their product to make themselves filthy rich.  What product that might be isn’t nearly as important, since none of us know what lawyers will be doing in ten or twenty years from now. What is well known is that lawyers, struggling to be part of whatever the new normal turns out to be, are grasping at straws in the hope that they can remain viable and survive whatever is happening to the profession.

The next question Bill needs to ask, but doesn’t, is whether the future lies in embracing the vultures who want to suck the life out of the legal profession, his nonlawyer’s skimming a piece off the top so they can get rich on money that used to go toward legal representation, or fighting them off.

When I look at this list, I have questions too.  How many of these enterprises offer services that lawyers actually need?  How do their services help us to serve our clients better than we can serve them now?  Does the cost of these bells and whistles provide value to what we do?

There has always been an industry serving the legal profession, from the makers of law books to the purveyors of legal forms.  The ones that fulfilled needs survived, but we never confused them with lawyers.  They served us; they didn’t replace us.

Has this changed?  Certainly e-discovery and predictive coding require a skillset that lawyers aren’t taught, but that’s one niche among many.  Are all the enterprises who put up booths e-discovery sellers?  If so, then I would suspect two, maybe three, to be around ten years from now. Nobody needs 100 e-discovery companies.  And if that’s all they do, they only serve a niche of the law, and Bill’s suggestion that the philistines have already broken down the gates is a bit exaggerated.

It’s not that I disagree with Bill’s view that things are changing, and in need of change, but that we’re a long way off from understanding what those changes will ultimately be.  We are at the infancy of technological involvement in the law, and there will be no shortage of vultures who think they can get their piece, only to find out that their services are unwanted and unneeded.

Of the many claims to fame of the new normal, the end of the guild mentality is a strong one.  There are many who see the future of the law with lawyers and laypeople working hand in hand to end the monopoly and turn the profession into just another business, selling new and improved laundry detergent next to trusts and estates.

That may come to pass, because my crystal ball is awfully cloudy and I can’t tell where we will be in a decade or two.  But by no means am I prepared to declare a learned profession dead, and give up the carcass to the vultures.  The panacea that others see, where non-lawyers can reduce the cost of legal representation through computer programs that are close enough to replace thinking lawyers may be good enough for others, but not me.

So while Bill may see that cool picture of exhibitors and think, this shows that the legal profession has succumbed to the business of lawyering involving, perhaps even dominated, by laypeople replacing lawyers in order to bring about the new legal order, I see yellow snow.  And until I find out that it serves my clients better than what I do now, I have no plan to eat it.

The United States Sentencing Commission has given Doug Berman at Sentencing Law & Policy, an exclusive on its latest findings in the post-Gall world of sentencing.  Opening with a bizarre homage to Bugs Bunny’s nemesis, Elmer Fudd, Berman provides a list of his takeaways:

[1] The number of federal offenders has substantially increased, and most federal offenders have continued to receive substantial sentences of imprisonment.

[2] The guidelines have remained the essential starting point for all federal sentences and have continued to influence sentences significantly.

[3] The influence of the guidelines, as measured by the relationship between the average guideline minimum and the average sentence, has generally remained stable in drug trafficking, firearms, and immigration offenses, but has diminished in fraud and child pornography offenses.

[4] For most offense types, the rate of within range sentences has decreased while the rate of below range sentences (both government sponsored and non-government sponsored) has increased over time.

[5] The influence of the guidelines, as measured by the relationship between the average guideline minimum and the average sentence, and as measured by within range rates, has varied by circuit.

[6] The rates of non-government sponsored below range sentences have increased in most districts and the variation in such rates across districts for most offenses was greatest in the Gall period, indicating that sentencing outcomes increasingly depend upon the district in which the defendant is sentenced.

[7] For offenses in the aggregate, the average extent of the reduction for non-government sponsored below range sentences has been approximately 40 percent below the guideline minimum during all periods (amounting to average reductions of 17 to 21 months); however, the extent of the reduction has varied by offense type.

[8] Prosecutorial practices have contributed to disparities in federal sentencing.

[9] Variation in the rates of non-government sponsored below range sentences among judges within the same district has increased in most districts since Booker, indicating that sentencing outcomes increasingly depend upon the judge to whom the case is assigned.

[10] Appellate review has not promoted uniformity in sentencing to the extent the Supreme Court anticipated in Booker.

[11] Demographic factors (such as race, gender, and citizenship) have been associated with sentence length at higher rates in the Gall period than in previous periods.

What is fascinating about the Sentencing Commission’s perspective on its own existence is its inherent fixation on its own raison d’être, particularly reflected in number 2, and its production of the outcome in number 1 above.

The number of federal offenders has substantially increased, and most federal offenders have continued to receive substantial sentences of imprisonment.

Is this a good thing?  Are we winning the race against tyrannies everywhere?  Does the Bureau of Prison’s hand out “we are number 1” sponge fingers?  By noting this off the top, the USSC seems to see this as a feature rather than a bug of its guidelines, that they contribute to the United States of America being the land of the incarcerated rather than the land of the free. 

After all, if they concept of homogenizing offenses so that they can be sentenced by grid was sound, and was mandatory for a generation before becoming advisory, and yet still remaining the starting point for most sentences and “significantly influencing” sentences, then the efficacy of the model should produce fewer prisoners, not more.  If they worked, they would deter people from committing crime. Instead,

The number of federal offenders has substantially increased, and most federal offenders have continued to receive substantial sentences of imprisonment.

The number hasn’t decreased. It hasn’t even remained stable. It has “substantially increased.”  When the number of federal offenders is substantially greater than it was before, there is a clear take-away: You are doing something very wrong. 

On the other side, the USSC notes that things are changing (despite its claim that they are very much staying the same) because

For offenses in the aggregate, the average extent of the reduction for non-government sponsored below range sentences has been approximately 40 percent below the guideline minimum during all periods (amounting to average reductions of 17 to 21 months); however, the extent of the reduction has varied by offense type.

Forget the caveat, which has no business being included in the finding as it’s both obvious and uninformative.  There is a message in this finding to the USSC which, though noted statistically, doesn’t appear to be adequately processed:  The judges on the ground think your guidelines suck.  On their own (non-govermental sponsored below range sentences), judges are rejecting what the guidelines tell them is the “proper” sentence for an offense and going 40% below. 

Forty percent!  That’s huge.  And these aren’t lily-livered, soft-on-crime, wild-eyed liberal criminal lovers.  These are United States District Court Judges.  These are those very stern guys and gals who were voted “Most Likely to Never Know A Poor Person” in high school.  And even they think the guidelines are absurdly harsh. 

Despite the turgid language and apparent lack of introspection, the “legal market” is sending a message to the USSC that it’s not buying what they’re selling.  This should be cause for some celebration, as the world of federal sentencing is showing signs of returning to a state where individualized sentencing is more important than calculations of points. 

But the problem, as was made clear in  Judge John Gleeson’s recent memo about the drug guidelines, that the guidelines as a starting point remains a fiction that is unworthy of the dead trees upon which it is printed.  To the extent the guidelines serve to inform judges of a starting point in the consideration of sentences, we continue to perpetuate this myth, this fiction of empirical sentencing based upon offense conduct without regard to the plethora of facts and circumstances that comprise conduct that requires imprisonment.

And that is why this conclusion should remain the most disturbing:

The number of federal offenders has substantially increased, and most federal offenders have continued to receive substantial sentences of imprisonment.

As long as that remains the case, we have failed and continue to fail. The point is to reduce crime, not “substantially” increase the number of prisoners. We have failed, and there doesn’t appear to be anyone at the USSC who appreciates it.

The question I’m asked more than any other is whether having a robust social media presence a lawyer can find wealth and prestige on the internet. As even casual readers know, my answer is invariably “no.”  But since that blabbermouth, Jason Wilson, has spilled the beans, you might as well know the truth. You’re just too late:

This is not a joke. Lawyers, you MUST be on Vine now. If you aren’t producing 6 second looping videos about your practice, associates and their hipster attire, speaking engagements, ghost-written blog and marketing content, or the office cat, then you may already be too late. Wait any longer, and you’ll be behind the most innovative thinkers in the legal space, those who are making quirky videos to bolster their Twitter and Facebook feeds, MAKING THEMSELVES RELEVANT in today’s distraction economy. 1 If you aren’t doing this, the Millennials—your future associates—will think Luddites. And that’s just your potential workforce. Think about all the business you are missing out on, right now. After all, 95% of all lawyers use social media, and 50% of them get substantial business from it. These firms and lawyers are the future. Don’t be a five percenter.

The New York Times published an op-ed by Michelle Alexander, author of “The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness,” entitled Why Cops Lie.  The Times has touched this subject numerous times, as have I, even bringing the term testilying to the public.

Ordinarily, I wouldn’t post about something unless I can add some value to it, but this op-ed is so good on its own that despite my inability to add anything worthwhile, I feel compelled to spread the word as far as possible. This is the conclusion:

The natural tendency to lie makes quota systems and financial incentives that reward the police for the sheer numbers of people stopped, frisked or arrested especially dangerous. One lie can destroy a life, resulting in the loss of employment, a prison term and relegation to permanent second-class status. The fact that our legal system has become so tolerant of police lying indicates how corrupted our criminal justice system has become by declarations of war, “get tough” mantras, and a seemingly insatiable appetite for locking up and locking out the poorest and darkest among us.

And, no, I’m not crazy for thinking so.

Read how she got there.  And, no, Michelle, you are most assuredly not crazy for thinking so. 

It’s necessary that this reality continue to be pounded into the minds of a denying public until either the practice stops or people realize that this is how the system works.

Radley Balko  twitted something so facially outrageous as to demand a reading, that “Oakland Cops Point Guns at Sleeping One-Year-Old.” Come on. But that was the story’s lede :

Two Oakland police officers pointed their firearms at a sleeping nineteen-month-old child while investigating a misdemeanor crime, according to a new report released Thursday. The sleeping child posed no threat to the officers, and yet they pointed their guns at the one-year-old anyway.

The alarming incident was cited by Independent Monitor Robert Warshaw in his latest report on OPD misconduct. Warshaw noted that the department has had a history of overly aggressive behavior toward city residents. Warshaw also noted in his report that OPD not only failed to make any progress in living up to court-mandated reforms in the latest monitoring period, but actually lost ground for the second quarter in a row.

Warshaw’s report also comes in stark contrast to recent statements by Mayor Jean Quan. At a January 23 press conference following the approval of a contract to hire William Bratton, Quan was bullish on the future of the Oakland Police Department. “The reality is that we’re making progress, this police department is changing,” she said of OPD’s decade-old federal reform effort.

But according to Warshaw’s latest report, nothing could be further from the truth. Warshaw, who is responsible for auditing OPD’s progress, found in the most recent quarterly report that OPD’s compliance with the Negotiated Settlement Agreement reforms decreased for the second quarter in a row. In the report’s executive summary, Warshaw wrote that the incomplete efforts deal with “critical supervisory and investigative tasks” which are “at the very core of Constitutional policing.”

Following yesterday’s post about Tony, Turk  retwitted the post because SJ “doesn’t have a like button.” It made me think about the fact that people who disagree with a post here have no problem finding the “hate” button, leaving me a comment to inform me how awful, how wrong, how stupid I am. As I earlier explained, this doesn’t bother me, but is part of the deal of blawging.

Seth Godin, marketing philosopher, posted yesterday that everybody isn’t going to get the joke.

And just about every blog post and book listing collects a trolling comment from someone who didn’t like it, didn’t read it or didn’t agree with it (or all three) and isn’t shy about speaking up with a sharp tongue.

For those people, the message from the creator of the work is clear: “It’s not for you.”

Unanimity is impossible unless you are willing to be invisible. We can be unanimous in our lack of feedback for the invisible one.

For everyone else, though, the ability to say, “It’s not for you,” is the foundation for creating something brave and important. You can’t do your best work if you’re always trying to touch the untouchable, or entertain those that refuse to be entertained.

“It’s not for you.”

I remember being a panelist at a Shanghai event a few years ago when someone in the audience asked me if I was ever concerned about offending people with this blog. My response went something like this:

No. In fact, I worry about not offending people. If we are not offending someone, we are not taking a stand. And if we are not taking a stand, we are not interesting. And if we are not interesting, we will not be read.

One of the advantages to being a founder of a small firm is that I do not have to worry about offending some people, I just have to make sure at least some people love us.