Wisconsin State Journal, Dec. 3
Cop camera study doesn’t refute the need for them in Madison
Critics of putting body cameras on police officers in Madison and other communities have seized on a study in Washington, D.C., suggesting the devices had no significant effect on the behavior of police or the public.
The findings differ from previous research, including a yearlong review of uniform cameras in Rialto, Calif. That study, touted by the Obama administration’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing, found a dramatic drop in the use of police force and complaints against officers who wore cameras.
Why do the studies differ so much? That’s not clear.
But this much is: Madison should still adopt the technology - as so many other law enforcement agencies have -because cameras provide crucial, clear and unbiased evidence of controversial police encounters.
That’s the main reason the cameras are needed in Madison and other cities still resisting progress.
Consider last month’s fatal police shooting of 14-year-old Jason Pero on an American Indian reservation 300 miles north of Madison in northern Wisconsin. An Ashland County sheriff’s deputy says Pero lunged at the deputy twice with a butcher knife. But the boy’s relatives are skeptical and insist the boy, who was home from school with the flu, should never have been shot. Investigators say Pero made the 911 call reporting a man with a knife.
A camera on the officer could have definitively shown what happened, had the officer been wearing one. In fact, Pero’s mother plans to petition the sheriff’s department to require cameras.
Similarly, body cameras could have clarified what happened when Madison police shot and killed Paul Heenan in 2012 and Tony Robinson in 2015. Both were unarmed. Despite insisting its officers acted appropriately, and city (via its insurance company) paid $2.3 million and $3.35 million in settlements, respectively.
The authors of the Washington, D.C., study of police cameras aren’t sure why the devices didn’t reduce the use of force or complaints against officers. It’s possible the nation’s capital is a very different environment than Rialto, population 100,000.
The researchers note that the California city had been struggling with police problems when cameras were introduced. In contrast, Washington had already gone through a federal investigation of misconduct and instituted reforms before its cameras arrived.
Another possible explanation is that cameras are so ubiquitous in major cities that adding cameras to officers’ uniforms didn’t change the dynamic much.
Yet Washington’s police chief definitely wants to keep his department’s cameras because the images are invaluable when controversial violence occurs. They can hold rogue cops accountable, or exonerate innocent professionals.
Last Christmas, a Washington police officer fatally shot a man during a domestic dispute. Family claimed the man was unarmed. But video from a police body camera showed a large knife.
And the evidence can work the other way. In Baltimore, cameras on officers caught them implicating themselves in a corruption scandal.
When fatal shootings occur in Madison, the City Council seems to prefer emotional and disputed speculation to the hard evidence that video from the scene can provide.
That’s a mistake.
___
The Capital Times, Nov. 29
AG Brad Schimel acts as if Walker campaign were his client
Attorney General Brad Schimel is not the lawyer for Gov. Scott Walker’s re-election campaign. But, in a stunning breach of faith that displays his extreme partisanship, Schimel is acting as if the Walker campaign were his client.
Schimel and Walker are both Republicans. They are expected to run next fall on the same statewide party ticket. They have every right to endorse one another and campaign together.
But Schimel has no right to use the power of the state Department of Justice to advance Walker’s campaign agenda.
Indeed, he has a duty to avoid precisely this sort of abuse of power.
Unfortunately, Schimel does not understand his role as a state constitutional officer.
That was obvious last week when Schimel and Department of Justice attorneys notified the Wisconsin Supreme Court that they would replace the attorney for the state Department of Public Instruction in a case involving elected Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Evers.
Evers is one of a number of Democrats who have announced their intention to challenge Walker in the 2018 gubernatorial race.
The lawsuit against Evers was brought by the right-wing Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty, which is asking the Supreme Court to take the case. The suit seeks to undermine the authority of the superintendent by asking the courts to declare that Evers and department officials must seek the governor’s permission to craft administrative rules.
When a similar case came before the state Supreme Court last year, the justices ruled in favor of Evers. This new suit claims that a recently enacted law requires Evers to now do what the high court said last year he didn’t have to do. But the new law affronts the Wisconsin Constitution, which creates unique statewide elected positions to be administered by those who are chosen by the voters. It is absurd to imagine that constitutional officers must seek permission from the governor in order to do their jobs.
What’s even more absurd is that, when WILL brought its failed lawsuit last year, Schimel’s Department of Justice refused to represent Evers and the Department of Public Instruction. Why? Because Schimel’s Walker-aligned department did not agree with the stance Evers and his department were taking in defense of constitutional governance.
Now, despite that past admission of disagreement with regard to the basic premises of these lawsuits, Schimel and his lawyers are seeking to displace the Department of Public Instruction team representing Evers, and they have indicated that they would support WILL’s position.
A DPI spokesman said the department would ask the court to ignore the move by Schimel.
The attorney general’s twists and turns may seem confusing.
But here’s the bottom line: Brad Schimel is playing politics with his position in order to serve Scott Walker’s re-election bid.
If Schimel wants to represent the Walker campaign, he should resign his position and let Wisconsin have a real attorney general. Otherwise, he should abandon the lawless course he has adopted.
___
Kenosha News, Nov. 30
Net neutrality must be preserved
Net neutrality has been the guiding principle of a fair and open internet since 2005.
Everyone’s online experience is primed to become a little less fair and a little less open.
On Dec. 14, the U.S. Federal Communications Commission is expected to approve chairman Ajit Pai’s “Restoring Internet Freedom” order. Don’t let the name fool you. The order has very little to do with an individual’s “freedom” on the internet. Instead, this order rolls back net neutrality and, quite frankly, is likely to have consequences exactly the opposite of its naming convention.
Established through a series of FCC orders, net neutrality requires internet service providers (ISPs) to enable access to all lawful online content and applications regardless of the source and without favoring or blocking particular products or websites.
In 2015, the FCC issued the “Open Internet” order. The most stringent net neutrality rules to date, “Open Internet” classified broadband access as a telecommunications service. This subjected broadband providers to the “common carrier” provisions. The order expressly prohibited blocking, throttling or paid prioritization. These rules would be eliminated by “Restoring Internet Freedom.”
But what does that really mean?
Our consumption of and experience with the internet is based on choices we make.
If we want to access news, we can type in www.kenoshanews.com and we have confidence that our ISP delivers the content.
If we want to use social media, we pick our platform and our ISP delivers the content.
If we want to online shop, we go to the store’s website and our ISP delivers the content.
If we want to watch a show, we go to a streaming service that we pay for and our ISP delivers the content.
Net neutrality under “Open Internet” has safeguarded that ISPs refrain from content shenanigans. Here is what is prohibited under the current order (from the FCC website):
Blocking: Broadband providers may not block access to lawful content, applications, services or non-harmful devices.
Throttling: Broadband providers may not deliberately target some lawful internet traffic to be delivered to users more slowly than other traffic.
Paid prioritization: Broadband providers may not favor some internet traffic in exchange for consideration of any kind. Internet service providers are also banned from prioritizing content and services of their affiliates.
According to the FCC, “Open Internet” put a standard in place “going forward to ensure that ISPs cannot engage in new or different practices - outside those three prohibitions - that would cause similar harms to the open internet.”
Pai has stated that “Restoring Internet Freedom” is a return to a “light touch” regulation of the internet. He has also suggested that the handful of broadband companies providing almost all the internet connections to homes and smartphones “voluntarily” commit to the principles outlined in the “Open Internet” order.
There is a reason why the largest ISPs - AT&T, Charter, Comcast and Verizon - have come out in favor of rolling back net neutrality, while individual users and content technology companies like Facebook, Amazon, Twitter and Netflix have come out in favor of preserving net neutrality. It is the same reason why we find it laughable to think that ISPs would “voluntarily” commit to these principles.
It’s about choice … and whose choice it is.
If the ISPs (which have been increasingly dabbling as content companies as well) can choose for us … that creates an enormous competitive advantage.
Under “Restoring Internet Freedom” the following things would be allowed:
ISPs could force-feed us a national pizza chain’s content through paid prioritization prior to connecting us to our favorite local restaurant site that we typed in.
ISPs could morph your broadband service into tiers, charging an extra fee for access to popular sites. Imagine what they could get for a social media bundle of Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.
ISPs could throttle Netflix and Hulu loading speeds, diminishing user experience, in an effort to prop up its own streaming service.
It’s hard to find an internet user that views the proposed changes as an improvement.
However, it is expected that the five leaders of the FCC will vote to roll back net neutrality on Dec. 14, with Chairman Pai and the other two Republican commissioners (Michael O’Rielly and Brendan Carr) providing the 3-2 majority. You can go to FCC.gov to email the commissioners in support of net neutrality. You can echo that support to our representatives: Speaker Paul Ryan, Sen. Ron Johnson and Sen. Tammy Baldwin. Net neutrality advocates are also planning protests throughout the county on Dec. 7.
Net neutrality is too essential to let go quietly into the night.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.