No shortage of these kind of stories, so might as well document them in one spot.
Starting off: this lovely tale from the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/09/us/war-gear-flows-to-police-departments.html?ref=us&_r=1) about how police departments are stocking up on military-grade war gear from machine guns to mine-proof assault vehicles.
Sure, why wouldn't you need a 9-ft-tall, 30 ton armored truck in a town of 25,000 that hasn't seen a murder in 5 years. Bumblefuck, WI is a real hotbed of potential terrorist activity.
Yeah right after I left Boone, the watuaga sheriff dept got a tank from one of the local military bases around. They use it in hostage situations and busts where people wont surrender and come out of their homes.
Quote from: emayPhishyMD on June 09, 2014, 02:36:32 PM
Yeah right after I left Boone, the watuaga sheriff dept got a tank from one of the local military bases around. They use it in hostage situations and busts where people wont surrender and come out of their homes.
The problem with that line of thinking is that as police departments acquire this warfare equipment, they become more inclined to use them. That's why you end up having flashbangs thrown in a baby's crib.
Similar story in WaPo this morning too (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/06/09/war-comes-to-pulaski-county-indiana/). Key section:
Quote
This idea of "whatever we need to do to go home safe at night" has essentially replaced "protect and serve" as the primary mantra in many law enforcement agencies. It's a mentality more suited for a battlefield than for a peace officer. Sheriff Cox's job, in fact, is to protect and serve the people of Johnson County. It is to keep them safe, and to protect their rights. Keeping his officers safe is of course important, but it's secondary. And if the two conflict, the citizens' rights and safety take priority. Now, there's a debate to be had about whether using equipment designed for war in domestic policing jeopardizes the rights and safety of U.S. citizens. But we can't really even have that debate if law enforcement leaders believe that citizens' rights are secondary to the safety of police officers.
Radley Balko nails it again.
Quote from: runawayjimbo on June 09, 2014, 04:04:40 PM
Quote from: emayPhishyMD on June 09, 2014, 02:36:32 PM
Yeah right after I left Boone, the watuaga sheriff dept got a tank from one of the local military bases around. They use it in hostage situations and busts where people wont surrender and come out of their homes.
The problem with that line of thinking is that as police departments acquire this warfare equipment, they become more inclined to use them. That's why you end up having flashbangs thrown in a baby's crib.
Similar story in WaPo this morning too (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/06/09/war-comes-to-pulaski-county-indiana/). Key section:
Quote
This idea of "whatever we need to do to go home safe at night" has essentially replaced "protect and serve" as the primary mantra in many law enforcement agencies. It's a mentality more suited for a battlefield than for a peace officer. Sheriff Cox's job, in fact, is to protect and serve the people of Johnson County. It is to keep them safe, and to protect their rights. Keeping his officers safe is of course important, but it's secondary. And if the two conflict, the citizens' rights and safety take priority. Now, there's a debate to be had about whether using equipment designed for war in domestic policing jeopardizes the rights and safety of U.S. citizens. But we can't really even have that debate if law enforcement leaders believe that citizens' rights are secondary to the safety of police officers.
Boone being such a small town, I find it hard to believe there are many situations in the town where they would need a military tank to do the job.
My friend said the only time he heard they had to use it for a meth bust where the guy wouldnt leave his house and was threatening to blow it up or something.
But who will buy all the surplus military gear from the winding down in Iraq and Afghanistan? You can sell only so much to that joyous powder keg in the middle east.
I'm sure there are plenty of "sovereign citizens"/ammosexuals who will buy that shit and parade it downtown because it's their right.
Indiana officers left woman naked for hours after force-stripping, pepper-spraying her (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/06/10/indiana-officers-left-woman-naked-for-hours-after-force-stripping-pepper-spraying-her/)
Hot!
After reading some of the statements on this thread & the other thread regarding the flash bang incident, I'm going to throw my $.02 in.
As one of the people who has run into a house with no idea what/who is on the other side of the door, I can easily justify the use of a flash bang in certain situations. It's easy to Monday morning quarterback, as Radley Balko has done. Is law enforcement right 100% of the time? Absolutely not. However, decisions sometimes have to be made in a split second and are reviewed in-depth for weeks, months, and even years after the fact. Sometimes they're the right decisions, sometimes they're the wrong decisions. At the end of the day, I'm going to make the best decision I can to make sure that I'm going to go home, because the WaPo article seems to omit one very important fact: I can't "protect and serve" if I do something stupid and get killed. Notice that I used the phrase "I"... This is very personal to me, because as some of you are aware from the "Ask a Cop" thread, I do this every day. I wonder how many search warrants Mr. Balko has served? Please don't misunderstand me, I don't condone killing or injuring innocent bystanders at all. Every time I draw my weapon, I have to consider not only the target, but what's in the background as well.
To illustrate my point, let's use an example of a man in a house with a gun. He's already shot his wife and is holding a child hostage. I walk into the center room of the house and confront the man with the gun. No children around to be seen or heard. While I'm trying to talk to him and get him to consider giving up, my thought process is "If I have to shoot this person, what if the bullet goes through him? What's it going to hit next?" While we're talking, I'm trying to get in position so if I have to shoot him & the bullet goes through him, it'll go into the back wall of the house (more material to dissipate the energy of the bullet). That would be an ideal situation. Now, let's say that as I'm trying to move, before I get the angle right for the bullet to go into an exterior wall, he raises his gun & points it at me. Now, I have no other choice than to shoot him, and I'm going to shoot him. Obviously, I cannot stress enough how much I REALLY don't want it to come to that, but he's left me with no option. At this point, I have no other choice, and I just have to hope that his body is enough to stop the round & keep it from going through the interior wall into the next room. Now, I'm not a ballistics expert by any means, but let's say the bullet goes through the guy, an interior wall & strikes a child in the next room. A bad situation just became worse. Would a rational person suggest that I not shoot the guy, because I don't know where the child is & he/she might get hit by the bullet?
My point is that officers everywhere have to make these kind of split-second decisions & then have their actions judged by supervisors, governments, the media, and the public every day. Sometimes they're right, and sometimes they're wrong. As everyone here would agree, articles can be written with a slant towards whatever beliefs the author holds. I can't help but wonder if now that the kid in my example above has been "shot by police", is Mr. Balko gonna write an article about reckless use of weapons by police?
I will address some of the other articles later today, but I have to get ready for work.
Quote from: PhishJY on June 11, 2014, 08:32:15 AM
As one of the people who has run into a house with no idea what/who is on the other side of the door
I have also done this professionally, in a previous life. When I criticize law enforcement, I don't do so reflexively or without a personal understanding of that world.
This is why I'm specific in calling out "militarization" and "excesses." Of course, it invites a debate over where those lines are drawn, which is just fine and is in fact the point.
Quote from: PhishJY on June 11, 2014, 08:32:15 AMI can easily justify the use of a flash bang in certain situations.
Yes, I would agree. But it's certainly fair -- and necessary -- to examine the outcome of situations and determine if the actions taken were appropriate. For example, if you blindly throw a flash bang into a house and it lands next to the head of an innocent child of an innocent relative of an innocent homeowner, because you were looking for someone suspected (innocent until proven guilty) of selling a small amount of meth, based on a CI's report, who turns out to not even be at the house.... Or said grenade burns down someone's house or causes so much confusion and disorientation that cops shoot each other... The simple test to apply, as I stated in the other thread about the flash-bang episode in Georgia, is: if "standard operating procedures" cannot prevent the maiming/death of innocent individuals or the destruction of private property, then those procedures are fully indefensible. Find another way to get the perp.
Quote from: PhishJY on June 11, 2014, 08:32:15 AMNow, I'm not a ballistics expert by any means, but let's say the bullet goes through the guy, an interior wall & strikes a child in the next room. A bad situation just became worse. Would a rational person suggest that I not shoot the guy, because I don't know where the child is & he/she might get hit by the bullet?
I know you know that you're responsible for your bullets until they come to a complete stop. It's fairly well established that police can and do shoot people who raise guns at them -- pretty understandable. If a round were to travel through a person, through a wall and then strike an innocent person beyond that wall, I still would not like to see the department simply shrug and say "well, it was him or our guy." I still believe that law enforcement organizations ought to be responsible for damage wrought to innocent bystanders and property when they engage in shootouts. As I see it, that's what comes with the power and responsibility we grant them, and the different standard applied to LEOs with respect to carrying and discharging weapons vs. the general public.
Quote from: PhishJY on June 11, 2014, 08:32:15 AMI wonder how many search warrants Mr. Balko has served?
I'm sure you aren't suggesting that only those who are or have been cops can criticize cops, correct? In fact, the police (and all public servants) work for the public, and therefore are absolutely subject to criticism from the public. A person can make rational objections to the behavior of public employees and officials without having to have firsthand intimacy with the intricacies of how those people spend their days.
And this is a point that bears emphasis. If we didn't have people pointing out abuses of power (in whatever form) and demanding accountability, then we could consider ourselves screwed. It may not be true of all, or even most, individuals in a given system, but there will always be enough bad actors that create and maintain the need to keep that system as a whole in check, including through observation and complaint.
What VDB said.
Also, I think the situation you described is (and would be interpreted as) a clearly justifiable use of force, even if it resulted in an accidental injury to an innocent bystander. The problem is that excessive force that has become an all too common piece of police operating procedure. So we end up with these horror stories that, as VDB said, become completely indefensible.
I think people recognize that most (but certainly not all) cops are responsible and deserving of our respect and gratitude. In general, I am even willing to give the cops the benefit of the doubt when they use force that it is justified (although that is becoming harder and harder as more of these stories come to light). I think the key point is that in most cases it is the policies, not the individual actors, that are to blame. It is the ceaseless assault on people's liberties in the name of an inexplicable and unwinnable War on Drugs that results in these tragic outcomes. I also don't think it's contradiction to say that you support cops but condemn operations where innocent people are put in harms way.
Also, VDB, put the bong away; there's a cop in the thread!!!!
My apologies for not replying when I said I would. I had forgotten a prior obligation.
Moving on....
As for law enforcement agencies obtaining military surplus, I am of the opinion that it isn't a bad idea. With advances in technology come advanced weaponry. This advanced weaponry is available to pretty much anyone who can afford it & pass a background check. As such, law enforcement agencies should be better equipped than the people that they have to engage. I'd say that the big push for being better prepared started as a result of the North Hollywood shootout in 1997.
Wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout)
YouTube video: http://youtu.be/N2ZwIrIB1is (http://youtu.be/N2ZwIrIB1is)
The North Hollywood shootout was resolved after officers, realizing that they were outgunned, started getting rifles from local gun stores.
While it's impossible to be prepared for every single scenario, law enforcement agencies are going to do their best to be prepared for as much as possible. In the nytimes.com article, the mine-resistant vehicle that the police department obtained could be used for any number of reasons. Obviously, the department has no intention of going mine hunting, but I would imagine the vehicle would make an excellent armored car, which would be invaluable should an active shooter situation arise.
Another example:
In a rural area, a guy who is off his medication is shooting at neighbors' houses with a semi-auto rifle. The houses aren't real close, like in a downtown area, but close enough that guy is clearly posing a danger to anyone in the residences in the immediate area. An armored vehicle (courtesy of the military) is brought in, so it is used to provide cover while negotiations take place to get the guy to come out of the house. Guy comes out, gets committed, family members take the guns.
Now, that could've turned out very differently. Having the armored vehicle bought time & opportunity. To be clear, it didn't require a tank. An armored vehicle was sufficient. I honestly can't think of any situation where a tank would be required, with the exception of a criminal stealing a tank & having the knowledge and desire to use it to inflict harm on other people.
Something else to consider about the Neenah PD: I bet they'd gladly offer assistance to any other law enforcement agency requesting assistance. Realistically, it probably doesn't cost a whole lot to maintain, and the one time that it was needed, it would be worth every penny.
Aircraft? They can be used for locating runaway juveniles, dementia patients, and people suspected of committing serious offenses (robbery, murder, etc.).
IMO, the article did a pretty good job of showing both sides of the argument. One question that I have after reading the article is, "Why would law enforcement need silencers?" I don't understand that at all, but maybe there is some reasoning behind that request that I'm overlooking.
RJ, I'm glad you mentioned sovereign citizens. Sovereign citizens are scary folks. If you haven't heard about their beliefs & values, read up on them. Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with believing one way or another, but when they get so wrapped up in their radical beliefs that they start acting out...that's where the problem begins. And they're stockpiling ammo and firearms, all of which are obtained legally. The FBI has declared some sovereign citizens to be domestic terrorists (source: http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2010/april/sovereigncitizens_041310 (http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2010/april/sovereigncitizens_041310)). If a group of well-armed sovereign citizens gets out of hand, it'd stand to reason that an armored vehicle would be useful.
As for the woman getting stripped... it'll be interesting to see how that case turns out.
Quote from: PhishJY on June 12, 2014, 08:17:03 PM
RJ, I'm glad you mentioned sovereign citizens. Sovereign citizens are scary folks. If you haven't heard about their beliefs & values, read up on them. Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with believing one way or another, but when they get so wrapped up in their radical beliefs that they start acting out...that's where the problem begins. And they're stockpiling ammo and firearms, all of which are obtained legally. The FBI has declared some sovereign citizens to be domestic terrorists (source: http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2010/april/sovereigncitizens_041310 (http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2010/april/sovereigncitizens_041310)). If a group of well-armed sovereign citizens gets out of hand, it'd stand to reason that an armored vehicle would be useful.
Case and point - what went down here in Moncton last week. I think I've gained a new level of respect for the types of dangers faced and the split decisions needed to be made by law enforcement. I in no way condone the choices made by the police in Georgia in this particular situation but you have to appreciate the fact that they are there for our protection, I would like them to be as equipped as necessary. How they use that equipment needs to be the focus of public scrutiny.
Pretty, PhishJY, sure you described an arms race up there somewhere which would bleed this into the gun control topic. The only way to end an arms race is to put limiters on the arms available or to crush one side completely.
Cop slits escaped dog's throat after it had already been restrained (http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/19/justice/baltimore-dog-throat-slit/index.html?hpt=hp_t2).
ABQ police shoot homeless man in the back after throwing stun grenade at him. (http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/20/us/albuquerque-police-investigation/index.html?hpt=hp_t1)
QuoteThe horrific encounter, routinely recorded as part of police protocol, is now a key part of an ongoing drama in New Mexico's largest city -- a series of protests against the police and city officials. Federal officials are close to a deal that would have them supervising the Albuquerque Police Department.
Records show that 26 people have been killed by city police in Albuquerque since 2010, a per capita rate of officer-involved deaths higher than New York City and Chicago. Forty people have been wounded by police over the same period of time. So far, the city has paid out $30 million in settlements and officials acknowledge that amount will grow.
In a report written before Boyd's shooting, the U.S. Department of Justice blamed the Police Department for poor training and said "we find that the department engages in a pattern or practice of using excessive force during the course of arrests and other detentions in violation of the Fourth Amendment."
Brutal read
http://www.salon.com/2014/06/24/a_swat_team_blew_a_hole_in_my_2_year_old_son/
Quote
A SWAT team blew a hole in my 2-year-old son
That's right: Officers threw a flashbang grenade in my son's crib -- and left a hole in his chest. It gets worse
After our house burned down in Wisconsin a few months ago, my husband and I packed our four young kids and all our belongings into a gold minivan and drove to my sister-in-law’s place, just outside of Atlanta. On the back windshield, we pasted six stick figures: a dad, a mom, three young girls, and one baby boy.
That minivan was sitting in the front driveway of my sister-in-law’s place the night a SWAT team broke in, looking for a small amount of drugs they thought my husband’s nephew had. Some of my kids’ toys were in the front yard, but the officers claimed they had no way of knowing children might be present. Our whole family was sleeping in the same room, one bed for us, one for the girls, and a crib.
After the SWAT team broke down the door, they threw a flashbang grenade inside. It landed in my son’s crib.
Flashbang grenades were created for soldiers to use during battle. When they explode, the noise is so loud and the flash is so bright that anyone close by is temporarily blinded and deafened. It’s been three weeks since the flashbang exploded next to my sleeping baby, and he’s still covered in burns.
There’s still a hole in his chest that exposes his ribs. At least that’s what I’ve been told; I’m afraid to look.
My husband’s nephew, the one they were looking for, wasn’t there. He doesn’t even live in that house. After breaking down the door, throwing my husband to the ground, and screaming at my children, the officers – armed with M16s – filed through the house like they were playing war. They searched for drugs and never found any.
I heard my baby wailing and asked one of the officers to let me hold him. He screamed at me to sit down and shut up and blocked my view, so I couldn’t see my son. I could see a singed crib. And I could see a pool of blood. The officers yelled at me to calm down and told me my son was fine, that he’d just lost a tooth. It was only hours later when they finally let us drive to the hospital that we found out Bou Bou was in the intensive burn unit and that he’d been placed into a medically induced coma.
For the last three weeks, my husband and I have been sleeping at the hospital. We tell our son that we love him and we’ll never leave him behind. His car seat is still in the minivan, right where it’s always been, and we whisper to him that soon we’ll be taking him home with us.
Every morning, I have to face the reality that my son is fighting for his life. It’s not clear whether he’ll live or die. All of this to find a small amount of drugs?
The only silver lining I can possibly see is that my baby Bou Bou’s story might make us angry enough that we stop accepting brutal SWAT raids as a normal way to fight the “war on drugs.” I know that this has happened to other families, here in Georgia and across the country. I know that SWAT teams are breaking into homes in the middle of the night, more often than not just to serve search warrants in drug cases. I know that too many local cops have stockpiled weapons that were made for soldiers to take to war. And as is usually the case with aggressive policing, I know that people of color and poor people are more likely to be targeted. I know these things because of the American Civil Liberties Union’s new report, and because I’m working with them to push for restraints on the use of SWAT.
A few nights ago, my 8-year-old woke up in the middle of the night screaming, “No, don’t kill him! You’re hurting my brother! Don’t kill him.” How can I ever make that go away? I used to tell my kids that if they were ever in trouble, they should go to the police for help. Now my kids don’t want to go to sleep at night because they’re afraid the cops will kill them or their family. It’s time to remind the cops that they should be serving and protecting our neighborhoods, not waging war on the people in them.
I pray every minute that I’ll get to hear my son’s laugh again, that I’ll get to watch him eat French fries or hear him sing his favorite song from “Frozen.” I’d give anything to watch him chase after his sisters again. I want justice for my baby, and that means making sure no other family ever has to feel this horrible pain.
Alecia Phonesavanh is the mother of Bounkham Phonesavanh, nicknamed "Baby Bou Bou." She and her family live in Atlanta. For more information about Bou Bou, go to www.justiceforbabyboubou.com.
Figured I'd give the Habersham County Sheriff's Office another call to check in.
Operator: Habersham County Sheriff's Office.
Me: Hi, I'm looking at your webpage now and I see you have a "Stop Domestic Violence" button on it. I think that's commendable. I understand that usually applies to spouses and domestic partners. Does that apply to children as well?
Operator: *hangs up*
Seriously, fuck these people so very much.
Good. Let the hate flow through you.
New ACLU report takes a snapshot of police militarization in the United States (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/06/24/new-aclu-report-takes-a-snapshot-of-police-militarization-in-the-united-states/)
Quote- 62 percent of the SWAT raids surveyed were to conduct searches for drugs.
- Just under 80 percent were to serve a search warrant, meaning eight in 10 SWAT raids were not initiated to apprehend a school shooter, hostage taker, or escaped felon (the common justification for these tactics), but to investigate someone still only suspected of committing a crime.
- In fact, just 7 percent of SWAT raids were "for hostage, barricade, or active shooter scenarios."
- In at least 36 percent of the SWAT raids studies, no contraband of any kind was found. The report notes that due to incomplete police reports on these raids this figure could be as high as 65 percent.
- SWAT tactics are disproportionately used on people of color.
- 65 percent of SWAT deployments resulted in some sort of forced entry into a private home, by way of a battering ram, boot, or some sort of explosive device. In over half those raids, the police failed to find any sort of weapon, the presence of which was cited as the reason for the violent tactics.
- Ironically (or perhaps not), searches to serve warrants on people suspected of drug crimes were more likely to result in forced entry than raids conducted for other purposes.
- Though often justified for rare incidents like school shootings or terrorist situations, the armored personnel vehicles police departments are getting from the Pentagon and through grants from the Department of Homeland Security are commonly used on drug raids.
Summary and discussion by WaPo's Radley Balko.
Saw that. This part made me LOL/puke in my mouth too.
Quote
Among the excuses police agencies gave the ACLU for not turning over records were that the requested information "contained trade secrets," that turning over such information could affect the effectiveness of SWAT teams and that the information requested was too broad, would cost too much to produce or wasn't subject to open-records law. In short, we have police departments that are increasingly using violent, confrontational tactics to break into private homes for increasingly low-level crimes, and they seem to believe that the public has no right to know the specifics of when, how and why those tactics are being used.
:frustrated:
Truck driver takes trooper to task for speeding:
http://youtu.be/f-dJgFdfl3I (http://youtu.be/f-dJgFdfl3I)
Balko'd
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/07/07/meet-jason-westcott-your-latest-needless-inexcusable-drug-war-casualty/
Quote
Meet Jason Westcott, your latest, needless, inexcusable drug war casualty
Add another body to the drug war pile. From the Tampa Bay Times, here is the story of the death of Jason Westcott.
QuoteA man who had partied at Westcott’s home was plotting to rob him. An itinerant motorcycle mechanic, Westcott didn’t have much — two televisions and a handgun that once belonged to his brother were perhaps the most valuable possessions in his 600-square-foot house in Seminole Heights — but he was terrified by his would-be intruder’s threats to kill him.
Police tracked down the suspect and warned him to stay away. Westcott, those close to him said, was left with a word of advice from the investigating officers: If anyone breaks into this house, grab your gun and shoot to kill.
On the night of May 27, as armed men streamed through his front door, Westcott grabbed his gun. But the 29-year-old didn’t have a chance to shoot before he died in a volley of gunfire. And those who killed him weren’t robbers.
They were police officers from the same agency he had enlisted to protect his home.
In the span of a few months, Westcott had become the target of an intensive drug investigation. On that Tuesday in May — a night when he typically babysat his sister’s children at his house, according to his mother — he was fatally shot by a Tampa Police Department SWAT team executing a search warrant for marijuana.
Authorities told news reporters who swarmed to the scene that Westcott was dealing drugs and had sold pot multiple times, armed, to undercover Tampa police officers. During the raid, officials said, he “raised his gun and threatened the officers,” who killed him in self-defense.
A month later, newly disclosed information raises questions about the narcotics investigation that led police to Westcott’s door.
So the same police department who warned Westcott that a dangerous man wanted to kill him then sent an armed team of cops into his home in a nighttime raid. We’re told over and over again by police departments that cops do extensive investigations of suspects before conducting these raids. How, then, could Tampa police not have known that Westcott had reported the threats against him a few months earlier? I guess I’m assuming they didn’t know. If they did know, that’s a hell of a lot worse.
And then there’s this:
QuotePolice initially said that the investigation of Westcott’s alleged drug dealing began because of neighbors’ complaints. However, when the Times could find no neighbors who had called police and no records of the complaints, the department revised this assertion, saying the case began with a tip from the same informer who later bought the marijuana.
Revised is a generous word, here. A mistake would be if someone in the department misattributed a statement from one witness to another. Telling the press that a drug investigation that ended with a fatal SWAT raid began because of neighbor complaints when it really began because of a tip from a police informant (who are often paid, or given consideration in their own criminal cases) isn’t a mistake. It’s a lie. It makes the police look as if they were merely obliging a community in need of their protection, not initiating a commando raid based on a tip from a shady source and what looks to have been no corroborating investigation at all.
Ultimately, this violent, volatile raid came after the informant claimed to have bought $200 worth of pot. That’s why Westcott is dead: $200 worth of pot. Friends and neighbors say Westcott and his boyfriend were recreational pot smokers, but hardly major dealers. They were often broke. Their utilities were often disconnected. They just occasionally sold a joint or two to friends. The police found about $2.00 worth of pot the house. There’s no misplaced decimal there. Two dollars.
Tampa police told the paper that there’s nothing wrong with way the agency deals with informants. Chief Jane Castor then added that there was nothing wrong with the use of a tactical team, either.
Quote“Mr. Westcott lost his life because he aimed a loaded firearm at police officers. You can take the entire marijuana issue out of the picture,” Castor said. “If there’s an indication that there is armed trafficking going on — someone selling narcotics while they are armed or have the ability to use a firearm — then the tactical response team will do the initial entry.”
Note the utter disregard for the threats against Castor. So the police didn’t violate any department policies, and the policies themselves don’t need changing. The only possible conclusion we can draw from this is that the Tampa Bay Police Department believes death is an acceptable outcome for a guy who, at worst, sold $200 worth of pot to an informant.
Police militarization has been all over the news lately, thanks to a recent ACLU report on the topic, and another botched raid in Georgia that badly burned a young boy. Within that coverage, you’ll see plenty of assertions that critics like me are overstating the problem, that we’re just “anti-cop,” and that we exaggerate when we say militarization conditions the police to see citizens — especially low-level drug offenders — not as citizens with rights but as enemies and potential threats. It dehumanizes suspects in the eyes of police. That’s certainly what happened here. The Tampa police gave Westcott’s rights, life, and safety little consideration at all. They sent a SWAT team into his home over $200 worth of pot.
They did this despite the fact that the same agency knew that Westcott had recently been threatened, and would likely respond violently to men breaking into his home. The drug cops and SWAT team either didn’t care, or didn’t bother to take the time to find out — which is just another way of demonstrating that they didn’t care. Drug suspects simply aren’t worth the time it takes for that sort of due diligence.
I’m not being flip here. If the Tampa Police Department thought drug suspects’ lives were worth anything, they either would have actually performed their due diligence in this case, or they would now be disciplining the officers who didn’t. Instead, Chief Castor told the Times that “she has seen no signs that the officers who killed Westcott acted inappropriately.”
This is what happens when cops approach everyday policing with the same tactics, weapons, and mentality that soldiers take to war. They begin to see suspects as little more than potential threats, not as citizens with rights.
The awful reality here is not that James Westcott died due to a horrible mistake. That would at least be comprehendible. The awful reality is that his death was the predictable result of a series of deliberate policies. In the minds of the Tampa police, Jason Westcott was expendable. Now that he’s dead, he’s just another piece of drug war collateral damage. Just like Eurie Stamps. Or Kathryn Johnston. Or Jonathan Ayers. Or Gonzalo Guizan. Or Isaac Singletary, Tarika Williams, Alberto Sepulveda, Pedro Navarro, Jose Guerena, Trevon Cole, Humbert Henkel, or Ramarley Graham, among others. There’s no need to reexamine the policies that led to these people dying, because these people simply aren’t that important.
There have been dozens of James Westcotts before this one. And there will be more.
I just read a story about Westcott. Deplorable.
A bit of good news, I suppose, is this story (http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/article/Man-who-shot-at-cops-acquitted-5608077.php#photo-6571699) about a guy in San Antonio who was acquitted by a jury after standing trial for shooting at police who broke into his house to serve a search warrant. Would've been nice if the DA had not opted to pursue charges in the first place, but hey...
Been meaning to post for a couple of days the fucked up shit going on in Ferguson, MO right now. These images (and despicable story) sum it up.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/13/us/ferguson-police-cite-safety-risk-in-decision-not-to-name-officer-in-shooting.html?smid=tw-nytimes#
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bu3NI2dIUAAvzD_.jpg)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bu3NI3MIYAERMAF.png)
Apropos.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/08/08/1320164/-Why-Black-Men-Don-t-Open-Carry# (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/08/08/1320164/-Why-Black-Men-Don-t-Open-Carry#)
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on August 13, 2014, 11:12:29 AM
Apropos.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/08/08/1320164/-Why-Black-Men-Don-t-Open-Carry# (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/08/08/1320164/-Why-Black-Men-Don-t-Open-Carry#)
they should though. I would like to see a campaign started to arm every single black person in the country, open carry.
we would see some gun control laws pop up all quick like.
http://theconcourse.deadspin.com/america-is-not-for-black-people-1620169913
"America is not for Black People"
Quote from: mbw on August 13, 2014, 11:20:39 AM
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on August 13, 2014, 11:12:29 AM
Apropos.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/08/08/1320164/-Why-Black-Men-Don-t-Open-Carry# (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/08/08/1320164/-Why-Black-Men-Don-t-Open-Carry#)
they should though. I would like to see a campaign started to arm every single black person in the country, open carry.
we would see some gun control laws pop up all quick like.
I'm all for it. The piece mentions how it was armed Black Panthers that inspired Calif. Gov. Reagan, conservative hero he, to clamp down on public open carry because, guess what, it was freaking people out.
Shit is going down in St. Louis
Two reporters arrested
https://twitter.com/internattyboh/status/499741992755400705
Quote from: emayPhishyMD on August 13, 2014, 10:32:29 PM
Shit is going down in St. Louis
Two reporters arrested
https://twitter.com/internattyboh/status/499741992755400705t
This is about five miles from my apartment. I'm going down tomorrow because at this point, I have to. I'll be posting on my Twitter @willsalomon for those interested.
Pray for peace, but justice first.
Good on you KoP.
Quote from: Buffalo Budd on August 14, 2014, 08:08:53 AM
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on August 14, 2014, 02:45:51 AM
Good on you KoP.
Indeed. Be careful.
Personally, I think every American who is outraged at this abridgment of the Constitution (dispersal of non-violent protests, barring of the media) should take to their own neighborhood streets tonight after dark.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gp5JCrSXkJY
Quote from: rowjimmy on August 14, 2014, 08:25:39 AM
Quote from: Buffalo Budd on August 14, 2014, 08:08:53 AM
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on August 14, 2014, 02:45:51 AM
Good on you KoP.
Indeed. Be careful.
Personally, I think every American who is outraged at this abridgment of the Constitution (dispersal of non-violent protests, barring of the media) should take to their own neighborhood streets tonight after dark.
Plus you'll get a good view of the meteor shower...gettin two birds stoned at once
There will be protests in Baltimore tonight at the BPD 6 PM. Please tell your mid Atlantic friends.
Quote from: KingOfPrussia2155 on August 14, 2014, 10:17:56 AM
There will be protests in Baltimore tonight at the BPD 6 PM. Please tell your mid Atlantic friends.
Ill def spread the word, just saw a couple friends post that too.
http://www.clickhole.com/article/police-or-army-who-wore-it-better-777?utm_campaign=default&utm_medium=ShareTools&utm_source=Facebook
Quote from: runawayjimbo on August 14, 2014, 04:30:33 PM
http://www.clickhole.com/article/police-or-army-who-wore-it-better-777?utm_campaign=default&utm_medium=ShareTools&utm_source=Facebook
ha! that's great.
Vets on Ferguson:
https://storify.com/AthertonKD/veterans-on-ferguson
So this whole situation is blown up for about 4 days so far....
Ferguson is like a war zone and its pretty much police vs civilians.
When is anyone high up in ST. Louis government, or fuck, Missiouri for this matter going to step in an do ANYTHING? Who is commanding these police? Im surprised by the incompetence and lack of responsibility of the people that were voted into power in that state.
Quote from: emayPhishyMD on August 14, 2014, 05:02:51 PM
So this whole situation is blown up for about 4 days so far....
Ferguson is like a war zone and its pretty much police vs civilians.
When is anyone high up in ST. Louis government, or fuck, Missiouri for this matter going to step in an do ANYTHING? Who is commanding these police? Im surprised by the incompetence and lack of responsibility of the people that were voted into power in that state.
http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/08/14/st-louis-county-police-to-be-removed-from-ferguson-after-another-night-of-protests-fbi-to-step-in-report/
thanks!
been waiting for a response to this situation
QuoteClay said federal and state authorities have waited too long to take control of the situation.
"Yeah, because they are relying on the St. Louis County authorities to do the right thing. Now the governor realizes that they're not going to do the right thing," Clay said. "It will become apparent to the federal, to the Justice Department soon, that they won't be doing the right thing."
well guess that confirms the incompetence of the people in power in St. Louis.
I was in Ferguson today for about four hoursz I left around 930. It's a completely different here. The energy is amazing and totally positive, for those of you Thst went to vigils today thank you for the solidarity.
Lets do some good now.
It's weird how, when the cops don't show up looking for a fight, there isn't a fight.
Meanwhile, in Orlando:
https://twitter.com/BillyCorben/status/500121092929765377
Quote from: rowjimmy on August 15, 2014, 08:41:13 AM
It's weird how, when the cops don't show up looking for a fight, there isn't a fight.
You mean if you don't intimidate and assault people and treat them with a modicum of respect they can assemble peacefully without incident? That is weird.
Quote from: rowjimmy on August 15, 2014, 08:41:13 AM
Meanwhile, in Orlando:
https://twitter.com/BillyCorben/status/500121092929765377
Are you fucking kidding me?
On the other hand, protesters swarmed on Times Square last night in solidarity Ferguson (and Eric Garner). The fact that people are finally getting pissed off at this disturbing trend is a welcome development. And to think, all it took was a couple of cops murdering some black people.
(http://cbsnewyork.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/protest3.jpg)
Many more pics here:
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/photo-galleries/2014/08/14/michael-brown-times-square-protest/
heard they were barricading and arresting protestors in NYC too last night.
http://youtu.be/KUdHIatS36A
This was back in February, but it's the same thing everywhere in this country... This is a rare instance where the cops were finally caught doing what they do.
http://7online.com/archive/9440401/ (http://7online.com/archive/9440401/)
Quote from: rowjimmy on August 20, 2014, 09:17:44 AM
http://youtu.be/KUdHIatS36A
Watched this the other day. Spot on.
Watch, if you are so inclined, the St. Louis police murder Kajieme Powell on Tuesday.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-P54MZVxMU&bpctr=1408588317
The county seems pretty remorseful over this situation.
:|
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/20/county-wont-pay-toddler-grenade_n_5695271.html?utm_hp_ref=crime
damn thats one fucked up video.
do they not sell tasers in missouri? are cops not issued these things anymore?
Quote from: emayPhishyMD on August 21, 2014, 12:50:07 PM
damn thats one fucked up video.
do they not sell tasers in missouri? are cops not issued these things anymore?
If you shoot them ten times, you can save electricity on the taser.
Sam Dodson, Chief of Police said this on tasers:
Quote"Certainly a Taser is an option that's available to the officers, but Tasers aren't 100 percent," Dotson said. "So you've got an individual with a knife who's moving towards you, not listening to any verbal commands, continues, says, 'shoot me now, kill me now.' Tasers aren't 100 percent. if that Taser misses, that [individual] continues on and hurts an officer."
"In a lethal situation, they used lethal force," he added.
in other words,
they been cutting back on electricity not having to charge up these tasters anymore
Kinda wish I hadn't watched that - also, there is no way that kid should be dead right now. Those cops can say whatever they want about the knife and the kid coming toward them. There is no way that knife was a lethal weapon in the hands of that kid. He wanted to die. He was asking to be shot. He needed mental health help, not several gunshots.
I'm sorry.
Quote from: PG on August 20, 2014, 09:30:19 AM
This was back in February, but it's the same thing everywhere in this country... This is a rare instance where the cops were finally caught doing what they do.
http://7online.com/archive/9440401/ (http://7online.com/archive/9440401/)
Astonishing that the prosecutors didn't bother to review the tape before putting together their case. It also makes you worry about the possibility of "oops, the footage got accidentally deleted." And this argues further for the wearing of body cams by cops, since dashcam footage is only applicable and available in certain situations.
Quote from: Buffalo Budd on August 21, 2014, 08:35:46 AM
The county seems pretty remorseful over this situation.
:|
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/20/county-wont-pay-toddler-grenade_n_5695271.html?utm_hp_ref=crime
I would loooove to see the law they are citing there. Maybe the key is "advised by council" -- you think maybe their lawyer said paying for the medical expenses would look like an admission of wrongdoing that could hurt them in the ensuing civil case? In other words, it's about covering your ass rather than doing the right thing?
Here you go... Everything you don't want to know about the weapons used...
http://ow.ly/AyjwH (http://ow.ly/AyjwH)
QuoteMy guess is that they've got a surplus of toys to play with, and a powerless demographic to experiment on.
Pretty much. There's a bunch of guys here who are having fun playing solider. The training, the gear -- they enjoy it; it's not just a profession but also a hobby to them. I've known people with this disposition. I have a hard time seeing too much change come from within because of the insular, circle-the-wagons mentality along with the preponderance of wannabe soldiers plus actual ex-solders now populating our police forces. Throw in the fact that the federal government is throwing gear and funding at departments to support this kind of arsenal-building and, well, fuck.
Baltimore cop who slit dog's throat (and accomplice) charged
http://t.co/B5KY1quSYE
nice, I remember hearing about that back in June. Good to see they are still on top of the story and something is being done about it.
WaPo is taking a look at asset forfeitures, specifically as resulting from routine traffic stops:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2014/09/06/stop-and-seize/
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on September 08, 2014, 01:06:50 PM
WaPo is taking a look at asset forfeitures, specifically as resulting from routine traffic stops:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2014/09/06/stop-and-seize/
This series has been disturbingly enlightening so far.
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on September 08, 2014, 01:06:50 PM
WaPo is taking a look at asset forfeitures, specifically as resulting from routine traffic stops:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2014/09/06/stop-and-seize/
That is insane. I was always under the impression you never had to allow the police to search your vehicle.
Quote from: Buffalo Budd on September 08, 2014, 07:50:12 PM
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on September 08, 2014, 01:06:50 PM
WaPo is taking a look at asset forfeitures, specifically as resulting from routine traffic stops:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2014/09/06/stop-and-seize/
That is insane. I was always under the impression you never had to allow the police to search your vehicle.
If you never want to get where you're going...
Also if they search it anyway then you're going to have to fight it in the courts and, well, good luck.
America! Land of the free!
This one's a doozy:
http://ij.org/police-and-prosecutors-seize-over-100k-then-allegedly-forge-a-document-so-they-can-keep-it
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on September 16, 2014, 05:17:08 PM
This one's a doozy:
http://ij.org/police-and-prosecutors-seize-over-100k-then-allegedly-forge-a-document-so-they-can-keep-it
Institute for Justice is a Koch funded group, so they obviously have some completely selfish interest in all this. They probably just want to stop the cops from seizing people's property so they can steal it for themselves.
Seriously though, that's fucked.
Some rare good news in the fight over crazy SWAT-style "administrative" raids:
http://reason.com/blog/2014/09/16/federal-appeals-court-rebukes-florida-co
The death of Camp Zoe and Schwagstock...
http://treethugger.com/videos/campzoe-jimmytebeau/ (http://treethugger.com/videos/campzoe-jimmytebeau/)
^ Absurd. You could just as easily do the same thing to any jam festival, burn, hippie gathering etc.
Asset seizure has more than doubled in the Obama era, by the way.
Here two guys who helped run the program at DOJ say it must be abolished:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/abolish-the-civil-asset-forfeiture-program-we-helped-create/2014/09/18/72f089ac-3d02-11e4-b0ea-8141703bbf6f_story.html?wpmk=MK0000203
glad to hear this POS lost is job and was arrested.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/25/sean-groubert-fired-arrested_n_5879694.html
I haven't watched the video of that (I know it'll just infuriate me) but I'm told it's pretty damning. You know it'd have to be for the department to toss him aside like that. Usually you get the "paid leave, internal investigation, no charges, no accountability" charade. So I guess kudos to the authorities for acting in the interest of justice on this one. Shitty that we have to be pleasantly surprised by that though.
Also, the local paper quoted a defense attorney (not the ex-officer's but he is an acquaintance) saying that the guy has PTSD (from a prior shooting, mind you) and he mused that could be employed as a defense. Which essentially means one of two things: 1) Whoever is in charge over there is negligently letting cops go about their business despite having a condition that gives them a hair-trigger sensitivity that could get an innocent person killed; or 2) It's pretty much OK if you're a cop to go around shooting people for no reason because, hey, you've got a disability so everyone needs to just cut you some slack.
Here's another good one:
http://reason.com/blog/2014/09/30/vermont-state-trooper-pulls-a-man-over-f
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on October 01, 2014, 08:43:03 AM
Here's another good one:
http://reason.com/blog/2014/09/30/vermont-state-trooper-pulls-a-man-over-f
Trooper Lewis Hatch should lose his job. If I violated someone's civil rights in the course of my job I'd certainly be fired.
What's as galling as anything is that they charged him to reclaim his car after no wrongdoing was found. That's like charging court costs when someone is found not guilty -- which also happens in some places.
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on October 01, 2014, 10:30:12 AM
What's as galling as anything is that they charged him to reclaim his car after no wrongdoing was found. That's like charging court costs when someone is found not guilty -- which also happens in some places.
I've had my car illegally towed and they always stick you with the tow costs (in Indy). I was like "Can I dispute this?" They said "Of course, but they won't waive the towing costs."
The invalid ticket was $20, the tow costs were $100+
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsW-QCxXkQA
Disturbing.
Quote from: rowjimmy on October 07, 2014, 11:28:36 AM
Disturbing.
yeah, to say the least.
There are so many videos like this online. Does any justice get served to these cops for their blatant disregard for the law
Quote from: emayPhishyMD on October 07, 2014, 12:26:45 PM
Quote from: rowjimmy on October 07, 2014, 11:28:36 AM
Disturbing.
yeah, to say the least.
There are so many videos like this online. Does any justice get served to these cops for their blatant disregard for the law
Funny you should ask.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/charges-botched-ga-drug-raid-injured-baby-article-1.1965521
Quote
No criminal charges for SWAT officers in botched Georgia drug raid that disfigured toddler (VIDEO)
Family of injured 19-month-old boy was 'devastated' by the Habersham County grand jury finding on Monday. Baby Bou Bou was severely injured when police threw a stun grenade into the playpen he was sleeping in May 28.
A Georgia grand jury has opted not to charge any police who took part in a drug raid that disfigured a toddler.
Bounkham (Bou Bou) Phonesavanh, then a 19-month-old toddler, lost part of his nose and left nipple, and suffered burns to his face, brain injuries and a collapsed lung when a police stun grenade exploded in the playpen he was sleeping in May 28.
The Habersham SWAT team executed a no-knock warrant on the Cornelia, Ga., home where Phonesavanh's family was staying after their Wisconsin home burned down earlier in the year. Police were searching for a relative they believed was a drug dealer who had a cache of weapons inside, but the Habersham County Sheriff later admitted they had no knowledge of children at the home.
The 23-person Habersham County grand jury heard evidence for six days before Monday's announcement cleared law enforcement officers of any criminal wrongdoing, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported.
"We are reviewing the grand jury findings with our client. They are devastated and trying to comprehend the gravity of this decision," Phonesavanh family attorney Mawuli Davis told CBS 46 Atlanta. "This is a very sad day for this family and for the people of Georgia."
Bou Bou spent five weeks at Grady Memorial Hospital in Atlanta where he awoke from a medically induced coma and endured several surgeries to repair his disfigured face. He still faces several more procedures with plastic surgeons and an $800,000 hospital tab.
Habersham County, which vowed to pay the child's medical bills, has put that promise on hold pending the outcome of a suit filed by the family.
^ I read about that earlier. Infuriating. I like how the grand jury made a point of noting that the cops feel bad about the incident. Oh, OK then! They're sorry -- guess that wraps that up! You know, lots of people in prison are sorry for what they've done too...
Here's a good one:
http://www.thestate.com/welcome_page/?shf=/2014/10/06/3727940_even-an-ozarks-coroner-gets-surplus.html (http://www.thestate.com/welcome_page/?shf=/2014/10/06/3727940_even-an-ozarks-coroner-gets-surplus.html)
And about that video. You may have heard the family is suing (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-hammond-police-taser-story.html).
I called Hammond PD and left a nice voicemail.
Do police even pretend to wonder why, any more, people and especially black people don't like or trust them? Here you have people saying in plain language that they are scared and feeling unsafe -- they just had a gun pulled on them -- and so what's the response? Show them there's nothing to be afraid of? No, of course not; it's to actually validate their fears by actually attacking the guy.
In their response to the lawsuit, HPD says that the officers acted that way because they themselves were afraid of their own safety. Did those guys, gun-wielding and armor-wearing, casually standing outside the car on that video, look like they were afraid? I'm getting tired of that lame and convenient excuse.
Here's a little question to ponder: Say you have two scenarios involving a cop and a member of the public. In the first scenario, it's a cop and an innocent person, and the innocent person gets injured by the cop. In the second, it's a cop and a guilty person, and the cop gets injured by the guilty person. Of the two, which scenario would be preferable? What percentage of police and police apologists would say scenario #1? That you can't make the omelet of 100% assured officer safety without breaking a few innocent-people eggs? Even though it's the cops who elected to take on an inherently dangerous job?
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on October 07, 2014, 06:29:34 PM
Here's a little question to ponder: Say you have two scenarios involving a cop and a member of the public. In the first scenario, it's a cop and an innocent person, and the innocent person gets injured by the cop. In the second, it's a cop and a guilty person, and the cop gets injured by the guilty person. Of the two, which scenario would be preferable? What percentage of police and police apologists would say scenario #1? That you can't make the omelet of 100% assured officer safety without breaking a few innocent-people eggs? Even though it's the cops who elected to take on an inherently dangerous job?
Clearly the answer is to eliminate all police. No More risk, carry on
With the proliferation of videos like this, it's starting to look like a number of local and county PDs around the USA are inherently corrupt, on a scale that will take a decade or more to fix--drain the swamp, plant a totally new forest. Combine trigger-happy bullies with a chip on their shoulder with civil forfeiture law and the 1033-type DOD giveaways, and you've got insecure roid-asaurus types with strong, entrenched institutional support and extremely dangerous toys. It's enough to make a guy move to Canada or Costa Rica.
Not much better in Canada:
http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/05/16/police-violated-civil-rights-acted-illegally-says-scathing-report-on-g20-summit/
Costa Rica it is, then.
Quote from: sunrisevt on October 08, 2014, 10:39:08 AM
Costa Rica it is, then.
Personally I find the most free and progressive countries to be Scandinavian. I would move to Denmark, Sweden or Norway if given the chance.
Quote from: mattstick on October 08, 2014, 11:27:39 AM
Quote from: sunrisevt on October 08, 2014, 10:39:08 AM
Costa Rica it is, then.
Personally I find the most free and progressive countries to be Scandinavian. I would move to Denmark, Sweden or Norway if given the chance.
It's come up in my house.
I was thinking more of being a wind- & sun-burnt expat gringo, slowly drinking himself to death on a beach. You know, your basic "F this world and everything in it" scenario.
As a visitor anyway, I've found the "no rules" quotient feels pretty high in the Carribbean.
Cops assume black teen is burglar, pepper spray him in own house
http://abc11.com/340724/
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on October 08, 2014, 04:52:38 PM
Cops assume black teen is burglar, pepper spray him in own house
http://abc11.com/340724/
I'm not a very litigious person, and I'm not sure if there is actually a case here, but I'd sue the piss out of the cops who did that if it were my family member who was maced
I love how in the article you detect not one shred of remorse or humility on the part of the police. They really think they can do no wrong.
Might be posted in here already.
This kid is walking around on the phone with his gf in a Walmart and picks up a airsoft gun that is out of its packaging, keeps strolling around the store fiddling with this gun, some crazed parent calls the cops and says a black man is running around the walmart with a gun pointing it at children, cops shoot this kid to death without hesitation. This is getting out of hand, almost like some sort of witch hunt.
http://www.vice.com/read/why-did-a-black-man-get-gunned-down-in-walmart-for-carrying-an-unloaded-air-rifle-929
Quote from: mattstick on October 08, 2014, 10:26:25 AM
Not much better in Canada:
http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/05/16/police-violated-civil-rights-acted-illegally-says-scathing-report-on-g20-summit/
Just to add some fuel to that fire, maybe people haven't heard about this altervation in TO last year.
http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2014/07/27/youtube_video_had_huge_impact_on_sammy_yatim_case.html
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on October 08, 2014, 05:20:30 PM
I love how in the article you detect not one shred of remorse or humility on the part of the police. They really think they can do no wrong.
They can't, at least in the eyes of the law. And until they start prosecuting more of the bad actors, it will continue to foster the shoot first, questions later attitude that is becoming so pervasive.
Oh, by the way, an off-duty cop shot and killed another teenager in Ferguson. You know, NBD.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/09/us-usa-missouri-shooting-idUSKCN0HY08H20141009
Quote
White policeman kills black teen in St Louis, triggering fresh protests
A white off-duty policeman shot and killed a black teenager in St Louis on Wednesday, officers said, triggering a night of protests just miles from the site of another police shooting of another black youth in the suburb of Ferguson.
Police said the 18-year-old was armed and fired three shots while he was being chased by the officer, and they had recovered a gun at the scene.
The youth was killed almost two months to the day since sometimes violent protests erupted in Ferguson after a white police officer shot dead unarmed black 18-year-old Michael Brown.
In Wednesday's shooting, the dead man was one of three people who fled after being approached by the officer, a six-year veteran of the department who was working for a private security company, St. Louis Metropolitan Police Chief Sam Dotson said.
The officer, who was wearing his city police uniform, fired 17 shots at the teenager, police added.
A crowd of around 200 gathered at the scene in the south St. Louis neighborhood of Shaw, 11 miles (18 km) south of Ferguson. Many of the protesters marched to a major thoroughfare, partially blocking traffic and chanting "Whose streets? Our streets?" as a police helicopter hovered overhead.
Teyonna Myers, 23, told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch newspaper that she was the cousin of the suspect and that he was unarmed when he was killed.
"He had a sandwich in his hand, and they thought it was a gun. It's like Michael Brown all over again," she told the paper. Police have not named the teenager.
'MICHAEL BROWN ALL OVER AGAIN'
At one point, about a dozen people punched and kicked two occupied police vehicles, one that was marked and another that was unmarked. Demonstrators then broke the back window of a marked police vehicle.
None of the protesters, some of whom were from Ferguson, had been arrested by the early hours of Thursday, police chief Dotson told a news conference.
"I think the department showed a tremendous amount of restraint," Dotson said.
The officer, who was not hurt, has been placed on administrative leave and an investigation was under way, police said.
St Louis' historic Shaw district has a relatively low crime rate - as of September, there had been no homicides this year and just five cases of aggravated assault, according to police crime statistics.
In Ferguson, a grand jury is expected to decide next month whether to bring criminal charges against police officer Darren Wilson, who shot dead Michael Brown on Aug. 9.
Brown's death triggered weeks of sometimes violent protests, prompting the governor at one point to summon the National Guard.
Missouri authorities are drawing up contingency plans and seeking intelligence from other police departments around the country, fearing that fresh riots could erupt if a grand jury does not indict Wilson.
:shakehead:
Drop gun?
God I hope not.
this all reminds me of one of my favorite pieces from The Awful Truth
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xeOaTpYl8mE
This ought to be good...
http://youtu.be/CYAIYcu8glI (http://youtu.be/CYAIYcu8glI)
Quote
Published on Oct 9, 2014
FREEWAY: CRACK IN THE SYSTEM tells the true story behind the crack scourge, featuring exclusive interviews with characters who lived it. Their stories reveal a crack in the system that implicates the centers of power in our government, their mass incarceration policies and militarization of police, the spread of gangs and guns, and the loss of entire generations to the war on drugs.
At the center of the story stands the reformed King of Crack, Freeway Rick Ross, once just a clever kid from South Central with dreams of becoming the next tennis great and his eyes fixed on the good life. Freeway Rick—not to be confused with the rapper, Rick Ross, who took his name and identity—built a drug empire that spread crack cocaine across the country, ruining millions of lives but profoundly influencing street culture in its wake. The stories of Rick and his "Freeway Boys" inspired the lyrics of N.W.A., Above The Law, and Mix Master Spade, as well as the worlds portrayed in films and video games that dramatize the drug trade.
Throughout the film are interviews with Freeway Rick and his crew, including his mother Anne Ross, former girlfriend and drug dealer Marilyn Stubblefield, and former dealers Cornell Ward, Ollie Newell, and Norman Tillman. For the first time, we hear from a key Nicaraguan trafficker, Julio Zavala, who worked with the CIA-backed Contras and Oscar Danilo Blandón who supplied Ross with tons of cocaine.
Former LA Sheriffs Deputy in the Narcotics Unit, Roberto Juarez, and top undercover DEA agent, Mike Levine, tell of the devastating spread of crack and the hunt for Freeway Rick and his crew. More so, they reveal the government complicity and police corruption behind the scenes during the crack era. Hearings on Capitol Hill led by Senator Kerry investigated the shocking connection between the CIA and the influx of cocaine during the Reagan/Bush administration. At the same time, harsh new laws sent thousands of young men to prison for years with little chance for rehabilitation.
Not until the fateful meeting between an unlikely source, Coral Baca, and Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Gary Webb of the San Jose Mercury News, did the full story, "Dark Alliance," come to light. The resulting controversy was explosive, especially in the African American community. At first celebrated as a hero, Webb soon found himself discredited by major media, which led his paper to back away from the story, ultimately destroying his career and leading to his untimely death. His story is featured in the upcoming Focus Features film, "Kill the Messenger," starring Jeremy Renner. Quincy Jones, III conducted the last major interview with Gary Webb just days before his death, which is featured for the first time in FREEWAY: CRACK IN THE SYSTEM.
Remaining at the center of it all, Freeway Rick describes learning to read in prison, one phonic at a time while serving his life sentence, until he could read the law books that would set him free. Now, he goes to schools and juvenile detention facilities to talk with students and inmates about the importance of literacy. As he works to take back his life, he is also attempting to take back his name from Rick Ross the rapper, who has made millions glamorizing street life and the drug trade.
Warning: Shocking content (because it's a white guy)
Cop Allows K-9 to Maul Handcuffed, Face Down Suspect, Then Blames it On Him (http://thefreethoughtproject.com/cop-k-9-maul-handcuffed-face-suspect-blames/)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhdccCz1Doo
There's a big, fat, juicy lawsuit coming their way.
Nashville cops refuse Secret Service request to fake warrant to get into resident's house. (http://benswann.com/oath-upheld-nashville-cops-refused-secret-service-request-for-illegal-search-of-obama-critic/)
Civil asset forfeiture is about expanding police budgets, not public safety
/duh
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/10/us/police-use-department-wish-list-when-deciding-which-assets-to-seize.html
Quote
Police Use Department Wish List When Deciding Which Assets to Seize
The seminars offered police officers some useful tips on seizing property from suspected criminals. Don't bother with jewelry (too hard to dispose of) and computers ("everybody's got one already"), the experts counseled. Do go after flat screen TVs, cash and cars. Especially nice cars.
In one seminar, captured on video in September, Harry S. Connelly Jr., the city attorney of Las Cruces, N.M., called them "little goodies." And then Mr. Connelly described how officers in his jurisdiction could not wait to seize one man's "exotic vehicle" outside a local bar.
"A guy drives up in a 2008 Mercedes, brand new," he explained. "Just so beautiful, I mean, the cops were undercover and they were just like 'Ahhhh.' And he gets out and he's just reeking of alcohol. And it's like, 'Oh, my goodness, we can hardly wait.' "
Mr. Connelly was talking about a practice known as civil asset forfeiture, which allows the government, without ever securing a conviction or even filing a criminal charge, to seize property suspected of having ties to crime. The practice, expanded during the war on drugs in the 1980s, has become a staple of law enforcement agencies because it helps finance their work. It is difficult to tell how much has been seized by state and local law enforcement, but under a Justice Department program, the value of assets seized has ballooned to $4.3 billion in the 2012 fiscal year from $407 million in 2001. Much of that money is shared with local police forces.
The practice of civil forfeiture has come under fire in recent months, amid a spate of negative press reports and growing outrage among civil rights advocates, libertarians and members of Congress who have raised serious questions about the fairness of the practice, which critics say runs roughshod over due process rights. In one oft-cited case, a Philadelphia couple's home was seized after their son made $40 worth of drug sales on the porch. Despite that opposition, many cities and states are moving to expand civil seizures of cars and other assets. The seminars, some of which were captured on video, raise a curtain on how law enforcement officials view the practice.
From Orange County, N.Y., to Rio Rancho, N.M., forfeiture operations are being established or expanded. In September, Albuquerque, which has long seized the cars of suspected drunken drivers, began taking them from men suspected of trying to pick up prostitutes, landing seven cars during a one-night sting. Arkansas has expanded its seizure law to allow the police to take cash and assets with suspected connections to terrorism, and Illinois moved to make boats fair game under its D.W.I. laws, in addition to cars. In Mercer County, N.J., a prosecutor preaches the "gospel" that forfeiture is not just for drug arrests — cars can be seized in shoplifting and statutory rape cases as well.
"At the grass-roots level — cities, counties — they continue to be interested, perhaps increasingly so, in supplementing their budgets by engaging in the type of seizures that we've seen in Philadelphia and elsewhere," said Lee McGrath, a lawyer for the Institute for Justice, a public interest law firm that has mounted a legal and public relations assault on civil forfeiture.
Much of the nuts-and-bolts how-to of civil forfeiture is passed on in continuing education seminars for local prosecutors and law enforcement officials, some of which have been captured on video. The Institute for Justice, which brought the videos to the attention of The Times, says they show how cynical the practice has become and how profit motives can outweigh public safety.
In the sessions, officials share tips on maximizing profits, defeating the objections of so-called "innocent owners" who were not present when the suspected offense occurred, and keeping the proceeds in the hands of law enforcement and out of general fund budgets. The Times reviewed three sessions, one in Santa Fe, N.M., that took place in September, one in New Jersey that was undated, and one in Georgia in September that was not videotaped.
Officials offered advice on dealing with skeptical judges, mocked Hispanics whose cars were seized, and made comments that, the Institute for Justice said, gave weight to the argument that civil forfeiture encourages decisions based on the value of the assets to be seized rather than public safety. In the Georgia session, the prosecutor leading the talk boasted that he had helped roll back a Republican-led effort to reform civil forfeiture in Georgia, where seized money has been used by the authorities, according to news reports, to pay for sports tickets, office parties, a home security system and a $90,000 sports car.
In defense of the practice, Gary Bergman, a prosecutor with the Prosecuting Attorneys' Council of Georgia, said civil forfeiture had been distorted in news reports. "All they hear is the woman was left on the side of the road and the police drove off with her car and her money, no connection to drugs," he told other prosecutors at the session.
"I'm not saying that that doesn't happen — it does. It should not. But they never hear about all the people that get stopped with the drugs in their cars, in their houses, the manufacturing operations we see, all the useful things we do with the money, the equipment, vehicles. They don't hear about that."
In an interview, Mr. Connelly said that the Las Cruces ordinance does only what the State Supreme Court has said is permissible.
Sean D. McMurtry, the chief of the forfeiture unit in the Mercer County, N.J., prosecutor's office, said forfeiture contributes to only a small percentage of local budgets but it is a good deterrent and works especially well against repeat offenders, such as domestic violence perpetrators who repeatedly violate a restraining order. "We're very proud of our forfeiture operation," he said in an interview.
But in the video, Mr. McMurtry made it clear that forfeitures were highly contingent on the needs of law enforcement. In New Jersey, the police and prosecutors are allowed to use cars, cash and other seized goods; the rest must be sold at auction. Cellphones and jewelry, Mr. McMurtry said, are not worth the bother. Flat screen televisions, however, "are very popular with the police departments," he said.
Prosecutors boasted in the sessions that seizure cases were rarely contested or appealed. But civil forfeiture places the burden on owners, who must pay court fees and legal costs to get their property back. Many seizures go uncontested because the property is not worth the expense.
And often the first hearing is presided over not by a judge but by the prosecutor whose office benefits from the proceeds, and who has wide discretion in deciding whether to forfeit the property or return it, sometimes in exchange for a steep fine.
Mr. McMurtry said his handling of a case is sometimes determined by department wish lists. "If you want the car, and you really want to put it in your fleet, let me know — I'll fight for it," Mr. McMurtry said, addressing law enforcement officials on the video. "If you don't let me know that, I'll try and resolve it real quick through a settlement and get cash for the car, get the tow fee paid off, get some money for it."
One criticism of civil forfeiture is that it results in widely varied penalties — one drunken driver could lose a $100,000 luxury car, while another forfeits a $2,000 clunker.
In an interview, Mr. McMurtry acknowledged that he exercises a great deal of discretion. "The first offense, if it's not anything too serious, we'll come up with a dollar amount, depending on the value of the car and the seriousness of the offense," he said. "I try to come up with a dollar amount that's not so high that they can't afford it, but not so low that it doesn't have an impact. If it's a second offense, they don't get it back."
Prosecutors estimated that between 50 to 80 percent of the cars seized were driven by someone other than the owner, which sometimes means a parent or grandparent loses their car. In the Santa Fe video, a police officer acknowledged that the law can affect families, but expressed skepticism of owners who say they did not know their relative was running afoul of the law.
"I can't tell you how many people have come in and said, 'Oh, my hijito would never do that,' " he said, mimicking a female voice with a Spanish accent.
Grand jury has reached a decision in the Michael Brown shooting case. Announcement imminent...
If they hurry up and arrest ALL the reporters in the St. Louis area, they won't have to worry about anyone reporting on the decision.
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on November 24, 2014, 06:56:42 PM
If they hurry up and arrest ALL the reporters in the St. Louis area, they won't have to worry about anyone reporting on the decision.
I mean, the media's behavior throughout this whole thing has been fairly despicable as well. They're practically begging for a riot to break out.
No indictment
The family has been on TV in the past few days asking for no violence.
I hate to say it, but I don't think people will honor that request
If you want to break the cycle of violence, someone has set the brighter example.
It SHOULD be the "highly trained", "disciplined", and well armed officers of the law.
A man who is equipped and capable of taking a punch and retaliating with deadly force but does not is an example that needs to be seen.
The media leans into the bellows but the local law enforcement & govt. have been stacking the firewood in places like Ferguson for some time.
Quote from: rowjimmy on November 25, 2014, 08:28:12 AM
If you want to break the cycle of violence, someone has set the brighter example.
It SHOULD be the "highly trained", "disciplined", and well armed officers of the law.
A man who is equipped and capable of taking a punch and retaliating with deadly force but does not is an example that needs to be seen.
The media leans into the bellows but the local law enforcement & govt. have been stacking the firewood in places like Ferguson for some time.
Very well said.
Quote from: susep on November 25, 2014, 09:09:44 AM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 24, 2014, 09:26:10 PM
No indictment
total bs.
It is hard to understand how they couldn't even get an indictment. Given the (highly selective) info that has been "leaked," I don't know if they would have gotten a conviction, but it seems pretty implausible to me that there wasn't sufficient evidence for an indictment.
I thought Obama's statement last night was very, very good. He was calm and measured yet spoke rationally to the inescapable inequality that still exists. My only complaint was that I wish he would have made a comment about joining Michael Brown's parents in pushing for all law enforcement to be equipped with cameras to help prevent another one of these types of tragedies.
This picture tho. More here (http://www.reuters.com/news/picture/2014/11/25/editors-choice?articleId=USRTR4FBOI)
(http://s4.reutersmedia.net/resources/r/?m=02&d=20141125&t=2&i=994432801&w=976&fh=&fw=&ll=&pl=&r=2014-11-25T051502Z_7_TB3EABP0BSUUR_RTRMADP_0_USA-MISSOURI-SHOOTING-PROTESTS)
remember when fox news told us how Wilson was "badly beaten" and had a broken eye socket? (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/08/20/missouri-cop-was-badly-beaten-before-shooting-michael-brown-says-source/)
(http://i.huffpost.com/gen/2318194/original.jpg)
using the official news media and social media to form an opinion on what should have been done in this case is a recipe for disaster.
The grand jury (theoretically) got all the data. The AG did a decent job explaining it. Apparantly, many of the witnesses recanted their testimony once the autopsy findings were released. There was also leaked testimony that the cop was charged. The evidence will be submitted publicly, so people can sift through it.
Sure, the justice system sometimes get's it wrong and sometimes seems rigged. I personally don't want to rush to judgment on what should have happened based on stories leaked before the trial. The official news dramatizes things all the time, social media does it even more.
Given all of the evidence I've read about, it makes no sense that they wouldn't return an indictment. Would he have been convicted at trial? Probably not. But that's not the point of the grand jury. It seems to me the prosecutor did not push for an indictment. He questioned witnesses in ways a defense attorney should... At trial.
It is clear to me that the people of furgeson have every right to be upset by this. The prosecutor was not zealous in his approach. He needs the police on his side to do his job. The grand jury was handheld to the conclusion to not indict. There was evidence enough for this to at least go to trial.
But the grand jury was keyed into the events (riots/protests whatever they call em). The prosecutor and local authorities probably figured I'd this went to trial they'd be looking at a year or more of it. I bet they think it will slow down if they "put the matter to rest quickly" by not returning an indictment.
That's the exact wrong thing to do.
Quote from: PGLHAH on November 25, 2014, 12:51:25 PM
Given all of the evidence I've read about, it makes no sense that they wouldn't return an indictment. Would he have been convicted at trial? Probably not. But that's not the point of the grand jury.
good point
http://www.scribd.com/doc/248128351/Darren-Wilson-Testimony
typed out testimony of Darren Wilson.
http://www.vice.com/read/picking-apart-the-testimony-of-darren-wilson-432?utm_source=vicefbus
Vice story that breaks it down.
I guess he thought Michael Brown was some sort of "hulk hogan" "superhuman" and thats why he needed to shot at him 12 times.
that and the fact that he didnt carry around a taser because it was too bulky in the front should have gotten this dude indicted.
Wow Anonymous is threatening to release personal info of the entire Ferguson police dept.
http://mic.com/articles/95930/anonymous-just-released-this-powerful-video-statement-on-the-michael-brown-shooting (http://mic.com/articles/95930/anonymous-just-released-this-powerful-video-statement-on-the-michael-brown-shooting)
Quote from: JPhishman on November 25, 2014, 05:12:59 PM
Wow Anonymous is threatening to release personal info of the entire Ferguson police dept.
http://mic.com/articles/95930/anonymous-just-released-this-powerful-video-statement-on-the-michael-brown-shooting (http://mic.com/articles/95930/anonymous-just-released-this-powerful-video-statement-on-the-michael-brown-shooting)
They need to disguise the voice better. That's clearly Stephen Hawking.
I'm baffled there was no indictment. I know the violence and looting are not what michaels family wants, but I somewhat understand that there are some confused people who feel wronged. This is not the case to rally the movement behind though.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRZM9I7Psxs
As pigpen always said "get yo hands out yo pockets"
Quote from: birdman on November 30, 2014, 03:37:38 PM
As pigpen always said "get yo hands out yo pockets"
:hereitisyousentimentalbastard
I'm a little fuzzy on why the guy is still there.
"Are you arresting me?"
"No."
"Have a lovely day."
::walk away::
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/how-not-explain-the-eric-garner-tragedy
Mike Brown was one thing
but this Eric Garner case is disturbing stuff.
1. that video is pretty evident that he was not resisting and was literally pleading for his life while he was being choked.
2. the coroner ruled his death a homicide which means he was killed by someone (the cop) and from that video its very hard to make a case that the cop was defending himself
Quote from: emayPhishyMD on December 04, 2014, 11:52:52 AM
Mike Brown was one thing
but this Eric Garner case is disturbing stuff.
1. that video is pretty evident that he was not resisting and was literally pleading for his life while he was being choking
2. the coroner ruled his death a homicide which means he was killed by someone (the cop)
Yeah, this one is a lot harder for me to swallow too (not to say Brown was easy).
None of the ambiguities that existed in the Brown case were present in the Garner case. The video is incredibly disturbing and I cannot fathom what the fuck the Staten Island grand jury was looking at to reach their conclusion. Over fucking loose cigarettes.
A couple more points to add to your list:
3. He didn't even have any cigarettes on him when he died.
4. The NYPD explicity banned the chokehold in 1993.
I thought I read somewhere that the chokehold was banned from NYPD tactics, which is even more disturbing since even if he didnt die, the cop should be in trouble for using that move. Now, since the cop murdered someone with that move, seems like it's a no brainer he should get a strict punishment.
Its hard to sit here and not think that these "juries" are not indicted these people on purpose just to watch and see what how the people respond to it.
And from the looks of it, the people can protest all they want these cops/the government aren't going to take responsibilities for the crimes against the public.
The system is creating a gap between the people and the government.
I don't even want to type this because I know I will be misunderstood.
violating department procedure and violating a criminal law are 2 completely different discussions.
the cop killed a guy using a tactic that was banned. when it comes time to decide if he gets his badge back, he won't.
when bringing someone up on criminal charges, you need to judge their actions against the criminal statute. there is a distinction.
I agree with everyone on what the outcome probably should have been (I didn't hear the complete record of evidence so I can't say with 100% certainty that I disagree, but the evidence I do know about is pretty bad).
I think peaceful protests are great and do make at least a little difference. but maybe the criminal laws and how far they can be stretced is what also needs some attention. at the end of the day, the grand jury is deciding based on criminal laws and not department procedures.
^ thats a good point.
It's hard to pinpoint when the cops aggression goes from typical policing procedure to get a situation under control to the cop just becoming an aggressive perpetrator of unnecessary violence on this man. I think at the point when the cop is straight up ignoring the victim's cries for help to save his life, is when this situation goes from "policing" to just hurting this man until he succumbs to the police commands.
Quote from: DoW on December 04, 2014, 12:44:28 PM
I don't even want to type this because I know I will be misunderstood.
violating department procedure and violating a criminal law are 2 completely different discussions.
the cop killed a guy using a tactic that was banned. when it comes time to decide if he gets his badge back, he won't.
when bringing someone up on criminal charges, you need to judge their actions against the criminal statute. there is a distinction.
I agree with everyone on what the outcome probably should have been (I didn't hear the complete record of evidence so I can't say with 100% certainty that I disagree, but the evidence I do know about is pretty bad).
I think peaceful protests are great and do make at least a little difference. but maybe the criminal laws and how far they can be stretced is what also needs some attention. at the end of the day, the grand jury is deciding based on criminal laws and not department procedures.
God damned lawyers :wink:
I'm not sure I agree it's completely irrelevant in the criminal case. He performed an action that was prohibited from standard police procedure. Doesn't that mean he shouldn't receive the normal deference we give to police doing their jobs when these types of tragedies occur? Doesn't the very action of using a banned tactic lend credence (at least inasmuch as the grand jury is concerned) to the fact that it was an unjustified action?
In addition to the obvious tragedy that a guy who was clearly not a threat was taken out for the ungodly crime of selling untaxed cigarettes, the fact that the cop - whether knowingly or not - broke the protocol for such a petty crime speaks volumes to either (a) the woefully inadequate training police in this country receive and/or (b) cops' willingness to abuse their authority because there is basically no risk of them ever being held accountable. Now I don't know if what the cop did technically qualifies as murder, but I find pretty goddamned near impossible to believe that he shouldn't be indicted for something. And I know goddamned well that the act was excessive in every respect of the word.
And speaking of police training, I just realized there are no mentions in this thread of Tamir Rice (https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=tamir%20rice), the 12 yr old who was shot by a trigger happy cop for the crime of waving a toy gun around. Now that is unfuckingacceptable.
I am resisting getting in a pissing match with a FB friend who is a very conservative cop. When I suggested that the chokehold was a violation of the NYPD protocol, this was his response, indicative of the circling of wagons that seems to occur in all of these cases:
"At issue in this case is the so-called "chokehold" used by Pantaleo. Chokeholds have been banned by the NYPD entirely since 1993; chokeholds are typically defined as holds that prevent people from breathing. Thanks to the video showing Garner stating that he cannot breathe, many pundits have wrongly suggested that Pantaleo was "choking" Garner by depriving him of air from his windpipe. Bratton himself suggested that Pantaleo used a "chokehold," which is defined by the NYPD as "any pressure to the throat or windpipe, which may prevent or hinder breathing or reduce intake of air."
That does not appear to have been the case. Garner did not die of asphyxiation, as the head of the Patrolmen's Benevolent Association noted at the time. The preliminary autopsy showed no damage to Garner's windpipe or neck bones.
So what was Pantaleo doing? He was applying a submission hold, which is not barred by the NYPD, and is designed to deprive the brain of oxygen by stopping blood flow through the arteries. So say the experts on submission holds.
It appears that the so-called chokehold was instrumental in triggering Garner's pre-existing health problems and causing his death, but Garner was not choked to death, as the media seems to maintain. According to Garner's friends, he "had several health issues: diabetes, sleep apnea, and asthma so severe that he had to quit his job as a horticulturist for the city's parks department. He wheezed when he talked and could not walk a block without resting, they said."
Unreal.
Runawayjimbo,
It is not that it is irrelevant. I just don't think it is black and white guilty when applied to the criminal statute as people are making it out to be.
I think the point I was trying to make is being tried against the criminal statute and not against departmental policy. From all of the opinions I have been reading in various places, I do think a lot of people miss that distinction.
I also realize a lot of people don't understand the difference between a grand jury and an actual criminal trial.
I'm still shocked this particular case wasn't found to meet the burden of an indictment, which is why I think we need to look to the criminal statutes and make changes.
Taibbi
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-police-in-america-are-becoming-illegitimate-20141205
The Gardner thing is the definition of fucked up. It's hard to believe he wasn't indicted, but then again about a year ago or so an unarmed black kid was shot and killed by a cop in midtown and the cop got off.
the only thing that scares me more than this, is the gun lobby thinking we should all be packing. If the cops, who are theoretically trained in using (and when not to use) their weapons and still get it wrong, how many more people will die if the general public get involved with the shooting (there already are a number of cases in addition to Trayvon Martin).
but I digress...
I try to put it in terms of potential energy for people. A fragile vase on a high shelf is more likely to break than one on the bottom shelf... Even if you teach your kids not to play basketball in the house...
The potential for a gun.. Even in hands of someone who knows how and when to use it... To kill someone is higher than the potential to kill someone with no gun present.
It's that simple for me.
pcr, yeah I've seen people now beginning to challenge the "chokehold" definition in this case. They usually, as your friend did, go on to blame the guy's health problems. Even under this view, it seems perfectly fair to suggest that cops shouldn't be using submission holds that can potentially trigger life-ending reactions except in the utmost circumstances. There are a lot of people in America with weight problems/diabetes/heart conditions, right? Are we saying it's OK that they're all just one rough encounter with the police away from death?
Also, here's a former St. Louis cop on rotten cops:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/12/06/i-was-a-st-louis-cop-my-peers-were-racist-and-violent-and-theres-only-one-fix/
http://www.citylab.com/crime/2014/12/the-unprecedented-scale-of-the-blacklivesmatter-protests/383461/ (http://www.citylab.com/crime/2014/12/the-unprecedented-scale-of-the-blacklivesmatter-protests/383461/)
White South Carolina policeman charged with murdering black man (http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/08/us-usa-south-carolina-shooting-idUSKBN0MY28220150408)
QuoteA white South Carolina police officer was charged with murder on Tuesday after a video showed him shooting eight times at the back of a 50-year-old black man who was running away.
my personal fav is when he yells at the man he just gunned down with 8 shots to 'Put your hands behind your back, dead guy!!!'
https://youtu.be/21T2F5WFPAw
before going back and dropping the stun gun he ran to the point of the initial scuffle and grabbed something. I thought it was his shell casings but it may have been the stungun.
Yeah, it looked like the stun gun fell to the ground as the guy was turning to run. So many fucked up things going on in that video, obviously.
It's good to see swift action on the part of the authorities, I guess, but you just know if a bystander didn't happen to be there to film the incident there'd probably be an internal "investigation" and Officer Killjoy would be cleared of all wrongdoing. And we wonder why cops resist body cameras...
Quote from: mbw on April 07, 2015, 09:33:33 PM
my personal fav is when he yells at the man he just gunned down with 8 shots to 'Put your hands behind your back, dead guy!!!'
And later he's standing over him going "Mr. Scott? Mr. Scott?" before he leans down to check for a pulse. Kind of like, are you OK sir? No hard feelings about those deadly gunshot wounds, right?
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/04/san-bernardino-sheriffs-officials-under-investigation-after-getting-caught-on-video-brutalizing-theft-suspect/
Quote from: Undermind on April 10, 2015, 07:16:19 AM
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/04/san-bernardino-sheriffs-officials-under-investigation-after-getting-caught-on-video-brutalizing-theft-suspect/
holy crap. they were kicking that dudes ass!
Crazy shit going down in Baltimore following Freddie Gray funeral.
Check out the asshole who actually throws a brick BACK at the protestors at the tail end of this short clip.
https://twitter.com/EricaLG/status/592778062527356931/video/1
Quote from: runawayjimbo on April 27, 2015, 04:34:17 PM
Crazy shit going down in Baltimore following Freddie Gray funeral.
Check out the asshole who actually throws a brick BACK at the protestors at the tail end of this short clip.
https://twitter.com/EricaLG/status/592778062527356931/video/1
yeah its crazy
have heard so many stories from friends and the delayed Os game and then keeping people in the stadium after it ended for public safety.
Someone posted this video and a girl had the balls to respond and say "If a bunch of dumbass kids throw rocks at me, I would throw them right back" :shakehead:
The communities in these cities that have shown public unrest for these cop killings, have been angry for decades, the death of Freddie Gray is just the straw to break the camels back.
Quote from: emayPhishyMD on April 27, 2015, 05:44:28 PM
The communities in these cities that have shown public unrest for these cop killings, have been angry for decades, the death of Freddie Gray is just the straw to break the camels back.
Not sure if that's the best analogy or the most inappropriate analogy, or both
Baltimore is going to be a lot worse then Ferguson I think. It is already out of control and it is still day time.
Since when can't you sever a handcuffed guys spine without people getting pissed??
Quote from: Undermind on April 27, 2015, 07:23:24 PM
Baltimore is going to be a lot worse then Ferguson I think. It is already out of control and it is still day time.
I agree and its getting scary. These riots arent' out in the suburbs out in the ghetto like in Ferguson.
This is happening downtown in a major metro area lots of innocent bystanders and a larger group of angry people. Baltimore is around 64% african america out of the 660,000 people that live there, gives you an idea of how much larger scale this is than a small suburb of St. Louis.
They have shut down the city and are not allowing people to leave or enter. A friend thats a teacher in DC cant get home.
Quote from: mbw on April 27, 2015, 08:02:23 PM
Since when can't you sever a handcuffed guys spine without people getting pissed??
Least you could do is call him an ambo.
Quote from: mbw on April 27, 2015, 08:02:23 PM
Since when can't you sever a handcuffed guys spine without people getting pissed??
Thanks, Obama.
I'm not going to diminish the legitimate anger that people feel over the Freddie Gray incident specifically, police mistreatment generally, and poor treatment of minority communities historically, but it's once again disheartening to see what should be a sympathetic cause devolve, to a certain extent anyway, into violence and destruction, specifically shit like looting stores and otherwise taking frustration out on innocent people and their businesses/property. What this does is take attention away from the actual injustices at hand and make it easy for people who are inclined to do so to dismiss, as usual, the whole thing as just the actions of a bunch of "thugs."
Orioles Executive Vice President John Angelos gets it.
Quote"Brett, speaking only for myself, I agree with your point that the principle of peaceful, non-violent protest and the observance of the rule of law is of utmost importance in any society. MLK, Gandhi, Mandela, and all great opposition leaders throughout history have always preached this precept. Further, it is critical that in any democracy investigation must be completed and due process must be honored before any government or police members are judged responsible.
That said, my greater source of personal concern, outrage and sympathy beyond this particular case is focused neither upon one night's property damage nor upon the acts, but is focused rather upon the past four-decade period during which an American political elite have shipped middle class and working class jobs away from Baltimore and cities and towns around the U.S. to third-world dictatorships like China and others, plunged tens of millions of good hard-working Americans into economic devastation, and then followed that action around the nation by diminishing every American's civil rights protections in order to control an unfairly impoverished population living under an ever-declining standard of living and suffering at the butt end of an ever-more militarized and aggressive surveillance state.
The innocent working families of all backgrounds whose lives and dreams have been cut short by excessive violence, surveillance, and other abuses of the Bill of Rights by government pay the true price, an ultimate price, and one that far exceeds the importance of any kids' game played tonight, or ever, at Camden Yards. We need to keep in mind people are suffering and dying around the U.S., and while we are thankful no one was injured at Camden Yards, there is a far bigger picture for poor Americans in Baltimore and everywhere who don't have jobs and are losing economic civil and legal rights, and this makes inconvenience at a ball game irrelevant in light of the needless suffering government is inflicting upon ordinary Americans."
http://washington.cbslocal.com/2015/04/27/orioles-vp-angelos-makes-profound-statement-on-twitter-following-baltimore-protests/
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B7ba8yiCUAAaaQu.jpg)
What would MLK say about these protestors (http://m.mic.com/articles/116524/outrage-over-baltimore-riots-completely-misses-the-point) who sought to intervene and stave off the violent deeds of others? "Black moderates," uncommitted to the cause?
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on April 27, 2015, 08:56:38 PM
I'm not going to diminish the legitimate anger that people feel over the Freddie Gray incident specifically, police mistreatment generally, and poor treatment of minority communities historically, but it's once again disheartening to see what should be a sympathetic cause devolve, to a certain extent anyway, into violence and destruction, specifically shit like looting stores and otherwise taking frustration out on innocent people and their businesses/property. What this does is take attention away from the actual injustices at hand and make it easy for people who are inclined to do so to dismiss, as usual, the whole thing as just the actions of a bunch of "thugs."
As an ardent (to a fault?) defender of property rights, I tend to agree with you that the senseless destruction and violence is hard to watch. BUT...
The unbearable frustration experienced in mostly poor, inner-city minority communities has reached a tipping point. Yes, of course it's ok to denounce BOTH police brutality and rioting. But doing so sets a false equivalance that toilet paper being stolen from a CVS is just as important as the life of a 25 yr old who was killed in police custody with still no explanation. It diminishes the outright oppression these communities suffer every day (and make no mistake, most young black men do live in a constant fear of state-sanctioned violence, AKA oppression). And lest we forget, broad sweeping police reforms commonly stem from these ugly episodes (http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2011-04-03-cincinnati-riots-anniversary_N.htm).
Of course, now I'm just paraphrasing Ta-Nehisi Coates here, who says this far more eloquently than I could.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/04/nonviolence-as-compliance/391640/
Quote
Nonviolence as Compliance
Officials calling for calm can offer no rational justification for Gray's death, and so they appeal for order.
Rioting broke out on Monday in Baltimore—an angry response to the death of Freddie Gray, a death my native city seems powerless to explain. Gray did not die mysteriously in some back alley but in the custody of the city's publicly appointed guardians of order. And yet the mayor of that city and the commissioner of that city's police still have no idea what happened. I suspect this is not because the mayor and police commissioner are bad people, but because the state of Maryland prioritizes the protection of police officers charged with abuse over the citizens who fall under its purview.
The citizens who live in West Baltimore, where the rioting began, intuitively understand this. I grew up across the street from Mondawmin Mall, where today's riots began. My mother was raised in the same housing project, Gilmor Homes, where Freddie Gray was killed. Everyone I knew who lived in that world regarded the police not with admiration and respect but with fear and caution. People write these feelings off as wholly irrational at their own peril, or their own leisure. The case against the Baltimore police, and the society that superintends them, is easily made:
Quote
Over the past four years, more than 100 people have won court judgments or settlements related to allegations of brutality and civil rights violations. Victims include a 15-year-old boy riding a dirt bike, a 26-year-old pregnant accountant who had witnessed a beating, a 50-year-old woman selling church raffle tickets, a 65-year-old church deacon rolling a cigarette and an 87-year-old grandmother aiding her wounded grandson ....
And in almost every case, prosecutors or judges dismissed the charges against the victims—if charges were filed at all. In an incident that drew headlines recently, charges against a South Baltimore man were dropped after a video showed an officer repeatedly punching him—a beating that led the police commissioner to say he was "shocked."
The money paid out by the city to cover for the brutal acts of its police department would be enough to build "a state-of-the-art rec center or renovations at more than 30 playgrounds." Instead, the money was used to cover for the brutal acts of the city's police department and ensure they remained well beyond any semblance of justice.
Now, tonight, I turn on the news and I see politicians calling for young people in Baltimore to remain peaceful and "nonviolent." These well-intended pleas strike me as the right answer to the wrong question. To understand the question, it's worth remembering what, specifically, happened to Freddie Gray. An officer made eye contact with Gray. Gray, for unknown reasons, ran. The officer and his colleagues then detained Gray. They found him in possession of a switchblade. They arrested him while he yelled in pain. And then, within an hour, his spine was mostly severed. A week later, he was dead. What specifically was the crime here? What particular threat did Freddie Gray pose? Why is mere eye contact and then running worthy of detention at the hands of the state? Why is Freddie Gray dead?
The people now calling for nonviolence are not prepared to answer these questions. Many of them are charged with enforcing the very policies that led to Gray's death, and yet they can offer no rational justification for Gray's death and so they appeal for calm. But there was no official appeal for calm when Gray was being arrested. There was no appeal for calm when Jerriel Lyles was assaulted. ("The blow was so heavy. My eyes swelled up. Blood was dripping down my nose and out my eye.") There was no claim for nonviolence on behalf of Venus Green. ("Bitch, you ain't no better than any of the other old black bitches I have locked up.") There was no plea for peace on behalf of Starr Brown. ("They slammed me down on my face," Brown added, her voice cracking. "The skin was gone on my face.")
When nonviolence is preached as an attempt to evade the repercussions of political brutality, it betrays itself. When nonviolence begins halfway through the war with the aggressor calling time out, it exposes itself as a ruse. When nonviolence is preached by the representatives of the state, while the state doles out heaps of violence to its citizens, it reveals itself to be a con. And none of this can mean that rioting or violence is "correct" or "wise," any more than a forest fire can be "correct" or "wise." Wisdom isn't the point tonight. Disrespect is. In this case, disrespect for the hollow law and failed order that so regularly disrespects the rioters themselves.
Quote from: runawayjimbo on April 28, 2015, 09:34:12 AM
Yes, of course it's ok to denounce BOTH police brutality and rioting. But doing so sets a false equivalance that toilet paper being stolen from a CVS is just as important as the life of a 25 yr old who was killed in police custody with still no explanation.
But does it? I'd argue the equivalency, if there is one, is being perceived by the receiver rather than actually being intended by the speaker. I can assure you I'm far more scandalized by police killings than I am by toilet paper theft. I also don't like it when people let their dogs shit on my lawn; that that's not as bad as any number of other things doesn't mean it's not worth denouncing. There are degrees of everything.
The Coates piece is good, by the way. The sentiment comes through loud and clear.
Speaking in general about how people react to violent/oppressive regimes, I don't rule out counterviolence and insurrection as being among the rights of the people. With that in mind, I don't necessarily view clashes between police and protestors as being patently unreasonable -- they are in fact the embodiment of the oppression, and when all else fails don't we sometimes have to literally fight for our rights? This may seem to conflict with a more humanistic ideal or two (in theory, it might seem better to visit violence upon an inanimate object e.g. a storefront than another person), but I see one of those types of violence as existing on the line you can draw from peaceful protest to full-blown revolution, and the other seems more like a tangent, a diversion.
I'm not advocating looting city malls.
But I'm not opposed to looting City Halls.
Nothing is gonna change with a few vigils.
You don't wake the sleeping masses if you tiptoe around.
If people stay passive and "well-behaved" then they are simply continuing to bend to the will of the establishment. The establishment is what needs disruption.
Absolutely.
Every time this issue comes up I want to encourage people to watch Do The Right Thing.
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on April 28, 2015, 10:17:12 AM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on April 28, 2015, 09:34:12 AM
Yes, of course it's ok to denounce BOTH police brutality and rioting. But doing so sets a false equivalance that toilet paper being stolen from a CVS is just as important as the life of a 25 yr old who was killed in police custody with still no explanation.
But does it? I'd argue the equivalency, if there is one, is being perceived by the receiver rather than actually being intended by the speaker. I can assure you I'm far more scandalized by police killings than I am by toilet paper theft. I also don't like it when people let their dogs shit on my lawn; that that's not as bad as any number of other things doesn't mean it's not worth denouncing. There are degrees of everything.
Agreed. I in no way meant to imply you were not offended by the police brutality/murder. And again, I am not condoning the violence and vandalsim perpetrated agains innocent bystanders either. But I do think there is a problem when the narrative shifts (as it appears to be) from rampant police abuse to "OMG what is wrong with these people who want to burn down their own communities?!?!11?" I think the far more important question is why are people resorting to this type of behavior to express their grievances against a de facto police state in their neighborhoods and how can we make it better.
And for the record, this in no way meant to disparage police officers either, the overwhelming majority of whom are due our great respect and apprciation. They put themselves in dangerous situations on a daily basis and have to make split second decisions of life and death usually with imperfect information. But if you (not you, VDB, "you") deny that there isn't a systemic problem in the way we police in this country (and the way police are protected when bad actors are discovered), you pretty much live in a bubble at this point.
Balko'd (https://twitter.com/radleybalko/status/593045694186827776)
Quote
The cities where we've recently seen civil unrest/rioting have also been shown to have widespread police abuse. This is not a coincidence.
Quote
St. Louis Co., Albuquerque, New York, Cleveland, Baltimore, Miami -- all recent subjects of DOJ or media reports showing mass police abuse.
Many people are glad to live in that bubble. Helps make it easier for them to exercise their prejudices.
<vent target=nobody here>
Disgusting to see people (family members!) who haven't said shit about Police killing a man speak up on behalf of a fucking CVS.
So very close to deleting Facebook from my life.
</vent>
This is a worthwhile perspective:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/04/nonviolence-as-compliance/391640/
Quote from: rowjimmy on April 28, 2015, 01:26:35 PM
So very close to deleting Facebook from my life.
I try to stay away from reading anything serious on Facebook.
vibes to anyone in that area. it's a horrible world we live in. all this stuff makes me angry and depressed at the same time.
Don't let the press cause you to lose sight of the reality of the situation:
http://mic.com/articles/116524/outrage-over-baltimore-riots-completely-misses-the-point
Also:
https://youtu.be/hjZYYXVIUp8
Quote from: rowjimmy on April 28, 2015, 01:26:35 PM
<vent target=nobody here>
Disgusting to see people (family members!) who haven't said shit about Police killing a man speak up on behalf of a fucking CVS.
</vent>
This is a worthwhile perspective:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/04/nonviolence-as-compliance/391640/
good article, thanks for posting
Quote
White People Rioting for No Reason
All the times white people rioted for reasons other than legitimate grievances with our legal system.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/11/white-people-rioting-for-no-reason.html (http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/11/white-people-rioting-for-no-reason.html)
The Baltimore 'riots' didn't start the way the media has portrayed them:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/04/how-baltimore-riots-began-mondawmin-purge
^^^^Good Read^^^^
Shits going down in NYC & Baltimore.
NYCPD has already come out swinging.
Not a good start.
Protests in Boston tonight
Peaceful, no incidents
Quote from: slslbs on April 29, 2015, 10:40:50 PM
Protests in Boston tonight
Peaceful, no incidents
Let's hope they're not lying down on 93 tomorrow morning.
http://www.npr.org/2015/04/29/402971487/residents-disappointed-at-how-rioters-tore-up-baltimore?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20150429
Officers being charged with murder in the Freddie Gray incident
http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/01/us/freddie-gray-baltimore-death/index.html
Quote from: emayPhishyMD on May 01, 2015, 11:32:59 AM
Officers being charged with murder in the Freddie Gray incident
http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/01/us/freddie-gray-baltimore-death/index.html
Wha??? I thought he severed his own spine!?
What in the actual fuck ?!
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/crime/blog/bal-freddie-gray-arrest-documents-drawn-up-for-wrong-people-20150504-story.html
The city charged the wrong people to protect the killer cops
Jesus H. Just imagine if some vigilante had gone out and whacked one or both of those people. "We regret the unfortunate clerical error."
I finally got through this long read from Radley Balko about the state of criminal justice in the wake of Ferguson and Baltimore: current crime stats, the inherent injustice of the system, and the dangers of looking at everything through a political lens.
http://wpo.st/0MbG0
Quote
This isn't 1968. Baltimore isn't Watts. And Hillary Clinton isn't Michael Dukakis.
...
Quote from: runawayjimbo on May 07, 2015, 10:56:09 PM
I finally got through this long read from Radley Balko about the state of criminal justice in the wake of Ferguson and Baltimore: current crime stats, the inherent injustice of the system, and the dangers of looking at everything through a political lens.
http://wpo.st/0MbG0
Quote
This isn't 1968. Baltimore isn't Watts. And Hillary Clinton isn't Michael Dukakis.
...
Good read; thanks for sharing. Dude nailed it, with the exception of using "tact" when he meant "tack"...
I can forgive that.
Quote from: pcr3 on May 07, 2015, 11:35:21 PM
Good read; thanks for sharing. Dude nailed it, with the exception of using "tact" when he meant "tack"...
I can forgive that.
Some crimes are unforgivable.
At first I thought it was supposed to be "tactic," but upon further review I'm pretty sure he meant "tact."
QuoteIt's much easier to demagogue riots to exploit white fear of black crime than it is to ask complicated questions about what caused this group of people to grow so desperate in the first place. Historically, that tact has also won elections, and deviating from it arguably has lost them.
QuoteFull Definition of TACT
1: sensitive mental or aesthetic perception <converted the novel into a play with remarkable skill and tact>
2: a keen sense of what to do or say in order to maintain good relations with others or avoid offense
Go deflate your balls, pcr. :-P
Still,
Quote from: rowjimmy on May 08, 2015, 08:35:23 AM
Quote from: pcr3 on May 07, 2015, 11:35:21 PM
Good read; thanks for sharing. Dude nailed it, with the exception of using "tact" when he meant "tack"...
I can forgive that.
Some crimes are unforgivable.
I LOL'd
A grand jury indicts all six officers in Freddie Grey killing.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/22/us/six-baltimore-officers-indicted-in-death-of-freddie-gray.html
http://www.vice.com/read/an-ex-baltimore-cop-just-came-clean-on-twitter-about-all-the-corruption-he-saw-on-the-job-624?utm_source=vicefbus
Quote from: emayPhishyMD on June 24, 2015, 05:51:47 PM
http://www.vice.com/read/an-ex-baltimore-cop-just-came-clean-on-twitter-about-all-the-corruption-he-saw-on-the-job-624?utm_source=vicefbus
Not at all surprising but no less troubling.
I (like most of you, I assume) don't read a lot of RedState, but this story is just so indicative of our disgusting criminal justice system I had to put it here. I could do without the implicit editorializing at the end, but this is reason #47182738 why the War on Drugs is one of the most devastating policies a gov't has ever inflicted on it's on people.
http://www.redstate.com/2015/09/01/president-obama-commute-sharanda-jones-sentence/
Quote
President Obama, Commute Sharanda Jones' Sentence
Sharanda Jones is currently serving a sentence of life without the possibility of parole at Carswell Federal Prison in Texas. Life without the possibility of parole is the second-harshest sentence our justice system can mete out, short only of the death penalty, and that not by much. What, you might ask yourself, did Sharanda Jones do to merit this sentence?
She was convicted of a single, non-violent drug offense involving crack cocaine. This conviction stemmed from her first ever arrest, and she was not even caught with crack in her possession.
If the above two paragraphs do not shock you, then you haven't spent enough time in the criminal justice system to know how often violent crimes – including intentional homicides – are not punished with life sentences, much less life without parole. It is actually difficult, in many state court systems in particular, to get sentenced to LWP, even for repeat violent offender.
The fact that Sharanda Jones received this sentence for what amounts to being a drug mule is indicative of the unthinking and senseless drug sentencing policy that infected this country for far too long and which has resulted in a gradually worsening over-incarceration problem in the United States, which costs American taxpayers billions of dollars a year.
The basic facts of Sharanda's arrest and conviction are set forth in this Washington Post story published in July. Essentially, Sharanda was convicted based on the testimony of two government informants who themselves were facing draconian drug sentences. The thrust of their testimony was that they had, over the course of several years, received several shipments of crack cocaine from Sharanda, who according to their understanding had brought the cocaine up from Houston to Terrell (northeast Dallas metro area) for them. There was no allegation that Sharanda had ever committed a violent act, and she was not ever caught with any amount of crack in her possession. By the uncontested testimony at trial, Sharanda did not supply the crack herself or distribute it, but rather acted as a conduit to transfer it from Houston to Terrell.
Sharanda was initially charged with seven criminal counts, and pled not guilty to all seven. She testified in her own defense and was ultimately acquitted on six of the seven counts. However, at the sentencing phase, prosecutors took the opportunity to pursue a despicable and un-American tactic all too common in our criminal justice system: they sought at sentencing to punish Sharanda for insisting on her right to trial by seeking "sentencing enhancements" – many of which essentially constitute separate crimes (e.g., obstruction of justice) but which of course prosecutors weren't required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt at this phase of the trial.
For instance, among other enhancements, Sharanda's sentence was enhanced for carrying a gun "in furtherance of a drug conspiracy," based simply on the fact that she had a legal license to carry a firearm in Texas. There was no testimony at trial or at any other time that she ever used her gun or even brandished or displayed it to anyone at any time. Additionally, although Sharanda was acquitted on six of the seven counts against her, her testimony in her own defense was declared at sentencing to have been false and therefore an "obstruction of justice."
At the end of the day, prosecutors successfully placed Sharanda Jones behind bars for the rest of her natural life after her first arrest, for a nonviolent crime, in no small part because she insisted on defending herself at trial instead of taking a plea bargain that itself involved a lengthy prison sentence.
Sharanda's case represents a small drop in an increasingly large bucket that threatens all of society with its increasing weight. Per the Bureau of Prisons, their budget has steadily grown since 1980 at an inflation-adjusted average of over $130 million per year. Even after adjusting for inflation, the Federal Bureau of Prison's budget has grown by almost 700% since 1980, which does not even account for the fact that, by their own admission, they are dangerously overcrowded and unable to properly serve the current prison population, much less its expected growth in future years. Each year that the government keeps Sharanda Jones – who has already spent 18 years behind bars – locked up costs taxpayers about $28,000.
Given an average expected life span, the Federal drug sentencing regime put taxpayers on the hook for about $1.7 million in present-value dollars for the privilege of keeping a non-violent criminal behind bars for the rest of her natural life, and for discouraging others in Sharanda's place from making the mistake of forcing them to go to trial and prove their case.
Of course, the financial toll pales in comparison to the human toll of Sharanda's story, and so many others like hers. Sharanda Jones is not just a number or a dollar figure. She is a human being with a family (including a daughter) and friendships who has been essentially ripped from society forever. Society, through its criminal justice system, has declared that Sharanda Jones is beyond saving; that no hope exists or ever will exist that she can be a productive member of society, that the crime of drug muling is so heinous that she must never be allowed to see the light of day, in spite of the numerous murderers, rapists, and thieves who are deemed fit for rehabilitation and a second chance.
I think everyone, including Sharanda herself, would concede that she deserved to serve some amount of prison time for her crime; but there has to come a point where enough is enough, and where stories like Sharanda's shock our conscience as a society and we allow some amount of reason to creep back into our criminal justice system.
Thankfully, some semblance of sanity has re-asserted itself over our federal sentencing regime and under the current regime, offenders like Sharanda Jones are extraordinarily unlikely to receive such a sentence. But too many are like Sharanda, languishing behind bars for ludicrous amounts of time under the weight of sentences passed during the middle of the crackdown on crack frenzy. Something is desperately wrong when our prisons cannot hold repeat violent offenders because it is too full of nonviolent drug offenders who are there on mandatory sentences.
For Sharanda, there are essentially two remaining options. The first lies in executive clemency and pardon – which President Obama already passed on extending to Sharanda once. Maybe Obama isn't interested in anything he might read at RedState but his time in office is short and hopefully his successor might be more amenable to suggestions from voters on this side of the aisle. The second, equally unlikely is a Congressional solution that retroactively allows for judicial reconsideration of nonviolent drug sentences where none currently exists. Such a solution, especially as part of broader criminal justice reform like that championed by Texas under Rick Perry, could help both reduce federal prison population while actually reducing violent crime.
Until a day comes where one of these becomes a more politically palatable solution, all Sharanda Jones can do is pray that someday, someone in a position of authority will determine that she has been punished enough, and that she should be given the second chance that we all deep down believe that we deserve for our mistakes.
Deplorable
and WTF Obama?!
Consider the source, but I believe it...
http://liveforlivemusic.com/news/police-culpable-of-for-widespread-panic-concert-attendee-who-died-in-police-custody/ (http://liveforlivemusic.com/news/police-culpable-of-for-widespread-panic-concert-attendee-who-died-in-police-custody/)
Quote from: PGLHAH on November 18, 2015, 08:49:29 PM
Consider the source, but I believe it...
http://liveforlivemusic.com/news/police-culpable-of-for-widespread-panic-concert-attendee-who-died-in-police-custody/ (http://liveforlivemusic.com/news/police-culpable-of-for-widespread-panic-concert-attendee-who-died-in-police-custody/)
Despite the source, there is real news in the findings of the ME. The department had pointed to drugs and suggested that he had a condition about which they couldn't know. Now it's clear that those things weren't the reason. Culpability will fall to the courts but nothing in that process will fix the fact that a son, husband, and father has been taken from his family forever after an encounter with the police.
then of course, there's this
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/20/us/minneapolis-protest-police-jamar-clark.html?module=WatchingPortal®ion=c-column-middle-span-region&pgType=Homepage&action=click&mediaId=wide&state=standard&contentPlacement=4&version=internal&contentCollection=www.nytimes.com&contentId=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2015%2F11%2F20%2Fus%2Fminneapolis-protest-police-jamar-clark.html&eventName=Watching-article-click&_r=0
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/12/illegitimacy-and-american-policing/422094/ (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/12/illegitimacy-and-american-policing/422094/)
A short, but rather solid, piece by Ta-Nehisi Coates. He really nails it in the final paragraph.
So a friend of my dad's was shot Sept 16 after his SUV stalled on the road.
He was unarmed and they had already tasered him to the ground.
Pretty unbelievable.
http://heavy.com/news/2016/09/terence-terrence-terance-crutcher-officer-betty-shelby-tulsa-oklahoma-black-man-shot-unarmed-video-family-photos-car/ (http://heavy.com/news/2016/09/terence-terrence-terance-crutcher-officer-betty-shelby-tulsa-oklahoma-black-man-shot-unarmed-video-family-photos-car/)
These stories keep getting worse. Very sorry to hear the victim was close to your family, Budd.
Quote from: VDB on September 20, 2016, 10:10:38 AM
These stories keep getting worse. Very sorry to hear the victim was close to your family, Budd.
Quote from: VDB on September 20, 2016, 10:10:38 AM
These stories keep getting worse. Very sorry to hear the victim was close to your family, Budd.
He was a business associate of my fathers so I had never met him but Dad is pretty shook up about it.
Quote from: Buffalo Budd on September 20, 2016, 07:47:28 AM
So a friend of my dad's was shot Sept 16 after his SUV stalled on the road.
He was unarmed and they had already tasered him to the ground.
Pretty unbelievable.
http://heavy.com/news/2016/09/terence-terrence-terance-crutcher-officer-betty-shelby-tulsa-oklahoma-black-man-shot-unarmed-video-family-photos-car/ (http://heavy.com/news/2016/09/terence-terrence-terance-crutcher-officer-betty-shelby-tulsa-oklahoma-black-man-shot-unarmed-video-family-photos-car/)
Heard about this on NPR this morning actually driving in to work. Watching that video, he had his hands up and his back to them, did not seem threatening in any way. Who knows what was said, but from body language alone, seems absurd that he was shot, or even tasered.
wow
thats totally fucked up
sorry BB
I can't even imagine the fine line between the brutal reality of seeing video of your loved one's murder and the relief of knowing that very video will help bring justice. A situation I would not wish on my worst enemy.
Quote from: PGLHAH on September 20, 2016, 02:44:58 PM
I can't even imagine the fine line between the brutal reality of seeing video of your loved one's murder and the relief of knowing that very video will help bring justice. A situation I would not wish on my worst enemy.
Well stated.
Quote from: VDB on September 20, 2016, 03:19:24 PM
Quote from: PGLHAH on September 20, 2016, 02:44:58 PM
I can't even imagine the fine line between the brutal reality of seeing video of your loved one's murder and the relief of knowing that very video will help bring justice. A situation I would not wish on my worst enemy.
Well stated.
Quote from: Buffalo Budd on September 20, 2016, 07:23:08 PM
Quote from: VDB on September 20, 2016, 03:19:24 PM
Quote from: PGLHAH on September 20, 2016, 02:44:58 PM
I can't even imagine the fine line between the brutal reality of seeing video of your loved one's murder and the relief of knowing that very video will help bring justice. A situation I would not wish on my worst enemy.
Well stated.
Oh man, Aaron. Terrible news.
Quote from: birdman on September 20, 2016, 09:03:47 PM
Oh man, Aaron. Terrible news.
completely.
so sorry, Aaron.
Russell Westbrook gets it
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cs1eaTlXEAAv33a.jpg)
^^^ :clap:
Seriously.
P.S. Cue racist douchebags telling the rich athlete to shut up in 3 ... 2 ...
Been following the trial for the police corruption ring in Baltimore. Pretty crazy stuff.
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/8xvzwp/baltimore-cops-carried-toy-guns-to-plant-on-people-they-shot-trial-reveals-vgtrn?utm_source=vicefbus
QuoteBaltimore Cops Carried Toy Guns to Plant on People They Shot, Trial Reveals
This kind of stuff makes the cops worse than the gangs in the neighborhood. Really rips apart the whole city when there's no trust.
More from Vice news:
https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/mbpzx8/how-a-corrupt-baltimore-police-task-force-tainted-thousands-of-cases
That's some f'd up stuff.
The distain, disgust and fear I have of US law enforcement just isn't right. No one should have such negative thoughts towards the people that we pay to serve and protect us.
one of the problems is that there are plenty of good cops around but they all get painted with the same brush
Quote from: slslbs on January 31, 2018, 06:14:39 PM
one of the problems is that there are plenty of good cops around but they all get painted with the same brush
Very true.
Quote from: WhatstheUse? on January 31, 2018, 06:28:42 PM
Quote from: slslbs on January 31, 2018, 06:14:39 PM
one of the problems is that there are plenty of good cops around but they all get painted with the same brush
Very true.
This.
And it's so shitty that these types of people have tarnished the position these guys risk their lives for.
Quote from: Buffalo Budd on January 31, 2018, 07:51:16 PM
Quote from: WhatstheUse? on January 31, 2018, 06:28:42 PM
Quote from: slslbs on January 31, 2018, 06:14:39 PM
one of the problems is that there are plenty of good cops around but they all get painted with the same brush
Very true.
This.
And it's so shitty that these types of people have tarnished the position these guys risk their lives for.
...and that the only strong unions left in this country that have any public sway are the ones obligated to protect the bad apples along with the good.
Gotta recognize the good cops too I guess...
http://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-canada-43886368/toronto-van-attack-moment-suspect-arrested
Quote from: mattstick on April 24, 2018, 07:33:50 PM
Gotta recognize the good cops too I guess...
http://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-canada-43886368/toronto-van-attack-moment-suspect-arrested
Totally.
Nice job by that guy.