When you give idiots money and authority, this is what happens
Margaret Holcomb, an 81-year-old
woman from Amherst, Mass., grew a single marijuana plant in her garden, tucked
away behind the raspberries. She used it to ease the ailments of old age:
glaucoma, arthritis and the occasional sleepless night.
She hadn't tried to get a medical
marijuana card, because of the challenges of getting a doctor's approval, she
told the Daily Hampshire Gazette. And traveling to the dispensary in the next
town over and paying for marijuana grown by someone else would be too costly, she
feared.
So on the afternoon of Sept. 21,
a team of Massachusetts State Police and Massachusetts National Guard troops
sent a helicopter, several vehicles, and a handful of troopers to Holcomb's
house to chop down the plant and haul it away in a pickup truck.
Holcomb wasn't the only one
targeted by the marijuana raid. State police spokesman David Procopio told the
Gazette that authorities also seized 43 other plants from various properties
that day. The largest of these seizures involved 20 plants. Several properties
netted only two plants each. None of the property owners were charged with
crimes, according to Procopio.
Procopio said these operations
were done under the auspices of the Drug Enforcement Administration's Cannabis
Eradication Program, which gives state authorities money to uproot pot plants.
This year, the DEA gave Massachusetts $60,000 for marijuana eradication
efforts, according to federal documents obtained and published by journalist
Drew Atkins.
Last year, Massachusetts received
$75,000 and destroyed 3,138 plants under the program, a cost to federal
taxpayers of about $24 per plant.
Annette Shattuck describes her
home being raided and possessions seized by law enforcement
Annette Shattuck, a registered
medical marijuana caregiver, testified on May 26 before the Michigan state
House of Representatives on having her home ravaged and possessions seized by
law enforcement officials.(House.MI.gov)
Responding to criticism from a
local government official in western Massachusetts, DEA spokesman Melvin
Pattersontold the Boston Herald that the state decides when and how to conduct
raids for pot plants.
The Cannabis Eradication
Program's stated goal is to "halt the spread of cannabis cultivation in
the United States." But with more and more states legalizing recreational
marijuana use in recent years, some lawmakers are questioning whether an $18
million federal program to pull pot plants makes sense.
The program has also been the
subject of controversy and ridicule. In the mid-2000s, DEA data revealed that
most of the plants destroyed under the program were "ditchweed,"
naturally growing marijuana plants that weren't being cultivated for any
particular use.
Last year in Utah, a member of an
eradication team testified that a medical marijuana law could lead to an
epidemic of stoned rabbits and other animals. The incidentbecame fodder for
late-night talk shows.
During a Utah Senate panel on a
bill that will allow certain patients to be treated with edible forms of
marijuana, special agent Matt Fairbanks warned of the environmental costs
associated marijuana cultivation on public land. (Utah State Legislature)
Even residents carrying licenses
in medical marijuana states can fall prey to the program. In a Massachusetts
raid last month, Procopio told the Daily Hampshire Gazette that 10 plants were
seized from a couple's back yard because they were not kept in an enclosed area
protected by a lock, as the statute requires. The growers, Patti Scutari and
Francesco Compagnone, dispute that, saying that their entire yard is surrounded
by a fence with a locked gate. Under Massachusetts law patients may grow as
many marijuana plants as necessary to meet their medical needs.
[The DEA spent $73,000 to
eradicate marijuana plants in Utah. It didn’t find any.]
This summer, a task force
consisting of National Guard troops and state troopers used a helicopter to aid
in seizing four marijuana plants from 81-year-old former cancer patient Paul
Jackson on Martha's Vineyard, according to the Martha's Vineyard Times. Like
Margaret Holcomb, Jackson didn't have a medical marijuana license.
"I figured what I was
growing was such a small amount, what the hell was the big deal?" Jackson
told the newspaper.
In 2014, marijuana eradicators in
Georgia raided a retiree's garden after mistaking okra for marijuana.
Margaret Holcomb's case is
providing additional fodder for critics of strict anti-marijuana enforcement,
particularly now since voters in Massachusetts will consider whether to
legalize the plant for recreational use this fall.
"This raid, and similar
raids in recent weeks, exposes the rank falsity of prohibitionist claims that
law enforcement resources aren't being used on marijuana enforcement,"
said Jim Borghesani of the group Yes on 4, which is running the campaign to
legalize marijuana in Massachusetts. "It's difficult to say what's worse:
the waste of taxpayer dollars or the violation of an elderly woman's
peace."
Efforts to reach the Campaign for
a Safe and Healthy Massachusetts, the group opposing legalization, were
unsuccessful.
Holcomb told the Gazette she is
considering simply growing another pot plant. "I don’t picture them out
here and putting an 81-year-old woman in jail," she said.
There is no end to how fucking stupid the Fairfax County Police Are
The case of Mohammad Weiss Rasool
shows why such infiltration is potentially dangerous.
The FBI busted Rasool, an Afghan
immigrant, for tipping off an al-Qaida terrorist suspect last decade while
working as a police officer for the Fairfax County Police Department outside
Washington and moonlighting for CAIR. He worked his way up to sergeant before
authorities realized they had an al-Qaida spy in their ranks.
According to a Justice Department
complaint filed in 2008, Rasool searched a national criminal database
containing names of terrorist suspects and confirmed that FBI agents were
tailing a Muslim friend of his from a local mosque.
When agents went to arrest the
target early one morning, they found him and his family already dressed and
destroying evidence. They knew they had a mole, and worked back through the
system to find Rasool.
That's when agents discovered the
cop had breached their database at least 15 times to look up names of other
contacts, including relatives, to see if they showed up on the federal
terrorist watch list.
Rasool's actions "damaged
the integrity of the NCIC system and jeopardized at least one federal
investigation," prosecutors said in federal court papers. "The
defendant's actions could have placed federal agents in danger."
Rasool at first claimed he didn't
know the terrorist target. He confessed only after hearing a recording of his
message for the suspect, Abdullah Alnoshan - a close associate of al-Qaida
cleric Anwar Awlaki, a local imam who had helped some of the 9/11 hijackers
obtain housing and ID's in Fairfax County.
Rasool finally pleaded guilty to
illegally searching a federal database.
According to the bestselling book
"Muslim Mafia," Rasool at the time worked closely with CAIR, which
lobbied on his behalf during his prosecution.
In fact, Rasool acted as CAIR's
liaison within the police department, and often met with CAIR officials at
CAIR's headquarters located just three blocks from the US Capitol.
A senior Fairfax County Police
Department official, who called Rasool "a traitor" who
"disgraced the uniform," said he was "deeply embedded with
CAIR."
"He was the spokesman to the
department for CAIR," the official explained in "Muslim Mafia."
Muslim Terrorists Infiltrating
Law Enforcement
by PAUL SPERRY
In an alarming trend, more and
more Muslim terrorists are infiltrating the ranks of security firms and police
departments, where they have acquired official IDs and uniforms to help gain
access to secure areas, as well as firearms and tactical training to help carry
out attacks.
Some jihadists posing as law
enforcement officers have also gained access to classified federal databases to
tip off other terrorist suspects under surveillance.
On Sept. 17, Somali-American Dahi
Adan wore a security guard uniform as he stabbed or slashed 10 people at a St.
Cloud, Minn., mall with a knife before he was shot and killed by an off-duty
police officer. Adan made at least one reference to Allah during the stabbings
and asked victims if they were Muslim before attacking. An ISIS affiliate
claimed Adan was a "soldier of the Islamic State."
Stockholm-based Securitas AB, a
security firm that provides security services to companies in more than 200
cities worldwide, confirmed that Adan worked through June as a guard for its US
division.
On the same day, Afghan-American
Ahmad Rahami allegedly detonated a pressure-cooker bomb in the Chelsea
neighborhood of New York that left 31 injured. A blood-soaked journal found on
Rahami after he was shot by police indicated he was carrying out
"jihad" against "nonbelievers" in their
"backyard."
Though Rahami was working for his
family restaurant at the time, he aspired to be a police officer, according to
friends and neighbors. He majored in criminal justice at Middlesex County
College in Edison, N.J. Rahami was enrolled there from 2010-2012 but did not
graduate.
Another Afghan-American
terrorist, Omar Mateen, was employed as a security guard for a major federal
security contractor this June, when he opened fire at an Orlando nightclub,
killing 49 people. He had been dismissed from training as a prison guard after
making threatening remarks, and ended up as a private security guard for G4S
Secure Solutions USA Inc., which maintains a $234 million contract with the
Department of Homeland Security.
Mateen was subject to a
background check and psychological test when he was recruited by G4S in 2007
and rescreened in 2013 with no adverse findings - even though he threatened to
kill a sheriff's deputy at the St. Lucie County Courthouse where he was
stationed as a security guard and had been placed on a terrorist watch list by
the FBI.
"Omar became very agitated
and made a comment that he could have al-Qaida kill my employee and his
family," St. Lucie County Sheriff Ken Mascara said. "If that wasn't
bad enough, he went on to say that the Fort Hood shooter was justified in his
actions."
As CounterJihad first reported,
the Jupiter, Fla.-based security contractor G4S also provides security guards
and other security services for "90 percent of U.S. nuclear
facilities."
In fact, G4S has the US Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) contract to run simulated Red Team terrorist
attacks on US nuclear plants and US nuclear weapons labs, CounterJihad has
learned. G4S is managing the exercises, and its armed guards are participating
in the force-on-force attacks, including mock terrorist strikes, which are
designed to identify weaknesses and vulnerabilities in nuclear security.
CounterJihad has also learned
that Senate investigators have been working with NRC's Nuclear Security and
Incident Response division to determine if there are other potential Mateens
working as security guards at America's nuclear facilities. A preliminary
review has found that dozens of other Middle Easterners have landed jobs with
nuclear reactor licensees as contract security guards - including a possible
relative of Mateen. Only further
scrutiny might identify insider threats among them.
It is far from an idle
concern. In a 2011 intelligence report,
Homeland Security warned that "violent extremists have, in fact, obtained
insider positions" at nuclear facilities.
Security experts fear opening nuclear security jobs to insufficiently
vetted Muslims like Mateen risks inviting jihadists to exploit weaknesses and
vulnerabilities in the security of US nuclear plants, as well as spent-fuel rod
repositories and even the federal nuclear weapons labs.
"ISIS has nuclear facilities
on their targeting radar, not only to secure fissile material for dirty bombs,
but also to exploit the inherent vulnerability presented by overfilled spent
fuel pools," said Brian F. Sullivan, retired FAA special agent, retired
Army lieutenant colonel in the military police corps and senior fellow at the
American Leadership and Policy Foundation.
"Europe is well aware of
this threat potential and the results could be devastating here in the United
States, where our government has totally dropped the ball," Sullivan added
in a recent interview with CounterJihad. He said radioactive fallout from dirty
nukes could render major US cities uninhabitable for years, if not decades.
Of increasing concern, meanwhile,
are the operatives the terrorist front group Council on American-Islamic
Relations is planting inside law enforcement agencies. CAIR is no friend of
police. The group has published and distributed posters advising Muslims not to
cooperate with FBI agents investigating terrorist suspects and to slam the door
in their faces.
In Florida, for example, the
Broward Sheriff's Office employs a senior CAIR official, even though CAIR has
been identified by the US Justice Department as a co-conspirator in funding
terrorism and is so closely tied to the Hamas terrorist group that the FBI has
banned CAIR from all its outreach activities nationwide.
Broward deputy sheriff Nezar
Hamze doubles as regional director for CAIR in Florida, where he pushes CAIR's
Islamist agenda and defends Islam against criticism it promotes terrorism, most
recently in the bloody wake of the Orlando terrorist attack by devout Muslim
Omar Mateen, whose radical mosque was defended by a CAIR lawyer.
Broward Sheriff Scott Israel, who
calls himself "Florida's most progressive sheriff," has ignored calls
for Hamze's removal from the force despite growing local protests.
Another CAIR executive, Khalid
Latif, infiltrated the NYPD as its Muslim chaplain. Reportedly, Latif led the
pilgrimage to Saudi Arabia that Mateen joined in 2012.
The
case of Mohammad Weiss Rasool shows why such infiltration is potentially
dangerous.
The
FBI busted Rasool, an Afghan immigrant, for tipping off an al-Qaida terrorist
suspect last decade while working as a police officer for the Fairfax County
Police Department outside Washington and moonlighting for CAIR. He worked his
way up to sergeant before authorities realized they had an al-Qaida spy in
their ranks.
According
to a Justice Department complaint filed in 2008, Rasool searched a national
criminal database containing names of terrorist suspects and confirmed that FBI
agents were tailing a Muslim friend of his from a local mosque.
When
agents went to arrest the target early one morning, they found him and his
family already dressed and destroying evidence. They knew they had a mole, and
worked back through the system to find Rasool.
That's
when agents discovered the cop had breached their database at least 15 times to
look up names of other contacts, including relatives, to see if they showed up
on the federal terrorist watch list.
Rasool's
actions "damaged the integrity of the NCIC system and jeopardized at least
one federal investigation," prosecutors said in federal court papers.
"The defendant's actions could have placed federal agents in danger."
Rasool
at first claimed he didn't know the terrorist target. He confessed only after
hearing a recording of his message for the suspect, Abdullah Alnoshan - a close
associate of al-Qaida cleric Anwar Awlaki, a local imam who had helped some of
the 9/11 hijackers obtain housing and ID's in Fairfax County.
Rasool
finally pleaded guilty to illegally searching a federal database.
According
to the bestselling book "Muslim Mafia," Rasool at the time worked
closely with CAIR, which lobbied on his behalf during his prosecution.
In
fact, Rasool acted as CAIR's liaison within the police department, and often
met with CAIR officials at CAIR's headquarters located just three blocks from
the US Capitol.
A
senior Fairfax County Police Department official, who called Rasool "a
traitor" who "disgraced the uniform," said he was "deeply
embedded with CAIR."
"He
was the spokesman to the department for CAIR," the official explained in
"Muslim Mafia."
The FBI has its own problems with
Islamist moles.
Consider the case of the Muslim FBI
agent in Los Angeles who allegedly compromised a multi-agency terrorism
investigation by tipping off the ringleader of a Pakistani-based terror cell
that the local Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) had under surveillance for
more than two years.
The "dirty" agent - an
Egyptian-American married to an Afghan woman - allegedly sabotaged several
investigations across the country, including ones in New York and Boston, that
tie back to the Taliban in Pakistan. According to "Muslim Mafia," he
not only tipped the terror cell leader off to a so-called "trash
cover" that investigators tried to execute outside his home in Los
Angeles, but also identified surveillance vehicles for the terrorist suspect.
After an internal FBI
investigation, the Muslim agent was reprimanded but not fired.
"The dirty FBI agent, my
JTTF counterpart, compromised by investigation as well as several other agency
investigations across the country," said a detective who works
counterterrorism intelligence for the LAPD. "The agent is embedded with
the bad guys and gave them critical information detailing the
investigations."
The LAPD source added: "The
FBI is covering it all up."
Bureau tolerance for such
betrayal by Muslim agents is not new.
Gamal Abdel-Hafiz, an
Egyptian-American and the first Muslim FBI agent, twice refused on religious
grounds to tape-record Muslim terrorist suspects under investigation, including
his friend Sami al-Arian, who was later convicted in spite of Abdel-Hafiz
gumming up the investigation.
In early 2001, then-FBI Director
Louis Freeh picked Abdel-Hafiz to become the FBI's deputy legal attache at the
U.S. Embassy in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia - a key post in the battle against
al-Qaida, which had hit American military barracks inside Saudi and a warship
in neighboring Yemen.
After 9/11, when 15 of the 19
hijackers turned out to be Saudi nationals, Abdel-Hafiz was in a prime position
to run down leads in the Saudi capital. Only, that didn't happen, at least not
as often as headquarters had hoped. Agents back in Washington complained about
his performance there, saying they were not getting answers to the hundreds of
leads they were sending him in Riyadh. Abdel-Hafiz says he was one of only two
people manning the office there and was further hobbled by an antiquated
computer system.
But he and his FBI boss Wilfred
Rattigan, a black convert to Islam, had still found time to travel to Mecca for
the annual pilgrimage, where they surrendered their FBI cell phones to Saudi
nationals and were out of contact with officials back in the U.S. who were
trying to ring them up about investigations into al-Qaida and 9/11. Both
Rattigan and Abdel-Hafiz wore traditional Muslim headgear and robes while on
the job in Saudi Arabia, further outraging fellow agents.
When a senior supervisor was sent
to the Riyadh office nearly a year after 9/11, she found secret documents
strewn all over the office, some even wedged between cabinets. She also found a
huge backlog of boxes each filled with three feet of paper containing secret,
time-sensitive leads. Much of the materials, including information on Saudi
airline pilots, had not been translated or reviewed.
It's anyone's guess how many
terror cases were compromised in the FBI's Saudi office.
The FBI tried to fire Abdel-Hafiz
in 2003 for insurance fraud and making false statements on his FBI application.
But his termination was overruled by a special panel convened to hear the case,
and he was reinstated. Reassigned to Dallas, Abdel-Hafiz recruited other
Muslims to join the FBI at Islamic conferences held by Muslim Brotherhood front
groups.
He finally retired last year,
after being placed in the bureau's post-adjudication risk management program,
or PARM, which stripped him of access to certain classified material. He now
works as a Homeland Security contractor advising on "countering violent
extremism," or CVE, the program the Obama administration started to
pretend Islam has nothing to do with terrorism.
Among other things, Abdel-Hafiz
argues against arresting young Muslim men who are being radicalized in order to
build "trust" in the Muslim community.
Hundreds of other Muslim FBI
agents, analysts, linguists and contractors have been subjected to additional
security screening under the PARM program. The investigations have been
prompted by concerns these FBI employees maintain family and other ties in the
Middle East, as well as Afghanistan and Pakistan, and could be coerced by
foreign spies or terrorist organizations to leak classified national security
information.
Cops mistake County Commission meeting for movie theater
Several Fairfax County Police officers out for evening for a "date night with the misses" mistook a board of supervisors meeting for movie theater that was said to be featuring "Broke Back Mountain"
"It was like a really like bad movie because all it was, was like guys talking, so like, we just made out instead"
In other news, the community and members of the Fairfax County Police attended a public forum to discuss police transparency in Fairfax County.
Have a problem with the Fairfax County Police? Form a useless public office as dressing!
It’s not about transparency, it’s
about hiring low brow, sub-par people as police officers.
It’s that simple.
Don’t force these clown to be transparent,
force them to hire a higher grade of human being.
It’s that simple.
Fairfax County: Supervisors
Approve Independent Police Auditor
Unanimous vote follows Ad Hoc
Commission recommendations for more transparency and oversight of Fairfax
County police.
Recent data released by Chief
Roessler shows that 40 percent of Fairfax County Police use of force incidents
involved African Americans while only 8 percent of county residents are African
American. Supervisor John Cook (R-Braddock) offered this as an example of
broader policy issues that the auditor could study.
By Tim Peterson
Supervisor Pat Herrity (center,
R-Springfieldt) expressed concern that an independent auditor position would
increase the police department’s administrative workload. He proposed funding
two additional positions in FCPD’s internal affairs bureau immediately, but
those positions will wait until 2018.
With a unanimous vote on Tuesday,
Sept. 20, the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors approved the creation of an
independent police auditor office, following recommendations from the Ad Hoc
Police Practices Review Commission.
Supervisor John Cook
(R-Braddock), chairman of the board’s Public Safety Committee, said the proposal
for auditor was true to the essence and “basic philosophical approach” of the
commission in calling for an impartial civilian who would review police
investigations as they’re occurring and report directly to the Board of
Supervisors.
“The auditor would be involved in
monitoring and making recommendations in the course of the police
investigations, a lot more efficient than waiting until the end,” Cook said.
“Police would receive real time comment back from the auditor’s office to help
strengthen those investigations.”
Board of Supervisors Chairman
Sharon Bulova established the 32-member commission following public outcry over
the August 2013 death of John Geer, 46. Geer was unarmed and standing in the
doorway of his Springfield home when he was shot and killed by FCPD officer
Adam Torres. The police and county refused to release information on the case
for more than a year, and then after court orders.
Torres, who was fired in July
2015 and indicted by a grand jury for murder in August 2015, was the first
Fairfax County Police officer in the history of the department to be charged in
such a death. Torres entered a guilty plea to involuntary manslaughter,
received credit for time served for his 12 month sentence and was released in
June.
THE AD HOC COMMISSION and its
five subcommittees met intensively beginning in March 2015, reporting to the
Board of Supervisors in October, 2015, with 142 recommendations, including the
recommendations to establish the Office of Independent Auditor.
“This has not been easy, that is
an understatement,” Bulova said. “It’s the first time we’ve established a
position such as this.”
It is the first independent,
civilian oversight of the Fairfax County Police.
The scope of the independent
auditor’s work will include reviewing all cases in which police use of force
result in serious injury or death, Cook said. The auditor would also review any
citizen complaint about police use of force even if it does not involve serious
injury or death.
Cook said the auditor would issue
an annual report, and that the auditor would also be available to engage in
policy and practice analysis regarding use of force, as suggested by the Board
of Supervisors, County Executive or Chief of Police.
For example, the auditor could
study and make recommendations concerning recent data released by Chief Edwin
Roessler about demographics of police use of force, Cook said. There were 539
use-of-force incidents in 2015 and data show that 40 percent of those incidents
involved African Americans while only 8 percent of county residents are African
American.
Cook also pointed out that,
unlike an ordinance or land use case, the board may make changes to the
independent auditor position in the future.
“If we pass this,” he said, “It
would not be shocking at all that auditor could come back and recommend we look
at a few adjustments” in the future.”
Commission member and Use of
Force subcommittee chair Phil Niedzielski-Eichner called today’s action “a
remarkable achievement for the commission’s work.” He acknowledged the vision
of the auditor was for a position that would be independent, but not separate,
from the police work.
“This gives the public a real
feeling of comfort,” said Randy Sayles of Oak Hill, a member of Use of Force
subcommittee, looking forward to use of force investigations with the auditor
on board, “of the integrity and transparency of the process.”
Commission member Adrian Steel of
McLean called the unanimous vote “quite affirming.” He also appreciated the
auditor being able to be involved in identifying trends and reviewing policy,
again getting back to the disproportionate percentage of African Americans
impacted by use of force incidents.
“The whole thought was for the
auditor to become involved in picking up these types of things,” he said.
Reston resident John Lovaas, an
alternate on the commission for Nicholas Beltrante with the Virginia Citizens
Coalition for Police Accountability, said he wasn’t happy with the way he
believed the supervisors deviated from the commission’s version of the
position.
“They eviscerated the
independence of the independent auditor,” Lovaas said, citing the auditor’s
dependence on cooperation from the police.
Other commission recommendations
that have already been approved include the establishment of the Diversion
First program providing treatment rather than jail for people in mental health
crisis and more transparency in police communications.
THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE will
discuss the creation of a Civilian Review Panel, a complementary oversight entity
to the auditor as proposed by the Ad Hoc Commission, at its next meeting,
scheduled for Oct. 25 at 1 p.m. at the Fairfax County Government Center.
A black police officer shot an armed black man
Bonnie Kristian, Rare Contributor
CHARLOTTE, N.C. -- A black police
officer shot an armed black man at an apartment complex Tuesday, authorities
said, prompting angry street protests late into the night and well into the
early morning hours.
The man’s family disputes the
police account, reports CBS Charlotte affiliate WBTV.
The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police
Department tweeted that demonstrators were destroying marked police vehicles
and that approximately 12 officers had been injured, including one who was hit
in the face with a rock. WBTV said 7 officers and a civilian were brought to an
area hospital.
Water bottles were also thrown.
Television coverage showed police firing tear gas to break up the crowd.
Arrests were kept to a minimum, the station said.
Early Wednesday, protesters made
their way to Interstate 85 and began throwing rocks at passing traffic,
prompting police to close the highway. WBTV tweeted:
WBTV tweeted that police formed a
line enabling traffic to get by, the road re-opened, and protesters moved to
another location.
Then came word that a Walmart had
been damaged by demonstrators.
In New York, police are seizing people’s stuff for no good reason
“Gr8 work 1×9 Conditions team,”
gloated a New York Police Department Twitter account this month. “Arrested a
male for a gravity knife and vouchered 18,000 dollars cash for forfeiture.”
In English, that means the NYPD
arrested a man for the dastardly crime of owning a small pocketknife—not
stabbing or even threatening anyone with it, just owning it—and then stole
$18,000 from him via civil asset forfeiture. As if to add insult to injury, the
tweet included a photo showing the knife, the cash, and the arrestee’s car
registration, with his name and address decipherable for the whole world to
see.
Two things are going on here, one
comparatively unique to New York City and one plaguing all of these United
States.
The unique part is the gravity
knife arrest. A true gravity knife is a very unusual weapon. Originally
developed for German paratroopers to use during World War II, gravity knives
have blades that fully retract into their handles. The name comes from the fact
that it could be opened by a soldier one-handed. The blades were as much as a
foot long—legitimately lethal stuff.
But NYC has a conveniently loose
interpretation of its gravity knife ban. Basically, no one in New York, except
perhaps a World War II buff, has a real gravity knife. But the NYPD considers
just about any pocketknife a gravity knife.
This serves as a dishonest
pretext for police to initiate confrontations with huge numbers of New Yorkers
who aren’t bothering anyone and don’t believe they’re breaking any laws. It’s
even illegal to possess these pocketknives in your own home, plus getting
caught with one can mean years in prison. And perhaps unsurprisingly given
NYC’s abysmal record on racial discrimination in stop-and-frisk encounters, the
gravity knife ban disproportionately affects minorities’ right to self-defense.
So that was the pretext for the
stop that led to this $18,000 confiscation. Thankfully, it isn’t likely to be
duplicated outside of New York City—but the confiscation itself easily could
be.
The money was taken under an
increasingly notorious policy called civil asset forfeiture, an insidious and
unconstitutional confiscation practice used by law enforcement at all levels of
American government, from local police all the way up to the FBI.
Not to put too fine a point on
it, but civil asset forfeiture infuriates me like nothing else.
It’s when police take your money
or stuff on the grounds that they find you (or even just someone you know)
suspicious. Once your property is confiscated, the burden of proof is on you,
not the cops, to demonstrate that the confiscated cash doesn’t have criminal
connections.
Because police don’t have to
charge you or present any evidence of illegal activity, you have no
constitutional protections. (The Sixth Amendment is interpreted to mean
everyone has a right to an attorney in court, but since your money is the
accused party, it doesn’t get Sixth Amendment rights.) In some jurisdictions,
you actually have to pay a fee just to be able to contest the seizure, let
alone to be certain your stuff will be returned.
So that $18,000 could have been
confiscated almost anywhere in America, because civil asset forfeiture is legal
in most states. It doesn’t matter that this man might have been carrying that
cash for a totally innocent reason.
Maybe he was buying a car or some
other big-ticket item off Craigslist. Maybe he owns acash-only restaurant or
other business and was taking earnings to the bank. Maybe it was a deposit on a
new home or other property.
Each of those is a real-life
example of innocent reasons Americans were carrying large sums of cash that
were essentially stolen by law enforcement. It’s hard to believe this could be
legal in a country that prides itself on freedom and individual rights, yet it
is.
But back to New York. It turns
out NYC has seized so much money from New Yorkers that the NYPD can’t even
count it all. Just attempting to collect all the data would crash the
department’s computers, the NYPD said.
One unjust confiscation case is
galling enough, but this is abuse of private property and individual liberty on
a grand scale. It is past time for civil asset forfeiture to go, and New York
is a great place to start.
An unusual campaign in Minnesota has attracted nationwide interest.
(Photo: Melanie Stetson Freeman/'The Christian
Science Monitor' via Getty Images)
SEP 18, 2016
Rebecca McCray is a staff writer
covering social justice. She is based in New York.
Sometimes it seems there are
almost as many suggestions for how to discourage police misconduct as there are
new headlines describing violent encounters between police and civilians.
Officer-worn body cameras, better data collection, decreasing police presence,
and reducing the use of military-grade equipment are just a few ideas that have
been floated or put into practice in the last several years as the names of
victims—Michael Brown, Sandra Bland, Walter Scott, and the latest, Tyre
King—continue to flood in.
One unusual suggestion surfaced
this year in Minneapolis, where a team of activists and community organizers
tried—and failed—to mandate professional liability insurance for police
officers. The campaign, which was organized by a group called the Committee for
Professional Policing, argued that if individuals were required to pay out of
pocket for the rising costs of premiums associated with their misconduct,
police would be less likely to engage in bad behavior.
“We as [Minneapolis] taxpayers
pay roughly $2.5 million per year for bad police misconduct,” the group’s
founder, Michelle Gross, told TakePart. “We started thinking there has to be a
better answer to this problem.”
The fatal shooting of Jamar Clark
by a Minneapolis police officer in March drew the nation’s eyes to Minnesota
and resulted in a Justice Department investigation. In June, the department
announced that it would decline to bring civil rights charges against the two
officers connected with Clark’s death. This was one of many disappointments
that led Gross and her fellow activists to believe a creative, systemic
approach was necessary to spark change.
After collecting 15,000
signatures for an initiative that would have put the police insurance amendment
on the city’s ballot—they only needed 5,000—Gross felt optimistic. In July,
City Attorney Susan Segal ruled the proposal would be illegal under state law.
The group appealed to the state Supreme Court, which upheld Segal’s ruling in
late August. Bob Kroll, president of the Police Officers Federation of
Minneapolis, the local union, was pleased with the court’s decision. “This was
a harebrained idea to begin with,” he said in an interview with TakePart.
To Stop Police Brutality, Do We
Need to Stop Policing?
“This widespread misconduct and
corruption that they talk about doesn’t exist,” Kroll continued, saying that he
believes Gross to be “mentally unstable.”
In spite of the initiative’s
major setback, the concept appeals to police reform advocates around the
country. Samuel Sinyangwe, a policy analyst who works with the anti–police
violence group Campaign Zero, told TakePart that liability insurance could be
“an important component of a broader systemic approach that…ensures
department-wide accountability.”
Sinyangwe points out that some
cities require misconduct settlements to come out ofpolice department budgets
rather than the city’s coffers, which imposes a greater burden on police. The
threat of financial liability on departments or individuals could discourage misconduct
more acutely than broader reforms, some advocates argue.
“Officers aren’t on the financial
hook right now,” said Seth Stoughton, a former Florida police officer turned
professor at the University of South Carolina School of Law. “More than 98 percent
of the time, a police union, department, or the city indemnifies litigation
costs that fall on individual officers.”
Though Gross said her campaign
consulted with insurance and legal experts when crafting the amendment, the
court’s ruling emphasizes how challenging it may be to mandate individual
liability insurance. Stoughton expressed concern that in practice, departments
or city agencies might continue to pay the rising costs of premiums as part of
an officer’s benefits package.
“I don’t know that it’s
politically feasible anywhere to prohibit agencies or municipalities from
paying those costs,” said Stoughton. Beyond political roadblocks, individual
officers aren’t likely to have the kind of money that might be required in a
court settlement, or even to shoulder premium costs. Still, Stoughton
emphasized that this kind of “experimental” campaign is a valuable approach to
addressing a long-standing problem in policing.
“This kind of out-of-the-box
thinking is what needs to happen, because we have a number of systemic or
structural issues that contribute to police problems,” he said.
Setbacks aside, Gross and her
team are moving forward with their campaign outside Minneapolis. Because city
charters vary greatly, they think they might have better luck pushing forward
an amendment in St. Paul or Bloomington. Gross said she is also consulting with
organizers in cities such as Las Vegas, Ferguson, Missouri, and Oakland,
California, where she said liability insurance campaigns are being considered.
“People talk about bad cops and
good cops,” said Gross. “This is about a bad system that validates bad policing
and allows it to go on. This would provide better protection for those officers
who do not engage in bad conduct.”
Here’s what we know about yet another police shooting to make national headlines.
Updated by German Lopez @germanrlopez
german.lopez@vox.com Sep 21, 2016, 1:45p
Terence Crutcher, a black
40-year-old man, was unarmed. He appeared to be cooperating with police, with
his hands up as they escorted him toward his car. Yet suddenly, in moments that
were largely obstructed in the videos released by the Tulsa Police Department
on Monday, an officer shot and killed Crutcher.
According to the local newspaper
Tulsa World, police were responding to an unrelated call on Friday, September
16, when they spotted Crutcher’s stalled car. We don’t know what happened when
police arrived at the scene. Instead, the videos begin as Crutcher is guided by
officers, one of whom is aiming her gun at him, slowly to his car. He has his
hands up during this time.
Police say that Crutcher then
failed to follow orders — leading officer Betty Shelby to fire her weapon and
officer Tyler Turnbough to use his Taser on Crutcher. By the looks of the
videos, the Taser and gun were seemingly fired almost simultaneously.
RelatedWhy police so often see
unarmed black men as threats
The videos — one a police
dashboard camera on the ground, another on a helicopter in the air — are
obstructed by officers and Crutcher’s car at the exact moment he was shot. That
makes it hard to discern whether Crutcher had his hands up right as Shelby
pulled the trigger.
But Crutcher had his hands up in
the air until at least the seconds before he was shot, and he appears —
although, again, it’s hard to say for sure — to put his hands on the roof of
his car right before the officer fired.
Police found no gun on Crutcher
or in his car.
Law enforcement reportedly found
PCP in Crutcher's car. An attorney for Shelby told Tulsa World that she thought
Crutcher was on drugs when she shot him. But that has no bearing on whether the
shooting was legally justified — unless Crutcher acted in a dangerous or
threatening manner before he was shot, which the video doesn't show.
A local investigation into the
shooting is currently underway. The US Department of Justice also opened an
independent investigation into the shooting.
The shooting has already inspired
strong condemnations from the Black Lives Matter movement, with activist and
New York Daily News columnist Shaun Kingcalling for the police officers
involved to be arrested. The shooting exemplifies yet another example of the
racial disparities in police use of force — showing that even when a black man
holds his hands up, he can still be at risk of getting shot and killed by the
police.
An analysis of the available FBI
data by Vox’s Dara Lind shows that US police kill black people at
disproportionate rates: They accounted for 31 percent of police killing victims
in 2012, even though they made up just 13 percent of the US population.
Although the data is incomplete, since it’s based on voluntary reports from
police agencies around the country, it highlights the vast disparities in how
police use force.
Black teens were 21 times as
likely as white teens to be shot and killed by police between 2010 and 2012,
according to a ProPublica analysis of the FBI data. ProPublica’s Ryan
Gabrielson, Ryann Grochowski Jones, and Eric Sagara reported: "One way of
appreciating that stark disparity, ProPublica’s analysis shows, is to calculate
how many more whites over those three years would have had to have been killed
for them to have been at equal risk. The number is jarring — 185, more than one
per week."
There have been several
high-profile police killings since 2014 involving black suspects. In Baltimore,
six police officers were indicted for the death of Freddie Gray while in police
custody. In North Charleston, South Carolina, Michael Slager was charged with
murder and fired from the police department after shooting Walter Scott, who
was fleeing and unarmed at the time. In Ferguson, Darren Wilson killed unarmed
18-year-old Michael Brown. In New York City, NYPD officer Daniel Pantaleo
killed Eric Garner by putting the unarmed 43-year-old black man in a chokehold.
BLACK TEENS WERE 21 TIMES AS
LIKELY AS WHITE TEENS TO BE SHOT AND KILLED BY POLICE BETWEEN 2010 AND 2012
One possible explanation for the
racial disparities: Police tend to patrol high-crime neighborhoods, which are
disproportionately black. That means they're going to be generally more likely
to initiate a policing action, from traffic stops to more serious arrests,
against a black person who lives in these areas. And all of these policing
actions carry a chance, however small, to escalate into a violent
confrontation.
That's not to say that higher
crime rates in black communities explain the entire racial disparity in police
shootings. A 2015 study by researcher Cody Ross found, "There is no
relationship between county-level racial bias in police shootings and crime
rates (even race-specific crime rates), meaning that the racial bias observed
in police shootings in this data set is not explainable as a response to
local-level crime rates." That suggests something else — such as,
potentially, racial bias — is going on.
One reason to believe racial bias
is a factor: Studies show that officers are quicker to shoot black suspects in
video game simulations. Josh Correll, a University of Colorado Boulder
psychology professor who conducted the research, said it’s possible the bias
could lead to even more skewed outcomes in the field. "In the very
situation in which [officers] most need their training," he said, "we
have some reason to believe that their training will be most likely to fail
them."
Part of the solution to potential
bias is better training that helps cops acknowledge and deal with their
potential subconscious prejudices. But critics also argue that more
accountability could help deter future brutality or excessive use of force,
since it would make it clear that there are consequences to the misuse and abuse
of police powers. Yet right now, lax legal standards make it difficult to
legally punish individual police officers for use of force, even when it might
be excessive.
Police only have to reasonably
perceive a threat to justify shooting
Legally, what most matters in
police shootings is whether police officers reasonably believed that their
lives were in immediate danger, not whether the shooting victim actually posed
a threat. So in the Crutcher case, the question is whether the officers
involved thought he reasonably posed an immediate threat to them or others —
and what exactly Crutcher did to warrant that.
In the 1980s, a pair of Supreme
Court decisions — Tennessee v. Garnerand Graham v. Connor — set up a framework
for determining when deadly force by cops is reasonable.
Constitutionally, "police
officers are allowed to shoot under two circumstances," David Klinger, a
University of Missouri St. Louis professor who studies use of force, told Vox’s
Lind. The first circumstance is "to protect their life or the life of
another innocent party" — what departments call the
"defense-of-life" standard. The second circumstance is to prevent a
suspect from escaping, but only if the officer has probable cause to think the
suspect poses a dangerous threat to others.
The logic behind the second
circumstance, Klinger said, comes from a Supreme Court decision called
Tennessee v. Garner. That case involved a pair of police officers who shot a
15-year-old boy as he fled from a burglary. (He’d stolen $10 and a purse from a
house.) The court ruled that cops couldn’t shoot every felon who tried to
escape. But, as Klinger said, "they basically say that the job of a cop is
to protect people from violence, and if you’ve got a violent person who’s fleeing,
you can shoot them to stop their flight."
THE KEY TO BOTH OF THE LEGAL
STANDARDS IS THAT IT DOESN’T MATTER WHETHER THERE IS AN ACTUAL THREAT WHEN
FORCE IS USED
The key to both of the legal
standards — defense of life and fleeing a violent felony — is that it doesn’t
matter whether there is an actual threat when force is used. Instead, what
matters is the officer’s "objectively reasonable" belief that there
is a threat.
That standard comes from the
other Supreme Court case that guides use-of-force decisions: Graham v. Connor.
This was a civil lawsuit brought by a man who’d survived his encounter with
police officers, but who’d been treated roughly, had his face shoved into the
hood of a car, and broken his foot — all while he was suffering a diabetic attack.
The court didn’t rule on whether
the officers’ treatment of him had been justified, but it did say that the
officers couldn’t justify their conduct just based on whether their intentions
were good. They had to demonstrate that their actions were "objectively
reasonable," given the circumstances and compared to what other police
officers might do.
What’s "objectively
reasonable" changes as the circumstances change. "One can’t just say,
'Because I could use deadly force 10 seconds ago, that means I can use deadly
force again now," Walter Katz, a California attorney who specializes in
oversight of law enforcement agencies, said.
In general, officers are given
lot of legal latitude to use force without fear of punishment. The intention
behind these legal standards is to give police officers leeway to make
split-second decisions to protect themselves and bystanders. And although
critics argue that these legal standards give law enforcement a license to kill
innocent or unarmed people, police officers say they are essential to their
safety.
For some critics, the question
isn’t what’s legally justified but rather what’s preventable. "We have to
get beyond what is legal and start focusing on what is preventable. Most are
preventable," Ronald Davis, a former police chief who heads the Justice
Department’s Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, told the
Washington Post. Police "need to stop chasing down suspects, hopping
fences, and landing on top of someone with a gun," he added. "When they
do that, they have no choice but to shoot."
Police rarely get prosecuted for
shootings
Police are very rarely prosecuted
for shootings — and not just because the law allows them wide latitude to use
force on the job. Sometimes the investigations fall onto the same police
department the officer is from, which creates major conflicts of interest.
Other times the only available evidence comes from eyewitnesses, who may not be
as trustworthy in the public eye as a police officer.
"There is a tendency to
believe an officer over a civilian, in terms of credibility," David
Rudovsky, a civil rights lawyer who co-wrote Prosecuting Misconduct: Law and
Litigation, told Amanda Taub for Vox. "And when an officer is on trial,
reasonable doubt has a lot of bite. A prosecutor needs a very strong case
before a jury will say that somebody who we generally trust to protect us has
so seriously crossed the line as to be subject to a conviction."
If police are charged, they’re
very rarely convicted. The National Police Misconduct Reporting Project
analyzed 3,238 criminal cases against police officers from April 2009 through
December 2010. They found that only 33 percent were convicted, and only 36
percent of officers who were convicted ended up serving prison sentences. Both
of those are about half the rate at which members of the public are convicted
or incarcerated.
The statistics suggest that it
would be a truly rare situation if the officer who shot and killed Crutcher was
convicted of a crime. But video could potentially make a difference — as it did
for prosecutors who pressed charges over the police shootings of Samuel DuBose
in Cincinnati, Walter Scott in North Charleston, South Carolina, and Laquan
McDonald in Chicago.
Say What Now? Police Officers Accidentally Record Themselves Making Up Criminal Charges Against Protester
September 19, 2016
It’s no secret that police
officers fake charges when dealing with protesters, but now there’s hard
evidence.
In a complaint filed U.S.
District Court for the District of Connecticut by the American Civil Liberties
Union of Connecticut, it’s alleged that that three state police troopers
violated a protester’s rights byy searching and detaining him, confiscating his
camera, and charging him with fabricated criminal infractions.
The whole incident was captured
on video.
via ACLU:
On behalf of Connecticut resident
Michael Picard, the ACLU-CT alleges that John Barone, Patrick Torneo, and John
Jacobi, all employed by the state police division of Connecticut’s Department
of Emergency Services and Public Protection, violated Picard’s First Amendment
rights to free speech and information and Fourth Amendment right against
warrantless seizure of his property.
On September 11, 2015, Picard was
protesting near a police DUI checkpoint in West Hartford. Barone approached him
under the pretext of public complaints and confiscated Picard’s legally-carried
pistol and pistol permit. Barone then claimed that filming the police is
illegal, and took Picard’s camera. Unbeknownst to the troopers, the camera was
recording when Barone brought it to Torneo’s cruiser. With the camera rolling,
the officers proceeded to: call a Hartford police officer to see if he or she
had any “grudges” against Picard; open an investigation of him in the police
database; and discuss a separate protest that he had organized at the state
capitol.
After Barone announced “we gotta
cover our ass,” either Torneo or Jacobi stated “let’s give him something,” and
the three settled on fabricating two criminal infraction tickets that they
issued to Picard. Torneo drove away with Picard’s camera on top of his cruiser,
upon which the camera fell onto the hood of the car, Torneo stopped, and Jacobi
returned the camera to Picard. In July of this year, the criminal charges
against Picard were dismissed in the Connecticut Superior Court.
“Police should be focused on
public safety, not punishing protesters and those who film public employees
working on a public street,” said ACLU-CT legal director Dan Barrett, who is
representing Picard in the lawsuit. “As the video shows, these police officers were
more concerned with thwarting Mr. Picard’s free speech and covering their
tracks than upholding the law.”
“Community members like me have a
right to film government officials doing their jobs in public, and we should be
able to protest without fearing political retribution from law enforcement,”
said Picard. “As an advocate for free speech, I’m deeply disappointed that
these police officers ignored my rights, particularly because two of the
troopers involved were supervisors who should be setting an example for others.
By seeking to hold these three police officers accountable, I hope that I can
prevent the same thing from happening to someone else.”
“The evidence clearly shows that
these police officers violated Mr. Picard’s rights,” said attorney Joseph R.
Sastre, who defended Picard against the criminal charges and is joining Barrett
to represent Picard in the civil case. “We are confident that the court will
agree, and we hope that it will send a strong message to police and the public
alike that enforcing the law means respecting free speech, not trampling on
it.”
1,000 to one the son of a bitch gets away with it
....1,000 to one is an expression, please
DO NOT SEND THE FAIRFAX COUNTY SWAT TEAM HERE TO KILL ME FOR GAMBLING
DO NOT SEND THE FAIRFAX COUNTY SWAT TEAM HERE TO KILL ME FOR GAMBLING
FOX 5's Marina Marraco reports.
WASHINGTON -
D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser said Monday that an officer involved in the deadly
shooting of a motorcyclist on Sunday morning was wearing a body camera, but did
not turn the camera on to record video footage until after the shooting took
place.
D.C.
police said Terrence Sterling of Fort Washington, Maryland was seen riding his
bike erratically near 17th and U Streets in Adams Morgan at around 4:30 a.m.
Sunday. About ten minutes later, Sterling wound up at 3rd and M Streets where
he was shot and killed.
However,
a witness to the shooting told FOX 5 about a different account of the incident.
Kandace Simms said she had just picked up a friend and was sitting in the
right-hand lane waiting at the traffic light at 3rd and M Streets.
"So
I pulled up to the light and I was there by myself for some time and some cars
were coming behind me, but then I saw a motorcycle come on the left of me and
then the police car blocked the motorcycle, so they kind of came at the same
exact time,” said Simms. “The motorcycle was trying to speed off and drive
away, but he couldn't because he was kind of caught in between the sidewalk at
the curb and the police car. So the police were trying to open the passenger
side door and he couldn't because the motorcycle was right there, and I guess
when he couldn't open the door, he rolled down his window and shot twice.”
Simms
said her windows were rolled down and she heard no commands coming from the
officer in the cruiser. She said she saw the motorcycle strike the cruiser
once.
“It
did, but that is because they blocked him,” she said. “The police car wasn't
right there when I pulled up."
According
to Simms, she believes the collision looked unavoidable.
On
Sunday morning, D.C. Police Assistant Chief Peter Newsham gave this account to
reporters.
"Officers
found the vehicle over here at the intersection of 3rd and M Streets,
Northwest, which is about a block north of New York Avenue,” he said. “They
were able to stop the vehicle. The person who was riding the motorcycle
attempted to flee and ended up striking the police car. At that point, shots
were fired. The victim was taken to a local hospital where he was pronounced
dead.”
According
to a D.C. Fire and EMS radio broadcast FOX 5 has been able to hear, Sterling
was shot in the neck.
At a
Monday afternoon news conference, Mayor Bowser said she called the victim’s
family to offer her condolences and revealed only the aftermath of the shooting
was captured on a police body camera.
"Our
preliminary review does not show any camera footage prior to the shooting
incident,” Bowser said.
Officers
wearing body cameras are under strict orders to turn them on as soon as they
begin an encounter with a member of the public.
D.C.
police said the officer involved in the shooting did not suffer serious
injuries and was placed on administrative leave.
Sterling,
31, had worked for more than a decade as an HVAC technician at a contracting
firm. Sterling's mother confirmed to FOX 5 Mayor Bowser had called the family
to extend her condolences. She would not say if their family had retained an
attorney.
Anyone
with information about the case is asked to contact police at 202-727-9099.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
