Editor's Note:
I bring you this story because it's relevant within the context of how much power "the state" now has and because this sort of thing happens all too often, both arresting people for what are very small offenses, and for recording the actions of public servants.
It is also worth noting the increasing use of SWAT teams and the expense of the men, equipment, and the ensuing lawsuits.
Right now, only 1 state keeps public records on how and under what circumstances those SWAT teams are used, and believe it or not, there is no official body keeping track of the number of people that police shoot and kill.
No record.
That in an of itself is just astounding.
I copied several articles all pointing towards the same thing: a larger, more militarized police state.
Scary.
Especially when you link these things to the recent scandals involving the IRS targeting political opponents and the massive scale of cel phone spying by the NSA.
- abuse by police
- larger police force with more firepower
- rise of militarized police force
- targeting/oppressing political opponents
- spying on citizens
I know I'm sounding very conspiratorial but combine these stories with new government health care mandates and you realize how much more government we have now than ever before.
I am not comforted.
_______________________________________________________________________________
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/02/18/single-mom-spends-night-in-jail-after-cop-accuses-her-of-committing-a-felony-during-simple-traffic-stop-except-she-didnt/#
A Florida woman spent the night in jail after a Broward County sheriff’s deputy accused her of committing a “felony” by audio recording their conversation during a simple traffic stop. Upon review, all charges against her were dropped — but now the Broward Sheriff’s Office (BSO) is facing a lawsuit.
Brandy Burning (WPLG-TV)
Brandy Burning, a single mom, was pulled over by BSO Lt. William O’Brien for driving in an HOV lane. After some back-and-forth about her traffic violation, Burning informed the officer that she was recording their conversation.
“Oh, I forgot to tell you I was recording our conversation,” Burning is heard saying in the audio.
“I’m sorry?” O’Brien responds.
“I have to tell you, I forgot to tell you I was recording,” she repeats.
It was at this point that O’Brien accused her of committing a “felony” and demanded the cellphone. He also told her he knows the law better than she does.
“You are committing a felony. Hand me the phone,” O’Brien orders.
“No, I am not,” the defiant woman says in the audio. “I am not giving up my phone.”
As Washington Post opinion blogger Radley Balko correctly notes, “[In] every state in America, you are well within your rights to record an on-duty police officer.”
“There are a few limited exceptions, such as if while recording you physically interfere with an officer trying to perform his duties. But as long as you aren’t in the way, you’re protected by the First Amendment,” he writes.
After allegedly climbing into the car and attempting to take the phone forcefully, O’Brien removed Burning and arrested her. The mom can be heard screaming on the tape, demanding the officer take his hands off of her.
“Get off of me! You are breaking the law!” she yelled. “I am not getting out of my car. Get off of me!”
video platformvideo managementvideo solutionsvideo player
Burning was eventually charged with traffic violations and resisting arrest — but no crimes related to the recording. All charges were eventually dropped.
The single mom still spent a night in jail and claims she suffered several bruises and scrapes during the traumatic experience.
“Touching me, trying to take my personal belongings from me, trying to put me in jail for something so small,” she recalled in an interview with WPLG-TV.
Burning’s attorneys have already notified the Broward Sheriff’s Office that they are planning to file a lawsuit on grounds of battery, false arrest and false imprisonment.
It also came to light that a former deputy with the Broward Sheriff’s Office is facing criminal charges after allegedly smashing a woman’s phone for videotaping him.
_______________________________________________________________________________
VIDEO: Cop allegedly assaults man recording him in Brooklyn subway station
BY THOMAS TRACY / NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 2014, 3:23 PM
A transit cop allegedly assaulted, then arrested a 47-year-old man recording another man getting a summons at a Brooklyn subway station, according to a bombshell video released Wednesday.
Shawn Thomas of New Rochelle claimed Police Officer Efrain Rojas attacked him, arrested him and then tried to delete the video of Saturday’s interaction at Brooklyn’s Utica Ave. station.
Thomas told photographyisnotacrime.com that Rojas dragged him out of the station, forced him face down on a snowswept sidewalk and slammed his head into the pavement, splitting his lip.
“I was bleeding profusely,” he told the website. Attempts to reach Thomas for comment were unsuccessful Wednesday. “I was having really bad head pains while in jail, so they took me back to the hospital the following morning.”
Thomas was transported to the hospital twice as he awaited his arraignment Sunday, he said, according to the site.
He was released on his own recognizance after being charged with obstructing government administration, resisting arrest, criminal trespass and disorderly conduct. He is due back in court April 1.
Court records indicate Rojas repeatedly asked Thomas to step back as the civilian recorded the 5:50 p.m. arrest, then asked him to leave the station, but Thomas refused.
Officer Rojas escorted Thomas out, but the 47-year-old followed him right back into the station, where he refused to be handcuffed, according to court records.
The video shows Officer Rojas walking up and using his personal iPhone to videotape the camera-wielding Thomas as he recorded a peaceful interaction between another police officer and a young man who had been handcuffed.
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/brooklyn/allegedly-assaults-man-recording-article-1.1620037#ixzz2tpfCGvbz
_______________________________________________________________________________
Overkill: The Rise of Paramilitary Police Raids in America
BY RADLEY BALKO
Americans have long maintained that a man's home is his castle and that he has the right to defend it from unlawful intruders. Unfortunately, that right may be disappearing.
Executive Summary
Description:
Americans have long maintained that a man's home is his castle and that he has the right to defend it from unlawful intruders. Unfortunately, that right may be disappearing. Over the last 25 years, America has seen a disturbing militarization of its civilian law enforcement, along with a dramatic and unsettling rise in the use of paramilitary police units (most commonly called Special Weapons and Tactics, or SWAT) for routine police work. The most common use of SWAT teams today is to serve narcotics warrants, usually with forced, unannounced entry into the home.
These increasingly frequent raids, 40,000 per year by one estimate, are needlessly subjecting nonviolent drug offenders, bystanders, and wrongly targeted civilians to the terror of having their homes invaded while they're sleeping, usually by teams of heavily armed paramilitary units dressed not as police officers but as soldiers. These raids bring unnecessary violence and provocation to nonviolent drug offenders, many of whom were guilty of only misdemeanors. The raids terrorize innocents when police mistakenly target the wrong residence. And they have resulted in dozens of needless deaths and injuries, not only of drug offenders, but also of police officers, children, bystanders, and innocent suspects.
This paper presents a history and overview of the issue of paramilitary drug raids, provides an extensive catalogue of abuses and mistaken raids, and offers recommendations for reform.About the Author
Author/Editor Summary:
Radley Balko is a policy analyst for the Cato Institute specializing in vice and civil liberties issues. He is a columnist forFoxNews.com and has been published in Time magazine, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, Slate, Forbes, theNational Post, Worth, Reason, and several other publications. Balko has also appeared on CNN, CNBC, Fox News Channel, NPR, and MSNBC.
ISBN:
n/a
Number of Pages:
98
_______________________________________________________________________________
How many people are shot/killed by the police?
Wednesday, December 25, 2013Police Involved Shooting Statistics: A National One-Year SummaryIn 2011, according to data I collected, police officers in the United States shot 1,146 people, killing 607. Between January 1, 2011 and January 1, 2012 I used the Internet to compile a national database of police involved shootings. The term "police involved shooting" pertains to law enforcement officers who, in the line of duty, discharge their guns. When journalists and police administrators use the term, they include the shooting of animals and shots that miss their targets. My case files only include instances in which a person is either killed or wounded by police gunfire. My data also includes off-duty officers who discharged their weapons in law enforcement situations. They don't include, for example, officers using their firearms to resolve personal disputes.
I collected this data myself because the U.S. Government doesn't. There is no national database dedicated to police involved shootings.
Alan Maimon, in his article, "National Data on Shootings by Police Not Collected," published on November 28, 2011 in the "Las Vegas Review-Journal," wrote "The nation's leading law enforcement agency [FBI] collects vast amounts of information on crime nationwide, but missing from this clearinghouse are statistics on where, how often, and under what circumstances police use deadly force. In fact, no one anywhere comprehensively tracks the most significant act police can do in the line of duty: take a life."
Since the government keeps statistics on just about everything, why no national stats on something this important? The answer is simple: they don't want us to know. Why? Because police shoot a lot more people than we think, and the government, while good at statistics, is also good at secrecy.
The government does maintain records on how many police officers are killed every year in the line of duty. In 2010, 59 officers were shot to death among 122 killed while on the job. This marked a 20 percent jump from 2009 when 49 officers were killed by gunfire. In 2011, 173 officers died, from all causes, in the line of duty. The fact police officers feel they are increasingly under attack from the public may help explain why they are shooting so many citizens.
Who The Police Shoot
A vast majority of the people shot by the police in 2011 were men between the ages 25 and 40 who had histories of crime. Overall, people shot by the police were much older than the typical first-time arrestee. A significant number of the people wounded and killed by the authorities were over fifty, some in their eighties. In 2011, the police shot two 15-year-olds, and a girl who was 16.
The police shot, in 2011, about 50 women, most of whom were armed with knives and had histories of emotional distress. Overall, about a quarter of those shot were either mentally ill and/or suicidal. Many of these were "suicide-by-cop" cases.
Most police shooting victims were armed with handguns. The next most common weapon involved vehicles (used as weapons), followed by knives (and other sharp objects), shotguns, and rifles. Very few of these people carried assault weapons, and a small percentage were unarmed. About 50 subjects were armed with BB-guns, pellet guns or replica firearms.
The situations that brought police shooters and their targets together included domestic and other disturbances; crimes in progress such as robbery, assault and carjacking; the execution of arrest warrants; drug raids; gang activities; routine traffic stops; car chases; and standoff and hostage events.
Women make up about 15 percent of the nation's uniformed police services. During 2011, about 25 female police officers wounded or killed civilians. None of these officers had shot anyone in the past. While the vast majority of police officers never fire their guns in the line of duty, 15 officers who did shoot someone in 2011, had shot at least one person before. (This figure is probably low because police departments don't like to report such statistics.) Most police shootings involved members of police departments followed by sheriff's deputies, the state police, and federal officers. These shootings took place in big cities, suburban areas, towns, and in rural areas. Big city shootings comprised about half of these violent confrontations in 2011.
Police Shooting Investigations
Almost all police involved shootings, while investigated by special units, prosecutor's offices, or an outside police agency, were investigated by governmental law enforcement personnel. It is perhaps not surprising that more than 95 percent of all police involved shootings were ruled administratively and legally justiified. A handful of cases led to wrongful death lawsuits. Even fewer will result in the criminal prosecution of officers. Critics of the system have called for the establishment of completely independent investigative agencies in cases of police involved shootings.
http://jimfishertruecrime.blogspot.com/2012/01/police-involved-shootings-2011-annual.html
_______________________________________________________________________________
SWAT Madness and the Militarization of the American Police
A National Dilemma
Jim Fisher
September 2010
The facts are disturbing: Every year in the United States, SWAT teams conduct predawn, no-knock raids of at least 50,000 homes looking for drugs. Unfortunately, a substantial percentage of these assaults occur at the wrong addresses. And law-abiding citizens who mistakenly kill SWAT officers thinking they are criminal home invaders often end up on death row.
With the immediacy of a daily newspaper, this book reveals how the irresponsible use of SWAT teams, shock-and-awe policing, and the increasing militarization of American law enforcement is changing the face of "the land of the free."
In the United States, military-style police enforcement is fast becoming the norm—even the smallest police departments now field costly SWAT units. While the fact that police forces have increased capabilities to deal with urgent or dangerous situations may seem positive, this type of aggressive response is problematic; court settlements regarding excessive SWAT raids cost law enforcement agencies millions of dollars every year, not to mention that these brute-force strategies often traumatize, injure, and kill innocent people.
This book takes an unprecedented look into the realities of zero-tolerance, militaristic policing, the tactics and equipment used, the problematic "crime warrior" mindset at play, and the statistical evidence of its ineffectiveness. The author's professional experience in criminology and scholarly knowledge of the topic enables him to candidly address common concerns about utilizing paramilitary law enforcement and special weapons and tactics (SWAT) units in routine, low-risk police work, such as the general loss of freedom, the often tragic results of excessive force, and the effects on race relations.
Features
• Provides 30 case studies documenting inappropriate SWAT team deployment
Highlights
• Exposes a prevalent American criminal justice problem that is often swept under the rug: excessive police enforcement
• In the modern context of threatened civil liberties, the subject matter of this text is highly relevant to millions of American citizens worried about oppressive law enforcement
• Written by a former FBI agent and criminal justice professor who has followed policing trends for 35 years
• The first book to address the issue of SWAT team overuse
_______________________________________________________________________________
Shedding light on the use of SWAT teams
BY RADLEY BALKO
February 17 at 11:30 am
A new bill in Utah that would require the state’s police agencies to report statistics about how and how often they use their SWAT and tactical teams has just unanimously passed a committee in the state’s senate. The bill is part of a larger, fascinating police reform movement currently under way in Utah.
A San Bernardino County Sheriff SWAT team returns to a command post at Bear Mountain near Big Bear Lake, Calif. (AP Photo/Pool, The Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, Will Lester)
If it passes, Utah would become the second state in the country—after Maryland—to require police agencies to track that information. Collecting data about how SWAT teams are used, how often they’re used, and what results from their deployment is a critical step toward determining whether or not they’re being used properly. The biggest barrier to performing that sort of analysis has always been that the data just don’t exist.
But in the one state where we do have the date, here’s what we know:
• Since the law passed in 2009, the data have consistently shown that on average there are about 4.5 SWAT raids each day in Maryland.
• Prince George’s County alone averaged well over one SWAT raid each day in 2012 (510 in total).
• In 2012, nearly 90 percent of the SWAT raids in Maryland were to serve search warrants.
• About two of every three SWAT raids used forced entry.
• Half the SWAT deployments in 2012 were for “Part II” crimes, the nonviolent class of crimes. The vast majority of those raids were to serve search warrants on people suspected of drug offenses.
• In 22 raids in 2012, or a little over one percent of the total, a law enforcement officer fired his gun.
• About 15 percent of the raids in 2012 resulted in no seized contraband of any kind. About a third of the raids resulted in no arrests. The Maryland law doesn’t track what charges resulted in the raids that did produce arrests, but past reviews of SWAT raids by local newspapers suggest that only a small percentage of raids result in felony charges.
Here’s hoping Utah and other states follow Maryland’s lead. The criminologist Peter Kraska has estimated that there are are somewhere between 50,000 and 80,000 SWAT raids per year now in America, and that number is likely growing. It’s past time for a public discussion about whether that sort of figure is appropriate and consistent with the values of a free society. But we can’t have that discussion until we have a better grasp of why they’re conducting all of these raids, and what they’re finding when they do.
_______________________________________________________________________________
A plague of ‘professional courtesy’
BY RADLEY BALKO
February 18 at 4:25 pm
In this frame grab made from a Oct. 11, 2011 video, Florida Highway Patrol Trooper Donna Jane Watts approaches Miami Police Department officer Fausto Lopez with her handgun drawn after Watts stopped Lopez, who was traveling at 120 mph. (Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles via Associated Press)
In October 2011, Florida Highway Patrol Trooper Donna Jane Watts pulled over a fellow law enforcement officer who was zipping along a highway at over 120 mph. Miami Police Department officer Fausto Lopez led Watts for seven minutes before finally stopping. He told Watts he was on his way to an off-duty job.
Often in such cases, the officer in charge will extend what police culture has dubbed “professional courtesy” to the offending officer. That is, they’ll let him go. To her credit, Watts didn’t do that. She arrested Lopez, who had a history of speeding and dangerous driving.
Lopez was later fired.
But that isn’t the end of the story.
But that isn’t the end of the story.
The Florida Highway Patrol then investigated Watts for her handling of the incident.
The agency cleared her of any wrongdoing, but it took two months. It’s hard to believe a cop who arrested a regular citizen for driving 120 mph, and who then initially refused to pull over, would be subjected to a similar investigation.
But then the real retaliation began. On police Internet discussion boards, Miami police officers posted open threats against Watts. One Miami cop apparently tried to pull over an Florida Highway Patrol officer in retaliation, until that particular move backfired. Another FHP officer found his car smeared in human feces.
For Watts, the harassment has been quite a bit worse. She has received hundreds of calls to her private phone, some pranks, some threatening. She has had pizzas randomly delivered to her home. Strange cars began parking outside her home. And her career as a police officer may well be over. The Miami New Times reported in 2012that her “superiors don’t think she’ll ever be able to return to duty on the road, and if she ever got into a situation where she needed backup she does not think she would receive it.”
Watts has now filed a lawsuit. As part of that suit she filed an open records request with the state’s Department of Motor Vehicles. As the Associated Press reports, that request found that “over a three-month period, at least 88 law enforcement officers from 25 different agencies accessed Watts’ driver’s license information more than 200 times.”
Under the 1994 Driver Privacy Protection Act, government officials who improperly access DMV databases are subject to a $2,500 fine for each offense. Police organizations are now rallying to weigh in on Watts suit . . . in favor of the officers who were harassing her. For example, Bill Johnson, executive director of the National Association of Police Agencies, told the AP, “I think it would be unfair and outside the scope of the legislation to think individuals would get whacked like that.”
Tellingly, Johnson’s organization is asking Congress to amend the Driver Privacy Protection Act so that fines attach only when driver databases are accessed with a ”specific intent to secure an economic benefit.” That would presumably exclude cops who access databases to harass cops who don’t extend courtesies, to harass cops who report or arrest other cops or to look up the personal information of attractive women. (Keep this in mind when your state legislators want to establish more databases to track, for example, what prescription drugs you’re taking.)
The retaliation against Watts is a problem that extends well outside of Miami. Police officers who fail to extend professional courtesy to fellow officers can face ridicule, shaming and other retaliation. It’s an extension of the “Blue Code of Silence,” the informal admonition that cops refrain from implicating other cops. Several years ago there was even a Web site called “Cops Writing Cops” which provided a forum for police officers to publicly shame fellow cops who had the audacity to ticket them. (The site has since been taken down.) A 2007 Seattle Post-Intelligencer study revealed that off-duty cops put stickers in the windows of their private vehicles to identify themselves to their fellow officers. And then there are outfits like “LEO Pro Cards,” a business that prints up handy, wallet-sized cards that cops and their family members can flash to request professional courtesy from other officers.
In 2011, 16 NYPD officers — all of them current or former officials in the city’s police union — were indicted for fixing more than 1,600 tickets for fellow officers and their families. At their arraignment, hundreds of fellow officers showed up to support them. According to reports, the protesting officers also blocked reporters from accessing the courtroom and shouted insults at people waiting in welfare lines.
It may seem like a little thing, letting another cop off on a speeding charge. But it can reinforce the notion in some officers that they’re above the law. A 2012 Sun-Sentinel examination of three months worth of toll records found 800 instances in which cops in southern Florida were caught driving between 90 and 130 mph. Many weren’t on duty, but coming or going to their jobs. A broader 13-month investigation found 5,100 “high-speed” incidents, 96 percent of which were cops driving in excess of 90 mph. About half were cops outside their jurisdictions, meaning it’s unlikely they were responding to an emergency call. The investigation found 21 incidents in which citizens were left dead or severely disabled after being struck by speeding cops, sometimes driving 120 mph or more. The most severe punishment from any of those cases was 60 days in jail. The Sun-Sentinel also found that in 88 percent of cases in which a police officer’s speeding caused an accident, the officer wasn’t even issued a citation. Among regular citizens, 55 percent are issued citations. In one particularly egregious example . . .
. . . Broward Sheriff’s Deputy Christopher Thieman, running late for work, slammed into Eric Brody of Sunrise in 1998, leaving the 18-year-old in a coma for six months and impaired for life. Four years earlier, Thieman injured another motorist while driving his patrol car at least 20 mph over the speed limit but wasn’t ticketed, said Block, the lawyer who represents the Brody family.
Thieman was going as much as 25 mph over the speed limit when he hit Brody, records show.
But a sheriff’s investigation blamed the teenager for improperly turning left in front of the deputy.
“The only one who was written up was Eric,” Block said.
A 2012 investigation by TV station KHOU found 155 accidents between 2008 and 2012 in which a Houston police officer was at fault. None of those accident resulted in a citation for the officer involved.
The 2007 Post-Intelligencer investigation also showed that professional courtesy in Seattle extended even to drunk driving offenses. That too isn’t limited to Seattle. Just last month a cop in Tennessee was given a DWI pass by his fellow officers. Indianapolis is still dealing with the fallout from a 2010 incident in which IPD Officer David Bisard struck two motorcycles, killing one person. His fellow officers waited more than two hours to test his blood-alcohol content, which even then registered .19. In 2006, Bernardino County, Calif., Dep. Kenneth Holtz faced harassment from colleagues after arresting a fellow deputy on a DWI charge. Holtz was eventually fired for violating policies regarding “respect among members” and “conduct reflecting adversely on the department or employee.” The deputy he arrested was promoted.
In 2009, a Chicago an off-duty detective with a history of causing accidents smashed into a parked car, killing two people. He was drunk. Despite the fact that two of his prior accidents also involved slamming into other cars, causing injury, he was never given sobriety tests, and he was never even ticketed.
Other stories and investigations of cops granting DWI courtesies to other cops have come from Westchester County, N.Y.; Tuckahoe, N.Y.; Dorchester County, S.C.; theMassachusetts State Police; San Jose, Calif.; Buffalo, N.Y.; San Diego, Calif.;Milwaukee, Wis.; Denver, Colo. Many of these investigations involved fatalities.
A 2000 study from the National Institute of Justice confirms that this is an institutional problem, not a series of isolated cases. The researches surveyed over 3,000 police officers at agencies of all sizes all around the country. One question asked how likely respondents would be to report a fellow cop who had caused a traffic accident while intoxicated. On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being “definitely no” and 5 being “definitely yes,” the average score was 2.38.
There’s also a nose-under-the-tent component to professional courtesy. You’ll often see the tradition defended as just a small, insignificant gesture between professionals who share a tough job. But if anything, cops should be held to a higher standard than everyone else. They are after all given the considerable power to arrest, detain and kill. Once cops start letting other cops off for traffic offenses, you begin to instill in some police officers the idea that they’re less beholden to the law than the average citizen, not more. It isn’t difficult to see how that could set the stage for more consequential corruption.
Of course, there’s no way to prove that professional courtesy leads to other corruption. But even if you could prove that it didn’t, it’s a mistake to dismiss cops letting other cops off for speeding or DWI as insignificant in and of itself. Among the linked stories in this post are numerous cases of cops whose pile of courtesies extended by other cops piled up until, eventually, their disregard for the safety of other people on the road resulted in death. That’s anything but inconsequential.
________________________________________________________________________________
California police department gets $650,000 37,000lb armored military truck
The armored truck was given free of charge to the department as part of the 1033 program that reallocates government equipment
Some residents believe that the imposing vehicle is a military weapon with no place in civilian life
Police Chief Kelly McMillin says the vehicle will only be used to protect officers and citizens
By ALEX GREIG
PUBLISHED: 16:26 EST, 21 December 2013 | UPDATED: 16:26 EST, 21 December 2013
A California police department has received a 37,000 armored truck that was once used in military training exercises.
The Salinas Police Department took ownership of the hulking tank-like vehicle on December 17 and parked it in front of the town's Rotunda for public viewing.
The $650,000 truck has caused quite a stir in the town, with many residents questioning why a military armored vehicle would be needed in civilian situations.
+2
New toy: (left to right) SWAT officers Detective Rivera, Detective McKinley, Sergeant Murray, Chief McMillin and Detective Fors pose in front of the new vehicle
The truck provides protection from handgun and rifle fire as well as explosions. It will be used for the Salinas SWAT team and can transport eight to 10 officers at a time.
In a press release, Police chief Kelly McMillin said the department was in desperate need of a replacement for the 1986 Ford money carrier officers used as a rescue vehicle.
'For some time the converted armored car has been in very poor condition; the roof leaks water and the vehicle has been in constant need of mechanical repair. Due to its low ballistic rating the armored car never truly provided adequate protection,' reads the release.
More...
Devastated father tells how he watched on live television as LAPD cops shot dead his unarmed son after chase through city
Four US servicemen hurt after their helicopter was shot at on an evacuation mission in South Sudan
McMillin says the vehicle came to the department free of charge as part of the 1033 program which reallocates government equipment for use by law enforcement agencies.
It has never been deployed abroad.
A picture posted of the vehicle on the Salinas Police Department's Facebook page garnered varied responses, from enthusiastic support to suspicion.
'That armored vehicle is a disgrace to cops,' wrote one commentator. '...What happened to courage, honor, integrity. That vehicle is made for war. Do not use my safety to justify that vehicle. To better protect me, it's a joke. Come clean and tell the truth. The Salinas Police Department is just a bunch of cowards that want to use that vehicle as intimidation and to terrorize the citizens of this city.'
+2
Bigger parking spot: The huge military truck is the newest addition to the police department's fleet of vehicles
Another said, 'The Salinas Police Department shows courage, honor and integrity each day they go out on the streets to protect us. This vehicle will not intimidate any law abiding citizens. If it offends gang members.....GOOD!
McMillin says the vehicle, while imposing, will only be used to protect citizens and officers, but some members of the community feel that such a war-like vehicle is unnecessary.
'To stop gang members? Hmmm gang members don't riot in mass numbers. It's right in front of our faces and we don't see it. Why would the ARMY!!! give something like that for FREE!!! Let's think for once people,' said a Facebook commentator.
Another agreed: 'And Obama said we don't need military weapons in hands of citizens!'
Chief Kelly McMillin responded on the Salinas Police Department's Facebook page.
'I have been reading with great interest the comments of those who feel strongly about this vehicle and the implications it has as regards the policing of Salinas,' he wrote.
'Every man and woman in the Salinas Police Department took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. We take that oath seriously. I thank God we live in a country where we can have this conversation, challenge each other, and challenge the government on how it does its job. Even though I may not agree with all of you, thanks for having a civil discussion.'
According to KSBW, the truck's height has already helped the force arrest a dangerous suspect, who was spotted by police running from several blocks away.
______________________________________________________________________________
But then the real retaliation began. On police Internet discussion boards, Miami police officers posted open threats against Watts. One Miami cop apparently tried to pull over an Florida Highway Patrol officer in retaliation, until that particular move backfired. Another FHP officer found his car smeared in human feces.
For Watts, the harassment has been quite a bit worse. She has received hundreds of calls to her private phone, some pranks, some threatening. She has had pizzas randomly delivered to her home. Strange cars began parking outside her home. And her career as a police officer may well be over. The Miami New Times reported in 2012that her “superiors don’t think she’ll ever be able to return to duty on the road, and if she ever got into a situation where she needed backup she does not think she would receive it.”
Watts has now filed a lawsuit. As part of that suit she filed an open records request with the state’s Department of Motor Vehicles. As the Associated Press reports, that request found that “over a three-month period, at least 88 law enforcement officers from 25 different agencies accessed Watts’ driver’s license information more than 200 times.”
Under the 1994 Driver Privacy Protection Act, government officials who improperly access DMV databases are subject to a $2,500 fine for each offense. Police organizations are now rallying to weigh in on Watts suit . . . in favor of the officers who were harassing her. For example, Bill Johnson, executive director of the National Association of Police Agencies, told the AP, “I think it would be unfair and outside the scope of the legislation to think individuals would get whacked like that.”
Tellingly, Johnson’s organization is asking Congress to amend the Driver Privacy Protection Act so that fines attach only when driver databases are accessed with a ”specific intent to secure an economic benefit.” That would presumably exclude cops who access databases to harass cops who don’t extend courtesies, to harass cops who report or arrest other cops or to look up the personal information of attractive women. (Keep this in mind when your state legislators want to establish more databases to track, for example, what prescription drugs you’re taking.)
The retaliation against Watts is a problem that extends well outside of Miami. Police officers who fail to extend professional courtesy to fellow officers can face ridicule, shaming and other retaliation. It’s an extension of the “Blue Code of Silence,” the informal admonition that cops refrain from implicating other cops. Several years ago there was even a Web site called “Cops Writing Cops” which provided a forum for police officers to publicly shame fellow cops who had the audacity to ticket them. (The site has since been taken down.) A 2007 Seattle Post-Intelligencer study revealed that off-duty cops put stickers in the windows of their private vehicles to identify themselves to their fellow officers. And then there are outfits like “LEO Pro Cards,” a business that prints up handy, wallet-sized cards that cops and their family members can flash to request professional courtesy from other officers.
In 2011, 16 NYPD officers — all of them current or former officials in the city’s police union — were indicted for fixing more than 1,600 tickets for fellow officers and their families. At their arraignment, hundreds of fellow officers showed up to support them. According to reports, the protesting officers also blocked reporters from accessing the courtroom and shouted insults at people waiting in welfare lines.
It may seem like a little thing, letting another cop off on a speeding charge. But it can reinforce the notion in some officers that they’re above the law. A 2012 Sun-Sentinel examination of three months worth of toll records found 800 instances in which cops in southern Florida were caught driving between 90 and 130 mph. Many weren’t on duty, but coming or going to their jobs. A broader 13-month investigation found 5,100 “high-speed” incidents, 96 percent of which were cops driving in excess of 90 mph. About half were cops outside their jurisdictions, meaning it’s unlikely they were responding to an emergency call. The investigation found 21 incidents in which citizens were left dead or severely disabled after being struck by speeding cops, sometimes driving 120 mph or more. The most severe punishment from any of those cases was 60 days in jail. The Sun-Sentinel also found that in 88 percent of cases in which a police officer’s speeding caused an accident, the officer wasn’t even issued a citation. Among regular citizens, 55 percent are issued citations. In one particularly egregious example . . .
. . . Broward Sheriff’s Deputy Christopher Thieman, running late for work, slammed into Eric Brody of Sunrise in 1998, leaving the 18-year-old in a coma for six months and impaired for life. Four years earlier, Thieman injured another motorist while driving his patrol car at least 20 mph over the speed limit but wasn’t ticketed, said Block, the lawyer who represents the Brody family.
Thieman was going as much as 25 mph over the speed limit when he hit Brody, records show.
But a sheriff’s investigation blamed the teenager for improperly turning left in front of the deputy.
“The only one who was written up was Eric,” Block said.
A 2012 investigation by TV station KHOU found 155 accidents between 2008 and 2012 in which a Houston police officer was at fault. None of those accident resulted in a citation for the officer involved.
The 2007 Post-Intelligencer investigation also showed that professional courtesy in Seattle extended even to drunk driving offenses. That too isn’t limited to Seattle. Just last month a cop in Tennessee was given a DWI pass by his fellow officers. Indianapolis is still dealing with the fallout from a 2010 incident in which IPD Officer David Bisard struck two motorcycles, killing one person. His fellow officers waited more than two hours to test his blood-alcohol content, which even then registered .19. In 2006, Bernardino County, Calif., Dep. Kenneth Holtz faced harassment from colleagues after arresting a fellow deputy on a DWI charge. Holtz was eventually fired for violating policies regarding “respect among members” and “conduct reflecting adversely on the department or employee.” The deputy he arrested was promoted.
In 2009, a Chicago an off-duty detective with a history of causing accidents smashed into a parked car, killing two people. He was drunk. Despite the fact that two of his prior accidents also involved slamming into other cars, causing injury, he was never given sobriety tests, and he was never even ticketed.
Other stories and investigations of cops granting DWI courtesies to other cops have come from Westchester County, N.Y.; Tuckahoe, N.Y.; Dorchester County, S.C.; theMassachusetts State Police; San Jose, Calif.; Buffalo, N.Y.; San Diego, Calif.;Milwaukee, Wis.; Denver, Colo. Many of these investigations involved fatalities.
A 2000 study from the National Institute of Justice confirms that this is an institutional problem, not a series of isolated cases. The researches surveyed over 3,000 police officers at agencies of all sizes all around the country. One question asked how likely respondents would be to report a fellow cop who had caused a traffic accident while intoxicated. On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being “definitely no” and 5 being “definitely yes,” the average score was 2.38.
There’s also a nose-under-the-tent component to professional courtesy. You’ll often see the tradition defended as just a small, insignificant gesture between professionals who share a tough job. But if anything, cops should be held to a higher standard than everyone else. They are after all given the considerable power to arrest, detain and kill. Once cops start letting other cops off for traffic offenses, you begin to instill in some police officers the idea that they’re less beholden to the law than the average citizen, not more. It isn’t difficult to see how that could set the stage for more consequential corruption.
Of course, there’s no way to prove that professional courtesy leads to other corruption. But even if you could prove that it didn’t, it’s a mistake to dismiss cops letting other cops off for speeding or DWI as insignificant in and of itself. Among the linked stories in this post are numerous cases of cops whose pile of courtesies extended by other cops piled up until, eventually, their disregard for the safety of other people on the road resulted in death. That’s anything but inconsequential.
________________________________________________________________________________
California police department gets $650,000 37,000lb armored military truck
The armored truck was given free of charge to the department as part of the 1033 program that reallocates government equipment
Some residents believe that the imposing vehicle is a military weapon with no place in civilian life
Police Chief Kelly McMillin says the vehicle will only be used to protect officers and citizens
By ALEX GREIG
PUBLISHED: 16:26 EST, 21 December 2013 | UPDATED: 16:26 EST, 21 December 2013
A California police department has received a 37,000 armored truck that was once used in military training exercises.
The Salinas Police Department took ownership of the hulking tank-like vehicle on December 17 and parked it in front of the town's Rotunda for public viewing.
The $650,000 truck has caused quite a stir in the town, with many residents questioning why a military armored vehicle would be needed in civilian situations.
+2
New toy: (left to right) SWAT officers Detective Rivera, Detective McKinley, Sergeant Murray, Chief McMillin and Detective Fors pose in front of the new vehicle
The truck provides protection from handgun and rifle fire as well as explosions. It will be used for the Salinas SWAT team and can transport eight to 10 officers at a time.
In a press release, Police chief Kelly McMillin said the department was in desperate need of a replacement for the 1986 Ford money carrier officers used as a rescue vehicle.
'For some time the converted armored car has been in very poor condition; the roof leaks water and the vehicle has been in constant need of mechanical repair. Due to its low ballistic rating the armored car never truly provided adequate protection,' reads the release.
More...
Devastated father tells how he watched on live television as LAPD cops shot dead his unarmed son after chase through city
Four US servicemen hurt after their helicopter was shot at on an evacuation mission in South Sudan
McMillin says the vehicle came to the department free of charge as part of the 1033 program which reallocates government equipment for use by law enforcement agencies.
It has never been deployed abroad.
A picture posted of the vehicle on the Salinas Police Department's Facebook page garnered varied responses, from enthusiastic support to suspicion.
'That armored vehicle is a disgrace to cops,' wrote one commentator. '...What happened to courage, honor, integrity. That vehicle is made for war. Do not use my safety to justify that vehicle. To better protect me, it's a joke. Come clean and tell the truth. The Salinas Police Department is just a bunch of cowards that want to use that vehicle as intimidation and to terrorize the citizens of this city.'
+2
Bigger parking spot: The huge military truck is the newest addition to the police department's fleet of vehicles
Another said, 'The Salinas Police Department shows courage, honor and integrity each day they go out on the streets to protect us. This vehicle will not intimidate any law abiding citizens. If it offends gang members.....GOOD!
McMillin says the vehicle, while imposing, will only be used to protect citizens and officers, but some members of the community feel that such a war-like vehicle is unnecessary.
'To stop gang members? Hmmm gang members don't riot in mass numbers. It's right in front of our faces and we don't see it. Why would the ARMY!!! give something like that for FREE!!! Let's think for once people,' said a Facebook commentator.
Another agreed: 'And Obama said we don't need military weapons in hands of citizens!'
Chief Kelly McMillin responded on the Salinas Police Department's Facebook page.
'I have been reading with great interest the comments of those who feel strongly about this vehicle and the implications it has as regards the policing of Salinas,' he wrote.
'Every man and woman in the Salinas Police Department took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. We take that oath seriously. I thank God we live in a country where we can have this conversation, challenge each other, and challenge the government on how it does its job. Even though I may not agree with all of you, thanks for having a civil discussion.'
According to KSBW, the truck's height has already helped the force arrest a dangerous suspect, who was spotted by police running from several blocks away.
______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
Why The Heck Is DHS Buying More Than A Billion Bullets Plus Thousands Of Guns And Mine-Resistant Armored Vehicles?
Is there something really serious brewing that Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Janet Napolitano isn’t telling us? Like for example, is she concerned that those thousands of illegal immigrant prisoners her organization is releasing will join with others crossing our border to reclaim former Mexico territory…and accomplish this before the Democrats can manage to captureTexas for themselves in 2016 using Amnesty votes? Hey, if some of us may be getting just a bit paranoid, DHS certainly isn’t making it easy to resist that temptation.
First, we hear that DHS is in the process of stockpiling more than 1.6 billion rounds of hollow-point ammunition, along with 7,000 fully-automatic 5.56x45mm NATO “personal defense weapons” plus a huge stash of 30-round high-capacity magazines. Incidentally, those are also known as “assault weapons”, but are not the limited single-fire per trigger-pull semi-automatic types that we civilians are currently allowed to own. By some estimates, that’s enough firepower to fight the equivalent of a 24-year Iraq war.
Then, to cap it off, we find out that DHS, through the U.S. Army Forces Command, recently purchased and retrofitted 2,717 Mine-Resistant Armored Protection (MRAP) vehicles formerly used for counterinsurgency in Iraq. They are specifically designed to protect occupants from ambush attacks, incorporating bullet-proof windows designed to withstand small-arms fire, such as .223-caliber rifles.
The Investor’s Business Daily quoted Robert Whitaker, a DHS officer stationed in El Paso, Texas, proudly describing these mobile marauding marvels as: “Mine-resistant…we use to deliver our teams to high-risk warrant services…[with] gun ports so we can actually shoot from within the vehicle; you may think it’s pretty loud but actually it’s not too bad…we have gun ports there in the back and two on the sides as well. They are designed for .50-caliber weapons.”
No mention was made of any provisions to outfit the MRAPs with loudspeakers to inform unfortunate warrant resisters of their Miranda rights.
While most fellow shooters I know don’t have occasion to buy many hollow-point rounds (which make large, unsightly holes in people they hit), several have expressed curiosity regarding reasons for soaring ammunition prices and a scarcity of available supplies. One inclination has been to simply attribute these circumstances to a run on gun and ammunition sales provoked by Obamaphobia in general, most recently, exacerbated by opportunistic anti-gun lobby proposals following the Newtown school tragedy in particular.
While President Obama’s influence upon the overall U.S. economy may not inspire much confidence, he at least deserves clear credit for his contributions to the domestic firearms industry, an achievement which began even before he took office. The number of gun dealer requests for customer background checks through the National Instant Background Check (NICS) system rose 49% during the week before he was elected in 2008 compared with the same week one year earlier.
And why might that be? Perhaps partly because of a time between 1998 and 2001 when he served along with Bill Ayres and his current senior advisor Valery Jarrett on the 10-member board of the radically anti-gun Joyce Foundation in Chicago…a period when that organization contributed more than $18 million in grants to anti-Second Amendment causes. And maybe because a former Illinois State Senator Barack Obama voted four times against legislation giving gun owners an affirmative defense… even when they used firearms to defend themselves and their families against home invaders and burglars.
But forget about that old history stuff. Maybe some folks remain confused about what he really meant during 2008 campaign remarks, when speaking in Colorado, then-presidential candidate Obama said: “We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded.”
Huh?
It probably didn’t help to alleviate gun rights concerns when, during a private San Francisco meeting on April 6 of that same year, candidate Obama spoke of “small towns in Pennsylvania” and the Midwest beset by job losses in a changing economy where: “they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment.”
Nor was it comforting when a 2009 DHS report titled “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalism and Recruitment” indicated that conservatives and the unemployed represent a clear and present danger. It warned: “The economic downturn and the election of the first African American president present unique drivers for rightwing radicalization and recruitment.” It also concluded that “rightwing extremism” may include “groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.”
So, just who, after all, exhibits the most compelling evidence of unjustifiable paranoia? And which is more dangerous…a paranoid government, or a wary citizenry?
Okay, let’s take a deep breath and realize that all this speculation about DHS armament purchases being earmarked for an Orwellian national security force probably rises to a few floors over the top of rational alarm. We should also understand that other government agencies began purchasing large amounts of ammo at the same time as DHS. A big difference, however, is that they have offered reasons for doing so, while DHS has made a point not to. For example, the Social Security Administration issued a post on its official blog explaining that the ammunition they purchased was “standard issue” used by special agents during “mandatory quarterly firearms qualifications and other training sessions, to ensure agent and public safety.”
As reported by the U.S. Bureau of Statistics in 2008, 73 federal law enforcement agencies then employed approximately 120,000 armed full-time on-duty officers with arrest authority. Of the four largest, two under the DHS and two in the Department of Justice employed four-fifths of the total. That obviously represents a lot of guns, and demands an enormous amount of practice ammo. It’s also appropriate to consider that in order to ensure adequate supplies will be available, government agencies must place large orders from commercial suppliers well in advance of the time they are needed.
Still, despite active public inquiry, DHS has not only remained silent, but has gone so far as to literally black out information regarding its purchases. Such redactions are only supposed to be allowed when authorized by Congress or for national security reasons. In at least one solicitation, the DHS asserted that its contract to purchase ammunition on behalf of Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE) was not subject to “full and open competition”, claiming that the waver was justified by an “unusual and compelling urgency” to acquire bullets. They noted that a shortage could cause “substantial safety issues for the government” should law enforcement officials not be adequately armed.
Wouldn’t it be nice to know what constitutes the nature of that unusual and compelling urgency? One that additionally warranted the purchase of nearly three thousand armored mine-resistant vehicles with multiple gun ports to accommodate 50-caliber weapons?
And how can we afford these expenditures now at a time of that looming financial sequestration apocalypse the president has been incessantly lamenting? Remember? That one that which will cause us to gut our military budget, release illegal prisoners who have been arrested for additional undisclosed crimes, and will even necessitate discontinuing public White House tours?
Oh, I almost forgot to mention that the Obama administration now plans to save money by furloughing 60,000 border protection and customs agents. But then, this raises a couple more questions. Won’t that introduce more bad people into the country who will have to be served with warrants, jailed and then, of course, released to reduce costs? And might it also produce a shortage of people to drive all those mine-resistant armored vehicles, manipulate their onboard 50-caliber guns, and shoot those billions of bullets out of the high-capacity magazines provided with the new rapid-fire assault rifles we are buying them?
Perhaps some of you, like me, may find the logic behind many of these policies somewhat bewildering. But if you happen to be one of us, let’s not jump to a conclusion that this involves anything “conspiratorial” on the part of government leadership. Instead, it might be more appropriate to apply a different term.
What about “stupid”?
Correction: An early version of this article cited a report that DHS had also purchased an additional 21.6 million bullets. This number appears to be incorrect. The actual number shown on the purchase invoice released is approximately 240,000 additional rounds.
No comments:
Post a Comment