(04-20-2018 10:53 PM)TribeInTheBurg Wrote:  

(04-20-2018 08:35 PM)Tribe4SF Wrote:  Just for the record, I'm with the Task Force on this whole affair. Their record of successful interdiction is strong, particularly for a limited regional effort. They had reports from informants of sexual assaults occurring around drug activity which were not being reported. They investigated that drug activity. They have made 10 arrests so far for serious drug offenses.

I agree with you, but it's still weird that WMPD was left out of this without a public reason given for why. That lends itself to wild speculation.

They gave a reason. The investigation started outside the College, and WMPD is not part of the Task Force. Someone asked earlier why WMPD is not part of the Task Force. Reason for that is probably limited resources. Participating departments contribute manpower and other resources to the Task Force on a continuing basis. Some personnel may be full time.

Let's hope that whatever attention is given to the relationship between the College, WMPD, and area law enforcement leads to improved relationships, and better law enforcement. This will remain a side issue that has nothing to do with the process of this investigation and the prosecution of pending cases.

Adding my two cents here. Tribal is right. There is a fundamental difference between misdemeanor possession and the type of organized criminal activity that formed the basis for the arrests in this case. This is felonious behavior and has no business at the College; and there is no social policy rationale for tolerating it. These kids and their co-conspirators are very blessed that they are dealing with the local district attorney, and not the United States Attorneys Office - there is enough information in the media reports to suggest that, if a federal prosecutor were interested, there are sufficient grounds to bring a concurrent federal indictment. There is also no relationship between this type of investigation and the crack-related sentencing enhancements that led to "mass incarceration". It is easy to make broad generalizations about law enforcement practices in the United States; such generalizations are less defensible when you consider each case on its own merits. I agree with Tribal that certain folks on this thread may lack sufficient perspective. The irony is that five years ago, as SF will recall, my own views were markedly different. Then I joined the white collar practice at an elite firm and also did a clerkship for a federal judge in Beckley, West Virginia in the heart of the opiod epidemic; I got to know numerous high-level law enforcement officials and also represented enough pro bono clients to understand the devastating impact that hard drugs have on the lives of millions of Americans. Very quickly I realized that certain professors I had in law school were remarkably ignorant, perhaps willfully so, about the character of the individuals generally involved in narcotics, and more focused on pushing an ideological viewpoint aligned with their political affiliation. Kudos to local law enforcement on this one.

(04-21-2018 08:04 AM)ttgwm02 Wrote:  Adding my two cents here. Tribal is right. There is a fundamental difference between misdemeanor possession and the type of organized criminal activity that formed the basis for the arrests in this case. This is felonious behavior and has no business at the College; and there is no social policy rationale for tolerating it. These kids and their co-conspirators are very blessed that they are dealing with the local district attorney, and not the United States Attorneys Office - there is enough information in the media reports to suggest that, if a federal prosecutor were interested, there are sufficient grounds to bring a concurrent federal indictment. There is also no relationship between this type of investigation and the crack-related sentencing enhancements that led to "mass incarceration". It is easy to make broad generalizations about law enforcement practices in the United States; such generalizations are less defensible when you consider each case on its own merits. I agree with Tribal that certain folks on this thread may lack sufficient perspective. The irony is that five years ago, as SF will recall, my own views were markedly different. Then I joined the white collar practice at an elite firm and also did a clerkship for a federal judge in Beckley, West Virginia in the heart of the opiod epidemic; I got to know numerous high-level law enforcement officials and also represented enough pro bono clients to understand the devastating impact that hard drugs have on the lives of millions of Americans. Very quickly I realized that certain professors I had in law school were remarkably ignorant, perhaps willfully so, about the character of the individuals generally involved in narcotics, and more focused on pushing an ideological viewpoint aligned with their political affiliation. Kudos to local law enforcement on this one.

And also, ive also done investigations of local and university police departments in Virginia. Probably a very good reason campus police was left out. At a minimum, it keeps them from taking the flack. They can claim ignorance while having the problem removed. Given how easy it is for activists to target campus police vs WPD, letting WPD run the show solves a lot of issues. Reveley should be worried more about the drugs. No evidence any rights were violated here.

Those talking about sexual assault, that is an interesting dilemma. Suggest reading some of Brooklyn College Professsor KC Johnson's work on the subject. Having defended a number of falsely accused men in "he said, she said" situations on college campuses, be careful what you wish for in calling for zealous emforcement.

(04-21-2018 07:07 AM)Tribe4SF Wrote:  

(04-20-2018 10:53 PM)TribeInTheBurg Wrote:  

(04-20-2018 08:35 PM)Tribe4SF Wrote:  Just for the record, I'm with the Task Force on this whole affair. Their record of successful interdiction is strong, particularly for a limited regional effort. They had reports from informants of sexual assaults occurring around drug activity which were not being reported. They investigated that drug activity. They have made 10 arrests so far for serious drug offenses.

I agree with you, but it's still weird that WMPD was left out of this without a public reason given for why. That lends itself to wild speculation.

They gave a reason. The investigation started outside the College, and WMPD is not part of the Task Force. Someone asked earlier why WMPD is not part of the Task Force. Reason for that is probably limited resources. Participating departments contribute manpower and other resources to the Task Force on a continuing basis. Some personnel may be full time.

Let's hope that whatever attention is given to the relationship between the College, WMPD, and area law enforcement leads to improved relationships, and better law enforcement. This will remain a side issue that has nothing to do with the process of this investigation and the prosecution of pending cases.

I like ttgwm02's reasoning that keeping WMPD out insulates them from any fallout. What made it "weird" for me was that WMPD didn't even get a heads up, but if it let W&M publicly be "upset" about not being included as well as cleaning up the College then that's win-win.

(04-21-2018 11:33 AM)ttgwm02 Wrote:  And also, ive also done investigations of local and university police departments in Virginia. Probably a very good reason campus police was left out. At a minimum, it keeps them from taking the flack. They can claim ignorance while having the problem removed. Given how easy it is for activists to target campus police vs WPD, letting WPD run the show solves a lot of issues. Reveley should be worried more about the drugs. No evidence any rights were violated here.

Those talking about sexual assault, that is an interesting dilemma. Suggest reading some of Brooklyn College Professsor KC Johnson's work on the subject. Having defended a number of falsely accused men in "he said, she said" situations on college campuses, be careful what you wish for in calling for zealous emforcement.

This and your previous post were good and illuminating. Thanks for posting.