Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.RoundClass[4]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[3]

Details

Caselist.RoundClass[4]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2016-12-03 13:47:19.157
	1	+2016-12-03 13:47:19.0

Caselist.CitesClass[3]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,48 @@
	1	+1AC – Border Patrol
	2	+Part 1 is The Fence
	3	+Qualified immunity gives the US Border Patrol a shield under which it brutally tortures and kills Mexicans.
	4	+Kennis 16. (Andrew Kennis. Andrew Kennis is an international journalist, a higher education pedagogue and an academic researcher specializing in Digital Journalism Studies, Communication Policy Studies, Global Media, Political Communication, Political Economy and International Communications. Dr. Kennis was recently appointed as a Visiting Assistant Professor at the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM), where he will teach several courses, including a graduate seminar analyzing the news media and the drug war. He recently completed his third year as an Assistant Professor at the University of Texas, El Paso (UTEP), where he undertook research on and taught courses in journalism studies and practice, global media and the drug war. While publishing peer-reviewed, scholarly research and completing grant-funded studies, Dr. Kennis still continues to practice journalism from many corners of the globe. As a researcher, Dr. Kennis has published in peer review journals ranging across three different disciplines (communications, political science and technology studies). He has won top conference paper awards and presented his work in both the United States and abroad (London, Tokyo, Vancouver and Mexico City). University-level courses Dr. Kennis has designed and taught have included "Multimedia Writing," "Investigative and Public Affairs Reporting," "Digital Media and Globalization," “Global Media, Money and Power," "Media and the Drug War," "Media and Democracy," “Politics and the Media,” and other classes in political science, policy studies and society and technology studies. As a journalist, Dr. Kennis has practiced online-based / convergence reporting, investigative and print reporting, citizen journalism, and online-based and traditional radio throughout the last fifteen years. He has reported from locations based in four continents and over twenty countries across the globe, including on-the-scene reporting from the El Paso / Ciudad Juarez border corridor, Brazil, Colombia, Israel and the Occupied Territories, Japan, Venezuela, Taiwan, Guatemala and Mexico. Dr. Kennis served as the border correspondent for teleSUR's English division and has also published in a variety of news sources, including The Christian Science Monitor, Al Jazeera English, teleSUR English, Proceso (Mexico), Time Out, emeequis (Mexico). His work has resulted in invited on-air expert appearances on both live international television and radio broadcasts. “Supreme Court to Decide Fate of Case That Challenges Cross-Border Killings by US Agents”. 03/30/16. https://news.vice.com/article/supreme-court-cross-border-killing-patrol-agent-usa-mexico) //TruLe
	5	+Sergio Adrián Hernández was a slender 15-year-old boy who loved soccer and aspired to be a police officer when he was shot through his left eye by Jesus Mesa Jr., a US Border Patrol agent, on June 6, 2010 in Ciudad Juárez. Guillermo Arevalo Pedroza, a longtime construction worker, was in the midst of a family barbecue picnic and birthday celebration on September 3, 2012 when he was shot by the Border Patrol. The 37-year-old Arevalo bled to death in his 10-year-old daughter's arms in Nuevo Laredo, just across the border from Laredo, Texas. José Antonio Elena Rodríguez was taking an evening walk to pick up a hot dog at a local food stand when he was hit by at least 12 rounds from a Border Patrol agent's .40 caliber pistol. The 16-year-old died on October 10, 2012 in Nogales near the Arizona border. Juan Pablo Santillan was collecting firewood on July 7, 2012 with his brother when he was killed in Nogales. His brother said the man behind the gun responded to an appeal for help by yelling "Let the dog die."
	6	+All these victims were Mexican nationals who were unarmed and, according to background checks, only one had a criminal record. All the deaths occurred in border towns in Mexico. Most importantly, they were among the seven people killed on Mexican soil since 2010 by Border Patrol agents who fired their weapons from the US side of the border. Based on more than 13,000 documents worth of data coming from Border Patrol reports, records from the Mexican foreign ministry, news accounts compiled by the Southern Border Coalition, and an investigation by the Arizona Republic, Border Patrol agents have killed at least 52 people since 2004, including 15 US citizens, with 30 of those fatalities occurring since 2010, including the seven cross-border cases. Now the families of these victims, their lawyers and advocacy groups, have joined together to force a decision with important implications for border politics, as well as their respective quest for justice. One of the cases, the shooting of the 15-year-old boy, led to a lawsuit— Hernández v. Mesa— that is now before the US Supreme Court, which is due to decide by April 1 whether to postpone the case, fully consider it, or throw it out altogether. At the same time, several other cases are moving through the courts, including another civil suit that is similar to the one being considered by the Supreme Court and the first criminal case ever to be prosecuted for a cross-border shooting. If the Supreme Court either rejects the case, or if it upholds the last appellate court ruling in the government's favor, Mexican families will not have the right to sue the government for civil rights violations of deceased relatives who have been victims of cross-border killings at the hands of Border Patrol agents. However, if Mexican families win either or both of the civil cases, they will gain Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights, including the chance to sue Border Patrol agents who kill or seriously injure their family members. This could result in compensatory damages via the constitutional and civil rights they will have gained. The Hernández v. Mesa case got to the Supreme Court after the notoriously conservative Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which has jurisdiction over all of Texas and many border areas, ruled against the families. The government argues that this is a case where "qualified immunity" applies to the agent responsible for the shooting. This means that in order to successfully sue a government official, you have to show a violation of clearly established law. The Fifth Circuit agreed, reasoning that it is not clearly established by law that the US Constitution applies to a Mexican national killed in Mexico. Lawyers representing the families argue that this argument circumvents the obvious. "You don't need a court decision to say that it is wrong to kill an unarmed 15-year-old boy," says Steve Shadowen, one of the lawyers representing the Hernández family. "It's common sense and decency that you get judicial review when it comes to police killings of unarmed children," he added. Shadowen also stressed that at the time Hernández was shot, the officer didn't know whether the boy was a US or a Mexican national. Federal agencies — Border Patrol is part of US Customs and Border Protection (CBP), which is part of the Department of Homeland Security — have tended to justify cross-border killings on the grounds that Border Patrol agents only shot because they were in danger from the victims throwing rocks at them. Lawyers for the families of shooting victims have dismissed this argument, as have US government officials in other contexts. When Hillary Clinton was secretary of state, she criticized Egyptian security forces for using deadly force against stone-throwing protesters shortly before the fall of the US-supported Hosni Mubarak regime. At the international level, United Nations Commissions on Human Rights, civil rights groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union, and human rights groups such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have issued condemnations against fatal force being used against rock throwers. The so-called "rockers" defense was used in the case of Hernández, though now there are serious doubts about whether the teen ever even threw a stone before he was killed on the Mexican side of the Rio Grande. James Tomsheck, a former CBP internal affairs director turned whistleblower, recently wrote in a deposition for the Supreme Court case that he saw three different videotapes of the murder of Hernández, and they all confirmed that the teenager did not throw any rocks at Mesa. Related: 'It's an American Problem': Meet the Militias Patrolling the US Border Tomsheck also recalled the assessment of a senior FBI official who stated that if the Border Patrol were a municipal police agency, its excessive use of force would have resulted in it being put into "federal receivership," similar to what has happened in Ferguson, Albuquerque, and other cities with troubled police departments where the Department of Justice has intervened by launching civil rights probes. The 52 people killed by Border Patrol agents since 2004 include several unarmed men who were beaten to death, a Mexican citizen who died after he was forced to drink concentrated liquid methamphetamine, and other civilians who were shot, pepper-sprayed, or shocked with stun guns. Some frontier watchers say Border Patrol violence is linked to less stringent recruiting standards and poor training amid a push to militarize the border that goes back several administrations. The efforts first began in the mid-90s, but accelerated dramatically after George W. Bush signed the 2006 Secure Fence Act, which led to more than 600 miles of fencing and additional funding for staff and surveillance. Funding increases continued under the Obama administration, which has deported more people than in any other previous administration. "This The means by which potentially hired Border Patrol personnel have been screened has led to a significant percentage who are unfit to carry a gun and a badge," said Chris Rickerd, a staff attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union who has long monitored the lack of punishments registered against the Border Patrol. "It is the largest law enforcement agency in the country, but doesn't nearly have the commensurate oversight and accountability it needs." It is rare for CBP to even release the names of agents involved in shootings or the identities of their victims, and, until recently, there had never been a criminal charge filed against any Border Patrol agent involved in a fatal cross-border shooting. Last September, CPB agent Lonnie Swartz was charged with second-degree murder for killing 16-year-old José Antonio Elena Rodríguez. Swartz shot the teenager at least 10 times from the US side of the border while Elena Rodríguez was taking a nighttime stroll down International Avenue in Nogales, Mexico in 2012. Luis Parra, a Nogales and Tucson, Arizona-based lawyer, is representing the family of Elena Rodríguez. "There has never been a cross-border homicide case, ever," he said. "It is unique." Parra maintains that the government is contradicting itself by charging one of its officers with murder while also taking the position that "qualified immunity" applies to civil cases related to cross-border shootings. Parra added that his client's citizenship is irrelevant. "There was a boy that was shot with 10 bullets in his own country and he was not committing any crimes," he said. "What gives them the right to spray 10 bullets into a boy in his own country?" For more than a half-decade, grieving Mexican families who have lost relatives to Border Patrol shootings have had to contend with contradictory legal decisions that have given them both victories and defeats on the path to the Supreme Court. "Maybe, just maybe because of the death of my son, all of this mess will change," Araceli Rodríguez Salazar told VICE News. "I don't want any other parents to suffer in the manner in which I have." Rodríguez is the mother of José Antonio Elena Rodríguez, the 16-year-old who was shot unarmed in Nogales, and whose case is currently being considered in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Guillermo Arevalo Pedroza, the unarmed construction worker killed by the Border Patrol in 2012, was "a happy person, a playful father and a family man. He liked to play and watch soccer," his widow Nora Isabel Lam told VICE News. "Nobody expected it and I never thought they were going to kill my husband," she said. "I am not sure if the case will be considered but I simply pray that good news will come out this when all is said and done." Whether Border Patrol agents will ultimately be held accountable for cross-border shootings depends on the pending Supreme Court case regarding the killing of 15-year-old Sergio Adrián Hernández. Prior to their case reaching the high court, the Hernández family had a string of ups and downs in the courtroom. In 2012, a lower court judge acknowledged that the case involved the "wrongful taking of life," but ultimately ruled that it should be dismissed because "the victim was not a US citizen and incurred the injury in Mexico." A partial panel of the Fifth Circuit Court reversed the decision in 2014, resulting in an unexpected and significant victory for the Hernández family. But even that gain was short-lived — the full court reversed the decision after an appeal by the Obama administration. Now, the Hernández family awaits word on whether its own appeal will be heard from the Supreme Court. The court has until Friday to decide which direction it wants to go with a case that has seen a flurry of contradictory rulings. Robert Hilliard, a lawyer for the Hernández family based in Corpus Christi, Texas, will handle oral arguments in the case if the justices decide to hear it. He has never argued a case in front of the Supreme Court, but his colleagues told VICE News that he has been known to "bring courtrooms to tears." Shadowen, another Hernández family attorney and Hilliard's colleague, said he thinks it is unlikely to be thrown out, in large part because the justices decided late last year to send the case to Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., the government's legal expert and adviser, for consideration. Although Verrilli wrote in opposition to the Mexican families on behalf of the federal government, Shadowen said that it's a less important indicator than the fact that most cases sent to the solicitor general for an opinion end up being fully considered by the Supreme Court. In light of the recent death of Justice Antonin Scalia, however, some believe that the most likely decision will be a delay. Parra, the Elena Rodríguez lawyer, said that this could also give more importance to his pending case before the Ninth Circuit since it could come to trial before the Supreme Court decides anything on the Hernández case. Lower courts have ruled favorably for Elena Rodríguez, which could be significant going forward depending on the outcome of the separate Supreme Court case. Hilliard nevertheless remains optimistic about his chances. He told VICE News that, at the end of the day, "You can't have a free killing zone or a place where law enforcement agents are allowed to shoot and murder innocent Mexican nationals without civil recourse." In spite of Hilliard's optimism, the question remains: Will border immunity in terms of cross-border killings continue to survive without any legal recourse for Mexican victims? Nothing less than that question is what is at stake this week in light of the pending decision to be taken by the Supreme Court.
	7	+Qualified Immunity is used to commit racialized genocide at the border.
	8	+Dunn 01. Dunn, Timothy J. “Border Militarization Via Drug And Immigration enforcement: Human Rights Implications.” Social Justice, vol. 28, no. 2 (84), 2001, pp. 7–30. www.jstor.org/stable/29768073.//AD
	9	+Military collaboration with the Border Patrol in the U.S.-Mexico border region on drug and immigration enforcement has been extensive and enduring. The military's geographic focus extends beyond the border and it now works with a plethora of police bodies throughout the U.S. on drug enforcement. Such ongoing military involvement in domestic police matters is unique in post-Reconstruction U.S. history. The more militaristic elements of that collaboration and support, however, have focused primarily on the border. Such support gave rise to the tragic killing in 1997 of a U.S. citizen by a Marine during a border-area ground surveillance mission conducted for the Border Patrol. Since then, military collabo? ration has lessened somewhat in practice, but has changed little at the level of formal policy. The door remains open to a return to the use of armed ground troops. Moreover, military support for border policing may expand in the future. Despite the significant human rights implications, neither the military, the Border Patrol, nor policymakers appear to have given them much consideration. What are the human rights implications of military involvement in policing, at the border and beyond? Among the theoretical principles guiding such a discussion is the significance of human rights for nation-state conduct. For Turner (1993: 178, 182), "the point about the concept of human rights is that they are extra governmental and have traditionally been used to counteract the repressive capacity of states...." He proposes that institutions are often responsible for human rights violations, an outcome attributable in part to the bureaucratization process. Dunn Sjoberg and Vaughan (1993:145-146) argue that bureaucracy tends to undermine the human rights of the "truly disadvantaged" through a process of "social triage" that includes the sacrifice of their general well-being and dignity, as well as the occasional use of repression. It becomes more "efficient" to write off the rights and well-being of the most subordinated groups, because to really address their needs would entail profound societal reforms and "sacrifices" on the part of elites (Sjoberg, 1996). Thus, institutions and bureaucratic power structures threaten the rights, dignity, and well-being of people, especially subordinated groups. The military and Border Patrol are bureaucratic entities, and their law enforcement efforts target subordinated groups: working-poor undocumented immigrants, and poor, low-level drug couriers ("mules"). In the borderlands, this generally means people with a Latino/a appearance, especially Mexicans and Mexican Americans. Consequently, increased border enforcement efforts tend to "sacrifice" the human rights of members of those groups (at least more so than those of other groups). The Border Patrol's troubled human rights record in the region reflects this pattern (e.g., Human Rights Watch, 1995; DLEMP, 1992; Dunn, 1996: 83-91; 1999a: Chapter 6; 1999b). The military is responsible for the most severe human rights abuse related to border enforcement to date, the killing of a Mexican American teenager in Redford, Texas. In this instance of (probably unintentional) repression, military conduct was replete with gross misunderstandings by soldiers and their unwarranted escalation of the use of force. The inappropriate matching of military troops against nonmilitary threats (more properly, social problems) illustrates the danger bound up in border enforcement, because they are trained to respond with deadly force to perceived threats, regardless of the objective situation. As Lawrence Korb, a former assistant secretary of defense in the Reagan administration, stated shortly after the Redford incident, "the military, to put it bluntly, is trained to vaporize, not Mirandize" (Holt, 1997c). The institutional forces involved had as little regard for respecting human rights as they did with reading one's rights. Even the less severe forms of military collaboration in border policing have negative implications for the status of human rights. For instance, much of the military training and intelligence support offered by JTF-6 seems inappropriate for civilian police bodies. This is because military interrogation techniques, raids, and intelligence activities are typically not designed or conducted with a concern for the U.S. legal system's requirements for safeguarding suspects' rights, but rather aim to eliminate or neutralize an enemy threat. Even elements of the military recognize this. Part of the fallout from the 1993 Waco tragedy is that the Special Forces Command has since 1996 refused to provide police with training in some of the most extreme military tactics. Another danger is the spread of militarization related to antidrug enforcement from the Southwest border to interior areas. My "spectrum of border militarization" could be used to examine interior areas, for the border experience appears to be a vanguard of a larger process of military/police collaboration. Ground troops have been restricted mainly to border areas, but elsewhere other types of military support for police agencies, such as training in military operational and intelligence tactics, could lead police to adopt ever-more military tactics. (Kraska, 1997, has documented this with regard to the flourishing of police paramilitary units.) The blurring of lines between the police and the military has long been associated with human rights problems, especially in developing countries. Moreover, once military collaboration has developed with the Border Patrol and other police bodies, limiting it to features on the less militaristic end of the continuum has proved difficult, apart from the few actions explicitly prohibited by law (i.e., military troops conducting arrests, searches, or seizures). The tendency seems to be gradual escalation, one quite removed from public consciousness, let alone debate. The Redford tragedy, an illustration of the human rights danger of that evolution, spurred a relatively brief period of public debate and a partial inhibition of the escalation in the militarization of border enforcement. Human rights concerns are by default "sacrificed" in favor of ever-greater drug and immigration enforcement, and perhaps a future "homeland defense" mission for the military that exceeds physical threats. When illegal immigration and drugs are cast principally as security matters, human rights become a secondary concern. Debate could bring to light that the drug issue would be better viewed as a public health problem than a security threat. Scholars have yet to theorize the human rights implications and significance of the trend toward enhanced military collaboration with police border enforcement. The border is a contemporary proving ground for the militarization of law enforcement. Largely out of public view, subordinate groups have been targeted in this peripheral region on a broader scale than anywhere else in contemporary U.S. history. An insidious form of "mission creep," this expansion of militarism is consistent with the state's intensified and punitive wars against crime and drugs. Collaboration between the state's main corporal bureaucratic power structures does not auger well for the vulnerable human rights of subordinated groups, mainly those of Hispanic appearance in the borderlands. Given the importance of human rights as a building block for a decent, democratic society, it would be a grave error if policymakers were to continue to neglect them; their security may even hang in the balance. Beyond making human rights a central consideration in all law enforcement measures, several reforms could address this ominous development. Democratic accountability for JTF-6 and other military bodies engaged in domestic policing could be fostered by requiring regular, detailed, public reporting on their activities and the establishment of a mechanism for public, external oversight and investigation. Another positive step would be to prohibit the most coercive and severe forms of military support for police bodies. An example would be the U.S. Special Forces Command's refusal to allow its troops to provide training to police in several extremely coercive military tactics; such restrictions could be generalized to all U.S. military units. Ultimately, the best course would be to abolish JTF-6 and to sever most or all military ties to domestic police agencies. Recent history in Latin America and other developing regions demonstrates that such collaboration invariably imperils human rights and democracy itself. Beyond these reforms, serious policy attention is needed to address the larger underlying economic, social, political, and cultural dimensions on both sides of the border that drive so much of the cross-border flow of immigrants and drugs. Failure to do so will likely fan the mania for border enforcement and endanger human rights.
	10	+Part 2 is The Resistance
	11	+Plan text: The Supreme Court of the United States should limit qualified immunity for Border Patrol Agents. To clarify the Supreme Court should rule in favor of Hernandez in the ongoing Hernandez V. Mesa court case. I reserve the right to clarify in cx.
	12	+
	13	+The plan sets a precedent that holds Border Patrol agents accountable.
	14	+TNAP 10/21 (The Tucson News Associated Press frequently writes articles on local and national news related to the Tucson area. “Appeals court considers claim against agent in fatal cross-border shooting,” Tucson.com. October 21, 2016. http://tucson.com/news/local/border/appeals-court-considers-claim-against-agent-in-fatal-cross-border/article_fe6f3ae8-97bc-11e6-9d7f-bb001c158b16.html) //WW JA 11/4/16
	15	+Allowing a Border Patrol agent to escape trial for shooting a Mexican teen through the border fence in Nogales would expose area residents to the same danger, an attorney for the teen's mother told federal judges Friday. Lee Gelernt, of the American Civil Liberties Union, contends Lonnie Swartz should be forced to answer the wrongful death claim filed by the mother of 16-year-old Jose Antonio Elena Rodriguez. He acknowledged that the boy was not in the United States when shot, nor had he just fled over the fence. In fact, there was no evidence the boy had ever even been in this country or that he wanted to live in this country. But Gelernt told the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that's legally irrelevant. “We don't think that you need to want to live in the U.S. to not be shot across the border,” he said. Potentially more significant, Gelernt warned the three-judge panel that allowing Swartz — and anyone else who fires shots across the border — to escape civil liability in a cross-border shooting is bad policy. He pointed out that the boy was walking along Calle Internacional, a major street in Nogales, Son., which runs parallel and adjacent to the border fence. “This is a community that has to walk along this street all the time,” Gelernt said. He said they should not have to have some contact with the United States, like asking for health care benefits, to have legal standing and legal protections. “They're just saying that they don't want to be shot when they walk to the store or go to the doctor along the border which it's inescapable that they have to do,” Gelernt said. “They cannot be asked to have to assume the risk of being shot every time they walk along the main thoroughfare.” Swartz has separately been charged with second degree murder, with that case pending before a federal judge in Tucson. But Swartz, who is on administrative leave, is trying to get the indictment dismissed. And Gelernt said even if Swartz is convicted, that is not the same as giving civil relief to the boy's family. The judges are not expected to rule any time soon. The U.S. Supreme Court earlier this month agreed to hear a similar case out of Texas where a Border Patrol agent in 2010 shot and killed a Mexican teen playing in a culvert that separates El Paso from Juarez. The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last year the parents cannot pursue their claim against Jesus Mesa Jr. because the boy, Sergio Hernandez, was a Mexican citizen “who was on Mexican soil at the time he was shot.” Appellate Judge Milan Smith Jr. said his court will be bound by whatever the Supreme Court rules. But Smith pointed out that there are still only eight justices on the high court. The U.S. Senate has refused to consider the nomination of Merrick Garland by President Obama. And Smith said if the high court splits 4-4 on that Texas case, there will be no precedent set, freeing the 9th Circuit to reach its own conclusion.
	16	+The plan is key to accountability and spills over – we catalyze institutional reform.
	17	+De Stefan 16. (Lindsey De Stefan is a former lawyer for Maceri and da Costa LLC and currently works for Seton Hall Law Review, 2017, " “No Man Is Above the Law and No Man Is Below It:” How Qualified Immunity Reform Could Create Accountability and Curb Widespread Police Misconduct," Law School Student Scholarship, http://scholarship.shu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1861andamp;context=student_scholarship) //RS
	18	+Irrespective of whether there has been an increase in the incidence of brutality or whether the nation is merely recognizing what has been an ongoing reality for many U.S. citizens, the existence of a problem is now inescapably obvious. The solution, however, is decidedly less clear. Perhaps none of the aforementioned proposals are the right answer. Alternatively, and more likely, maybe they are all the answer—at least partially and in combination with a number of other considerations. It is improbable that a single factor can be deemed the sole cause of widespread police misconduct. Of course, an elaborate problem with multiple dimensions will require an equally multifaceted solution. In fact, any adequate resolution will likely require the cooperation of many individuals and entities across various disciplines and industries.13 But no matter how winding, every path to change must begin with a single step. And the most logical place to begin is by reforming the stringent protection from civil liability enjoyed by law enforcement officers alleged to have violated individual constitutional rights. This Comment will explore how judicial amendment of the qualified immunity doctrine— specifically as it is applied to law enforcement officers—could serve as a catalyst to begin to rein in police misconduct. Part II will describe the general history of the most significant statutory provision in this context, Section 1983, and the expansion of constitutional torts that occurred in the mid-twentieth century. Part III focuses on the judicial development of qualified immunity in the Supreme Court and explains the status of the doctrine today. Part IV discusses some of the most significant practical problems with the modern qualified immunity jurisprudence and its application. Part V goes on to analyze the recent spotlight on police use of force. Finally, Part VI proposes that judicial amendment of qualified immunity application will serve as an effective first step in decreasing the overall incidence of police misconduct in the United States.
	19	+They continue:
	20	+By beginning to mend the qualified immunity doctrine in these ways, the Court will allow more civil suits for the vindication of constitutional rights to succeed. This will help to reduce the public mentality—strengthened by recent events—that cops get away with everything, in every regard. Civil suits avoid subjecting law enforcement to any criminal liability that, because of recent events, many laypersons believe is warranted. While this may be true in select circumstances, reality demonstrates that criminal charges are highly unlikely to stick against a police officer. But allowing more civil suits to go forward will serve as an important reminder to both civilians and law enforcement that the police are not above the law, and that they are held accountable for their wrongdoings. In turn, this accountability will begin to heal the relationship between law enforcement and communities by serving as the first step on what will surely be a long path to rebuilding the trust that is so crucial.
	21	+Part 3 is The Mechanism
	22	+I value morality as per the evaluative term “ought” in the resolution, which is defined as “used to express duty or moral obligation”. By Merriam-Webster.
	23	+The standard is minimizing oppression
	24	+Structural violence is based in moral exclusion, which is fundamentally flawed because exclusion is based on arbitrarily perceived difference.
	25	+Winter and Leighton 01. Winter, D. D., and Dana C. Leighton." Structural violence." Peace, conflict and violence: Peace psychology for the 21st century (2001): 99-101.
	26	+Finally, to recognize the operation of structural violence forces us to ask questions about how and why we tolerate it, questions which often have painful answers for the privileged elite who unconsciously support it. A final question of this section is how and why we allow ourselves to be so oblivious to structural violence. Susan Opotow offers an intriguing set of answers, in her article Social Injustice. She argues that our normal perceptual cognitive processes divide people into in-groups and out-groups. Those outside our group lie outside our scope of justice. Injustice that would be instantaneously confronted if it occurred to someone we love or know is barely noticed if it occurs to strangers or those who are invisible or irrelevant. We do not seem to be able to open our minds and our hearts to everyone, so we draw conceptual lines between those who are in and out of our moral circle. Those who fall outside are morally excluded, and become either invisible, or demeaned in some way so that we do not have to acknowledge the injustice they suffer. Moral exclusion is a human failing, but Opotow argues convincingly that it is an outcome of everyday social cognition. To reduce its nefarious effects, we must be vigilant in noticing and listening to oppressed, invisible, outsiders. Inclusionary thinking can be fostered by relationships, communication, and appreciation of diversity. Like Opotow, all the authors in this section point out that structural violence is not inevitable if we become aware of its operation, and build systematic ways to mitigate its effects. Learning about structural violence may be discouraging, overwhelming, or maddening, but these papers encourage us to step beyond guilt and anger, and begin to think about how to reduce structural violence. All the authors in this section note that the same structures (such as global communication and normal social cognition) which feed structural violence, can also be used to empower citizens to reduce it. In the long run, reducing structural violence by reclaiming neighborhoods, demanding social jus- tice and living wages, providing prenatal care, alleviating sexism, and celebrating local cultures, will be our most surefooted path to building lasting peace.
	27	+
	28	+
	29	+Debates over qualified immunity require a focus on consequences.
	30	+Chen 97. Alan Chen is a leading national expert in free speech doctrine and theory, 1997, " THE BURDENS OF QUALIFIED IMMUNITY: SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND THE ROLE OF FACTS IN CONSTITUTIONAL TORT LAW," The American University Law Review, http://www.americanuniversitylawreview.org/pdfs/47/47-1/chen.pdf //RS
	31	+In the modem constitutional era, the Court defines the scope of substantive constitutional law by articulating balancing tests-broad, open-ended standards that define the scope of most individual constitutional rights. 267 Rather than providing a set of bright-line rules divining predetermined results for particular types of government conduct or regulation, balancing tests identify general criteria for constitutional decisionmaking, but leave great discretion to the decisionmaker to apply these criteria to the individual circumstances of each case.' When it creates balancing tests, the Court instructs lower courts to explicitly "weigh" individual rights (e.g., privacy, equality, speech) against governmental interests (e.g., public health, social welfare, social order) .26 The balancing metaphor symbolizes the evaluation of the relative substantive importance of these often competing values. Balancing tests, like all legal standards, necessitate individualized, context-specific determinations of constitutional rights because the quantum of interests may vary substantially from case to case, even under the same constitutional provision. In each case, the decisionmaker determines the outcome by evaluating which interest or value is "weightier.”
	32	+Kant’s use of rationality as the basis for ethics excludes people with cognitive disabilities and nonhuman animals. This ableist politics subordinates those deemed “invaluable”.
	33	+Ryan 11. Intro to ethics @ Birmingham University Phil 140; “Cognitive Disability, Misfortune, and Justice”; Jan 17; http://parenethical.com/phil140win11/2011/01/17/group-3-cognitive-disability-misfortune-and-justice-deontology-ryan/
	34	+In Kant's deontological ethics, one has a duty to treat humanity not as a means, but as an ends. However, Kant's criterion for being part of humanity and moral agency is not biological. In order to be considered fully human, and a moral agent, one must be autonomous and rational. If one lacks rationality and autonomy they cannot escape the chain of causality to act freely from moral principles, and hence are not moral agents. Kant's moral program fails to account for those who are cognitively impaired because they lack autonomy and rationality. Since Kant's requirement for moral agency is so cut-and-dry and leaves no room for ambiguity, there is no clear moral distinction made between the cognitively impaired and other non-human animals. In the case of Kant, there could be no universal moral law from the categorical imperative that would apply to the cognitively impaired and not non-human animals as well. Kant and McMahan are similar, in that their standards for moral agency exclude the cognitively impaired (rationality/autonomy and psychological capacities respectively). In Kant's morality, those who are rational and autonomous are to be treated as ends in themselves. In the case of the cognitively impaired, there is no such requirement. Similarly, in McMahan's moral theory, those who are human and unfortunate are entitled to compensation by society under the dictates of justice. However, according to McMahan the cognitively impaired are not human in the relevant sense (possessing certain psychological capacities and features) so they are not entitled to compensation. In excluding the cognitively impaired from moral agency, both Kant and McMahan reach a conclusion that many of us find unsettling, in which we might give the cognitively impaired a moral preference over a similarly endowed non-human animal, is because of a responsibility to respect the family members of the cognitively endowed, not because that they have no any value as moral agents in themselves.
	35	+Adopting the perspective of the oppressed is the only way to account for dominant ideologies that skew our thought processes.
	36	+Mills 5 Charles W. Mills (John Evans Professor of Moral and Intellectual Philosophy) ““Ideal Theory” as Ideology” Hypatia vol. 20, no. 3 (Summer 2005) JW
	37	+Now what distinguishes ideal theory is not merely the use of ideals, since obviously nonideal theory can and will use ideals also (certainly it will appeal to the moral ideals, if it may be more dubious about the value of invoking idealized human capacities). What distinguishes ideal theory is the reliance on idealization to the exclusion, or at least marginalization, of the actual. As O’Neill emphasizes, this is not a necessary corollary of the operation of abstraction itself, since one can have abstractions of the ideal-as-descriptive-model type that abstract without idealizing. But ideal theory either tacitly represents the actual as a simple deviation from the ideal, not worth theorizing in its own right, or claims that starting from the ideal is at least the best way of realizing it. Ideal theory as an approach will then utilize as its basic apparatus some or all of the following concepts and assumptions (there is necessarily a certain overlap in the list, since they all intersect with one another): An idealized social ontology. Moral theory deals with the normative, but it cannot avoid some characterization of the human beings who make up the society, and whose interactions with one another are its subject. So some overt or tacit social ontology has to be presupposed. An idealized social ontology of the modern type (as against, say, a Platonic or Aristotelian type) will typically assume the abstract and undifferentiated equal atomic individuals of classical liberalism. Thus it will abstract away from relations of structural domination, exploitation, coercion, and oppression, which in reality, of course, will profoundly shape the ontology of those same individuals, locating them in superior and inferior positions in social hierarchies of various kinds. • Idealized capacities. The human agents as visualized in the theory will also often have completely unrealistic capacities attributed to them—unrealistic even for the privileged minority, let alone those subordinated in different ways, who would not have had an equal opportunity for their natural capacities to develop, and who would in fact typically be disabled in crucial respects. • Silence on oppression. Almost by definition, it follows from the focus of ideal theory that little or nothing will be said on actual historic oppression and its legacy in the present, or current ongoing oppression, though these may be gestured at in a vague or promissory way (as something to be dealt with later). Correspondingly, the ways in which systematic oppression is likely to shape the basic social institutions (as well as the humans in those institutions) will not be part of the theory’s concern, and this will manifest itself in the absence of ideal-as-descriptive-model concepts that would provide the necessary macro and micro-mapping of that oppression, and that are requisite for understanding its reproductive dynamic. • Ideal social institutions. Fundamental social institutions such as the family, the economic structure, the legal system, will therefore be conceptualized in ideal-as-idealized-model terms, with little or no sense of how their actual workings may systematically disadvantage women, the poor, and racial minorities. • An idealized cognitive sphere. Separate from, and in addition to, the idealization of human capacities, what could be termed an idealized cognitive sphere will also be presupposed. In other words, as a corollary of the general ignoring of oppression, the consequences of oppression for the social cognition of these agents, both the advantaged and the disadvantaged, will typically not be recognized, let alone theorized. A general social transparency will be presumed, with cognitive obstacles minimized as limited to biases of self-interest or the intrinsic difficulties of understanding the world, and little or no attention paid to the distinctive role of hegemonic ideologies and group-specifi c experience in distorting our perceptions and conceptions of the social order.
	38	+
	39	+Inequality creates flawed epistemic conclusions, making normative decision making impossible.
	40	+Medina 11. Medina, J. (2011). Toward a Foucaultian Epistemology of Resistance: Counter-Memory, Epistemic Friction, and Guerrilla Pluralism. Foucault Studies, 1(12), 9–35
	41	+Foucault invites us to pay attention to the past and ongoing epistemic battles among competing power/knowledge frameworks that try to control a given field. Different fields—or domains of discursive interaction—contain particular discursive regimes with their particular ways of producing knowledge. In the battle among power/ knowledge frameworks, some come on top and become dominant while others are displaced and become subjugated. Foucault’s methodology offers a way of exploiting that vibrant plurality of epistemic perspectives which always contains some bodies of experiences and memories that are erased or hidden in the hegemonic mainstream frameworks that become hegemonic after prevailing in sustained epistemic battles. What Foucault calls subjugated knowledges3 are forms of experiencing and remembering that are pushed to the margins and rendered unqualified and unworthy of epistemic respect by prevailing and hegemonic discourses. Subjugated knowledges remain invisible to mainstream perspectives; they have a precarious subterranean existence that renders them unnoticed by most people and impossible to detect by those whose perspective has already internalized certain epistemic exclusions. And with the invisibility of subjugated knowledges, certain possibilities for resistance and subversion go unnoticed. The critical and emancipatory potential of Foucaultian genealogy resides in challenging established practices of remembering and forgetting by excavating subjugated bodies of experiences and memories, bringing to the fore the perspectives that culturally hegemonic practices have foreclosed. The critical task of the scholar and the activist is to resurrect subjugated knowledges—that is, to revive hidden or forgotten bodies of experiences and memories—and to help produce insurrections of subjugated knowledges.4 In order to be critical and to have transformative effects, genealogical investigations should aim at these insurrections, which are critical interventions that disrupt and interrogate epistemic hegemonies and mainstream perspectives (e.g. official histories, standard interpretations, ossified exclusionary meanings, etc). Such insurrections involve the difficult labor of mobilizing scattered, marginalized publics and of tapping into the critical potential of their dejected experiences and memories. An epistemic insurrection requires a collaborative relation between genealogical scholars/activists and the subjects whose experiences and memories have been subjugated: those subjects by themselves may not be able to destabilize the epistemic status quo until they are given a voice at the epistemic table (i.e. in the production of knowledge), that is, until room is made for their marginalized perspective to exert resistance, until past epistemic battles are reopened and established frameworks become open to contestation.
	42	+
	43	+Pure critique is useless without concrete solutions and moving away from the state dooms the left’s critique to failure – must work within the state without being statist
	44	+Connolly 08. (William, Professor of Political Science at John Hopkins, Capitalism and Christianity, American Style, page numbers are at the bottom of the card.)
	45	+Before turning to possible strategies to promote these objectives, we need to face an objection posed by one segment of the left: "Don't you depend a lot upon the state, when it must be viewed as the enemy?" My response is threefold. First, there is no way to take on global warming without engaging the state in the effort as well as international agencies, and global warming is a key danger of this epoch. Second, it is less the state itself and more its existing subsidies and priorities that are at issue. If you were to oppose both the market and the state you might reduce the democratic left to pure critique, with no presentation of positive possibilities and strategies. But critique is always important and never enough, as the left has begun to rediscover and as the American right has known for forty years. Third, although one must acknowledge the issues of cumbersome state bureaucracy, corporate cronyism, and state corruption, all three increased radically when the evangelical-capitalist resonance machine achieved hegemony, and they will get worse unless eco-egalitarians and still enter the fray at the interceded levels of micropolitics, microeconomic experiments, and the state. It is unwise to act as if the state must always be what it has become. Challenging the media is critical in this respect, making it become a watchdog of corporations, the state, religious movements, and the multiple imbrications between them. My view, as becomes clear in the next few pages, is that no interim agenda on the left can proceed far without finding expression in state policy, and state policy must draw inspiration from microeconomic experiments initially launched outside its canopy: microeconomic experiments and creative state policies must inform each other. We thus seek to include the state without becoming statist. Those who invest hope in revolutionary overthrow may oppose such a combination. I suspect that revolution, were it to occur, would undermine rather than vitalize democratic culture.29
	46	+Particularism is good—root cause claims and focus on overarching structures ignore application to material injustice.
	47	+Gregory Fernando Pappas 16 Texas AandM University “The Pragmatists’ Approach to Injustice”, The Pluralist Volume 11, Number 1, Spring 2016, BE
	48	+The pragmatists’ approach should be distinguished from nonideal theories whose starting point seems to be the injustices of society at large that have a history and persist through time, where the task of political philosophy is to detect and diagnose the presence of these historical injustices in particular situations of injustice. For example, critical theory today has inherited an approach to social philosophy characteristic of the European tradition that goes back to Rousseau, Marx, Weber, Freud, Marcuse, and others. Accord- ing to Roberto Frega, this tradition takes society to be “intrinsically sick” with a malaise that requires adopting a critical historical stance in order to understand how the systematic sickness affects present social situations. In other words, this approach assumes that¶ a philosophical critique of specific social situations can be accomplished only under the assumption of a broader and full blown critique of soci- ety in its entirety: as a critique of capitalism, of modernity, of western civilization, of rationality itself. The idea of social pathology becomes intelligible only against the background of a philosophy of history or of an anthropology of decline, according to which the distortions of actual social life are but the inevitable consequence of longstanding historical processes. (“Between Pragmatism and Critical Theory” 63)¶ However, this particular approach to injustice is not limited to critical theory. It is present in those Latin American and African American political philosophies that have used and transformed the critical intellectual tools of ¶ critical theory to deal with the problems of injustice in the Americas. For instance, Charles W. Mills claims that the starting point and alternative to the abstractions of ideal theory that masked injustices is to diagnose and rectify a history of an illness—the legacy of white supremacy in our actual society.11 The critical task of revealing this illness is achieved by adopting a historical perspective where the injustices of today are part of a larger historical narrative about the development of modern societies that goes back to how Europeans have progressively dehumanized or subordinated others. Similary, radical feminists as well as Third World scholars, as reaction to the hege- monic Eurocentric paradigms that disguise injustices under the assumption of a universal or objective point of view, have stressed how our knowledge is always situated. This may seem congenial with pragmatism except the locus of the knower and of injustices is often described as power structures located in “global hierarchies” and a “world-system” and not situations.12¶ Pragmatism only questions that we live in History or a “World-System” (as a totality or abstract context) but not that we are in history (lowercase): in a present situation continuous with others where the past weighs heavily in our memories, bodies, habits, structures, and communities. It also does not deny the importance of power structures and seeing the connections be- tween injustices through time, but there is a difference between (a) inquiring into present situations of injustice in order to detect, diagnose, and cure an injustice (a social pathology) across history, and (b) inquiring into the his- tory of a systematic injustice in order to facilitate inquiry into the present unique, context-bound injustice. To capture the legacy of the past on present injustices, we must study history but also seek present evidence of the weight of the past on the present injustice.¶ If injustice is an illness, then the pragmatists’ approach takes as its main focus diagnosing and treating the particular present illness, that is, the particular situation-bound injustice and not a global “social pathology” or some single transhistorical source of injustice. The diagnosis of a particular injustice is not always dependent on adopting a broader critical standpoint of society in its entirety, but even when it is, we must be careful to not forget that such standpoints are useful only for understanding the present evil. The concepts and categories “white supremacy” and “colonialism” can be great tools that can be of planetary significance. One could even argue that they pick out much larger areas of people’s lives and injustices than the categories of class and gender, but in spite of their reach and explanatory theoretical value, they are nothing more than tools to make reference to and ameliorate particular injustices experienced (suffered) in the midst of a particular and unique re- lationship in a situation. No doubt many, but not all, problems of injustice are a consequence of being a member of a group in history, but even in these cases, we cannot a priori assume that injustices are homogeneously equal for all members of that group. Why is this important? The possible pluralism and therefore complexity of a problem of injustice does not always stop at the level of being a member of a historical group or even a member of many groups, as insisted on by intersectional analysis. There may be unique cir- cumstances to particular countries, towns, neighborhoods, institutions, and ultimately situations that we must be open to in a context-sensitive inquiry. If an empirical inquiry is committed to capturing and ameliorating all of the harms in situations of injustice in their raw pretheoretical complexity, then this requires that we try to begin with and return to the concrete, particular, and unique experiences of injustice.¶ Pragmatism agrees with Sally Haslanger’s concern about Charles Mills’s view. She writes: “The goal is not just a theory that is historical (v. ahistori- cal), but is sensitive to historical particularity, i.e., that resists grand causal narratives purporting to give an account of how domination has come about and is perpetuated everywhere and at all times” (1). For “the forces that cause and sustain domination vary tremendously context by context, and there isn’t necessarily a single causal explanation; a theoretical framework that is useful as a basis for political intervention must be highly sensitive to the details of the particular social context” (1).13¶ Although each situation is unique, there are commonalities among the cases that permit inquiry about common causes. We can “formulate tentative general principles from investigation of similar individual cases, and then . . . check the generalizations by applying them to still further cases” (Dewey, Lectures in China 53). But Dewey insists that the focus should be on the indi- vidual case, and was critical of how so many sociopolitical theories are prone to starting and remaining at the level of “sweeping generalizations.” He states that they “fail to focus on the concrete problems which arise in experience, allowing such problems to be buried under their sweeping generalizations” (Lectures in China 53).¶ The lesson pragmatism provides for nonideal theory today is that it must be careful to not reify any injustice as some single historical force for which particular injustice problems are its manifestation or evidence for its exis- tence. Pragmatism welcomes the wisdom and resources of nonideal theories that are historically grounded on actual injustices, but it issues a warning about how they should be understood and implemented. It is, for example, sympathetic to the critical resources found in critical race theory, but with an important qualification. It understands Derrick Bell’s valuable criticism as context-specific to patterns in the practice of American law. Through his inquiry into particular cases and civil rights policies at a particular time and place, Bell learned and proposed certain general principles such as the one of “interest convergence,” that is, “whites will promote racial advantages for blacks only when they also promote white self-interest.”14 But, for pragma- tism, these principles are nothing more than historically grounded tools to use in present problematic situations that call for our analysis, such as deliberation in establishing public policies or making sense of some concrete injustice. The principles are falsifiable and open to revision as we face situation-specific injustices. In testing their adequacy, we need to consider their function in making us see aspects of injustices we would not otherwise appreciate.15

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2016-12-03 13:47:21.641

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+James OConnor

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Morgan Grosch

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+4

Round

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+3

Team

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Westwood Mandavilli Aff

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+NOVDEC - 1AC - Border Patrol V3

Tournament

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+University of Texas