Friday, September 25, 2009

Musings: Friday Potluck

Creativity and time evade me this morning, so let’s skip the intro and get down to business.

That seems appropriate in light of what I see as the most pressing story: scientists are saying the impacts of climate change are happening far faster and sooner than they expected even two years ago. A report issued by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) indicates temperature increases of 6.3 F are likely by the end of the century.

According to an article in The Washington Post:

The increase is nearly double what scientists and world policymakers have identified as the upper limit of warming the world can afford in order to avert catastrophic climate change.

"It's accelerating," he [Robert Corell, chair of the Climate Action Initiative] said. "We're not going in the right direction."


Here’s the kicker — UNEP is saying the increase is likely to occur even if nations enact every climate policy now proposed. And since we know that has zero probability of occurring, how much faster and sooner do you suppose the “catastrophic consequences including rising sea-levels, droughts and famine, and the loss of up to a third of the world’s plant and animal species” that UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon warns of will arrive?

As the Post reported:

He [Achim Steiner, UNEP's executive director] noted that since 2000 alone, the average rate of melting at 30 glaciers in nine mountain ranges has doubled compared with the rate during the previous two decades.

"These are not things that are in dispute in terms of data," he said. "They are actually physically measurable."

Other findings include the fact that sea level might rise by as much as six feet by 2100 instead of 1.5 feet, as the IPCC had projected, and the Arctic may experience a sea-ice summer by 2030, rather than by the end of the century.


Now six feet is a big deal in an island chain. Over at Raising Islands Jan TenBruggencate has a post on two initiatives aimed at exploring what climate change could mean locally.

One interesting, and scary, aspect of all this is that the predictions are being revised in part because scientists are continually gaining a better understanding of how natural systems work. So since we’re still learning as we go on this one, what might we be overlooking that could change the predictions even more dramatically?

If that bums you out, you can always go talk story with Mitzi Gaynor, the star of “South Pacific,” on Oct. 4. Bringing Mitzi here for the 50th anniversary of that movie is just one of the bright ideas that the Kauai Visitors Bureau has come up with to spend some of the unprecedented $1 million the county forked over to re-attract tourists. In a broadcast on Hawaii Public Radio, KVB Director Sue Kanoho notes that Mitzi has a big following. Mmmm, maybe. But big enough to make a dent in the 20 percent decline in tourism on Kauai? I don’t think so. As a friend noted: “That generation is gone.”

But the plastic bags aren’t. Yes, the bill to ban ‘em hit another snag when county attorney Al Castillo jumped in, citing legal concerns and enforcement issues. So why hasn’t he piped up about the ag vacation rental bill when the very same issues of enforceability and legality have been raised about it?

Speaking of enforcement and legality, I learned a few interesting things while interviewing Police Chief Darryl Perry on KKCR yesterday, including that no disciplinary actions had been taken for the three years prior to his arrival. OK, boys, you just go ahead and have your fun, with no consequences. Yikes.

Further, he started work in a scorched earth environment, with no transitional reports — not even basic office supplies. That doesn’t say much for former Chief Lum’s professionalism, while it does speak volumes about the hostile, unwelcoming environment that greeted Perry.

I’ll be filing an article about the interview on The Hawaii Independent later today, so I’ll provide a link if you’d like to learn more about what the chief had to say.

One caller raised concerns about asset forfeiture laws, which are yet another troubling outgrowth of the war on drugs. As I reported in a 1996 Star-Bulletin story:

A Kauai case, in which Brian Lentz lost his Kilauea land and home in federal civil proceedings this year even though he was not convicted of selling marijuana from the home, drew a spate of letters and editorials in local newspapers from those who feared government was going too far.

Police said they found 31/2 pounds of marijuana in a 1992 raid on Lentz's house, after he allegedly sold five ounces of marijuana to an informant from the home.

"One of the problems with forfeiture is it has nothing to do with a criminal conviction," said Hilo attorney Chris Yuen, who argued successfully before the U.S. Supreme Court that hearings should be required before property is seized. "The amazing thing is that it can be imposed on an innocent person."


That’s right. They used to take the assets first, depriving you of your ability to use their value in financing your defense, and then you had to prove they weren’t linked to drug or other illegal activity — even if you were never convicted. There have been some reforms — now there has to be a hearing before they take it — but like much of the legal system, if you don't have money, it's hard to fight it, and since law enforcement agencies get to keep the booty, it does open the door to abuse, especially when the pickings are so good and resources are otherwise so tight.

25 comments:

Anonymous said...

From Yale Environment 360:

Provocative New Study Warns of Crossing Planetary Boundaries

The Earth has nine biophysical thresholds beyond which it cannot be pushed without disastrous consequences, the authors of a new paper in the journal Nature report. Ominously, these scientists say, we have already moved past three of these tipping points.

by carl zimmer

Human civilization has had a stable childhood. Over the past 10,000 years, as our ancestors invented agriculture and built cities, the Earth remained relatively stable. The average global temperature fluttered slightly, never lurching towards a greenhouse climate or chilling enough to enter a new Ice Age. The pH of the oceans remained steady, providing the right chemical conditions for coral reefs to grow and invertebrates to build shells. Those species, in turn, helped support a stable food web that provided plenty of fish for us humans to catch. The overall stability of the past 10,000 years may have played a big part in humanity’s explosion.

Now, ironically, civilization has become so powerful that it can reshape the planet itself. “We have become a force to contend with at the global level,” as Johan Rockstrom of the Stockholm Resilience Center in Sweden, puts it. Humans have changed the chemistry of Earth’s oceans, lowering their pH and causing ocean acidification. We are shifting the composition of the atmosphere, raising levels of carbon dioxide higher than they’ve been in at least the past 800,000 years.

A number of scientists have warned in recent years that if we keep pushing the planet this way, we will cause sudden, irreversible damage to the systems that made human civilization possible in the first place. Typically, they’ve just focused on one of these tipping points at a time. But in today’s issue of the journal Nature, Rockstrom and 27 of his fellow environmental scientists argue that we have to conceive of many tipping points at once. They propose that humans must keep the planet in what they call a “safe operating space,” inside of which we can thrive. If we push past the boundaries of that space — by wiping out biodiversity, for example, or diverting too much of the world’s freshwater — we risk catastrophe.

Anonymous said...

"Brian Lentz" I remember that and the fact that the "informant" can be paid up to $2500. In this case the "informant" was the son of a retired Hono FBI officer, was pulled over high on alcohol and meth by KPD, wore a wire, rolled on Lentz, and was put back on the street to inform some more. Seems the informant wired, paid and let loose on the public highway might pose more of a threat than Lentz!

Anonymous said...

Joan said: "Further, he started work in a scorched earth environment, with no transitional reports — not even basic office supplies. That doesn’t say much for former Chief Lum’s professionalism, while it does speak volumes about the hostile, unwelcoming environment that greeted Perry."

If you believe Perry. Freatis was literally "locked out" and Lum was facing racism, a hostile work environment, and bogus Felony charges of altering a government document. Seems like both were facing a lot more than Chief Perry who gets upset when people criticize him. Finally Perry was passed over in favor of Lum, so one might say the powers that be welcomed Perry with wide open arms. Don't you find it odd that after a nationwide search they picked someone they formerly rejected as the "best of the best" applicants? Not saying it is impossible but don't you smell that smell?

Anonymous said...

"scientists are continually gaining a better understanding of how natural systems work. So since we’re still learning as we go on this one, what might we be overlooking that could change the predictions even more dramatically?"

-- great point


"no disciplinary actions had been taken for the three years prior to his arrival"

-- that does seem strange. thank you for noting it


otherwise, i suspect this concern over forfeiture is driven more by people that dont like paying taxes and/or dont like current drug laws, as opposed to those genuinely concerned about burdens of proof in criminal proceedings (which is important, of course)

anyways, a well known example of "forfeitures gone wrong" is tenaha, tx

i would suggest citing that tx situation, not the proprietors of pot farms and meth labs


a_mainland_mentaility

Anonymous said...

There need be no nexus between drugs and forfeiture. All that is required is a finding that property allowed itself to be used for criminal activity. The civil suit is against the property not the owner. I know it sounds insane that property is sentient and has the capacity to allow something, but THAT IS THE LAW. Completely innocent people have been shot dead by these modern day Sheriffs of Nottinghams.

Anonymous said...

Hawaii Revised Statutes §712A-5 Property subject to forfeiture; exemption.

(1) The following is subject to forfeiture:

(a) Property described in a statute authorizing forfeiture;

(b) Property used or intended for use in the commission of, attempt to commit, or conspiracy to commit a covered offense, or which facilitated or assisted such activity;

(c) Any firearm which is subject to forfeiture under any other subsection of this section or which is carried during, visible, or used in furtherance of the commission, attempt to commit, or conspiracy to commit a covered offense, or any firearm found in proximity to contraband or to instrumentalities of an offense;

(d) Contraband or untaxed cigarettes in violation of chapter 245, shall be seized and summarily forfeited to the State without regard to the procedures set forth in this chapter;

(e) Any proceeds or other property acquired, maintained, or produced by means of or as a result of the commission of the covered offense;

(f) Any property derived from any proceeds which were obtained directly or indirectly from the commission of a covered offense;

(g) Any interest in, security of, claim against, or property or contractual right of any kind affording a source of influence over any enterprise which has been established, participated in, operated, controlled, or conducted in order to commit a covered offense;

(h) All books, records, bank statements, accounting records, microfilms, tapes, computer data, or other data which are used, intended for use, or which facilitated or assisted in the commission of a covered offense, or which document the use of the proceeds of a covered offense.

(2) Except that:

(a) Real property, or an interest therein, may be forfeited under the provisions of this chapter only in cases in which the covered offense is chargeable as a felony offense under state law;

(b) No property shall be forfeited under this chapter to the extent of an interest of an owner, by reason of any act or omission established by that owner to have been committed or omitted without the knowledge and consent of that owner;

(c) No conveyance used by any person as a common carrier in the transaction of a business as a common carrier is subject to forfeiture under this section unless it appears that the owner or other person in charge of the conveyance is a consenting party or privy to a violation of this chapter;

(d) No conveyance is subject to forfeiture under this section by reason of any act or omission established by the owner thereof to have been committed or omitted without the owner's knowledge or consent; and

(e) A forfeiture of a conveyance encumbered by a bona fide security interest is subject to the interest of the secured party if the secured party neither had knowledge of nor consented to the act or omission.

Anonymous said...

Hawaii Revised Statutes §712A-4 Covered offenses.

Offenses for which property is subject to forfeiture under this chapter are:

(a) All offenses which specifically authorize forfeiture;

(b) Murder, kidnapping, gambling, criminal property damage, robbery, bribery, extortion, theft, unauthorized entry into motor vehicle, burglary, money laundering, trademark counterfeiting, insurance fraud, promoting a dangerous, harmful, or detrimental drug, commercial promotion of marijuana, unlawful methamphetamine trafficking, manufacturing of a controlled substance with a child present, promoting child abuse, or electronic enticement of a child which is chargeable as a felony offense under state law;

(c) The manufacture, sale, or distribution of a controlled substance in violation of chapter 329, promoting detrimental drugs or intoxicating compounds, promoting pornography, promoting pornography for minors, or promoting prostitution, which is chargeable as a felony or misdemeanor offense, but not as a petty misdemeanor, under state law; and

(d) The attempt, conspiracy, solicitation, coercion, or intimidation of another to commit any offense for which property is subject to forfeiture.

Anonymous said...

Hawaii Revised Statutes §712A-8 Notice of forfeiture proceedings.

Unless otherwise provided, whenever notice is required under this chapter it shall be given in one of the following ways:

(a) If the owner's or interest-holder's name and current address are known:

(i) By personal service; or

(ii) By mail;

(b) If the owner's or interest-holder's interest is required by law to be on record with a state or federal agency in order to perfect an interest in the property, but the person's current address is not known, by mailing a copy of the notice by certified mail to any address on the record; or

(c) If the owner's or interest-holder's address is not known, and is not on record pursuant to paragraph (b), or if the person's interest is not known, by publication in one issue of a newspaper of general circulation in the county in which the seizure occurs.

Anonymous said...

"Completely innocent people have been shot dead by these modern day Sheriffs of Nottinghams."

Where?

Anonymous said...

"Completely innocent people have been shot dead by these modern day Sheriffs of Nottinghams."

Where?

Here for one: "On October 2, 1992 Malibu California millionaire Donald Scott was shot to death inside his own home, during a raid by Los Angeles Sheriff's Department and agents from five federal law enforcement agencies. The Scotts were awakened by the sound of the police breaking down their door. Scott's wife, Frances, ran downstairs to find her house swarming with men with guns aimed at her. She screamed "don't shoot me, don't kill me." Donald Scott, recovering from recent cataract surgery, got his gun and ran to the defense of his wife. When he emerged at the top of the stairs, holding his gun over his head, the officers told him to lower the gun. As he did, they shot him to death. The warrant was for evidence of the cultivation of marijuana, but no illegal activity was discovered at the Scott ranch. The report of the Ventura County District Attorney, Michael Bradbury, concluded that the police lied to obtain the search warrant, that there had never been any marijuana cultivation on the property, and that the raid was motivated by a desire to forfeit the multi-million dollar ranch. Despite the DA's dramatic conclusions, no officer was ever indicted, or even lightly disciplined for the lies or the killing."

Anonymous said...

"promoting prostitution, which is chargeable as a felony or misdemeanor offense,"

I suspect the recent prostitution "sting" here on Kauai may result in the duped John's that responding to the Craig' slist advert (possibly posted by Calif authorities) forfeiting some stuff.

Anonymous said...

Shirley Dorsey
56 years old
Placerville, California
April, 1991

Rather than being compelled to testify against her 70-year-old boyfriend (Byron Stamate) for cultivating the medicinal cannabis she depended upon to help control her crippling back pain, Shirley Dorsey committed suicide. She saw it as the only way to prevent the forfeiture of their home and property. Despite her suicide, Stamate was sentenced to 9 months prison, and his home, cottage, and $177,000 life savings were seized.

Anonymous said...

"Freatis was literally "locked out" and Lum was facing racism, a hostile work environment, and bogus Felony charges of altering a government document. Seems like both were facing a lot more than Chief Perry who gets upset when people criticize him. Finally Perry was passed over in favor of Lum, so one might say the powers that be welcomed Perry with wide open arms. Don't you find it odd that after a nationwide search they picked someone they formerly rejected as the "best of the best" applicants? Not saying it is impossible but don't you smell that smell?

What smell? Your sour grapes? That stuff happened to Lum & Freitas at the END of their time not the beginning so you can't even compare it to what Perry started with. I am so sick of Lum & his supporters whining. He only got the job bec of favoritism. He was never more qualified than Perry who should have got the job first time around.

Anonymous said...

This does sound fishy


By Paul Curtis - The Garden Island
Published: Tuesday, June 2, 2009 2:12 AM HST
LIHU‘E — Two men from Kaua‘i and a Big Island man are awaiting their first court appearances on charges of prostitution.

Seth Garrison Kawai Macomber, 24, of Lihu‘e, Jimit H. Mehta, 42, of Princeville, and Justin D. Rabang, 25, of Ke‘eau on the Big Island, were each arrested on suspicion of a single count of prostitution on March 25. Mehta and Rabang are out on bail, while Macomber remains in custody, according to court records and prosecutors.

According to county Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Justin Kollar, a California woman placed an ad on Craigslist — a classifieds Web site — saying she was coming to Kaua‘i and offering services, drawing responses from the three men.

Kaua‘i Police Department officers learned of the woman’s plans, contacted her, and arranged for a sting operation, Kollar said.

Money exchanged hands, clothes were taken off, and the men were arrested, Kollar said. Each of the men was charged with prostitution, a petty misdemeanor, and have court dates set later this month .

“We just want to discourage this kind of activity,” Kollar said.

The woman, 27-year-old Teresa Tran of Santa Clara, Calif., was arrested on two counts of third-degree promotion of prostitution at 5:18 p.m., but released pending further investigation, according to KPD’s daily arrest report the day in question.

The woman cooperated with police and isn’t currently facing any charges, and had $4,100 in cash returned to her after her arrest and release, Kollar said."

Anonymous said...

"I am so sick of Lum & his supporters whining."

The "altered document" charge was completely bogus (according to the State AG).

"That stuff happened to Lum & Freitas at the END of their time not the beginning" What happened to Perry at the beginning? Did I miss something? Lets just see what the Federal Court decides. My guess is the County (read you and me) will pony up a goodly sum for their penny-ante politics of personal destruction.

Anonymous said...

I doubt the settlement will be penny ante!

Anonymous said...

The call about confiscation was focused more on acquisition of those confiscated items and by who.

Perryʻs response was shocking and troubling: he claimed it to be ridiculous to even think about the possibility of cops targeting someone to bust them to seize their toys.

Itʻs troubling to see him go before the council requesting seized property.

There did used to be an auction of these things partly for the purpose of innocent parties being able to retrieve property that had been stolen from them. And since the state surely does not go out of their way to return or recover stolen property to the rightful owners, it offered a last ditch avenue to find your grandmaʻs heirloom jewelry.

Joan Conrow said...

Perryʻs response was shocking and troubling: he claimed it to be ridiculous to even think about the possibility of cops targeting someone to bust them to seize their toys.

As I recall it, Perry said KPD and the prosecutors office were not doing that, if anyone had any evidence that it was being done here, he wanted to know about it and it would be "a sad day in law enforcement" if cops were intentionally targeting someone for their assets.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for the clarification. I just remember he seemed a little shocked that someone would even suggest it.
My mistake if not.

Anonymous said...

“All the research I’ve read says that Tasers are safe,” he said.

ALL the ʻresearchʻ originates from the manufacturer

Anonymous said...

"ALL the ʻresearchʻ originates from the manufacturer"

-- eh, i would suggest not repeating that assertion in public, unless greatly qualified. also, taser tech has been around since the 70s fyi

so i am curious - was that your best guess? or are you just repeating what you hear?


a_mainland_mentality

Anonymous said...

I would suggest YOU do minimal research, as I have done extensive.

To your off-the-cuff response, which by the way, is just a way to kiss ass to the chief, there is little if none that is not an unbiased, meaning some affiliation with Taser Corp., to praise the merits of its ʻsafetyʻ.

I would suggest, seriously, you ask the chief if you could sign a waiver and allow them to taze you.

Idiot.

Anonymous said...

TO:September 25, 2009 10:16 PM

I had my questions before about you but that last response told a lot about you and where youʻre coming from which is basically a very lonely place and a desperate need to be included.

Anonymous said...

whatever kid. sorry you are peeved but you made the statement and that taser assertion was untenable. plenty of groups -- outside the manufacturer(s) --
have looked into various aspects of it. for starters, here are five (5) documents, links included:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17721165 ("Can the direct cardiac effects of the electric pulses generated by the TASER X26 cause immediate or delayed sudden cardiac arrest in normal adults?" Department of Medicine, Division of Cardiovascular Disease, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama)


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16289999 ("Acidosis, lactate, electrolytes, muscle enzymes, and other factors in the blood of Sus scrofa following repeated TASER exposures" Air Force Research Laboratory, Human Effectiveness Directorate, Directed Energy Bioeffects Division, Brooks City-Base, Texas)


http://www.css.drdc-rddc.gc.ca/cprc/tm/tm-2007-06E.pdf (Canadian Police Research Centre)


http://www.informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10903120600884863
"Taser Use in Restraint-Related Deaths"
Jared Strote, H. Range Hutson
Prehospital Emergency Care, 2006, Vol. 10, No. 4, Pages 447-450.
-University of Washington Medical Center... Harvard Medical School


http://www.engr.wisc.edu/bme/faculty/webster_john/4929Taser.pdf
(Can Tasers® directly cause ventricular fibrillation)


and there is lots more scientific and other literature on the topic, if anybody is interested. not hard to find


__same guy

Anonymous said...

("Can the direct cardiac effects of the electric pulses generated by the TASER X26 cause immediate or delayed sudden cardiac arrest in normal adults?"

Can it cause immediate or delayed cardiac arrest in "abnormal" adults. How might an Officer know if the taseree is normal or abnormal?