BART Police Shooting – July 3

Charles Hill ‘allegedly’ threw a knife at a BART policeman on July 3 and was killed for it. Witnesses say Mr. Hill did throw the knife. But did he deserve to die for it?

Law and Order fanatics will no doubt respond with a loud and forceful ‘YES!”. I’m for law and order. But this man did not deserve to die at the hands of a public servant.

Police are trained to respond to an attack on them or the public with deadly force. I think they should be.

Police should also be trained to look deeper into the situation. After the knife was thrown Mr. Hill was now unarmed. So, the police officer now retaliated against an action taken towards him rather than defended his life and public safety. Retaliation is NOT an acceptable reason for a police officer to use deadly force.

Witnesses say the homeless Mr. Hill was drunk. I’m willing to bet that the unidentified police officer could see that Mr. Hill was drunk. Given that situation, the act of throwing the knife was most certainly an act of defiance. Had Mr. Hill pulled a gun I would be one of the first to applaud the officer for the shooting. But, this is not the case.

My use of the term ‘excessive use of force’ in this situation will no doubt be challenged by policemen everywhere. It was clearly unnecessary for this police officer to fire his weapon at Mr. Hill. This weapon was fired because the officer was pissed off at this civilian for having the ‘audacity’ to strike out at him. This type of behavior is unbecoming a peace officer.

This type of ‘split-second’, reactionary behavior breaks down the respect that the civilian population should have for its police force. This type of behavior breeds ‘fear’ from the civilian population. We should never ‘fear’ our public servants.

In the long history of ‘officer involved shooting’ investigations nearly 100% of the time the officer involved is found to be free of any wrong-doing. In the eyes of the public and especially eye witnesses to these shootings, the police have become a ‘government sanctioned street gang’ who will stand by each other no matter how atrocious and culpable their actions against the general public.

Our nation’s police forces need to start working WITH the public whom they are sworn to protect and check their ego and machismo at the door.

The retaliation killing of an unarmed, drunken individual is not acceptable.

More Evidence of Sanctified Civil Liberty Violations

Border Agents are now allowed to search you and your car and belongings without evidence or suspicion of wrong doing. They can make copies of anything you have in your possession including laptops, cell phones, personal papers, diaries, date books, etc. This collected personal information ends up on government databases to be added to your very own file which, of course, you cannot access but every law enforcement agency across the country can, with or without a valid reason.

If citizens were not aware that there are unethical individuals in law enforcement and scattered throughout the government who can access these files, and if we did not know that files get ‘lost’, and if we were not aware that computer files get hacked into, why would we worry? But these things have all become reality and pervasive.

First Amendment rights are one of the last protections we Americans have against this government becoming a Fascist state. And since George W Bush was first elected, his gang of neo conservatives have been relentlessly hacking away at these protections at an alarming rate.

These recent policy changes that were quietly put into effect without proper guidelines or oversight are strong reminders that freedom from government intrusion into our private lives can no longer be taken for granted.

Homeland Security spokeswoman Amy Kudwa said the updating of policies reflects an effort to be more transparent. If they are attempting to be more ‘transparent’ then why did it take a lawsuit brought against them by Asian Law Caucus and Electronic Frontier Foundation under the Freedom of Information Act to get DHS to disclose these changes? Why were these changes put into effect 'quietly' without public input or review? More double-speak from Big Brother.

In an e-mail she wrote

"to change some of the standards in its old policies reflects the realities of the post-9/11 environment, the agency's expanded mission and legal authorities, and developments in the law, including the Homeland Security Act of 2003. Although certain aspects of the policies have changed, the policies have always reflected the notion that officers have the constitutional authority to inspect information presented at the border"

Referring to the previous policy as ‘old’ connotes an outdated and therefore ineffective policy that must be updated. This old policy reflected a higher standard by Federal agents to be governed by probable cause before viewing a traveler as a suspect without probable cause. This higher standard was reflective of the population at large who used to believe that an individual was innocent until proven guilty. This notion has now been tossed aside and relegated to nostalgia along with elders are wiser and deserve to be listened to and respected.

Declaring that information is ‘presented’ at a border crossing intimates that the information is given freely by the traveler. This cannot be further from the truth. Any personal item brought to the border remains personal, and as such requires permission by the owner to be viewed by anyone else, including government agents, and is not ‘presented’ at all. Identification of the individual is ’presented’ at the officers request (demand), and everything else should remain off limits unless freely ‘presented’ by the owner.

She speaks of constitutional authority without mentioning the constitutional rights concerning privacy. This is government speak for we have the right to do and take whatever we want from anyone at anytime.

The 1986 policy, which is referred to as old, was issued after a lawsuit was filed by a group of activists returning from Nicaragua who had their diaries, datebooks and other personal papers seized and photocopied by customs officers and shared with the FBI. The government argued that the customs agency had the right to enforce a law against importing subversive literature. Their subversive literature was an attempt to inform the American public of the illegal war in Nicaragua perpetrated by our government to overthrow a freely and fairly elected Nicaraguan government.

David D. Cole, a Georgetown University law professor who was then a lawyer at the Center for Constitutional Rights, representing the activists suing the government in Heidy v. U.S. Customs Service, said

"Essentially they were using that as a pretext to do intelligence gathering on critics of our policies on Nicaragua".

As a result of that trial, U.S. Customs officials enacted guidelines to its border agents that its officers "should not read personal correspondence." With reasonable suspicion of a violation, they could detain the material. With probable cause of a violation, they could seize and copy it. These recent changes have lowered the legal standards under which agents can exercise their powers. Probable cause is no longer a hindrance to their ‘gut’ instinct.

I appreciate the task with which Homeland Security is steeling themselves for, that being to prevent another terrorist attack on American soil, but their zeal in this endeavor is treating U.S. citizens like criminals. Is there any clear evidence that they have prevented another terrorist attack? Their mindset is such that if they have not yet found evidence of an attack then they are not looking closely enough, therefore they need to step up their efforts. In the meantime, the FBI is getting closer to realizing its dream of having a dossier on every U.S. citizen.

The tenor of the way in which our elected officials view the American people has changed. No longer do government officials feel they represent us or work for us, they now view the general population as obstacles that must be overcome in order to attain their goal of a one world government. George W was elected by a right-leaning supreme court, not by popular vote. Will it happen again this election cycle? A precedence has already been set.

In light of these policy changes and the way in which Bush’s cronies have hacked away at our civil rights, the systematic shifting of powers from Congress to the Executive branch, the suspension of habeas corpus and declaration of certain prisoners as “enemies of the state”, the use of torture, the illegal warrantless spying on American citizens, the unwarranted ability to seize personal items at the borders, the selling off of America to private interests, and the recent government buyout of Wall Street, is it really any great stretch to see Fascism just on the horizon?

Personal Freedoms and Lead-lined Helmets

Thinking could be hazardous to your personal freedom. The federal government is investing millions of dollars in neurotechnology to learn how to detect and decode brain activity. Whether or not our tax dollar is well spent on this endeavor is moot because the private sector is doing it too. and it is going to continue with or without our approval.

Those security cameras we see popping up everywhere from shopping center parking lots to schools to downtown public areas are turning into something more than simple video surveillance. Integrated with computer software that can analyze streaming video, brain monitoring devices will soon give security guards and police the ability to be instantly notified of any activity that is considered suspicious according user defined parameters.

Computer scientists are constantly striving to breach the next level of sophistication in any application and security is no exception. Providing police with the ability to detect a person who is particularly nervous, in possession if guilty knowledge or to detect a person thinking “Only one hour before the bomb explodes” could lead to either a more secure living environment where everyone feels vastly more secure or it could be the next evolutionary step towards realizing George Orwell’s Big Brother prediction.

Either way, we need to address the ethical and legal issues that this developing technology will present to our personal safety and civil liberties while our thoughts are still considered our own.

As the experts argue about the scientific limitations of remote brain detection, science fiction is becoming reality. In 2002, the Electronic Privacy Information Center reported that NASA was developing brain monitoring devices for airports and was seeking to use noninvasive sensors in passenger gates to collect the electronic signals emitted by passengers' brains. That same year, scientists at the University of Sussex in England adapted the same technology to detect heart rates at distances of up to 1 meter, or a little more than three feet, to remotely detect changes in the brain. Clearly the question is when, not if, these issues will be resolved.

Another remote brain-activity detector uses light beamed through the skull to measure changes in oxygen levels in the brain. Put enough faith in the accuracy of these advanced abilities coupled with the heightened paranoia that stems from the current atmosphere of terrorist activity and it is easy to see how any nervous person could be mistaken for a terrorist suspect.

Scientist are working toward understanding the relationship between mental states such as perception and intention. We already know that different EEG frequencies are associated with fear, anger, joy and sorrow and scientists can tell from brain images in the lab whether a test subject was envisioning a tool such as a hammer or a screwdriver or a dwelling, and to predict whether the subject intended to add or subtract numbers. Now they are conducting studies on decoding visual imagery in the brain to more accurately predict persons intentions.

It is not far fetched to believe that when you are scanned by one of those many security cameras, police will now have justification to interrogate you and then arrest you for intent based on their interpretation of your brain waves.

Each incident of violence, such as the student shootings last year at Virginia Tech or more recently at Northern Illinois University, persuades police and the general public that the pursuit of this technology is worthwhile. But there will always be the fear that the police will abuse the technology and that likelihood is not far fetched either.

This government has proven the lengths it will go to, legal or otherwise, in its pursuit of ferreting out any links to suspected terrorist activity. Is it unlikely that this technology will be used to control the masses?

A dangerous environment of increased paranoia toward police and individuals is taking shape. Perhaps the people with the tin-foil hats had it right all along.

I suppose it is human nature to want to improve upon any system we can devise. But is reaching into our minds and intercepting our thoughts really for the common good?

State’s are forced to address immigration issue

U.S. states are enacting immigration laws because the federal government won’t do it. Border states are fed up with federal governments inaction and have begun passing strict immigration laws that are pushing immigrants further north. This is only delaying the Fed’s inevitable involvement and is basically forcing illegals to leave the state to become someone elses problem.

Arizona recently passed legislation to punish business owners who hire illegals, Oklahoma passed legislation to punish anyone harboring or transporting illegals.

Many states are passing or proposing legislation to make English the official language of their state. This, to me seems absolutely ludicrous, that an American state has to pass a law to make our native language the only official language.

Worker shortages are adversely affecting struggling businesses, immigrants are afraid of being on the street for fear of being arrested. This country is becoming likened to Nazi Germany’s treatment of Jews.

People often use the argument that we Americans were once illegal immigrants and that we have forsaken our heritage. This is a gross over-simplification of this situation. When we arrived on these shores, this country was largely uninhabited. There was no organized society of taxpayers. The was no established economic group being threatened by persons trying to take advantage of it without supporting it.

America grew out of the promise of religious freedom, of freedom of persecution, of promise of financial security, and now that this great undertaking has proven itself successful we are fearful of foreigners undermining these promises and freedoms by partaking of the advantages without paying for them.

We are a caring nation, usually the first to spring to action to offer aid and assistance to any natural disaster no matter where in the world it strikes. But why should we give away what we have struggled and sacrificed for to someone who has not helped us achieve it?

I have personally been struggling with this question for years. On the one hand, a good neighbor should extend help to those less fortunate, on the other hand if you see a trend of being taken advantage of you come to see yourself as a fool to continue offering that help.

There is a belief that you should do everything you can to help yourself and not rely on others to do it all for you. This individual self reliance is what has made America strong. Those people living here in America who would rather live off of other’s generosity are a detriment to this society. They are counterproductive and create a financial and psychological drain on hard working American taxpayers. There are American citizens that fall into this category just as there are those who are not citizens that are guilty of this behavior.

Racism has nothing to do with this. If you can come into this country, legally, and offer yourself as a citizen of this country, learn our language, work to improve this society without bringing it down then you are welcome.

If you come into this country to prey on others, to take jobs away from American citizens and then send all your money back to your country without paying our taxes then you are not welcome. It is as simple as that. Americans that give jobs to foreigners instead of American citizens for the sake of saving themselves money are un-American, low-life leeches and should be ferreted out and punished.

The federal government needs to step up and create meaningful legislation to help everyone involved instead of leaving it up to individual states that only seek to push the problem off onto someone else. So far states have ‘solved’ their immigration problem by using punishment against its own citizens. This is not a neighborly way to behave and sadly leans on the fascist form of government. Forcing an individual state to address this problem causes the neighboring state to enact similar legislation which will push the immigrant into yet another state and sets a dangerous path of fascist precedents. Where are they to go at this point?

Building that wall is enclosing us in as well as keeping others out. I don’t think this is the way to go. It is a poor substitute for federal political action.

Church protest at funeral is vulgar

On Nov 1, 2007 I learned how low a church would stoop in order to force their beliefs on other people. Their practice of taunting dead soldiers at military funerals is one of the most despicable displays of human indecency ever visited upon another human.

After the family of the fallen soldier sued the church for invasion of privacy and intent to cause emotional distress a jury awarded the family a settlement and now constitutional lawyers have the audacity to proclaim that the church’s rights may have been violated.

This case is a matter of common decency over man-made laws involving ‘legal’ rights. The church has the ‘right’ to voice its opinions, as granted by the constitution, but civility and human decency dictates that families have the right to bury their members in peace and with dignity. Anyone, usurping this right should be deeply ashamed of themselves.

The funeral ceremony is one of the most sacred and solemn rites to be bestowed on a human and as such demands privacy and is therefore free from outside sources using it as a forum for their own agendas.

When that outside source is a church then they need to take a serious re-evaluation of what ‘service’ they are providing mankind.

Constitutional law ‘experts’ may determine this a violation of the church’s First Amendment rights of free speech, but when one right tramples on another then civility needs to win out. It is abhorrent that anyone would disrupt a funeral. Especially a church who is in the business of these matters. Any church that disrupts funeral proceedings is not a true representative of Gods will.

David Hudson of the First Amendment Center claims that "If people can be sued because people are offended by other people's speech, then we've really curtailed freedom of speech." You miss the point entirely Mr. Hudson. Civility dictates that a family has the right to bury family members without being accosted by anyone. This is the biggest problem with lawyers, they throw civility out the window when it comes to ‘protecting’ civil rights. To lawyers it is only a matter of the financial bottom-line as to what they ‘believe’ at the time.

They will struggle for victory no matter where the results take us, even at the cost of civility and human decency. There is a line that no one should be able to cross and that line is indelibly drawn around funerals.

You can quote all the lawmakers theories you want, Mr. Hudson, but anyone who intrudes on the sacred and solemn proceedings of a family burying their loved ones should rot in hell. When a so-called Christian group who masquerades under the banner of spreading Gods word is the driving force behind the intrusion, well, there should be a special place in hell for them.