The cop watching movement has proliferated in the last decade as more and more video evidence of routine police abuse has surfaced online. Several states are making an attempt to fight back with new laws restricting the practice. In Indiana, the state legislature recently passed HEA 1186—a new bill that prevents cop watchers from filming within 25 feet of a police officer. Police have wasted no time in abusing the law to intimidate and repress cop watchers, as newly released footage from a crime scene in South Bend demonstrates. Police Accountability Report investigates the push by states and police departments to crack down on cop watchers and foil attempts to hold the police accountable.
Production: Stephen Janis, Taya Graham
Post-Production: Stephen Janis, Adam Coley
Transcript
The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. A proofread version will be made available as soon as possible.
Taya Graham:
Hello, my name is Taya Graham and welcome to the Police Accountability Report. As I always make clear, this show has a single purpose, holding the politically powerful institution of policing accountable. And to do so, we don’t just focus on the bad behavior of individual cops. Instead, we examine the system that makes bad policing possible. And today, we will achieve that goal by showing you this video that reveals just how easy it is to abuse the immense power we confer on police. That’s because, as you will see, cops not only stop two men for walking down a street without any probable cause. But after it was clear there was no evidence to sustain the stop, the police on the scene tried to put the blame for their overreach on the people they detained and harassed.
But before we get started, I want you watching to know that if you have evidence of police misconduct, please email it to us privately at par@therealnews.com. Or you can reach out to me directly at Taya’s Baltimore on Facebook or Twitter, and we might be able to investigate for you. And please like, share and comment on our videos. It does help us get the word out and it can even help our guests. And of course, you know I read your comments and appreciate them. You see those little hearts I give out down there. And we also have a Patreon called Accountability Reports. So if you feel inspired to donate, please do. We don’t run ads or take corporate dollars, so anything you can spare is truly appreciated. All right. We’ve gotten that out of the way.
Now, as I’ve discussed on this show before, police power is both extraordinary and unusual. Extraordinary in that it’s been allowed to erode our constitutional rights under the pretext of law and order for decades. Unusual because that erosion has led to an undemocratic pathos, and it’s crept into American society in ways that are often unnoticed and unacknowledged. And nothing exemplifies this dual threat to our rights than the video I am showing you right now. It depicts a random stop by police of two men walking peacefully on a public sidewalk. But it’s what happened once police realized they had been caught in a classic case of overreach that shows us, not tells us, how the law enforcement industrial complex has become comfortable with the idea that our rights don’t matter, especially if exercising your rights impedes their power and exposes how they abuse it.
The story starts in Nappanee, Indiana. There, Donald Nicodemus, otherwise and somewhat ironically known as Freedom2Film, was walking down a public street with a friend. Both, of course, were carrying cell phone cameras, but they were also apparently doing something else that was far more insidious. Let’s watch as a Nappanee officer confronts them.
Officer 1:
Hey, guys. Stop. Both of you, stop.
Speaker 3:
Is that a lawful order?
Freedom2Film:
Is that a lawful order?
Officer 1:
Huh?
Freedom2Film:
Is that a lawful order?
Speaker 3:
Is that a lawful order? Don’t blind my camera. Is that a lawful order?
Officer 1:
That’s fine. I just want to see what you guys are up to.
Speaker 3:
Well, what are you up to? What’s your name and badge number?
Freedom2Film:
What are you up to?
Officer 1:
I’m Officer [inaudible 00:03:03], 843 with the Nappanee Police Department.
Speaker 3:
Well, I don’t answer questions. Thank you very much. Have a nice day.
Freedom2Film:
Why’d you stop us?
Officer 1:
I saw you guys hanging out by the gas station.
Speaker 3:
Why would you stop somebody-
Freedom2Film:
Why’d you stop us?
Speaker 3:
… from moving about freely, unimpeded for no reason?
Officer 1:
Because it’s the middle of the night.
Freedom2Film:
So what?
Officer 1:
I saw you guys up under here.
Speaker 3:
So what?
Freedom2Film:
Are we suspected of doing something?
Officer 1:
Because I saw you guys with backpacks on. You were standing [inaudible 00:03:26]-
Freedom2Film:
Oh, because we had backpacks on?
Officer 1:
The business is closed. It’s private property.
Freedom2Film:
We’re walking down an easement.
Speaker 3:
This is an easement.
Officer 1:
You are now. I came back by. You guys were right here. I’m just seeing-
Freedom2Film:
This is still an easement.
Speaker 3:
It’s still an easement.
Freedom2Film:
You see those utility poles?
Officer 1:
I do.
Speaker 3:
Where’s your supervisor at?
Officer 1:
He’s actually working with me.
Speaker 3:
Get him down here.
Freedom2Film:
Get him down here.
Taya Graham:
Now, it’s worth noting that the sidewalk is practically the last vestige of our First Amendment rights. It’s like an oasis of freedom that has yet to be sullied by the government or otherwise fully encroached upon. That’s because American law enforcement has taken an increasingly aggressive posture towards filming them while performing their official duties. Meaning if you’re on the road or a street, you are blocking traffic. Or if you’re at a public office or facility, you’re prohibited from filming, regardless. So that leaves the sidewalk as the sole geography where filming anything is expressly protected and it’s in the freedom to film zone where officers continued to harass him. Take a look.
Officer 1:
He’s right here if you want to talk to him.
Freedom2Film:
Oh, absolutely.
Speaker 3:
Sure. Don’t impede traffic. Pull in so he can …
Officer 1:
This business is closed.
Freedom2Film:
We were on an easement.
Speaker 3:
Is the city closed?
Officer 1:
No, you said I was impeding traffic.
Speaker 3:
No, he’s impeding traffic.
Officer 1:
Oh.
Speaker 3:
You might want to turn your lights on.
Officer 1:
He’s got his emergency lights on.
Officer 2:
My lights are on.
Speaker 3:
What’s your name and badge number?
Officer 1:
These guys want to talk to my supervisor.
Officer 2:
What’s up?
Speaker 3:
What’s your name and badge number?
Freedom2Film:
We’re wondering the same thing.
Officer 2:
Officer Johnson, 840. Why? What’s up?
Freedom2Film:
We were ordered to stop when we were-
Speaker 3:
We were ordered to stop unlawfully.
Freedom2Film:
… freely traveling down the-
Officer 2:
What do you mean unlawfully?
Speaker 3:
Do you know what moving about freely unimpeded means?
Officer 2:
Are you walking on the sidewalk?
Speaker 3:
Reasonable [inaudible 00:05:02] suspicion.
Officer 2:
Where were you when this officer approached you?
Officer 1:
This is a [inaudible 00:05:05].
Freedom2Film:
We were on the sidewalk.
Speaker 3:
We were on a sidewalk.
Officer 2:
Then go.
Freedom2Film:
No, he told us to stop.
Officer 2:
So you’re not going now?
Speaker 3:
So are you the supervisor-
Freedom2Film:
Stop means-
Officer 2:
I am.
Speaker 3:
… or are you just his [inaudible 00:05:15] buddy?
Officer 2:
I’m the supervisor.
Speaker 3:
Okay. Well, he said that-
Officer 2:
So you’re free to go.
Freedom2Film:
Well, he said stop so …
Officer 1:
I said stop. I asked who you were.
Freedom2Film:
… if we were to keep going, we would probably be hemmed up for resisting.
Taya Graham:
But it turns out Freedom2Film was prepared to push back, which is exactly what he did as the officers continued to question him, queries that turned to accusations as the encounter unfolded. Take a look.
Officer 2:
Okay, are you guys … I’m assuming with all the cameras, you’re just out here trying to bait officers.
Freedom2Film:
No. No. We ain’t baiting nothing. We’re walking down the street.
Speaker 3:
Is that an inflammatory statement?
Officer 2:
No, it is not.
Speaker 3:
Baiting? By walking down the road?
Officer 2:
Okay, you guys can go.
Officer 1:
So here’s the thing-
Freedom2Film:
Well, we were going to go. I don’t have a problem with that.
Officer 1:
[inaudible 00:05:58] so you were standing-
Freedom2Film:
What’s your name, Johnson?
Officer 1:
… at the gas station.
Freedom2Film:
What’s your badge number, Johnson? What’s your badge number?
Officer 2:
Okay, you guys are free to go.
Freedom2Film:
What’s your badge number?
Officer 2:
Okay, if you’re going to [inaudible 00:06:11].
Freedom2Film:
No-
Officer 2:
This is [inaudible 00:06:12].
Freedom2Film:
I want to know your badge number.
Officer 2:
Now, it’s a lawful order for you guys to go.
Freedom2Film:
We don’t have to go nowhere. We’re on a public sidewalk.
Speaker 3:
We’re on a public sidewalk.
Officer 2:
Go.
Freedom2Film:
We don’t have to go.
Officer 2:
Okay. Do you know what provocation is?
Freedom2Film:
What’s that?
Officer 2:
Provocation is willingly and knowingly and intentionally coming out in a confrontational state to incite violence.
Freedom2Film:
I just asked for your badge number.
Officer 2:
Huh?
Officer 1:
I think your ignorance of the law is [inaudible 00:06:31].
Freedom2Film:
I asked for your badge number.
Officer 2:
Where’d you get your law degree? Where’d you get your law degree?
Speaker 3:
[inaudible 00:06:40].
Officer 2:
Where’d you get your law degree?
Speaker 3:
I don’t answer questions.
Officer 2:
Okay, then go.
Taya Graham:
And finally, faced with the absurdity of the intrusion on the rights of both men to walk unimpeded through their community, something unexpected but revealing happened. An admission by the officer that I think speaks to the reason every citizen should have the right to film them. Just watch.
Officer 1:
You guys are free to go.
Freedom2Film:
We’re on a public sidewalk.
Speaker 3:
You’re free to go too.
Officer 1:
I’m here all night. You don’t tell me what to do.
Officer 2:
I get paid the same whether I stand right here-
Freedom2Film:
Well, you told us what to do.
Officer 2:
I can stand here all night.
Speaker 3:
All right.
Officer 1:
Well, when you’re standing under that gas station-
Freedom2Film:
You said because we had backpacks on.
Officer 1:
I come back by and you’re walking away, it looks a little suspicious so I-
Freedom2Film:
Is suspicious a crime?
Officer 1:
And then when I said, “Hey, stop,” and you continued to walk?
Freedom2Film:
Because we didn’t feel like we had to stop.
Officer 1:
That makes me think something else.
Officer 2:
So you saw them walking behind the building?
Freedom2Film:
We were-
Officer 1:
No, they were-
Freedom2Film:
We got all this on camera, man.
Officer 1:
… standing up under the Speedway [inaudible 00:07:32] right here.
Officer 2:
I don’t care. Okay, you guys are free to go.
Freedom2Film:
We’re free to stay too. You’re not.
Officer 1:
You don’t tell us when to leave. You are free to go from this spot right here.
Freedom2Film:
Free to go. Free to stay.
Speaker 3:
We’re free to stay.
Officer 1:
Okay, whatever.
Freedom2Film:
We’re on a public sidewalk.
Officer 1:
I don’t know what you’re trying to prove here.
Freedom2Film:
Well, we’re trying to prove that people get harassed for doing no crimes in this country every day of the week-
Officer 2:
You guys watch way too much YouTube. That’s all I got to say. You guys watch way too much YouTube where I can assume all these videos are going to be found. So you’re free to go.
Freedom2Film:
So are you.
Officer 2:
I’m going to enjoy the rest of my night.
Speaker 3:
Okay. I’m doing my job. So you stay over there. This is a completely different incident.
Officer 1:
And remember the 25-foot wall.
Freedom2Film:
Yeah, remember the 25-foot wall. Remember that name too.
Officer 2:
Remember the name. Why?
Freedom2Film:
Remember that name.
Officer 2:
Why?
Freedom2Film:
Remember that name.
Officer 2:
Why?
Freedom2Film:
Remember it.
Officer 2:
Do you want to get an intimidation charge?
Freedom2Film:
No. You just brought up the 25-foot law. I’m saying remember that name.
Officer 2:
Do you know the 25-foot law?
Freedom2Film:
I do.
Officer 2:
What is it?
Freedom2Film:
Anybody that encroaches within 25 feet of an officer during a scene or something.
Officer 2:
Okay.
Freedom2Film:
Yeah. So I’m just saying remember that name. Remember it.
Officer 2:
Remember the name?
Freedom2Film:
Yep.
Officer 1:
If you know the 25-foot rule, I suggest you stay on your side of the road.
Freedom2Film:
All right. So he’s running my ID because I crossed the street.
Officer 1:
What’s that?
Freedom2Film:
He’s running my name because I crossed the street.
Officer 1:
Yeah, you didn’t use the crosswalk.
Freedom2Film:
Do you guys know what the statute is in Indiana?
Officer 1:
Do you know what the statute is?
Freedom2Film:
Yeah, I do. If you cross outside a crosswalk, you yield to the traffic. There was no traffic. I crossed the street.
Officer 2:
[inaudible 00:09:16] okay, his driver’s license, whatever it is.
Freedom2Film:
Oh, he’s giving me a ticket.
Officer 2:
I am giving you a ticket. Failure to use the sidewalk or crosswalk when available.
Taya Graham:
Now it turns out there is more behind Freedom2Film’s encounter with Indiana police than meets the eye. That’s because the state has recently passed a law to crack down on filming police, a move that he is fighting with his camera and in the courts. And for more on those efforts and what he’s doing, we will be speaking to him later.
But first I’m joined by my reporting partner, Stephen Janis, who’s been looking into the case and reaching out to the police. Stephen, thank you so much for joining me.
Stephen Janis:
Taya, thanks for having me. I appreciate it.
Taya Graham:
So, first, what are police saying about this encounter? How are they justifying it?
Stephen Janis:
I’ll tell you. I reached out to the Nappanee Indiana Police Department. I sent them a message through their Facebook page. I have not heard back but my main question was how do you explain what the officers were doing? Why were they interfering with someone’s right to peaceably assemble and move up and down a sidewalk? So far they haven’t responded but, if they do, I will put something in the chat and let people know what happened.
Taya Graham:
So can you explain this law in Indiana that’s supposed to limit cop watching? What is it intended to do and how is it actually being implemented?
Stephen Janis:
So, Taya, as you can see, this is absolutely ridiculous. This police officer could literally push him into a nearby state towards Chicago or something. I don’t know. It’s crazy. So that’s why the ACLU is challenging this because it’s arbitrary. And we know when police have access to arbitrary power, things go south quickly. So it’s an absurd law.
Taya Graham:
So what are your thoughts on this push to make cop watching basically illegal? What do you think is going on and what will be the long-term ramifications?
Stephen Janis:
Well, I think what we’re seeing here is a power dynamic between citizens and their rights and the police department’s ability to abuse them. And why I think it’s important is because they’re not going to enforce this kind of law against the mainstream media. Who they’re worried about are the regular citizens picking up their cameras and saying, “We’re going to hold you accountable in ways you never anticipated.” I think that’s what this is about because really in some ways it’s like asymmetrical warfare. When people just come out with cameras and their YouTube channels, they cover police in a different way, I think a much more accountable way. I think the mainstream media kind of works with police in many ways that cop watchers don’t. And this is about really I think pushing back against cop watchers, not about the rest of the mainstream media and the people who work for big media organizations with lots of money. This is about pushing back on fundamental freedoms of a citizen to go out and record. And really we need to fight back against it.
Taya Graham:
And now to delve deeper into the anti-cop watching law, his work as a First Amendment auditor and what he has learned from numerous encounters with police, I’m joined by Freedom2Film. Donald, thank you so much for joining me.
Freedom2Film:
Thank you for having me, Taya.
Taya Graham:
So you seem to have been cop watching earlier that evening and were walking with a friend down a public sidewalk and an officer approached you. What happened next?
Freedom2Film:
He told us to stop. He directed us to stop and we turned around and approached him and asked him if that was a lawful order.
Taya Graham:
So you asked for a supervisor, but his arrival only seemed to make the situation worse. How did he approach you and can you tell me what he said?
Freedom2Film:
He approached with kind of an attitude. Once he realized that we were recording, he then stated that he felt like we were baiting them, and my partner asked him if that was an inflammatory statement.
Taya Graham:
So it’s interesting that he mentioned the word inflammatory because you were accused of provocation by the supervisor. However, the first officer initiated the stop, but the second referenced your cameras as part of the provocation. What was he referring to here?
Freedom2Film:
I believe he meant because I had raised my voice to him. I was requesting his name and badge number and he didn’t answer me the first one or two times I asked. So I raised my voice and then he brought up the term of provocation and I asked him, “How is requesting your name and badge number provocation?” And then he started to define what provocation meant. And for just requesting someone’s information, it’s hard to believe that they could try to use that against you.
Taya Graham:
So the officer asked you or the gentleman with you, where did you get your law degree. Do you think he was hoping that you didn’t know your rights to the letter? I mean what do you think he meant by that statement?
Freedom2Film:
I believe he was just trying to poke fun at us because a lot of police make statements about YouTube law degrees or people that watch the videos and stuff. So it’s funny to them. I’ve never claimed to have a law degree. I just look things up and learn things to apply to whatever situation I’m facing filming police in the course of their duties.
Taya Graham:
So I thought it was interesting when the officer said you were free to go and you said you were free to stay and the officers seemed very displeased by that response, but your encounter didn’t end there. The officers went to confer and then immediately approached you again and it seemed they forced a situation where they could demand your ID. What happened next?
Freedom2Film:
First off, we were told that we were stopped originally when this encounter first began because we were seen walking through a private parking lot of a private business that was closed. Okay, so after the supervisor we requested came and we had our discussion with them, they left the scene and immediately went across the street to a private parking lot of a closed business. So you can see where this is going.
Taya Graham:
So the officer mentioned the 25-foot law and you laughed and told him to remember your name and he immediately accused you of intimidation, possibly trying to build a case against you. Tell me about Indiana’s 25-foot law and your unique connection to it.
Freedom2Film:
Yes. Indiana recently passed a law July 1st, the 25-foot law, which is basically in a nutshell that if you approach an officer during an investigation, if you are asked to step 25 feet back, you must do so or you can be arrested for, I believe, a Class C misdemeanor.
Taya Graham:
So you had an interaction where they used the 25-foot law in a questionable way. The officer asks you to move back 25 feet and then enforced another 25 feet back and then another. Can you describe the scenario?
Freedom2Film:
Okay, so that situation was a shots fired call. We arrived, another YouTuber and I, Famously Unfamous is his channel, we arrived and the police were on the other side of the street kind of catty corner to where we were and they were placing shot casing markers. And the side of the street that we were on, there was a disturbance next door to a business and there was no crime scene tape or any markers indicating where a boundary was. So we heard a disturbance between citizens and the police and we were moving towards that area so we could see what was happening. And as soon as we started to cross the street at Brookfield, we were ordered by Officer Stepp to stop. So we stopped and he said we couldn’t proceed any farther. So he paced out 25 feet or 25 steps, which probably wasn’t 25 feet. So we complied with that.
Then a short moment later, Officer Veal approached and asked Officer Stepp if it was okay because I told him … He said we were okay there and he asked Officer Stepp if that was okay and he said, “Disregard what I said,” because he was going to move us back farther. And then something was said or something, maybe someone said, “You’re dismissed or something.” And that made him very upset. So he said he was the crime scene tech, push back farther, 25 more feet from that point that we were already pushed. It just got very heated.
The thing of it is, and this example has been brought up by the ACLU, that one officer can push you back 25 feet, a different officer can come and push you back another 25 feet, a different officer, so on and so forth. You see where this is going, and pretty soon you’re hundreds of feet away. So this is a point here that they’re misusing the 25-foot law.
Taya Graham:
So you’ve filed a lawsuit and the ACLU is actually joining you. Can you tell me a little bit about it and what you hope the outcome will be? What do you hope it will change?
Freedom2Film:
Yes. I reached out to the ACLU very quickly after that incident and they replied and they definitely took my case. I’m glad I reached out to him because I don’t think anybody else would’ve been willing to take it.
Taya Graham:
So the officer seemed particularly concerned that you would film him and put him on YouTube. Were you concerned that when he ran your name that you would experience retaliation for being a cop watcher or being connected to this ACLU lawsuit?
Freedom2Film:
I mean I already felt that I was being retaliated against right on the spot just from the previous encounter. And then when they crossed the street and were sitting in the parking lot, I already felt that I was being retaliated against. They were just waiting to find something that they could pull out of their bag of tricks to get me on. So I don’t fear any retaliation on the ACLU lawsuit now that I’m sure they’re informed that I’m behind that lawsuit. But yeah, in the moment there, I already knew I was being-
Taya Graham:
So why did you become a cop watcher? What was the catalyst or what inspired you?
Freedom2Film:
I would say there’s a few things, but one of the first things that I encountered was one night I was coming home from work and I seen a lot of red and blue lights ahead of me. At first I thought it was an accident. With modern police cars, the LED lights are so overbearing. As I got closer, I didn’t even … Well, before I had gotten to the police cars, apparently they had a sign to indicate that it was a DUI checkpoint, which I didn’t catch until later after I reviewed the video. But as I got closer, I was being waved into a parking lot and then an officer come to my window and start asking me questions, if I’d been drinking. And the thing that bothered me the most about it was they needed to see my ID. I refused at first and then more officers, he requested the Sarge or something to come and he come and said if I do not provide my ID, I will go to jail for failure to ID.
That really bothered me that I was being inconvenienced and then being demanded to give ID for not doing anything against the law. I’m just coming home from work. There were some other things going on in South Bend that kind of sparked my interest, and I decided to pick up a camera and go film. I did start watching some other people. One of the first people that I started to watch on YouTube was Tom Zebra, his cop watches, and started to learn just what to do. It just kind of kicked off from there.
Taya Graham:
What’s the goal of your YouTube channel? What do you hope to accomplish?
Freedom2Film:
My goal has always been to bring awareness to what’s going on with the police and I hope that somebody gains from seeing what I do, how I interact with the police, how I’m using my rights. I just hope people will take away something out of it that will benefit them in the future.
Taya Graham:
I had asked you what inspired you to become a cop watcher, and you mentioned that you were nearly killed by a cop?
Freedom2Film:
Yeah, I would be. I would be dead or in a body cast because a buddy of mine was next to me and we were discussing something or talking and the light turned green and it was probably maybe almost three seconds and then I started to proceed. And I remember out of the corner of my eye, just as we started or I started to go, I seen a car but it was way down the road. And I started to go and, then the next thing you know, I see a light out of the corner of my eye. It flew by and I was like, “Holy” … I was stunned.
Not only did he run the red light, he was excessively speeding because that’s a 30 mile an hour zone on the street.
Taya Graham:
Now, there’s a question that we always ask as journalists when we are confronted with an institution or an agency that does not wish to answer to the people. It’s a query that is the first thought that crosses my mind when a branch of government is pushing back on the right to hold them accountable or pushing back against transparency. But simply what are they trying to hide?
I think it’s a reasonable question because, as we report it extensively, politicians are increasingly passing laws that make it harder if not in some cases illegal to record police. And even more troubling, prosecutors are subjecting cop watchers and First Amendment activists to bizarre charges like organized crime in an effort to thwart their right to record. Which brings me back to my point about hiding something because it’s hard to imagine why average citizens touting cell phones or GoPros would actually require a concerted government effort to stop them. What is it about a person with a cell phone that puts the fear of God in government officials that they will literally try to destroy the First Amendment to stop them?
Well, let me try to answer that question. To do so, I’m going to share some facts about the state of our country that might initially seem irrelevant but would perhaps explain the full-on push to keep cell phone cameras at bay. A statistic that is unique to our country and that is the unseen driver of many ills, and it might seem inexplicable, but can actually be easily understood if you consider the simple, straightforward statistical reality. And here it is.
The US has the highest level of wealth inequality of any similarly situated nation on earth. In other words, the rich here are richer and more awash in wealth than any other country that has a comparable economy. And the divide between the ultra rich and the rest of us is wider and more vast than any civilization that has preceded us or currently exists.
But of course you might be asking now, Taya, what does this have to do with police? What does the fact that we have the biggest collection of fat cats and robber barons in the history of the world have to do with law enforcement? How are the filthy rich and bad policing connected? Well, let me try to answer that question. It’s all explained by Matthew Desmond in his book, Poverty, by America. Or if you want to watch our 2015 documentary called How Poverty Works, I’ll put a link in the comments below.
So both explore a simple fact about the intersection of poverty and wealth inequality. Poverty is actually profitable and great wealth is extracted by exploiting it. Both pieces also explore another truism about poverty that is often overlooked as well. Not only is it profitable, but it’s actually designed to be so. And that creates a system that is both disruptive and destabilizing and that has to be managed because, as poverty becomes more and more profitable for the few, the basic living conditions of the many become more and more tenuous. And that’s where policing comes in because the reasons we see so much absurd, odd or even downright unnecessary policing is because it’s really not unnecessary at all. Meaning police play a critical role in maintaining this resource divide than is often acknowledged.
So let me try and explain how I think this works. The main thing to remember about extreme wealth is that it does not occur in a vacuum. Extreme wealth requires, among other things, the hoarding of communal resources. For example, not paying their fair share for infrastructure that makes their wealth possible but, more importantly, controlling the political system that reinforces it.
What exactly do I mean? Well, if you’re the beneficiary of extreme wealth earned off the backs of the working people of this country, how do you keep the rest of the world from noticing? What I mean is if you’re filthy rich at the expense of the poor, how do you keep anyone from figuring out or demanding accountability and even, ever more daunting, demanding fairness? Well, one way is to keep everyone off balance. And the best way to do that is to use an expansive and punitive criminal justice system to keep them occupied. What that means is that every useless arrest or bogus traffic ticket or overly harsh penalty that we report on are actually tools. In other words, over policing is not excessive at all. In the videos we see of cops using cuffs in situations that seem at best ridiculous are actually part of a broader effort to crush, dissent and corral the chaos that ensues when wealth is so unevenly skewed.
Consider this statistical correlation if you think I’m conjuring patterns that don’t exist. Since the 1970s, America has become the most rabid incarcerator in the history of the world. Since then, the number of people in prison per population in the US rose seven times. That’s sevenfold for anyone out there keeping score, meaning during that same period, our country’s income inequality also rose exponentially. The amount of people incarcerated increased exponentially too. We put more people behind bars than any country on earth.
Now I understand, as I’ve said before, that correlation is not always causation. And I understand that there are a myriad of factors that determine how many people end up ensnared in our criminal justice system. I certainly get that wealth inequality and building prisons is not a straightforward and easy relationship to delineate. But I will say this. There is one undeniable fact about wealth inequality that I think coincides quite nicely with the overly aggressive law enforcement we witness on a weekly basis. It is, to say the least, destabilizing and it is disruptive for the same reason over policing is destructive. It represents a gross imbalance of power. That is, the more unaccountable billionaires you have, the more the political system that’s supposed to represent all of us is bent to their will, the more resources are concentrated with just a handful of people, the more that power distorts all the checks and balances that are supposed to ensure that our government serves everyone.
I mean consider what happened to a proposal in Congress that was supposed to limit surprise medical bills. So surprise medical bills occur when a patient under distress receives care from a doctor out of the network covered by their insurance. That series of events of no fault to the patient can lead to huge bills that are one of the reasons medical debt has exploded in this country and more and more people are going bankrupt because of it. Several years ago, Congress decided enough was enough and began the process of approving legislation to stop the practice and end this unfair fleecing of Americans for good. But something funny happened on the way to passing this bill. A mysterious group started a $28 million dollar advertising blitz arguing the law would somehow be unfair to doctors. In other words, ensuring that patients were not overwhelmed with bankruptcy inducing bills through no fault of their own was bad for the business of medicine.
And the campaign worked and the bill was seriously watered down from an outright ban to a process of arbitration which, of course, favored the hospitals and doctors who benefited from this twisted process in the first place. And who was behind it? Who was making the case to put upon doctors to be able to drop a $40,000 dollar bill on an appendectomy patient? None other than investment bankers. Among them, the Blackstone Group, a collection of billionaires who apparently didn’t have enough money and thus were forced to rip off sick people in their most vulnerable moments.
The mega rich consortium of billionaires spent a trifling amount for them to ensure, no, actually guarantee that tens of thousands of people were stuck with hundreds of millions in debilitating debt, debt that will inevitably destroy people’s lives, drain their retirement accounts or their kids’ college funds, kick them out of their homes, ruin marriages and, finally, make them criminals. And that’s where law enforcement ultimately earns their keep. Because at the end of this ruinous trail of wealth lie the people who make it possible, the working folks, the ones that politicians pander to every four years but who aren’t afforded the decency of basic protections from fraudulent medical bills so someone can add another billion to their bank account.
My point is that, in order to continue this unhealthy wealth imbalance, the political system that’s supposed to represent the common good must be thwarted. And once it is, then the people who could use their power to change it, namely us, must be disenfranchised and we must be convinced that we are not worthy of the privilege. It’s a twisted self-reinforcing vicious cycle. Excessive wealth corrupts and breaks a political system and makes us all seem like the other is the problem, and the ensuing chaos it creates must be managed by an overbearing criminal justice system to diminish our political efficacy and, as I’ve said before, our civic imagination.
That’s why we see police power abused week after week after week and that’s why we will keep reporting on it week after week. Because even though the billionaires control the mainstream media, the independent press which Stephen and I represent, will not be silenced.
I want to thank Freedom2Film for joining us and I hope he will update us soon on the success of his lawsuit to protect the right to film police. And, of course, I have to thank intrepid reporter, Stephen Janis, for his research, writing and editing on this piece. Thank you, Stephen.
Stephen Janis:
Thanks for having me. I appreciate it.
Taya Graham:
And I want to thank friends and mods of the show, Noli D and Lacey R for their support. Thank you both and a very special thanks to our Accountability Report patreons. We appreciate you and I look forward to thanking each and every single one of you personally in our next livestream, especially patreon associate producers Johnny Yard, David K, Louis P and super friends Shane Buster, Pineapple Girl, Chris R, Matter of Rights, and Angela True.
And I want you watching to know that if you have video evidence of police misconduct or brutality, please share it with us and we might be able to investigate for you. Please reach out to us. You can email us tips privately at par@therealnews.com and share your evidence of police misconduct. You can also message us at Police Accountability Report on Facebook or Instagram or at Eyes on Police on Twitter. And of course you can always message me directly at Taya’s Baltimore on Twitter or Facebook. And please like and comment. You know I read your comments and appreciate them. And we do have our Patreon link pinned in the comments below for accountability reports. So if you feel inspired to donate, please do. We don’t run ads or take corporate dollars, so anything you can spare is greatly appreciated.
My name is Taya Graham and I am your host of the Police Accountability Report. Please be safe out there.
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
