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.

Supreme Court gets the chance to review police action without warrant

I learned of this story through a Washington Post report written by staff writer Robert Barnes. The tale is based in Kentucky, much later in the report we are told this took place in Lexington. The first paragraph tells us that the police were following a man who had just sold drugs to an undercover informant. We are not told that the police knew this man, he is only identified as ‘a man’.

I’m going over this story trying to make some sense out of it and I am not having any luck without jumping to conclusion, much in the same way the story is being told. The story leaves me with unanswered questions. And that does not bode well for the reporter. There are too many holes and leaps of conclusion that no well-written story should have. This reason I am focusing on this aspect of this story ahead of the subject is because this type of sloppy reporting is becoming all too common in today’s main stream media. One can expect this from what these so-called professionals refer to as street reporters. But I have read many street reporters who do a much more thorough job than Robert Barnes.

Anyway, I will try to wade through this mess and along the way I will point out the inadequacies of this reporter’s writing style.

Still in the first paragraph, we are told that the police entered a breezeway and heard a door slam and that they now had two choices. So far I am lead to believe that the police don’t know which door slammed or if it was even slammed by the as yet to be identified man they were following.

The second paragraph informs us that behind door number one (leap of faith, because how do they know which door he was behind since they only ‘heard’ a door slam?) and behind door number two is another person named Hollis King along with two people smoking marijuana.

Paragraph three tells us that after smelling ‘the drug’ (are we still talking about marijuana or some other drug?) they banged loudly on King’s apartment door and identified themselves as police and after hearing what they thought was evidence being destroyed they kicked the door down. Several questions arise here, since they are pursuing the dealer and they ‘know’ he is behind door number one, why are they pounding on door number two? Are they abandoning the pursuit of the guy who they have hard evidence against? Plus, by yelling out that they are police didn’t the dealer just become alerted and most likely did get rid of evidence? This sounds all very rookie-ish to me.

In the fourth paragraph the reporter has abandoned any reference to the dealer the police were pursuing. Instead he states that King was sentenced to 11 years in prison.

Kentucky Assistant Attorney General Joshua Farley backed the police decision to kick down the door. Of course he would. And this is part of the problem. He claims to believe the story from his officers that they ‘heard noises’ that led them to believe ‘evidence was being destroyed’. I have to laugh at this claim. What ‘noises’ did they hear, a toilet being flushed? A match being struck to burn the evidence? This is beyond the realm of ridiculous. I cannot for the life of me imagine what ‘evidence being destroyed’ in this situation would sound like. They chose to use this lame excuse because of the three reasons for entering without a warrant this is the only one that they had a half-assed chance of getting away with. There was not a life being endangered, they were not concerned with the suspect escaping because as we read in this stellar report these were not even the guys they were chasing.

This Assistant Attorney General Joshua Farley should be ashamed of himself for using such a flimsy basis for taking this case to trial in the first place. By doing this only shows me that he along with many other legal system lackeys are emboldened by what the police are allowed to get away with.

The point of this Washington Post report is that the U.S. Supreme Court heard this case on Jan 12, 2011 and is in the process of deciding whether or not police can abandon the Fourth Amendment and kick down a door because the police claim they smelled marijuana.

I am in agreement with justices Ginsberg, Kagan and Sotomayor on this that police would indeed roam the halls and sniff for ‘reasons’ to kick in a door. Justice Scalia said the police did nothing wrong and that the occupants could have told police they could not enter without a warrant. Where has this guy been living? He is clearly out of touch with what law enforcement has been getting away with.

Police departments all across this nation have a growing reputation for abusing the ‘probable cause’ tenet. Therefore, I see this as a good opportunity for the Supreme Court to finally define police powers in similar situations. However, I realize that given the current atmosphere of law and order in this country, chances are good that the police will be given a free ride on this issue.

I must say here that I am in complete agreement that the illegal drug issue needs to be addressed. Drug abuse in this country has cost Americans untold billions of dollars in lost productivity and tax revenue, years of freedom in the ridiculously unbalanced and unfair prosecution, and the waste of lives alone should make this issue a top priority.

I admit I am being hard on the police. They need to do things the right way. If, as Justice Scalia says, criminals are stupid, they will eventually be caught at their illegal activity. There have been many instances where police have busted down the wrong door. In some of those cases innocent law-abiding citizens have been terrorized and killed. Given this environment, of course people are going to panic when they hear that thunderous pounding on their door followed by “Open Up”, “Police.”

Listen, drugs need to be removed from our streets. Criminals need to be punished. I object to the citizenry becoming victims due to over-zealous police forces who would rather bust heads and let God sort it out.

Oh, and as far as this reporter goes, how about giving us some hard facts and stop leaving out information like what happened to the dealer the police were originally pursuing.

DWI prosecutor is charged with DWI

No one ever accused a lawyer of setting their standards too high.

A Galveston County prosecutor with a reputation for winning lengthy prison sentences for drunken drivers has been suspended with pay after being charged with driving while intoxicated in a holiday season crackdown on the island last week.

Prosecutor Lester Blizzard was arrested on Harborside Drive around 11:15 p.m. last Thursday and was suspended by outgoing Galveston County District Attorney Kurt Sistrunk pending an investigation.

Blizzard, who has tried numerous DWI cases, is known for successfully prosecuting DWI violators for long prison terms and for life sentences in some cases.

Let’s hope he gets a prosecutor who is as zealous as he has been.

Don’t hold your breath.

A sheriff's deputy was also arrested for DWI last Thursday at the same location shortly before Blizzard.

So, what’s going on down there in Galveston? It seems the law is not taken to heart by Texas public servants.

How very unfortunate that a public servant is caught breaking the law.

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.

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.

Phoenix police raid a blogger

Jeff Pataky is part of a growing number of citizens who are not afraid to expose police foul-ups, unwarranted excessive behavior, and just plain Gestapo-like tactics.

Sadly, the Phoenix police department is not unique in their use of thug-force. How does your police department compare?

It is unfortunate that good cops get grouped in with the bad cops, but they are in a better position to help identify these thugs and get them out of law enforcement.

You can read more on the Bad Phoenix Cops blog: http://badphoenixcops.blogspot.com/

clipped from badphoenixcops.blogspot.com clipped from rawstory.com In what should send a frightening chill down the spine of every blogger, writer, journalist and First Amendment advocate in the United States, Phoenix police raided the home of a blogger who has been highly critical of the department. Jeff Pataky, who runs Bad Phoenix Cops, said the officers confiscated three computers, routers, modems, hard drives, memory cards and everything necessary to continue blogging. The 41-year-old software engineer said they also confiscated numerous personal files and documents relating to a pending lawsuit he has against the department alleging harassment - which he says makes it obvious the raid was an act of retaliation.

Cutting Back on Public Safety Will Endanger Us All

According to an article on the Boston Globe website, city police departments are cutting outreach services in an attempt to close budget shortfalls.

Those services deemed ‘extra’ in protecting our citizenry such as: gang units, bicycle, horse and foot patrols are going to be taken away to save money. Other funding that will soon dry up are grant programs that fund extra officers, programs, and equipment to enhance community policing.

All of these cuts, of course, mean less protection for every citizen. Tax paying citizens who expect to have police and fire protection. Tax paying citizens who expect our government to educate our children. Tax paying citizens who expect to have our roads and infrastructure safely maintained. Tax paying citizens who expect to have representation at city council and in mayors offices and in governors offices to do something more constructive than give us band-aid ‘solutions’ that add to the problem.

It is in our nature to first recognize the cause of a problem (the finger pointing phase) and then to find a solution.

The Finger Pointing Phase
Greed is what got us into this mess and greed needs to be overcome to get out of it. In my opinion, it is obvious how eight years of failed ‘leadership’ by a power hungry, greed-driven, unethical, immoral administration created the ideal atmosphere for this financial collapse. If there had been more conscientious adherence to regulation, more ethics, and more concern about the health of our economy instead of how to beat the law and fatten personal banking accounts then we would not be in this mess.

And now, on with The Solution.
The obvious answer to this economic morass is to reduce the pay of every salaried employee in every sector, public and private. I am certain this is not a very popular position to take, but we are ALL in this together. We are ALL suffering from it. Those not suffering as much are the institutions that the federal government determined should receive huge influxes of money despite their role in creating it. Instead of eliminating a handful of job positions (people with bills to pay and mouths to feed) and adding to the unemployment drain, let’s reduce everyone’s salary and keep everyone employed.

We all need to participate in the solution. By cutting back on salaries we will be forced to reduce spending and businesses will be forced to cut back on product and service prices. Let’s alleviate the pressure on the system by not always striving to sell more than last quarter. Growth needs to take a break until we can all get on firmer ground. This is the ‘trickle down’ theory of the 21st century, reflecting a 21st century problem.

The bottom line is that we can not continue the lifestyle we enjoyed during economic boom times. Those times are gone. The sooner we all recognize it the better we will all be.

Reducing public safety is only going to compound society's problems. With rising unemployment we will see rising crime. It has historical precedence. I don’t relish the idea of citizen policing but if cities continue cutting public services, I can see it coming.

We talk about pulling together in times of crisis, about how volunteerism and neighbor helping neighbor are such laudable attributes of a well-knit community, well let’s put those attributes into play now because, brother, the hard times have arrived.

SWAT action of Family Farm? Where Is the Media Coverage?

On December 1, 2008, a family-run food co-op in LaGrange Ohio, was the scene of a home invasion. These “home invaders” won’t match the images you may have of drug-crazed-addicts or some street gang bent on ripping-off the family of their possessions. No, this highly organized and heavily armed ‘gang’ was made up of police officers ordered to confiscate the livelihood and personal property of the family who runs Manna Storehouse by the Ohio Department of Agriculture.

I found this comment concerning the raid on a blog called The Complete Patient:
The family that runs the co-op tells me they were herded into the living room for 8 hours while the home and business was torn apart. They were not given reason, saying they were under investigation. All of their computers and phones, and customer information were taken, as well as $10,000 worth of beef. A ‘warrant’ which didn’t appear to be valid, showed the reason for investigation, was ‘beef’.

According to this second-hand information (neither police nor government officials deny or collaborate the story) our government, in full riot gear with semi-automatic weapons pointed at the heads of this family (children included) raided a family business who was providing grass-fed beef, lamb, pastured poultry and other Weston-Price-style foods.

There is no official story in the main stream media about this raid nor is there any official press release from Ohio Department of Agriculture, however, I did find one ‘sanitized’ report in a local paper, which is how many of the family’s neighbors heard of it. (Is the internet the last stand for true freedom of the press?). The lack of coverage, considering the level of force used in a raid of this sort, is disturbing at best. Normally, the news media is all over this type of raid. The family did say they are not talking to the press in order to protect themselves.

What little background information could be found regarding this situation still does not show that the SWAT action was warranted. It seems that the discovery of a bit of non-institutional beef in an Oberlin College food service freezer a year ago (November 2007) was tracked down by a county sanitation official to Manna Storehouse. Oberlin College’s student food coop is widely known for its strident ideological stance about eating organic foods. It seems that the Oberlin student food cooperative had joined the Manna Storehouse food cooperative in order to buy organic foods in bulk from the national organic food distributor United, which services buying clubs across the nation. The sanitation official, James Boddy, evidently contacted the Ohio Department of Agriculture. After the first contact by state ODA officials, Manna Storehouse reportedly wrote them a letter requesting assistance and guidelines for complying with the law. This letter was never answered. Rather, the ODA agent tried several times to infiltrate the coop. When his attempts failed, the SWAT team showed up!

As of December 9, the family has not been charged with any crime, nor have they been contacted by anyone concerning this raid. The speculation that the business was operating without a license is simply that, speculation. They have sent a plea for any information regarding the Ohio Department of Agriculture laws governing their enterprise and what they may have done to prompt such a raid.

Three important questions arising from this incident need to be addressed.
1: Did this SWAT action take place as reported, thus far by word of mouth, or is it a fabrication to garner sympathy for the plight of the ‘little guy’?
2: Is ODA guilty of participating in a nationwide attempt to discredit small-time local food groups in favor of corporate interests?
3: Where is the media coverage?

All three questions are disturbing.

Did this SWAT action take place?
Did SWAT swoop down and ‘terrorize’ this ‘innocent’ family as the commenter reported, or is this an exaggeration to garner sympathy for the plight of family-owned businesses who don’t want to be regulated by the government?

Whether the raid was conducted with weapons drawn or not, the raid did take place and this issue needs to be addressed. Since when does the enforcement of health and/or commerce policies warrant the use of SWAT? Why did the Health Department not simply conduct a health inspection? I am certain there are rules in place to cover this situation that are more in line with good public relations than involving law enforcement.

If the government did use such heavy-handed Gestapo-type tactics simply to confiscate this family’s business records and personal food items, then a complaint should be filed with their congressperson and violation of civil rights charges brought against ODA. Bringing such matters to light is the most obvious way of ensuring any wrongdoing by the government is exposed. However, if this family sensationalized their story simply to further their cause and attempt to manipulate public opinion, should we buy into it?

The use of a SWAT team indicates a belief that this family was “armed to the teeth” and therefore the use of such equipment was deemed necessary for the protection of team members. Absent any prior knowledge that they family was an outlaw gang, such use of law enforcement was not only irresponsible but a danger to the public.

Certainly, this alleged method belies the faith we have in our government officials to protect us from harm and they should therefore be made to pay.

At any rate, what psychological effect this raid will have on these children is anybody’s guess. And what did this experience teach them about their country, their leaders, their government, and their local law enforcement?

I realize the police are ordered from ‘on high’ to behave in the manner in which they do, but at some point the individual wearing the uniform has to take personal responsibility for his/her participation in these tyrannical methods. They must consult their moral conscience to face the fact that they can no longer shrug off their part in what they did to this family to “just doing my job”.

All of us who feel that our constitution, and the freedoms granted therein, is worth fighting for must, sooner or later, be moved to action against these atrocities, to voice our opinions and fight against this kind of tyranny.

Is there some diabolical master-plan to wipe out all corporate competition?
Why did the ODA feel it was necessary to raid a family owned and run business using law enforcement and the threat of violence instead of using a less oppressive method such as serving notice of an inspection for possible health or commerce violations?

Is the FDA and Department of Agriculture protecting us from the mean ole independent businesses promoting ‘bioterrorism’ or are they protecting a market for major corporations who only view consumers as open wallets for their own financial benefit? Keep in mind that these are the same corporations who reduce their product package size and claim to be helping the economy by not raising their prices.

The FDA has a history of conducting raids on business operations selling natural herbs and nutritional supplements with claims of promoting health. The 1990 raid on Highland Laboratories, a small vitamin company in rural Oregon; 1987 raid on Life Extension Foundation in Florida; 2007 raid of Fullife Natural Options; for a list of similar raids click here.

We are all aware of the downside of large corporations. Labor Unions have been fighting this beast on the side of the little guy for a very long time. Often times resorting to violence to get their voices heard over management for simple human rights such as a decent wage, safe working conditions, reasonable work day lengths, affordable health coverage, and other benefits that those without a union will never have. Corporations are in place to feed their financial bottom-line. And if they could cut costs like health insurance, safety procedures, and even salary, they would do it.

Wal-Mart is the poster child of ‘large corporation’ vs. the ‘little guy’ and has certainly done their part to wipe-out local businesses wherever they build their stores. Despite their initial claims to the community in which they choose to spread their empire, small businesses dry up. The resulting job gains for Wal-Mart never amount to the losses suffered from these closings. The vast majority of Wal-Mart employees are paid part time wages and work without sufficient benefits which forces taxpayers to subsidize them through food stamps and Medicaid. Money earned by Wal-Mart leaves the local economy and is pumped to its headquarters therefore local banks do not benefit from Wal-Marts’ presence. Wal-Mart buys its bulk of goods from China forcing American suppliers to cut approximately 17,000 U.S. manufacturing jobs between 2001 and 2006. In 2007, Wal-Mart brought $26.7 billion of Chinese goods into the United States and cost American workers more than 200,000 jobs.

It has taken laws to be passed to protect the interests of the worker and consumer, but now corporations have bought politicians through lobby groups and outright bribes to protect themselves against the worker and our economy is suffering for it.

Multinational corporations are taking control of seeds, animals, food, and all natural substances worldwide and the police are at their beck and call to enforce governments’ and corporations’ sway over the ‘little guy’.

The Community Alliance for Responsible Eco-farming (CARE), a private group of farmers and consumers in Pennsylvania, recently released a statement regarding the relationship between private citizens and constitutional government. Their position is basically that the government has a right to control and regulate what the government creates. If, for example, the government creates a corporation (essentially conferring “person” status to that entity) then it has every right, every duty even, to oversee it. But men are not artificial entities created by government. Men are natural, and when they act as private citizens, government must stay out of their way. In fact, government is supposed to protect citizens from the actions of any entity that might inhibit the free exercise of their natural rights. When government does otherwise it blurs the line between private and public, effectively deeming EVERYTHING public, and thus making constitutions irrelevant.

As for the ongoing attack on free enterprise, the general public does not know enough to know what is real and what is speculation because the press has yet to mount an investigation into what is happening.

Where is the media coverage?
Why is there no mainstream media coverage of how this and other family owned businesses across the country are being dealt with in such a Gestapo-like manner?

It isn’t just the local media that should be held to account, national media as well bear the blame. Blogs and word of mouth are doing what they can to get the word out but they are no real substitute for gaining national attention. We need a concerted effort along with main stream media to bring this situation into the main stream consciousness. This cannot continue to go on without public scrutiny.

The media did not cover the story of the tea man. What else are we not being told?

Summation:
We have a SWAT action on a family farm to confiscate all business-related property without revealing charges.
We have government officials imposing rules and regulations on individuals who want nothing to do with them.
We have a media that does not cover these actions.
We have a populace who looks the other way, some of which are members of law-enforcement, government and media.
These are the ingredients necessary to allow a corprafascist state to exist.
We all need to rise up against this trend before it is too late.
History is repeating itself.


Further Reading:
True history of FDA raids on healers, vitamin shops and supplement companies
Center for Micro Eco-Farming Movement
Whole Farm Coop, Local Harvest
Benefits of Healthy Whole Foods
Herbal Supplements Guide

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?

Does Al Sharpton Encourage or Prevent Civil Disobedience

It’s pretty easy to empathize with Reverend Al Sharpton’s reason for wanting “to plan the day that we will close this city down” following the acquittal of three police officers involved in the 2006 shooting that claimed 23-year-old Sean Bell’s life and injured two friends on his wedding day.

We have witnessed police officers seemingly ‘get away with murder’ for many years as the result of what is apparently a carte blanche attitude towards police by our criminal justice system.

There is an underlying message here that says if police are to be held criminally negligent in any officer involved shooting, then the future safety of all police officers will be in jeopardy. This understanding is accepted as factual by the police and the court system. They believe that policemen who think twice about using their weapons are providing their suspect with enough time to shoot first. Therefore they are trained to shoot first and question later. And they are trained to shoot to kill. This leads to inevitable situations where innocent victims are shot to death.

Here we have a situation where a group of men, members of a bachelor party, celebrating one of its members good fortune of marrying the woman of his dreams. As these parties do it lasted well into the night with much celebratory drinking. Undercover police officers were at the same nightclub where this party took place due to a history of past rowdiness. They saw in this group of men a possibility that trouble could arise, based on what only they would know.

When the group left the club, undercover officers decided to follow them. Out in the street as the Bell party was getting into their car the plain clothes officers drew their weapons (again, why, only they would know) and according to witnesses did not identify themselves as police officers. From Sean Bell’s point of view they were under threat of car-jacking or robbery so naturally his first thought was to get out of there quickly, as I am sure any rational thinking individual would do.

The police immediately used the euphemism ‘vehicle as a deadly weapon’ scenario and assumed that they were about to be run over. So without any further thought one policeman opened fire. In any similar situation when one officer begins shooting they all begin shooting. It is sort of a crowd mentality. One officer even reloaded and continued firing. This is the one point that makes this scene particularly disgusting and barbaric.

All cops will justify using their weapons by saying they thought they were under attack. No cop is going to admit that they did not identify themselves. All cops will stand up for each other even when they know they are in the wrong.

The history that is mounting in the courts, that police officers do not receive criminal charges for killing someone, sets the stage for every police officer to feel complete immunity for using their weapons. Therefore they feel completely justified to shoot first and ask questions later.

Police officers who, even accidentally, shoot an unarmed, non-guilty person should not be bolstered into believing they will never be punished. Mistakes are made, certainly, but this lack of punishment, this air of complete immunity has created the idea that policemen are above the law and the public is getting fed up with it.

The media also has a hand to play in this. We read initial accounts of an officer-involved shooting reported by a media system that quite often tells a partial story, and gets the facts wrong, in the their own self-interest in publishing the story first. Follow-up reports that would more thoroughly clarify actual events are rare or buried because it is ‘old news’. A mis-informed public runs with what they first hear as fact and incorporates those ‘facts’ into opinions already compiled about the police and when the inevitable news from the courtroom is acquittal then people feel justified in their outrage all over again.

If the case involves a person of color (read black) Reverend Al Sharpton is on the scene ready to rally all outraged citizens with the kind of “massive civil disobedience” once led by Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. seemingly unfazed of the hatred he is fomenting in bystanders yelling “kill the police”.

I am not going to comment on whether peaceful or non-peaceful protests will do anything more than vent frustration at a system everyone knows will never change. But to see the Reverend Al Sharpton suddenly appear as the mouthpiece for every miscarriage of justice against a black that garners national coverage just seems to me to be in his own self-interest. Perhaps I am reading this wrong. Maybe if he did not show up at these demonstrations, maybe if he did not focus the energy of the demonstrators into a march after these abortions of justice, perhaps an unruly mob would turn violent. Maybe he is the one calming factor necessary in these situations.

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?

Another beef recall?

The largest beef recall in U.S. history! 143 million pounds of beef recalled!

Aren’t we getting tired of suspecting our food supply? Aren’t we getting tired of the irresponsible manner in which some employee or employees abuse the rules or completely ignore rules resulting in unsafe food for the rest of us?

Once again an employee (whether on his/her own or under the direction of a supervisor) bypassed regulations, and once again there is a severe penalty. This time to the company who employed the individual(s) responsible.

Work ethic, or lack thereof, is once again the root cause.

When are we going to learn? There is a reason for rules and regulations. It doesn’t matter if you understand them or if you think they are a waste of time.

People who put these rules in place are not doing so as a means of making your job more difficult. These rules are put into place to protect everyone, including you.

At the outset, this particular recall looks to be for punitive reasons. The USDA spokesman admitted there have been no cases of illness related to the recalled meat. So why the recall if not because the company simply did not follow regulations? Because not following regulations leaves the door open to the possibility that people could get sick or die from possibly tainted meat. This is why inspectors have to witness your job performance. Very simple, yes?

The undersecretary of agriculture said there was a ‘remote probability’ that the meat could cause illness in humans. Why did he make this determination? Because, since a decision was made by an employee or employees of the Westland/Hallmark Meat Packing Company in Chino, California to bypass safety regulations then quality control was lost. This loss of quality control means people could get sick. He has a responsibility to the general public and cannot afford to just over-look this blatant disregard for safety policy. He is doing his job.

This is all very basic stuff people. Rules and regulations were bypassed because someone did not want to take the time or trouble to do their job properly.

The employee or employees who participated in this clear violation of safety policy could possibly bring down this meat packing business (the very people who signed their paychecks) and put a lot of people out of jobs! This is serious!

Was it worth it to Westland/Hallmark to have people on their payroll who have so little regard for the safety of the general public and themselves and were more concerned with saving a little time and trouble for themselves? I think not.

Poor job performance, lack of responsibility, and a general lack of work ethics costs this nations employers millions and possibility billions of dollars every year. And these loses are passed on to the buying public. Which includes the very people responsible for poor job performance and lack of work ethics. We are costing ourselves money for bad job performance and ignoring the very rules we are paying someone to enforce. It just doesn’t make sense to me to continue this madness.

Why is it that some people think they don’t have to follow these rules? It seems as soon as they are left on their own and are trusted to continue to do the quality work they performed while being closely monitored, they go for the shortcut and think it is okay as long as they don’t get caught? This attitude is killing our economy. OUR economy. It is everyone’s responsibility to make it work!

Doesn’t anyone see the big picture? Doesn’t anyone care that in this particular case hundreds of people could have been sicken due to these individuals carelessness and lack of work ethic? Apparently not, because it just keeps happening. Do companies need to spend more money for inspectors to make sure their employees do their job properly?

Does our government need to spend more of our tax dollars for inspectors to make sure that companies follow safety rules?

Do we have to teach ethics and morals in our schools to educate our children to the importance of looking out for one another?

Have we become so unethical that we have to be policed every minute we are on the job just to make sure we do what we signed up for, what we agreed to do in exchange for a paycheck?

Our responsibility goes beyond just bringing home our pay. Each one of us is responsible for the whole nation. If you don’t believe me then take a second look at what happened with this meat packing company and the many before them that went out of business, putting people out of work, and the people who were sickened because someone did not follow guidelines put in place by people who we pay to regulate the quality of our work.

Every working person knows the rules and expectations of their employer and yet we continue to hear about the results of some employee who takes it upon themselves to take short-cuts. Sometimes at a devastating cost to others.

The notion of ethics is being lost on us. We need to reverse this trend quickly.

Why can’t we police ourselves to ensure a good, safe product or service is produced? Why can’t we take it upon ourselves to perform to our best ability on the job without being watched over every minute? It would save us all so much money by not having to pay for the inspectors, the supervisors, the police.

This whole problem with lack of work ethic can be applied to the general lack of morals our society displays. We have ever increasing police forces in every large city and small town across America because of scum-bags and low-lifes who prey on others. If we all had higher moral standards we wouldn’t have such a large police force, we wouldn’t have a backlog in the court system, we wouldn’t have overcrowded jails, we wouldn’t have so many lawyers, we wouldn’t be paying such high tax rates to cover all of this.

This world would be a much more pleasant place to live if we all had higher morals and a greater work ethic. It is not out of our reach.

Administration guard dog: Mukasey

It has already started. Recently appointed lapdog replaces old lapdog. U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey rejected a congressional request for information about a Justice Department probe into the CIA's destruction of videotapes of harsh interrogations of suspected terrorists.

This congress is supposed to work together to get at the truth of any suspicious activity. When someone holds back information it can only mean one thing, damning information for someone. Now who could the U.S. Attorney General possibly be protecting?

The Democratic-led Congress has begun its own investigations of last week's disclosure that the CIA destroyed some tapes in 2005, with critics charging a possible cover-up of illegal torture.

The word transparency has been knocked about lately. Evidently the term has not yet reached the Attorney Generals office. But then, transparency has never been one of this administrations strong points.

In refusing to release information that federal investigators have dug up so far, Mukasey wrote: "The department has a long-standing policy of declining to provide non-public information about pending matters." So, it seems, tradition dictates that the U.S. Attorney General's office not cooperate with any other investigations. This department is contributing to duplication of effort forcing Congress to take up time that can be used for other endeavors.

"This policy is based in part on our interest in avoiding any perception that our law enforcement decisions are subject to political influence," Mukasey added in a letter to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, a Vermont Democrat, and Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the panel's ranking Republican. Actually, sir, this policy only muddies the waters about who you are protecting, a very clear perception of political influence. It is a very common term, namely ‘Covering Your Ass’. It is also called obstruction of justice. This is another of those well-practiced double standards that you like to hang onto.

Border Patrol found lacking

In my on-going series of highlighting any instance where people are not doing their jobs this one is extremely problematic. Border Patrol officials have been found to be complacent and inattentive in their duties by undercover investigators. Weak management controls have also been found. Border Patrol is our first line of defense for the security of every U.S. citizen both physically and financially.

As with most jobs in law enforcement, Border Patrol is one of the toughest, and it is, like every law enforcement branch, under-manned. This is nothing new. Everyone claims they want law and order but there just are not enough people willing to put their lives on the line to enforce it.

Government watchdogs have found that thousands of people who shouldn't have been admitted to the United States were allowed in last year because of security lapses at legal border crossings. Granted, not everyone who comes in is a danger to our physical well-being and they certainly are not all terrorists. But some of these individuals are connected with criminal enterprises which is where our financial well-being is threatened most and why the lack of job performance on the part of the Border Patrol is most egregious to the safety of their fellow Americans.

GAO investigators arriving at one point of entry found no border agents in the inspection booth, while at other locations, agents didn't ask for travel documents, according to the report. I, myself, have driven through Otay point of entry and found no border agents in the booth while re-entering the U.S.

The number of inadmissible aliens who managed to enter through official ports of entry in 2006 has not been disclosed by the Government Accountability Office. However, a source who has seen a full version of the report, in which those statistics were included, put the total at 21,000.

The government, for obvious reasons, does not want to release the numbers of how many escaped the attention of Customs and Border Protection. One reason is there is no way to know the actual number so any number they come up with would have to be prefaced as being an estimate. Another reason they don’t release the numbers is they don’t want the taxpayer, who is paying their salaries, to know they are not performing their duty. They don’t want the very people they are supposed to protect to know they are not performing their duty.

Men and women of law enforcement are a special breed of people. They want to see the bad guy put away, as all of us law abiding citizens do, but they alone are willing to strap on a gun and a badge and put their own lives at stake to put those bad guys away. Those of us who sit back in our easy chairs from the comfort of our homes should be shamed for ever casting a bad light on those who are doing their best. I applaud those individuals and give to them my utmost deepest felt respect. It’s the individuals who have sworn to protect the laws and citizens of this great country and turn their backs on us by slacking in their job performance that should be reprimanded to the fullest extent of the law. To allow possible criminals to get into the U.S. because they did not do their jobs is criminal itself.

Those who are conscientiously doing their sworn duty can get very frustrated when they see criminals they have caught and then released by liberal judges or asshole lawyers who defends the criminal and convinces the judge to let the criminal go.

I can understand the frustration that Border Patrol agents feel after two of their own were arrested and put in jail for shooting a known drug smuggler. But that is no excuse for jeopardizing the safety of U.S. citizens.

The Customs and Border Protection's stance is that at busy border crossings, it has to balance security with commerce. This is blatantly putting commerce ahead of safety.

The National Treasury Employees Union, which represents 17,600 Customs and Border Protection officers manning ports of entry, said the agency is understaffed and poorly managed and officers are overworked and not adequately trained. Why can’t we put National Guard to help them? Since Bush can send them to Iraq in the name of keeping terrorists from coming to America then he can certainly send them to our borders in America.

Whether we think the threat is real or not, we cannot afford to assume the threat is not real and slack off on our duties. The U.S. taxpayer deserves to get our monies worth when agents are hired to protect us.

Police leave victims behind

Police in Gary Indiana are not very good at searching an accident scene for bodies. Or, is it that they just don’t care enough to do a thorough search? Or, did they even do a search?

Arthur and Samantha Smith went through the pain of loosing their son as the result of a, senseless and totally avoidable, automobile accident in the early morning hours of September 15, 2007.

According to the driver, Darius Moore, and a surviving passenger, DeAndre Anderson, there were four people in that vehicle when it left the road and landed in a ditch on its side. 911 tapes verify their stories that they repeatedly told police there were two others in the vehicle that could not be accounted for. Police say they searched the area for the two missing passengers and could not find them, so the police left the scene.

As if losing their son wasn’t tragic enough, Arthur Smith found the bodies of the two missing passengers himself, hours after the police had given up and left. The bodies of his son, Brandon Smith, and Brandon’s friend, Dominique Green, were found within 50 feet of the accident.

The police could not have possibly searched for these victims. If they say they did then they are admitting that they are sloppy at it and re-training is in order. How can you train someone to care enough to do a thorough search for victims at an accident scene? You have to already have the desire to. If these guys are not motivated enough to search for their fellow human beings who could be alive and depending on them for their survival then they have no business caring a police badge.

Did these sworn protectors decide that these victims were not worth the trouble to do a thorough search, for whatever reason? Did they not believe there were two missing passengers?

Did these two survive the initial accident only to bleed out praying someone would find then in time to help them? These are questions that can not be answered now, thanks to the police.

The medical examiner states that they died "instantaneously" of blunt force injuries that were "non-survivable." That statement, the way it is worded, is pure ‘cover your ass”. Of course he is going to say the injuries were “non-survivable”. But now there is a specter of doubt in the parents minds. No parent should ever have to spend the rest of their lives with that haunting doubt. There is also doubt in the minds of anyone who knows that it is not uncommon for the police to lie to cover their ass from liability suits.

A lot of time and money has been invested in training these police officers and when it came time to put that training into effect this is all the public gets? That money was wasted.

Gary officials asked the Lake County sheriff to conduct an independent investigation of the accident, and Gary police also are investigating. In addition, the Smiths have hired their own representative to conduct an independent autopsy on their son's body.

Guess which one of these groups will come up with the most trustworthy results?

Lawyers everywhere are slithering out of the woodwork at the smell of settlement money and notoriety in this case.

It is a damn shame that relations between police and community have degraded to the point that we cannot trust what the police will tell us. I hate being this cynical, but history has shown us that they will lie to protect themselves. And they always cover for each other, from the judges, to the lawyers, to the police chief, to the captains, on down to the guys in the squad cars and the very people they are sworn to protect, the public, ends up loosing.

In the end, these police officers will not get anything resembling punishment. They will all go on as if nothing ever happened. From this experience they will learn that they can get away with doing this again in the future when a similar situation arises. Why? Because they will stand together to cover for each other and there is no way a police force will fire multiple police officers when there are so few to replace them. This has become a sad fact of life.

Maybe one of the officers will feel some humanity to the family and the community and his conscience will force him to step up and identify the one or others who did not deem it necessary to actually look for the survivors. But this is too much to ask for. This also is a sad fact of life.

We do appreciate the fact that these brave individuals put their lives on the line for us everyday. Very few people (not nearly enough) step up to go onto our crime ridden streets for our protection. But when it comes time to help a family find their son after a tragic accident the very least these police officers can do is try.

Charges should be brought for the following:
1) leaving the scene of an accident without helping the survivors, any member of the general public would face charges for this;
2) leaving bodies laying around and doing nothing to care for them, again any member of the general public would face charges for this;
3) contributing to the deaths by not doing something to help, again any member of the general public would face charges for this;
4) dereliction of duty.

These officers are also responsible for the further erosion of public trust.

Another cop is acquitting over shooting

Okay, this just pisses me off. But it is business as usual in this de facto police state we live in.

A San Bernardino County jury acquitted a former sheriff's deputy of attempted voluntary manslaughter for opening fire on an unarmed, off-duty Air Force police officer after a high-speed chase last year, a brutal shooting videotaped by a bystander and aired nationwide.

What the hell is wrong with these jurist? I saw that video and this cop obviously shot his victim in cold blood while trying to comply with the cops order to get up.

I wonder what the story is behind him no longer being on the police force. Was he fired for this action? He definitely does not deserve to be there. Although he does have the right mentality, from their point of view.

Here is the background in case you didn’t see it:
Back in January 2006, San Bernardino County Sheriffs Deputy, Ivory John Webb Jr., 46, while on duty, opened fire on an unarmed, off-duty Air Force police officer after a high-speed chase.

The victim, Elio Carrion, 23, was the passenger of the vehicle and ended up on the pavement, on his back, in the aftermath of the car crashing into a block wall. This next part was caught on video. Webb was standing over Carrion, with his service revolver pointed at him, ordering Carrion to get up. Now, let’s take a moment here to ask some critical questions. First of all, after someone had hit a block wall as the result of a car accident, do you think that person would be coherent enough to understand what you are saying to him? Secondly, wouldn’t your medical training tell you that a person in this situation just might cause further injury to himself if he moved around? This officer Webb, in my humble opinion, is not exhibiting any humanitarian concern or basic intelligence.

Remember, police officers are supposed to ‘protect and serve’? This is their motto, they put it on their police cruisers, they are supposed to be guided by this principle. This guy, obviously missed that whole humanitarian side of his training. And he must have also skipped his medical training.

At this point, remember this is on video, Carrion is attempting to get up, as ordered, and he is telling Webb that he means him no harm and “OK, I’m getting up”. While Carrion is attempting to comply, Webb opens fire on him at point blank range. He must not have known the video camera was on him.

Does this guy sound like a stellar example of what a police officer represents?

I remember learning, at the time of this original story, that Webb had been previously suspended under suspicion of another suspicious shooting. Of course, he was acquitted of all charges that time too. Big surprise. He is a cop after all.

These cops can only get away with this fascist behavior as long as cowards like these jurors are going to continue to not prosecute a clearly malicious shooting just because the shooter was a cop.

Taser use up, too high

What the hell is the story behind the increased use of taser guns?

This article concerns a wheel-chair bound woman who died after being repeatedly shock by police taser guns.

This article is about a sheriffs deputy who ‘subdued’ an autistic boy using a taser gun.

This article states that a man was acting erratically, so he was tasered.

Why is it that when a cop appears on a scene, any scene, his or her mind set is such that everyone should immediately submit to the full power and control of the police force without question? If anyone ‘steps out of line’ then the cops training immediately sets him on a direct course of action to ‘subdue’ the ‘perpetrator’. It does not matter if that ‘perpetrator’ is a 56-year-old woman in a wheelchair or a 15-year-old autistic kid. To the ‘cop mind’ they are ‘perpetrators’ and should, by God, kneel down ‘to my unrelenting and unquestionable authority’.

Seriously, come on guys, how about using a little more restraint and control over yourselves? Especially against invalids.

Now, I’m not a ‘bleeding heart liberal’ but people do need to be treated with more respect than you guys are being programmed into give out.

My earliest memory of knowing for a fact that police do over-step their bounds as peace officers was in San Diego, California. A homeless man held off six police officers on the side of Interstate 15 with a cement trowel. Can you believe it? A cement trowel. And these guys, in their infinite cops imagination that only they can see, saw this as a ‘deadly weapon’ and they shot him multiple times. Of course he died from his wounds. And of course they went unpunished. I lost a lot of respect for police officers on that day.

Trust me when I say to cops everywhere, when people call for help they do not expect you to taser or kill everyone who doesn’t bow immediately to your authority. They expect, no demand, discretion and judicious use of these weapons. That’s right, they are not toys, they are weapons.

You need to learn the ‘customer service’ mentality and keep your ‘cop mode’ on hold until needed. You need to learn when to ‘turn off’ the cop voices inside your heads and become human again. If you would rather show up with the ‘cop mode’ switched on then you should go back for retraining.

This story is about a guy who just wanted to get to his home after a hurricane hit and tried to pass a police barricade. Guess what happened? They tasered him, in front of his kids. Now I ask you, was this really necessary? I don’t think so.