"... saying in the wake of this week’s riots and curfew that the former Baltimore Mayor and Maryland Governor was the 'stake through the heart of police procedure' in the city."
Speaking with The Marshall Project, Simon traces his wariness back to O’Malley’s time as Mayor between 1999 and 2007, when Simon says he made “mass arrests” of citizens for minor offenses to pad crime statistics. “[W]hat happened under his watch as Baltimore’s mayor was that he wanted to be governor. And at a certain point, with the crime rate high… he put no faith in real policing.”
Simon, a crime reporter at the Baltimore Sun for more than 10 years before he moved to television writing, has been an outspoken critic of O’Malley for years. He has even said that the Wire character Tommy Carcetti, an ambitious politician who manipulates crime reduction statistics, is partly based on O’Malley, a presumed Democratic presidential candidate.
Here's the whole interview. Excerpt:
[T]hey were just dragging the sidewalks, hunting stats, and these inner-city neighborhoods — which were indeed drug-saturated because that's the only industry left — become just hunting grounds. They weren’t protecting anything. They weren’t serving anyone. They were collecting bodies....
I’ve just described for you the culture of the Baltimore police department amid the deluge of the drug war, where actual investigation goes unrewarded and where rounding up bodies for street dealing, drug possession, loitering such – the easiest and most self-evident arrests a cop can make – is nonetheless the path to enlightenment and promotion and some additional pay. That’s what the drug war built, and that’s what Martin O’Malley affirmed when he sent so much of inner city Baltimore into the police wagons on a regular basis.
The second thing Marty did, in order to be governor, involves the stats themselves.... They cooked their own books in remarkable ways. Guns disappeared from reports and armed robberies became larcenies. Deadly weapons were omitted from reports and aggravated assaults became common assaults...
I mean, think about it. How does the homicide rate decline by 15 percent, while the agg assault rate falls by more than double that rate....
But these guys weren't satisfied with just juking their own stats. No, the O'Malley administration also went back to the last year of the previous mayoralty and performed its own retroactive assessment of those felony totals, and guess what? It was determined from this special review that the preceding administration had underreported its own crime rate, which O'Malley rectified by upgrading a good chunk of misdemeanors into felonies to fatten up the Baltimore crime rate that he was inheriting. Get it? How better than to later claim a 30 or 40 percent reduction in crime than by first juking up your inherited rate as high as she'll go. It really was that cynical an exercise.
So Martin O’Malley proclaims a Baltimore Miracle and moves to Annapolis. And tellingly, when his successor as mayor allows a new police commissioner to finally de-emphasize street sweeps and mass arrests and instead focus on gun crime, that’s when the murder rate really dives. That’s when violence really goes down. When a drug arrest or a street sweep is suddenly not the standard for police work, when violence itself is directly addressed, that’s when Baltimore makes some progress....
पोस्ट्स
५० टिप्पण्या:
[T]hey were just dragging the sidewalks, hunting stats, and these inner-city neighborhoods — which were indeed drug-saturated because that's the only industry left —
Drugs being the only industry left seems like a vicious spiral. Why is it the only industry left? Why did the other business leave? Why would they come back to a drug-saturated neighborhood?
I would love it if Obama tasked Loretta Lynch with doing a top-down investigation of police procedures, crime stats, amount of money raised off policing in communities, etc.
I guess I don't doubt Obama would left-ify it, and declare what the communities need more money from the taxpayers. But investigating it all would be of value to all of us.
I keep seeing photos of O'Malley with his shirt off.
After reading this I'm wondering, is he America's Putin?
Maybe Hillary will offer him a Reset Button.
Echoes of Mr. Clinton electioneering demanding 100K more police, and now Ms. Clinton's “we put too many of the poorest of us in jail” (ok, they tend to be of a certain racial background – and economic status doesn’t really dictate outcomes - there are many poorer citizens, and not-(yet)-citizens who manage not only send half their earnings back home, but also stay out of jail.)
Of course the local government controls all this. They’ve had it in their power to solve the problem forever, no need to ask anyone else. Could start by creating free-trade and innovation zones guaranteed interference free for, say, 25 years or more - in all these depressed areas. No regulation or taxes save common sense (as judged by other owners and investors in the area – where $1 of revenue is 1 vote in all deliberations) in return for some of the owners, investors and managing living nearby their places of business. Just lifting all regulation and restoring local-(neighborhood)-self-government would enable these places to bloom. Granted, for those who believe in slavery, this would be a return to the dark ages of free-enterprise, self-responsibility, and self-ownership.
After reading the article, I have to say I'm not sure I believe David Simon really has the answer. He says, "Stop the Drug War".
But NYC was a cesspool well before the drug war kicked in. So was Detroit. The drug war isn't responsible for the problems- either the crime problem or the policing problem.
Lots of criticism of police coming from people who in the wildest imagination would never consider being a cop.
I've seen the statistics 'juked' by the gun control folks who would blame anything to keep the failure of liberal/progressive ideology off the books. The failure in Baltimore puts paid to the notion that if only blacks controlled the mechanism of power because of their supposed ability to understand the 'street/hood' culture is a myth. Power corrupts them as they promise change and maintain the status quo of grandiose plans that enrich their supporters at the expense of real change in the culture that, if achieved, would destroy their power instead of the infrastructure.i If this isn't a scam perpetuated on supposed "white guilt" and "Uncle Toms" on the police force I don't know what is.
Note that Simon still plans to vote for O'Malley for president. Because killing the city that you are responsible for (I'm saying this according to Simon's own strongly-expressed opinion) is no reason not to put that person in charge of the country.
He approves of his views on gay marriage.
So should we assume Simon is a Hillary! supporter and a reliable Democrat voter?
And the alleged statistical monkey business sounds like what Obama admin has done with deportation stats. I guess Dems all use the same playbook which is very Sovietesque.
They were able to obscure the existence of a Democratic political establishment in Ferguson, Missouri.
Not going to be so easy in Baltimore, Maryland.
Drug at retail level are a high profit non taxed sales force. It is an economic activity that pumps up the business of nearby hospitals, funeral homes and medical professionals.
Like NYC, the Port of Baltimore lost its world trade flows jobs since that all come across the Pacific Ocean from China rather than the Atlantic Ocean. It is Sam Walton's fault.
I have little doubt that the Baltimore Police Department has many problems that need to be addressed. And I am with Simon on wanting to end the drug war. But that will do nothing to address the problem of black criminality.
The people with good paying union jobs in Baltimore have common sense and the resources to get away from doomed neighborhoods like West Baltimore. We'd be better off, as a society, to give the remaining residents a very large cash incentive to leave forever. It is the best way to give them a path to what might be a good life. Once all the residents have literally "taken the money and run", we should bulldoze the neighborhood and start over.
They should end the Drug War, but it's foolish to think that would make a big difference in reducing crime. Those who made their money in the drug trade will find some other racket--just like the Italian gangsters did after prohibition was lifted.
So if we end the drug war, will we require drug dealers to be licensed by the states ? And will colleges and trade schools now offer career training and degree programs for those interested in a career in drug dealing? And if so, won't that mean most drug dealing jobs will go to white people [since so many blacks drop out of college and / or have criminal records] and so we will still have high unemployment among blacks? IOW, a vicious cycle?
We'd be better off, as a society, to give the remaining residents a very large cash incentive to leave forever.
...as long as they don't move into YOUR neighborhood, right?
We had a wonderful razing of the 1940s-era projects - that were never meant to be permanent residents originally, anyway - to build nice townhouses for NEW middle-class owners attracted by mortgage rebates and so forth. It looks nice, yes.
And a nearby neighborhood that had been livable, friendly, and safe became vile, dirty, ugly, drug-ridden, and dangerous.
Until the Great Society damage to black families and black subculture in general can be repaired, the nation is screwed.
I'm glad I'm old.
"Once all the residents have literally "taken the money and run", we should bulldoze the neighborhood and start over."
My drive home from work goes down North Avenue (needless to say I take a different route now) and what I noticed besides the constant wandering into the road by locals is that the row houses (many abandoned, almost all run down) have a lot of potential--beautiful, Victorian-era brick houses with bay windows, turrets--the sort of places which if inhabited by people with a stake in them and some means could be renovated. It looks a lot like the gentrified neighborhoods of DC (such as Bloomingdale, Petworth, upper 14th) except currently they are barely occupied, or occupied by people who let them get run down. The stores on the street are mostly check cashers, some liquor stores and barbershops.
Of course, if someone did try and "gentrify" that neighborhood, we'd be hearing complaints about that too. In the world of urban leftism, it's always lose-lose.
Gerry- why do you ask me that?
It has noting to do with me or where I live or who moves in near me.
I based my post on the govt's track record of "investment" in the city of Camden, NJ. We have spent more than $2 Billion on a city with 80,000 residents. We could have given every family $100,000 or more each to agree to leave. That is a hell of pile of money to help one make a new start. Instead we just throw good money after bad year after year.
"Why is it the only industry left? Why did the other business leave?"
Hostile business environments and a limited pool of competent workers. High taxes. Crushing regulations arbitrarily enforced for political and personal gain. Capricious police response to actual crimes. Generations of incompetent and corrupt elected and appointed officials who are excused from even minimal standards of performance out of racial and party loyalty.
Homicide and The Wire were good shows when Simon wasn't beating the drum. But, like this interview, he lets his social biases infect his thinking.
A great writer would have let Bayless get away with it without all the moral preening and chin stroking.
"rounding up bodies for street dealing, drug possession, loitering such"
Wait, police should not "round up" such "bodies"?
They're the human equivalent of broken windows.
On criticism of O'Malley:
Of course, Dems cook books, but serious crime did go down, in Baltimore and many other places. Several obvious factors involved, but still a puzzle to criminologists.
Also, Simon hasn't show that O'malley's approach didn't contribute to the longer term decline in homicides. Maybe it didn't, but he has just assumed it away. By juking the crime stats and locking a lot of people away, ie broken windows policing, O'Malley may have attracted some businesses back to the city and given a more optimistic view to the citizenry.
The good people in those neighborhoods where Simon didn't live had no problem with the riff raff getting swept away
The Simon interview article was very well done. The problem is a hierarchy that wants to establish a class based society and will lie about anything that gets themselves into the top spots.
And that is not racist. Both skin colors use the same method. But a ghetto filled with poverty and sub humans is a necessary stage prop for the hierarchy.
So if we end the drug war, will we require drug dealers to be licensed by the states ? And will colleges and trade schools now offer career training and degree programs for those interested in a career in drug dealing? And if so, won't that mean most drug dealing jobs will go to white people [since so many blacks drop out of college and / or have criminal records] and so we will still have high unemployment among blacks? IOW, a vicious cycle?
Yep.
And as my spouse likes to say, "You think the cartel is going to give up its monopoly so easily?" I don't like the drug war much either, but it's not all rainbows and unicorns if the FED ends it.
David Simon’s “The Wire” is ambitious. Never a hit for HBO, but it lives on in Amazon Prime. Five seasons, sixty episodes and dozens of characters, it takes a commitment to watch the whole thing. Mayor Carcetti (the Martin O’Malley character) is a douche, but less douchey than most of the other characters. The TV show is not a negative for O’Malley. Actually the opposite, the riots and O’Malley are a big plug for the show. It’s not a coincidence that the show’s cast was interviewed on MSNBC last night.
I liked the series. It’s best at following the black gangsters. I don’t know anything about black urban culture, but it was enlightening. Obviously the gangsters are bad guys, but at least their motivations made sense and avoided cartoon characters. It could use some subtitles in parts, because they speak a foreign language. But thankfully, the series has a neat trick where crucial dialogue is recorded and translated by clever detectives listening on “the Wire”.
Big plus for using the Tom Waits song “Down In the Hole” at the opening credits.
"I liked the series. It’s best at following the black gangsters."
My favorite scene was the black state senator on trial for corruption, and he wins over the jury with folksy bullshit--culminating in standing up and pulling out his pockets to show he didn't have money in them--and the crowd goes wild! No one seems to have thought "hey, just because he doesn't have money in his pockets THIS MOMENT doesn't mean he didn't take bribes...how stupid does he think we are?"
That in a nutshell says all you need to know about juries.
I suspect David Simon lived in a gated community his whole life,
I find it hard to believe that the people making comments here that justify O'Malley's tactics, actually read the Simon article. Disgusting, and I live in Baltimore and don't like crime. Thanks for the riots.
After reading the article, I have to say I'm not sure I believe David Simon really has the answer. He says, "Stop the Drug War".
But NYC was a cesspool well before the drug war kicked in. So was Detroit. The drug war isn't responsible for the problems- either the crime problem or the policing problem.
I’ve been nominally pro-relegalization (with caveats) most of my adult life but while I think ending the WOSD would probably help some (as ending Prohibition did), most of the people in prison including the often-touted “non-violent drug offenders” probably deserve to be there. I’m not exactly going to be shedding any tears that a guy who committed burglary and was caught with a few ounces of drugs is looking at a longer sentence because of the drugs even if I’d prefer on principal that drugs be legal and the sentence for burglary be made longer.
Ann, that was the best read I've had all month -- thanks much for posting it!
JSD- I loved The Wire. I used to use aspects of it to teach counterinsurgency and counter-terrorism tactics to the young troops and diplomats who would cycle through my sphere of influence in Afghanistan and Iraq.
If you live in an insulated inner-city neighborhood, where drugs, crime and the like are all you see, are you going to say "hey, now drug use is legal. I'm going down to the meth dispensary to get more dope." No, you're going to go to the same dealers you've always had. Because it's all you know. And once the government takes this business over, they're going to have higher prices than the local dealers do anyway. And since the government hates competition, they'll be using twice the police power to make sure the local drug dealers aren't selling. So the libertarians who think all these problems will go away with legalization are delusional, to say it nicely.
I'm skeptical that ending the drug war will do a damn thing, liberty reasons notwithstanding.
I am in favor of some drug legalization. Heroin and Morphine derivatives could be legalized. Cocaine is too dangerous to others (Paranoid and hyperactive is bad). Meth is too dangerous to the users to legalize.
The low level dealers would probably be put out of business by legalization, especially of marijuana.
I was talking to my sister last night and suggested she read Tom Clancy's Without Remorse, for my take on the drug war.
most of the people in prison including the often-touted “non-violent drug offenders” probably deserve to be there.
I've always thought that statistic about non-violent drug offenders was bullshit, and still do.
I love watching Democrat love-fests.
"If you live in an insulated inner-city neighborhood, where drugs, crime and the like are all you see, are you going to say "hey, now drug use is legal. I'm going down to the meth dispensary to get more dope." No, you're going to go to the same dealers you've always had. Because it's all you know. And once the government takes this business over, they're going to have higher prices than the local dealers do anyway. And since the government hates competition, they'll be using twice the police power to make sure the local drug dealers aren't selling. So the libertarians who think all these problems will go away with legalization are delusional, to say it nicely."
I don't think drug legalization will significantly reduce crime, but the scenario you outline would only occur if the government exercised a tight monopoly on the market. With private legal vendors, the prices would likely be close in price to what the street dealers charge, without the risk of arrest or getting lousy product. There's not much of a market for bootleg liquor in this country compared to the prohibition days for this same reason--why buy whiskey or beer from some guy who made it in his basement when you can get it at the liquor store?
Brando,
Point taken, but this all assumes that the government is going to allow dealers (licensed or not) to be private. I find it hard to believe they will in today's litigious society. Imagine a drug dealer selling a bad product, where someone od's quicker than usual. Out come the lawyers, and here we go. Because of that alone, I don't think dealers will want to be licensed.
And regarding the comparison to bootlegging - of course it still exists in the south, and the government still spends a lot of money chasing after them. Also, most states still are the only distributor of booze (in Michigan for sure; in Pennsylvania, there are no beer & wine sales at regular stores - you have to buy it from a state-run store).
Maybe your scenario is possible, but the government will want to regulate this HEAVILY, and even if we get private dealers, the regulation will be an example of a defacto government-run business.
I hope I'm wrong if it does get legalized.
For those who advocate legalization and taxation of illicit drugs just remember Eric Garner. The State doesn't like competition. Incidentally will ObamaCare be expanded to cover prescriptions for heroin and other presently illegal drugs and who will be prescribing these drugs?
I am in favor of some drug legalization. Heroin and Morphine derivatives could be legalized. Cocaine is too dangerous to others (Paranoid and hyperactive is bad). Meth is too dangerous to the users to legalize.
Heroin may be slower than meth, but it's ultimately just as bad for the user. Maybe it's coming from a city with a rampant H proble, but I'd much rather see coke legalized than Heroin.
"Heroin may be slower than meth, but it's ultimately just as bad for the user. Maybe it's coming from a city with a rampant H proble, but I'd much rather see coke legalized than Heroin."
Coke kills users with cardiac arrhythmia. Heroin causes constipation. Legal Morphine based drugs are harmless except for the tachyphylaxis that makes it dangerous to stop and then restart.
William Halsted was the greatest surgeon in the world while addicted to Morphine. He had become addicted to cocaine while working on local anesthesia in the 1870s. He friend, Osler, got him switched to Morphine on a sea voyage. Everyone believed he had stopped all narcotics and the truth was only learned when Osler died.
Ghosthunter Michael K said...
Cocaine is too dangerous to others (Paranoid and hyperactive is bad). Meth is too dangerous to the users to legalize.
I've seen dozens, perhaps hundreds, of people do cocaine over a period of 20 years and none of them ever got paranoid or hyperactive (unless you include talking too much). Making that claim is like saying "alcohol causes coma and death (coma and death are bad)", except the frequency of really-bad-stuff is a lot higher for alcohol, as is the degree and frequency of obnoxious behavior; not even in the same ballpark. The coke dealer who enabled my observations died in a pool of blood from hepatic artery resistance caused by alcohol.
"Maybe your scenario is possible, but the government will want to regulate this HEAVILY, and even if we get private dealers, the regulation will be an example of a defacto government-run business."
Yeah--if they do it that way, it'd hardly be an improvement from the current scenario.
Not that I think legalization of drugs would be the panacea that many pro-legalizers seem to suggest--likewise, it wouldn't reduce drug use any more than the end of prohibition reduced alcohol consumption (it went up a great deal after prohibition ended). My feelings on it have more to do with the idea that some adult choosing to do something harmful to themselves should be their own business, providing they're not affecting the safety of others (e.g., getting high then driving).
Ideally, we end up with private growers, distributors and sellers, with the government only being involved so much as to verify that certain product is pure (not laced with additives beyond a certain amount) and even allowing "uncertified" sellers to sell their product at the buyers' risk (which should be the case for booze too, ideally).
Criminals might get out of the drug game if their own wares aren't significantly cheaper or "better" than the legal competition, but I suspect the criminals will find other moneymaking activities--extortion, theft, or any other illegal vices. But at least users would have legal options, and perhaps be more inclined to seek treatment.
>> Criminals might get out of the drug game
Freddie Gray was in the lawsuit game. He and his two siblings had been in a lawsuit over lead paint, and they had won structured settlements - now they were in court trying to break that and cash in.
From the article:
[About O'Malley]
"The drug war began it, certainly, but the stake through the heart of police procedure in Baltimore was Martin O’Malley. He destroyed police work in some real respects. Whatever was left of it when he took over the police department, if there were two bricks together that were the suggestion of an edifice that you could have called meaningful police work, he found a way to pull them apart. Everyone thinks I’ve got a hard-on for Marty because we battled over “The Wire,” whether it was bad for the city, whether we’d be filming it in Baltimore. But it’s been years, and I mean, that’s over. I shook hands with him on the train last year and we buried it. And, hey, if he's the Democratic nominee, I’m going to end up voting for him."
Here he has the answer but refuses to see that he IS the problem...not the solution.
If we ended the war on drugs, we would, in effect, be terminating all the the great TV shows and Movies about cops and robbers and Simon would be out of work!
"I've seen dozens, perhaps hundreds, of people do cocaine over a period of 20 years"
God, I forgot to tip that guy again.
I bow to your extensive experience with drugs.
David Simon was also the guy that said the NSA spy program was ok since the cops were doing the exact same stuff but on a smaller scale and it was perfectly legal they'd get wiretaps on a phone number and track the calls made to and from that number. As long as they weren't listening in on the call it wasn't illegal. Since call metadata is not the same as wire tapping.
Now, I happen to agree with Simon on this. BUT is that the kind of "real" policing that Simon is talking about?
AJ Lynch wrote:
So if we end the drug war, will we require drug dealers to be licensed by the states ? And will colleges and trade schools now offer career training and degree programs for those interested in a career in drug dealing? And if so, won't that mean most drug dealing jobs will go to white people [since so many blacks drop out of college and / or have criminal records] and so we will still have high unemployment among blacks? IOW, a vicious cycle?
If we ended the drug war, then people could sell meth to other people without getting arrested. What are laws when it comes to, say, selling toys with lead paint. Wouldn't selling a harmful drug to people who then suffere deleterious effects open the seller up to lawsuits?
It's like drug dealers would assume freedoms ther no other seller would have. Not even sellers of legal drugs. If you sell Tylenol, and 5 people die from using Tylenol, you are probably going to pay out millions of dollars. and won't be selling Tylenol any more.
So would legal drug dealers who sell heroin have to submit to rules governing sales of said drugs? How are they going to create a safe heroin? Or krokodil? Or bath salts? Etc etc etc.
"Maybe your scenario is possible, but the government will want to regulate this HEAVILY, and even if we get private dealers, the regulation will be an example of a defacto government-run business."
Yeah--if they do it that way, it'd hardly be an improvement from the current scenario.
Not that I think legalization of drugs would be the panacea that many pro-legalizers seem to suggest--likewise, it wouldn't reduce drug use any more than the end of prohibition reduced alcohol consumption (it went up a great deal after prohibition ended). My feelings on it have more to do with the idea that some adult choosing to do something harmful to themselves should be their own business, providing they're not affecting the safety of others (e.g., getting high then driving).
Ideally, we end up with private growers, distributors and sellers, with the government only being involved so much as to verify that certain product is pure (not laced with additives beyond a certain amount) and even allowing "uncertified" sellers to sell their product at the buyers' risk (which should be the case for booze too, ideally).
So,there would be the official Krokodil manufacturer? Or the official meth distributor.
Walter whites meth have have been the most pure. But it was still meth.
Does it still produce the addiction of meth? Does it still produce the effects of meth on the brain? Then who cares about purity. It's a completely unsafe product that turns people into meth heads. Look at a before and after picture of people on meth.
How are you regulating such a product.
Also, if meth were legal, then govt would want its taxes. Which would drive up the price. People would then go to the black market to find cheaper versions. And we'd have Eric Garners selling unofficial meth, because selling legal meth also expected creates a black market.
And then cops.would need to go after the Eric Garners in thst they are selling legal products illegally.
And then the libertarians would say that the cops are waging a war against non violent crimes.
So then, you'd still,have a drug war against illegal drugs.
"My feeling would be more to do with the idea that some adult choosing to do something harmful to themselves should be their own business, providing they're not affecting the safety of others (e.g., getting high then driving). "
Doing meet is different than selling meth. If you are selling meth to people you are affecting the safety of others, even if they are willing customers.
In fact considering how addictive many drugs are, you are ensuring they will be willing customers once they will need to continue feeding their habit. It's why the first taste is always free.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा