Latest news with #BlueLivesMatter
Yahoo
01-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trump's new executive order promises to ‘unleash' law enforcement — but it won't make us safer
This Monday, President Donald Trump issued yet another executive order, this one titled 'Strengthening and Unleashing America's Law Enforcement to Pursue Criminals and Protect Innocent Citizens.' As the ominous 'unleashing' in the title makes clear, the order's proposals, like so many 'tough-on-crime' approaches, are far more about indulging in cruel punitiveness than in actually reducing crime. The order's opening line makes it clear that safety is not actually the goal. 'Safe communities,' it says, 'rely on the backbone and heroism of a tough and well-equipped police force.' While data, like that in a recent study, 'Police Force Size and Civilian Race,' makes it clear that policing can help reduce crime, literature reviews such as those produced by the Campbell Collaboration also make it clear that aggressive tactics are unhelpful if not actually counterproductive — as shown in a 2024 paper, 'The effects of hot spots policing on violence: A systematic review and meta-analysis." Moreover, it is increasingly apparent that nonpolice interventions can also significantly reduce crime, quite likely more effectively than policing, with additional social benefits and far fewer social costs. In other words, this executive order is about retaliation, punishment and brutality. It is wrapped in the veneer of 'public safety,' but pushes policies that are often least likely to produce actual safety. The order appears to have two goals. The first half is about politics and messaging. It's an effort to wrest back the narrative about criminal legal reform in support of those who fly Blue Lives Matter flags and instructs the attorney general to do some things she lacks the legal authority to do. The second — and more troubling — half is about policy. It lays out more viable routes Trump may use to cripple reform efforts, although its generic language makes it hard to pin down precisely what it is threatening. The political message of the first half is clear: It argues that the proper way to fight crime is to empower legally unaccountable police to use harsh, aggressive tactics to ramp up the number of people in prison. These tactics may not advance public safety, but they are satisfying ways to exert control over disliked groups. The order starts by instructing the attorney general to create a mechanism to ensure that police officers are indemnified when 'unjustly' sued — something that is basically not needed. A majority of states already have laws indemnifying police officers, and a study in the New York University Law Review of 45 major police departments found that officers were indemnified in 99.98% of the judgments against them. This is about messaging, not policy, and the message is 'police should not be sued, and we stand behind those who are.' What follows in the order are proposals — most of which are outside what the president can do via an executive order, such as using federal resources to increase police officer pay, strengthen legal protections for the police, seek enhancement punishments for those who harm police, and invest in the security and capacity of prisons. In almost all cases, federalism rules prevent Trump from directly telling local governments how to do these things. The feds can try to nudge states via incentive grant programs, but historically states have often been relatively unmoved by such programs, and, other than currently appropriated discretionary funds, the funding would have to come from Congress (despite Trump's fight to get more power of the purse). But like with indemnification, the point here is less about the policy specifics and more about using the presidential bully pulpit to place police at the center of how we think about public safety, and to provide moral (if not financial) support for traditional aggressive styles of law enforcement. The second part of the order, parts 4 to 6, focuses more on actual policies that the Trump administration may be able to use to subvert reforms and entrench traditional, aggressive policing. Part 4 first seeks, at a minimum, to ramp up the infamous 1033 program, which funnels retired military gear to local police departments — it's how the Los Angeles school district ended up with grenade launchers. (It talks of sharing 'assets,' though what those assets are is unstated, and the legal pathway to sharing them is unclear.) The second section of part 4 is the one that has alarmed people the most, but perhaps not for the right reasons. This part calls on the attorney general and the secretary of defense to 'determine how military and national security assets, training, non-lethal capabilities, and personnel can most effectively be utilized to prevent crime.' This has raised the specter of Trump using the Insurrection Act to circumvent the Posse Comitatus Act (which generally forbids federal troops from engaging in police activity) to use the military to crush protests. Which is definitely possible! The federal response to protests in Trump's first administration were often heavy-handed, and Trump's then-defense secretary, Mark Esper, indicated that Trump wished the response had been more violent still (section 6 of the order, urging greater use of Homeland Security Task Forces, also points in this direction). But military tanks on the streets is an escalation that the military itself may resist and that would likely engender significant public pushback. Jess Pishko, a journalist whose beat is conservative sheriffs, has pointed to a different, and more insidious, possible goal here, one whose invisibility may make it harder to resist: a massive increase in surveillance, by linking the police and national security resources, and by expanding law enforcement's access to intelligence gathering resources. This sort of behind-the-scenes collaboration can greatly expand the reach of law enforcement, but in a way far less likely to spark political resistance than the 101st Airborne marching down Main Street. The last key part of the order, section 5, points to another angle Trump may hope to use: directing the DOJ to charge and sue reformers. The first part of section 5 appears to threaten reform politicians by seeking to file federal criminal charges against anyone who obstructs law enforcement from carrying out their duties (although what those charges could be is somewhat unclear). The language is confusing, so it may also just be saying that when reformers refuse to make arrests or file charges, the feds will step in when they can to do so themselves. (The overall tenor of the order, though, seems to caution against assuming the less-harsh perspective.) Perhaps more significant is the second part of section 5, which suggests that Trump also plans to use the civil rights 'pattern or practice' lawsuits that the Obama and Biden DOJs filed to target abusive police departments to target reformers instead. Their less-punitive practices, the argument goes, are in fact the real source of discrimination and civil rights violations. This could, among other things, result in local reformers getting pushed into consent decrees with the feds that significantly limit their discretion. All told, the order represents a serious effort to roll back reforms, both directly (by supplying military gear and by threatening reformers with criminal and civil investigations) and indirectly (by forcefully asserting the tough-on-crime perspective that law enforcement should be encouraged to act aggressively while remaining almost entirely free of any meaningful oversight). It is not a recipe for actual public safety. But it is one for oppressive cruelty and retribution. This article was originally published on
Yahoo
16-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Lakeville Area Schools OKs $30,000 settlement on Black Lives Matter posters
Following a lawsuit involving posters featuring Black Lives Matter, the Lakeville Area Schools Board of Education approved a $30,000 settlement April 8. In a lawsuit filed more than two years ago, a group of residents alleged their First Amendment rights were violated when the school district allowed posters featuring 'Black Lives Matter' to be placed in classrooms, while not permitting the display of posters that read 'All Lives Matter' or 'Blue Lives Matter.' In a 5-1 vote, with board member Amber Cameron absent and member Carly Anderson opposed, the board approved the settlement April 8. 'We appreciate the many different perspectives shared. Lakeville Area Schools remains committed to continuing to partner with our families and community to provide a safe, respectful, engaging, rigorous, and collaborative learning environment where every student belongs, is valued and can succeed,' the district said in a statement provided Wednesday. Ahead of voting, Anderson said she felt the settlement approval was a premature decision, referencing the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision in June to reverse the lawsuit's dismissal by a lower court. 'The Eighth Circuit decision was based on assuming that everything that the claimants were claiming could be possible in any scenario. And so to me, I believe we should have gone through the discovery process, which would have meant gathering all the information relevant to the case. In that situation, what I've understood from our legal counsel is that we are on very good footing, that they felt like what our district did was within the grounds of government speech, and that we had an excellent case,' Anderson said. In January, the Lakeville school board voted to remove the series of posters from district buildings. The posters are part of a series of 'inclusive' posters ordered by the district in 2021, two of which said 'Black Lives Matter,' and were distributed to staff members when requested. Upper Midwest Law Center represented plaintiffs Bob and Cynthia Cajune, Kalynn Kay Aaker, and Aaker's minor children in the lawsuit, which argued that the district violated their First Amendment rights 'by engaging in unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination.' 'With the Eighth Circuit's decision clearly signaling that the school district's policy was constitutionally unsound, Lakeville Schools wisely reversed their policy and removed the posters from district facilities,' Upper Midwest Law Center said in a statement on its website. 'Because that was what the plaintiffs had sought in the lawsuit, they agreed to dismiss their claims in the settlement in return for the District paying $30,000 in legal fees to the Upper Midwest Law Center.' Lakeville North basketball coach John Oxton announces retirement High school hockey coach, Lakeville officer returns home 2 months after injury Jury convicts alleged ringleader of massive Feeding our Future fraud scheme Another Buck Hill skier wins Alpine worlds medal: Paula Moltzan High School Football: Cretin-Derham Hall hires Ben Burk as football coach
CBS News
14-04-2025
- Politics
- CBS News
"Black Lives Matter" posters taken down at Lakeville schools; district settles lawsuit
Lakeville schools have taken down "Black Lives Matter" posters at district facilities and have agreed to a settlement on a lawsuit over the signs, according to the district. The school board ordered the around 3,000 posters be taken down across all buildings in the district during spring break, which was between March 30 and April 4. No teacher was required to put any of the posters up, but some parents had complained that that teachers were not given options of slogans like "All Lives Matter" or "Blue Lives Matter." A 2022 lawsuit, according to the Upper Midwest Law Center, had argued the school district's selective policy violated the First Amendment rights of Bob and Cynthia Cajune, Kalynn Kay Aaker and her children. The plaintiffs, who were represented by the Minnesota-based law firm, agreed to settle with the district on April 8 after the posters were taken down. "Because that was what the plaintiffs had sought in the lawsuit," the firm said in a release, "they agreed to dismiss their claims in the settlement in return for the District paying $30,000 in legal fees to the Upper Midwest Law Center." There were eight variations of the posters, but two of them had the term "Black Lives Matter." The cost to design and print them was more than $10,000, according to the district. In January, the school board voted 4-to-3 to remove the posters , but Superintendent Michael Baumann said at that time they would remain in place until a future poster series is ready. The school district said the following in response to the settlement: Note: The above video first aired on Jan. 29, 2025.
Yahoo
11-04-2025
- Yahoo
Bronx Woman Who Punched Pro-Life Activist During Street Interview Arrested
The Bronx woman who was recorded punching an anti-abortion activist in the face last weekend has been arrested, the NYPD has confirmed to The Post. 30-year-old Brianna J. Rivers was arrested Thursday (April 10) on one count of second-degree assault for the incident that found her attacking interviewer Savannah Craven Antao, a reporter for pro-life advocacy group Live Action. The activist celebrated Rivers' arrest with an Instagram post, writing, 'Just got word from detectives Brianna J Rivers was arrested! God is good!,' adding within the caption, 'Thank you detectives at the 28th precinct NYC!#BlueLivesMatter #JusticeIsServed #ThankYouGod.' Shortly after the incident, Rivers shared her thoughts on the matter, acknowledging that things should not have turned physical while also accusing Craven Antao of provoking her violent response. The original clip found both women passionately defending their opposing stances on abortion. 'To Savannah, I sincerely apologize but cannot sit around and allow you to continue pushing this one sided narrative. I understand hands being put on someone is never the answer, but throwing rocks and hiding hands is worse,' Rivers shared via Facebook. 'She knows the truth and she needs to release the footage in its entirety. Savannah is a professional antagonist not a 'reporter' and the truth will be told.' Rivers added via an Instagram post, 'I will not allow my image to be defamed by this woman's actions. Anyone who knows me knows how respectful I am, I don't even litter, there's no way you believe I'm punching people for disagreeing with my POV.' See the original clip below. More from Lecrae Opens Up About Attending "Diddy Parties" And Christians That "Despise" Him Bronx Woman Who Squabbled Up On Pro-Life Activist In Viral Clip Issues Her Response Viral New Yorker Who Refused To Leave Pakistan Finally Returns Home After Dubai Pit Stop
Fox News
05-03-2025
- Politics
- Fox News
NYC Mayor Eric Adams, an ex-cop, has 'upper hand' over other sanctuary city mayors: Blue Lives Matter founder
Democrat New York City Mayor Eric Adams is headed to Capitol Hill with the "upper hand" over four other big-city leaders Wednesday as they prepare to face a congressional grilling over "sanctuary" policies that protect illegal aliens and complicate federal immigration enforcement, according to the founder of a pro-police nonprofit. The hearing before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on Wednesday is expected to also include testimony from Boston Mayor Michelle Wu, Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson and Denver Mayor Mike Johnston. Unlike the others, Adams is a former police captain and has publicly said he plans to work with the Trump administration to fight migrant crime. "Criminal alien predators should not be free to roam our communities," said Rep. James Comer, a Kentucky Republican and the committee's chair. "State and local governments that refuse to comply with federal immigration enforcement efforts should not receive a penny of federal funding. President Trump and his administration are rightfully taking action against sanctuary cities." Adams' office did not immediately respond to requests for comment, but of the four Democrat mayors invited to the hearing, he has publicly appeared the most open to President Donald Trump's crackdown on criminal illegal aliens. "Mayor Adams has the upper hand, and why is that? Because he wore the uniform and the boots of the officers that go out there every single day," said Joseph Imperatrice, a police sergeant and the founder of Blue Lives Matter. "He has that side and that experience to be able to say, 'I did this. I know what needs to be done to keep people safe. And as the mayor, my No. 1 responsibility is public safety. So I need all the tools in this chest to do my job properly.'" For that reason, Imperatrice told Fox News Digital, he expects Adams to offer a different perspective from the left-wing peers from Boston, Chicago and Denver. "As long as he sticks to that, and he sticks to the basics of what he knows from actually doing it, he can make some very valid points," he said. City police leaders last year blamed criminal illegals for a "wave of migrant crime" primarily linked to the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua, which established a foothold in the Big Apple's shelter system. In particular, bail reform policies that let low-level offenders back on the streets were repeatedly blamed for the rash of crimes. "When there's no accountability, and they're continuously doing crimes and continuously creating new crime victims, that's a problem," Imperatrice said. "People living in the city don't want to feel like the crime is out of control. They want to feel that they could wake up [and] go on the subway or walk on a city street and not have to look over their shoulder." Chris Swecker, a former assistant FBI director, said Adams' colleagues are hurting public safety in their own cities by feuding with Trump over immigration enforcement. "Cartels are powerful, and they infiltrate into any city where there's lax law enforcement," he told Fox News Digital. "Fentanyl is the new crack cocaine. It is lethal, plentiful and highly destructive to neighborhoods. These drugs have a [disparate] impact on the less wealthy and minorities. Drugs in general drive crime. It's a fact." The same cities are also withholding crime statistics from the FBI to distort public perception, he alleged. Adams, who often butted heads with the Biden-Harris administration over an open border policy that flooded his city with more than 200,000 unvetted migrants, has already flagged that he intends to cooperate more with the Trump administration than some of his colleagues and predecessors. In February, after a meeting with border czar Tom Homan, he said he would allow ICE to reopen an office in the city's main jail at Rikers Island. "ICE agents would specifically be focused on assisting the correctional intelligence bureau in their criminal investigations, in particular those focused on violent criminals and gangs," Adams said at the time. That's a commonsense move, according to Imperatrice, because regulations that prevent law enforcement agencies from working together do nothing to improve public safety. "There are legitimate arguments that could be made that city police departments investigating crimes don't want to be viewed as immigration enforcement in order to gain trust and get information about crimes in immigrant communities," said Thad Bingel, a former Department of Homeland Security official from the George W. Bush administration. "But no one is asking local police departments to conduct immigration raids or go out and enforce federal immigration laws, which is a federal responsibility of DHS." Sheltering Biden-era migrants cost New York taxpayers about $7 billion, Adams has said, with little relief from the former occupant of the White House. Adams said in January that the city would work with ICE as part of Trump's nationwide crackdown on criminal illegals, even with sanctuary laws in place in the state and city. "There ought to be a commonsense middle ground here that if you expect federal grants for your city, then at a bare minimum, when you have a criminal alien in custody for a crime, someone wanted by ICE, that you contact ICE and hold them in custody for some small amount of time until they can be picked up by federal officer," Bingel said. "That is just common sense and a basic level of expected cooperation." Violating a state sanctuary law cost nearby Suffolk County $60 million in December. U.S. District Judge William Kuntz, nominated by then-President Barack Obama in 2011, awarded the damages to illegal aliens who were held on ICE detainers at the county jail. The Trump administration followed up with a lawsuit against New York Gov. Kathy Hochul and state Attorney General Letitia James for allegedly using state sanctuary laws to shield illegal immigrants from federal immigration enforcement. "It's very important that [in] today's day and age, we get past this Democrat and Republican nonsense and get on the same page, do things for the right reasons for the people that are asking for it," Imperatrice said. "People want public safety. They want a good quality of life, and they don't care if it's a Democrat or Republican that enacts it." Trump and Adams can put that idea to the test.
