Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the U.S.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the U.S.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Third Amendment to the Constitution of the U.S.

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Second Amendment to the Constitution of the U.S.

As passed by the Congress:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

As ratified by the States:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

First Amendment to the Constitution of the U.S.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

This amendment prohibits the federal government from imposing excessive bail, excessive fines or cruel and unusual punishment. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that this amendment's Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause applies to the states.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Seventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

This amendment codifies the right to a jury trial in certain civil trials. Unlike most of the Bill of Rights, the Supreme Court has not incorporated the amendment's requirements to the states under the Fourteenth Amendment.

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

This amendment sets forth rights related to criminal prosecutions. The Supreme Court has applied the protections of this amendment to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

This amendment protects against abuse of government authority in a legal procedure. Its guarantees stem from English common law which traces back to the Magna Carta in 1215. For instance, grand juries and the phrase “due process” both trace their origin to the Magna Carta.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Third Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

This amendment prohibits, in peacetime, the quartering of soldiers in private homes without the owner's consent. It makes quartering legally permissible in wartime only, and then only according to law.

It was introduced on September 5, 1789, and then three quarters of the states ratified this as well as 9 other amendments on December 15, 1791.

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

This amendment protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

This amendment prohibits the making of any law “respecting an establishment of religion”, impeding the freedom of religion, infringing on the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment has been interpreted by the Supreme Court as erecting a wall of separation between church ans state.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Separation of Church and State: Not for the U.S. Military

I just learned that there is a test designed by the psychologist who inspired the CIA's Torture Program under George W. Bush’s regime. It is labeled as experimental, but so many of the most heinous atrocities against humankind were labeled experimental, the Tuskegee experiment, LSD experiments, Dr. Cornelius Rhoads Cancer experiment, Malaria experiments, the long list continues at Military and Government Projects.

In a current case, an Army mental-health and fitness initiative unconstitutionally requires enlistees to believe in God or a "higher power" in order to be deemed "spiritually fit" to serve in the Army. This experiment does not involve injections of life threatening toxins or diseases to unwitting participants, but it does center on a persons free will and belief system which is the very basis for our moral and ethical makeup. Can this be the next step in a secret program to transform free thinking humans into robotic killing machines without conscience? Given the history of how our fighting men and women in uniform have been viewed as lab subjects who are at the complete disposal of macabre and sick CIA whims, this idea cannot be brushed aside as fantasy or sci-fiction.

Comprehensive Soldier Fitness (CSF)  is a $125 million "holistic fitness program" unveiled in late 2009 and aimed at reducing the number of suicides and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) cases, which have reached epidemic proportions over the past year due to multiple deployments to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the substandard care soldiers have received when they return from combat.

The Army states that it can accomplish its goal by teaching its service members how to be psychologically resilient and resist "catastrophizing" traumatic events. In other words, the Army’s goal is to cut down on this type of distraction by teaching soldiers to ‘man up’ and become numb to the ‘hell of war’ so they can concentrate on what they are trained to do, winning wars.

CSF measures soldiers' "resilience" in five core areas: emotional, physical, family, social and spiritual. Soldiers fill out an online survey, and if the results fall into a ‘red’ area, they are required to participate in remedial courses to strengthen their resilience in the disciplines in which they received low scores.

For the thousands of "Foxhole Atheists" like 27-year-old Sgt. Justin Griffith, the spiritual component of the test contains questions written predominantly for soldiers who believe in God or another deity, meaning nonbelievers are guaranteed to score poorly and will be forced to participate in exercises that use religious imagery to "train" soldiers up to a satisfactory level of spirituality. Religious imagery, in other words ‘brainwashing’.

The Army gives no option to avoid questions concerning a higher being. The only responses available assumes there is a higher being and the questions do not take into account the viewpoint of atheists. This fact shows the Army deems anyone who is a non-believer is unfit to serve in the U.S. military. It further shows that it is the Army’s belief that without faith in a higher being the person has no meaning and purpose in their life and therefore it is hard for them to make sense of what is happening to themselves and others around them.

The Army exercises verbal gymnastics in order to get around the answer, but they say religiosity is not a mandatory part of the test. If this is the case then why is it presented as such? Soldiers feel they are required to participate, under fear of disciplined by their superior officers, in remedial training if they score poorly on the spiritual portion of the test and if they didn't act on the recommendations they received after taking the exam. In fact, nowhere on the test does it state that such training is voluntary.

It's not just the First Amendment which is being blatantly violated here, clause 3 of Article 6 of the body of the U.S. Constitution specifically prohibits any type of 'religious test' being used in connection with any government service. Thus, this 'spirituality' portion of the Army's CSF test completely savages this bedrock Constitutional prohibition.

U.S. Constitution: a Civil Religion

The Constitution is the law of the land. It is what Americans base our government on. It is the very bedrock of our democratic society. It is not a religion. It is not a holy missive recited to our founding fathers straight from the mouth of God.

But, this is exactly how some Democrats fear the GOP and tea party are heralding this charter. It is one of the most well-written documents in world history. It is to be respected, but treating it as if it were holy scripture endangers its very substance as well as the foundation of this great nation.

This is not an instrument of worship, it was presented to us as a guide to keep our nation on its intended course to provide every American: justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. And, through its amendments, commonly known as the Bill of Rights, our basic freedoms. We are not required to show proof that we deserve these freedoms, they are given freely as part of the package when we become American citizens.

It’s words were carefully chosen for their meaning. I am in agreement with any political party, and others, who view the document as that which gives life to this nation. The tie in with the religious beliefs of the writers of this document cannot be ignored, nor are they asked to be, for the writers were devout in their faith while they wrote it. However, there is a statement in the Constitution that says “but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

Anyone stating that this document is the word of God simply does not appreciate the danger in making such a misguided and flammatory statement.

The first amendment, added just four years after the signing of the Constitution, states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I think it is clear, regardless of our founding fathers affinity to any one religion over another, that their intention was that this government will not bend to any religious belief.

The reasoning behind any quibbling over where our forefathers stood on this issue ignores the very wording of this document.

There are many who may equate their belief in this document to their belief in the bible, and to those I can only say that is your right, but merging these two into one in the name of declaring what is best for this country is an attempt to impose your personal beliefs onto others while trampling on their rights. How can you justify this given that doing so goes directly against the wording of one of the documents you hold in such high regard?

If you think you can find a justification, please state your case here.

Where has the American revolutionary spirit gone?

All American citizens are losing our freedoms while being seduced by fake reality shows and the latest electronic gadgets. While we sit in front of our televisions, blissfully lulled into a false sense of security, our federal government is planning its next tyrannical power grab. Where are our priorities?

High school graduation for me came in late 1960’s while society was undergoing some major attitude changes. With great curiosity and delight I witnessed and was swept up in the changes taking place in music, art, fashion, politics, technology, and lifestyle. People’s voices were beginning to be raised demanding an end to the unfair treatment of black citizens, an end to the war in Vietnam, and to demand full equality for women.

I became especially interested in the war protests, the marches, and the gathering numbers of counter-culture revolutionaries determined to break the bonds of their ‘oppressor masters’. Never mind that my sheltered Mid-West upbringing cushioned me from the sting of oppression, I felt a part of the problem if I was not going to be part of the solution. The energy emanating from the force of these protesters convictions and their sheer numbers, was almost palpable. They were on the front line in the battle against no less a daunting and deeply entrenched foe than the military-industrial complex, and everyone under the age of 25 were at once full-fledged brothers-in-arms and were expected to do their part in bringing down this unrepentant beast.

I was proud to be a part of a generation that was instrumental in forcing this nation to face its moral obligations towards its citizens, and in reminding our public officials that they served at our pleasure. This major shift towards taking more responsibility for each others welfare shook the very fabric of society.

The fire, that internal spark, that was necessary to drive an entire generation to stand up against the power elite has cooled in this generation. It has been dying for some time now and as a result members of our federal government, emboldened by our inattention, are being seduced by the corruptible nature of absolute power.

Our generation fought hard, some died, to get them to listen. Now, it is up to this current generation to recapture their attention and remind them that they serve us, not the other way around.

In 2006, campus police tasered an unarmed UCLA student while he worked at the computer lab. They did this because he did not show them his student ID card. While these ‘guardians of our safety’ crushed this man’s rights for failing to show ‘proper respect’, the entire library full of college students stood around and simply watched. Oh, someone happily took video of it and immediately put it on YouTube so they could brag about being there. If this scenario had played out in the 1960s, given that violent clashes with police took place every weekend over the Vietnam War, I think it is safe to assume these cops would have been pissing their pants.

Another bit of proof that the police do not fear the public or respect our rights: an unarmed man, on his stomach, who was restrained, with his hands behind him was shot execution-style by a police officer, in front of witnesses. Remember this? His name was Oscar Grant and the murder took place at a train station in Oakland. Look it up and try to muster some outrage that this police officer so callously devalued this man’s life. Will you only get pissed off if this happened to you or a friend? Once again, people standing around who witnessed this tragedy videotaped it with their cell phones, but did nothing. Not a single fellow officer raised their gun at the cop who just murdered a person who was in custody. Instead, the cops banded together and tried to collaborate and create a story that would justify the murder.

Really? When your chance came to make a stand, you could do nothing but video it and stay out of the way? God forbid anyone would actually put themselves out there. You will fight tooth-and-nail for a $199 flat screen TV on Black Friday, beating your fellow citizens senseless for something you don’t even need, but when it comes time to protecting your civil liberties you won’t even open your mouth to voice some opposition. And I thought the priorities of the government were screwed up.

How many more of these incidents are we going to witness, do nothing but walk away as we shake our heads and go home and talk on the Internet about what we witnessed, but ultimately did nothing about?

The generation before this one would have rushed the officers in both of these events, rendered them powerless, and let the police know that they won’t stand for abuses of power, excessive force, and murder of citizens.

Why is there no compassion for a stranger who is murdered by those sworn to protect us? We are all Americans. This government has already placed themselves squarely against us, as evidenced by every supposed non-partisan investigation into police aggression being ruled as ‘justified’.

What is it going to take to get people fired up?

This unchecked grab for power, especially under the GW Bush administration, has translated into a net loss of our personal privacy and individual rights to the extent that our standard of living has plummeted and we can no longer afford to live a basic middle-class life. To add further injury to our situation, when the economy tanked in 2008 our financial institutions were the first in line to be bailed out and none of that bailout money has ‘trickled down’ to the very people who foot the bill. We are so far in debt that our American Dream is to make next month’s payments.

The steady erosion of civil liberties, the blatant violations of the Bill of Rights, the complete disregard for the limits put in place by the US Constitution, are all taking place right under our noses. All the while, our military and police forces run around exerting their will, ultimately accountable to no one.

Many of these very issues are what triggered the revolution of the 1960’s. Is there any hope that the youth of today will stand up to our abusive police force, our corrupt and incompetent politicians? It is doubtful.

When did everyone forget that we invaded Iraq and killed civilians under false pretenses? There never were any so-called “WMDs” to justify going in there. Yet we did, and our military killed their citizens, and we completely destroyed a sovereign country. Why haven’t the perpetrators of these crimes been brought to bear for their actions? Where is the justifiable fury over these blatant and atrocious acts against humanity? Right, there were a few token permitted protests following a marching path they got approval for from the city. And like good little citizens, this generation stayed within the lines, went back to their jobs, back to their televisions, back to their toys and patted themselves on the back for ‘taking a stand’. Pathetic.

Let’s look again at the actions of the previous generation. How about the millions of people that marched in the Vietnam Moratorium? Millions of people all over the US stopped going to work and took a real stand. Protests and marches were held in every city, all over the entire country, attended by everyone from student activists, to the 9-5 corporate ladder climber. In Washington DC alone 500,000 showed up without a permit, didn’t follow the designated protest route, and surrounded the capital. They had the government trembling, as they knew they could no longer contain the will of the people. Another example of people who got together, fought for what they wanted, and despite violent and sometime deadly opposition from the government, they succeeded.

Do you all fear that success cannot be repeated? Do you not think marching today on the capitol would lead to anything worthwhile? The power elite are able to get away with crapping on us because we let them. The old saying ‘You have to stand for something or you will fall for anything’ is proving true right now. They will continue to walk all over us if we don’t show them we are tired of it.

The hand of our government is reaching too far. It is up to us to slap it back and force them to remember that the power lies with the people and that they rule by the consent of the governed, not the other way around.

Our liberties are being violated through tyrannical and illegal maneuvers signed into law by our federal government or simply carried out in secret behind our backs. Remember the illegal wire tapping made possible by the cooperation of telecoms?

A more current example of the rape of our civil liberties is taking place at our nations airports in the form of ‘enhanced pat-downs’. Over our objections to full-body scanning the TSA offered an Opt-Out-Day which was their way of heading off an ugly revolt that would have crippled a major industry. This so called “revolt” is just another example of how pathetic the American people have become with regard to confronting authority. But, that ‘victory’ was only temporary. Janet Napolitano has made it clear that the groping and scanning is slated for the American streets. Naturally, it will start at Federal buildings and major public events, and then slowly but surely find its way onto buses, trains, at highway checkpoints, etc.  It seems that these checkpoints have actually already begun. Will this finally be enough to show the American people how threatened our freedoms are?

It’s true that life has become hard for all of us who don’t have daddy’s trust funds or wealthy connections and it is not going to get easier, because the rich are not going to share anything. We are all too eager to crawl into our comfy electronic-gadget caves with our blinders on so we don’t have to deal with how bad off we really are. This type of escapism is not the answer to improve our condition.

Now is the time to take a stand. Our government is hoping we don’t. They are strengthening their positions because they think they are more important than us. Let’s show them they are wrong.

Does Our Leadership Know What is in the Constitution?

Ever stop to consider what our leaders swear to when they are sworn into office? I have and I have questions, concerns really.

Here, in part, is the oath of office that each congressman takes: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same … ."

My question is: If our leadership takes an oath to uphold and defend, and bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution, at the minimum, shouldn't they know what they are supposed to uphold, defend and be faithful to?

Congressmen, judges, the president and all other government officials take this oath. On an almost daily basis, we hear of one or more of them misquote or otherwise misuse the Constitutions powers, the Bill of Rights’ granted freedoms, and/or the well-documented intentions of very founding fathers.

If this misuse and abuse were merely ignorance of our Constitution, there'd at least be some hope because ignorance is curable through education. But, these people in Washington see themselves as our betters and rulers. They consistently show their contempt for the limits that our Constitution places on the federal government envisioned by James Madison, the father of our Constitution, who explained in the Federalist Paper 45:

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce. … The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives and liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State."

The way I see it, anyone who wants to represent the American people in a position of leadership should have more than a basic understanding of our Constitution. Immigrants are required to know this stuff before they can be sworn in as American citizens. Why aren’t our leaders required to know it as well?

Guaranteed First Amendment Rights

Free exercise of religion,

Freedom of speech,

Freedom of the press,

The right to peaceable assembly,

The right to petition the government for redress of grievances.

Let’s take advantage of them. . .

before they are taken away

The Next Step in Losing Our Freedoms

From Digital Journal comes a dark and dire warning that freedom loving Americans cannot afford to ignore.

The very freedoms that have been granted by our Bill of Rights are slowly slipping away from us. We will not lose our freedoms in one fell swoop at the passage of a law. We will not relinquish democracy at the end of a gun barrel. Our freedoms will only disappear if we freely give them away.

Currently, our own Homeland Security, and its Machiavellian policies, under the guise of protecting us against terrorism, is the agent of the demise of our freedoms and we are blissfully going along with it. The heavy-handed treatment by the Transportation Security Administration towards law-abiding citizens is in deference to political correctness. We have given up our dignity for fear of offending an ethnic group who has overwhelmingly been behind every terrorist threat against America.

So far, the invasive body scans and pat-downs only take place at U.S. airports, but rest assured, we will soon suffer this indignity at seaports, train and bus stations, and border crossings, and before you know it road blocks are going to be set up outside major cities.

Janet Napolitano has announced a despicable program by which U.S. citizens will be asked to spy on one another and rat them out to law enforcement. The act of having Americans turn on each other is another in a series of steps to allow an out of control government to crack down on our freedoms.

We are already painfully aware of how the arrogance of our political leadership has demonstrated their willingness to override what the public wants beginning with George W. Bush’s illegal declaration of war against a sovereign nation. Even though information backing his decision was found to be a fabrication we still send our fighting men and women into harms way. We have but to follow the money trail to see why this illegal war continues.

For the first time in America’s history, our leadership has denigrated itself by allowing the use of and participating in the barbaric act of torture. And still those individuals responsible have not been punished nor have any charges been brought against them. What more proof do we need that the phrase ‘human rights’ is nothing more than an empty banner to be brought out and dusted off whenever it suits us?

When a nation can so callously override civil rights and freedoms by pretending to ‘protect’ us, when a nation can so blatantly lie to the voting public without fear of punishment, that nation is on its way down the slippery slope of abandoning democracy.

The sad truth is that this new program will find eager ‘citizens’ who will gladly turn on their fellow man out of a misguided sense of patriotism. Thinking they know what’s best for this country by denying freedoms to another person is an abomination of our rights and it allows law enforcement to begin accusing citizens of crimes they may not have committed.

Once this nation begins turning on itself the descent into paranoia will lead big brother to decide that, for the good of the country, martial law needs to be imposed, curfews implemented, and citizens rounded up and placed in detention camps for an indefinite period. This has already been done during the last two presidential elections.

It is now only a matter of time before we are living under dictatorial rule, something that the Founding Fathers would have found as repulsive as it is oppressive.

Internet Access or Food and Shelter?

Many of you may not be aware of yet another serious threat to our constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech. This time the threat concerns access to the internet. Large telecoms, through their license as Internet Service Providers, and their forever insatiable 'need' to make more money, are planning on creating a tiered internet access system much the way they currently use for cable television.

A tiered charging system may work fine for access to entertainment, but access to information, news, and forums for the exchange of opinions should not be hindered in any way, let alone charged for. Charging a higher fee for internet access in effect dictates how much access you have to the flow of news and information. This restriction will result in slowing down the very growth of the internet and is tantamount to controlling the free flow of ideas and opinions which is one of the tenets of Fascism.

If only a few can afford access to news and information then those few will be the ones who determine what passes for news and information. A free society cannot survive under this type of control. An open internet is a form of checks and balances to what politicians as well as corporations are allowed to say and do publicly. Can you imagine a world without unbiased news sources? This is what tiered pricing will lead to.

As we are forced to pay more for the amount of data we are accessing and posting, i.e., opinions, we will most likely begin not expressing those opinions thereby narrowing the rich, diverse free flow exchange of ideas that has allowed the internet to grow at such an exponential rate.

Internet access should be viewed much like our system of public libraries: free access to all. Information in a society as large as ours demands that all individuals be given access to the latest news and views in order to keep us all informed concerning what our political leaders are up to.

Write your congressperson and demand that the internet be unfettered by greedy corporations. Explain that if their plans are allowed to go forward the free flow of information and creativity will dry up and the very foundation of our great nation will suffer bringing us ever closer to Fascism. We, the general public realize that their pursuit of more money is at the heart of the destruction of the United States of America. We simply must pull together and allow everyone the right to voice opinions and keep up to date on world and national events, without having to choose between spending our after tax dollars on data or food and shelter.

Is Compassion in the Media A Long-Past Concept?

I am a fan of the blog Photography is not a Crime. I think the blog author Carlos Miller does a fabulous, tireless and much needed service to the public by reporting on the continued disharmony between the police and the press.

In a recent blog post entitled Cop knocks news videographer’s camera down before handcuffing him, I commented that I understood the reason for the police officers actions and gave what I thought was a very valid reason. I did not say that I condoned the actions, I simply stated that I understood the reasoning.

Judging from the numerous responses my position generated there appears to be an abundance of sensitivity over any threat to our freedoms. This is a good thing. These freedoms are worth fighting for and in light of the governments actions in regards domestic spying and Homeland Security using terrorism as a reason to clamp down hard on all of us, there should be concern. But, I think our Freedom of the Press will survive an emotional outburst from a police officer.

I am proud to be counted among the many staunch supporters of Americas constitutionally guaranteed freedoms. It does my heart good to see such compassionate outpouring over even the slightest threat, perceived or real. Let’s not ever lose that compassion.

I condemn this police officers actions, however, I do not condemn her show of emotion. She apparently shares my concern over an obvious lack of compassion creeping into the media. I believe this lack of concern is fired by sensationalism.

Is it really necessary to record the aftermath of a fatal automobile accident? A photojournalist was quick to say yes and backs that answer with a lot of valid reasons. I have been shown that it is possible to use that video as a research tool to help society. But I don’t think this was the reporters intent in this case.

Could the tragedy of that scene be conveyed by the use of words without videotape? I say yes.

I am told that editors are compassionate enough to not allow this type of footage to be released to the public. But can we be assured this will not change in these very difficult financial times?

Newspapers are folding from lack of readership. A very jaded general public needs more and more sensationalism to grab their attention. And holding their attention for any longer than the length of a sound bite is becoming even more of a challenge. How long before publishers begin forcing editors to use bloody traffic accident photos to sell their papers? Or to use the video of the bloodied aftermath to sell ads on the internet?

There once was a time when that reporter would have been publicly shamed for having the bad taste to video a bloody traffic scene. Doing so dishonors the dignity of the human victim. I’ve been told that this kind of thinking is ‘subjective’ and therefore should not be considered. Apparently, there is no longer any room for the concern of a persons dignity when it comes to ‘news’ gathering.

Likewise, it seems human emotion and compassion from a police officer is a luxury’ we as a ‘freedom’ loving nation will no longer tolerate.