ARE BLACK VICTIMS OF POLICE BRUTALITY THE ONLY ONES THAT COUNT?
by Michael Medved
Townhall.com
August 5, 2009
Why do some victims of alleged police brutality merit more attention than others?
Why should the trivial inconvenience suffered by Professor Henry Louis Gates become an international obsession while major media outlets continue to ignore the disabling brain injuries of Christopher Harris?
Isn’t it obvious that the stark contrast in the treatment of the two cases by politicians and the press stems from the fact that Gates is black and Harris is white?
Harris is a 29-year-old from suburban Edmonds, Washington who had driven to downtown Seattle on Sunday night, May 10th. Unfortunately for him, police received reports that same evening of a bloody brawl in a bar that later spilled out onto the street. A female witness wrongly identified Harris (now acknowledged by all as an innocent bystander) as a participant in a knife fight, and two King County Sheriff’s deputies tried to approach him.
According to eyewitnesses, the deputies never identified themselves as law enforcement officers and in the darkness Harris didn’t recognize them as cops. Frightened by the encounter, he ran for several blocks as the determined deputies gave chase. Eventually, Harris slowed and stopped in front of the popular Cinerama movie theatre, at which point Deputy Matthew Paul lunged at him, knocking Harris off his feet and inadvertently slamming the back of his head against a concrete wall.
For several days, Harris failed to regain consciousness and his brain injuries may well leave him permanently disabled. More than two months after the tragic incident, his family’s attorney told the Seattle Times that "he has responded to some simple commands, and the family is hopeful they will be able to move him soon to a place where he can get more aggressive rehabilitative care."
Despite the grim outcome, prosecutors decided that no charges would be brought against the deputies involved. An official statement explained: "The law provides that an officer ‘shall not be held criminally liable for using force without malice and with a good faith belief that such an act is justifiable.’ Christopher Harris was identified by witnesses to officers as a suspect in a violent crime. He ran for several blocks after he was told to stop by uniformed officers. As the deputy caught up to him, the deputy used a standard takedown procedure. As a result, no criminal charge can be filed."
Prosecutors announced this seemingly reasonable decision just days after the celebrated "Beer Summit" at the White House brought together Professor Henry Louis Gates, Sergeant James Crowley and President Obama. The contrast in media treatment of the two episodes left a striking impression.
Christopher Harris spent weeks in a coma and may never resume a normal life, but his case drew scant protest and no national attention. The brief Crowley-Gates confrontation, on the other hand, produced no lasting damage and involved no use of force by either party, yet President of the United States and a host of other eager commentators leapt on the case as a damning symbol of police misconduct and prevalent racism.
There is, in fact, no evidence whatever that race played a role in the police response to Professor Gates. The Good Samaritan 9/11 caller who first contacted law enforcement never identified the suspect as black, and Sergeant Crowley has a long, distinguished record altogether untainted by any hint of racial bias. There’s no basis to assume that he would have treated Professor Gates any more leniently had the academic been white, just as there’s no basis to assume that Deputy Paul in Seattle would have treated Christopher Harris any more harshly had he been black.
In police work, mistakes and accidents happen even to the most skillful and dedicated officers. Some of those errors and mishaps may involve race, but it makes no more sense to claim that every harsh episode involving a black victim expresses racial hatred, than to assume that every time a white suspect gets off easily it’s because of racial preference.
The Harris case deserves consideration, but not as an example of police malfeasance; in fact, video of the fateful "takedown" (shot by a surveillance camera) suggests that the deputy never intended to inflict serious injury. But it’s still a useful reminder of the obvious fact that many (and perhaps most) victims of aggressive law enforcement tactics across the country are white, not black.
Why, then, does every famous, well-publicized episode of controversial police brutality involve an African-American (or, more rarely, a Latino) male?
It’s not because episodes involving white suspects never occur. It’s because those incidents never seem worthy of serious indignation or attention, because they fail to fit the familiar narrative of police racism so beloved by the media, politicians, and academics.
Which brings us back to the odd instance of the Crowley-Gates misunderstanding, and the ongoing efforts to place that six minute interchange (the time between first encounter and arrest) in a racial context.
It’s simply not true to say that the entire episode would have unfolded in exactly the same way had Professor Gates been white. Yes, Crowley might well have behaved the same way. But try to imagine another famous Harvard academic—a non-black academic --- responding to a cop at his front door, checking on a reported break-in and asking for ID. Would a white professor fly into a rage, instantly accusing the officer of bias and misconduct?
In this sense, race did play a crucial role in the incident after all, but not through any evidence of racial bias on the part of Sergeant Crowley. It was, rather, the racial obsession of Professor Gates that turned a routine visit from a by-the-book cop into a symbol of eternal oppression.
Yes, it’s possible to argue that Sergeant Crowley shouldn’t have asked for identification once he saw the professor in his own house, and maybe he should have laughed-off the insults and hysteria from Gates and walked away without making an arrest. Still, it’s possible to justify his actions every step of the way – but it’s not possible to respect the reactions of Professor Gates.
Again, imagine a white professor so clearly losing control of his emotions and blowing up at a cop who was simply trying to do his job. No one (no, not even the president, if he repeated the hideous mistake of getting drawn into the debate) would hesitate in criticizing a white homeowner in an identical situation.
Why, then, the near-universal public impulse to explain and excuse the behavior of Henry Louis Gates?
Offering those explanations and excuses with reference to the long history of strained relationships between cops and the black community still amounts to a double standard based on race: in this case, a famous black guy gets treated far more favorably than would a famous white guy in the same predicament.
And on the other side of the country, in liberal and enlightened Seattle, an unlucky white innocent named Christopher Harris sees his own potential grievances largely ignored because his case fails to fit the convenient, cherished, one-dimensional media template of black victimhood.
Wednesday, August 05, 2009
A MOTORIST'S WORST NIGHTMARE [CONTINUED]
Here are more details on the case in which four Florida cops tried to blame a woman for the accident one of them caused:
POLICE CAR CAMERAS DON’T LIE, BUT DID FLA. COPS?
By Kelli Kennedy
Associated Press
August 5, 2009
HOLLYWOOD, Fla. — Veteran Hollywood Police Officer Dewey Pressley said he hated lying. But if bending the truth a little would keep a fellow officer out of trouble, well, he was all for it.
A dashboard police camera video that surfaced recently showed Pressley chuckling as he wrote a fake police report, calling his creativity "a little Walt Disney" so another officer wouldn't get in trouble for rear-ending a 23-year-old woman's car in February.
Pressley and four others have been suspended with pay pending an investigation after video of the accident and the officers' attempt to cover it up became public last week, the latest Internet sensation in a line of unsettling police dashcam videos.
On the video, the officers, with calculating authority, are heard laughing about how drunk 23-year-old Alexandra Torrens-Vilas is and how they plan to "hang her out to dry" so the officer that hit her car doesn't get in trouble.
The accident occurred when Vilas had to unexpectedly stop her car. She said she was driving home from a party where she had found a stray cat, and it jumped out of the window. She got out of the car to chase the cat, and that's when officer Joel Francisco rammed the back of the car, she said.
February's crash was Francisco's seventh accident with a patrol car since 2000, according to personnel records.
Authorities said they gave Vilas a breathalyzer test, which showed she was about twice the legal drinking limit.
She admits having a few beers, but her attorney questioned the validity of the test, saying the same officer who gave it to her was the one who fudged the reports.
"I'm gonna tell you exactly how to word this so we can get him off the hook," Pressley says on the video. Later he remarks: "I don't like making things up ever because it's wrong but if I have to bend it a little to protect a cop I'm gonna."
In the report, Pressley wrote Vilas got in the left lane and slammed on the brakes and blamed her for the accident.
The state attorney's office is assisting Hollywood Police to determine whether charges will be brought against any of the officers.
Vilas' attorney Mark Gold, founder of the law firm The Ticket Clinic, said the officers committed perjury when they told the same story in a deposition under oath.
Vilas was charged with DUI and a traffic violation, but the state attorney's office dropped the charges, saying the video raised questions about the officers' account of the crash.
Vilas did spend two nights in jail and missed a semester at Georgetown University, where she is studying international economics, because she wasn't allowed to leave the state while free on bail.
"I was very shocked especially hearing the language they used," she said. "I was in disbelief that they would do so much to cover a fender bender."
Hollywood Police Chief Chadwick Wagner said ethics training has been a priority since he took over more than a year ago.
"I have personally installed integrity and ethics measures in practically ever scenario our employees confront daily," said Wagner, who promised swift action when the investigation is completed.
Broward County Public Defender Howard Finkelstein has called for the FBI or another outside agency to investigate the police department. Saying it was too shocking to keep from the public, Finkelstein gave the video to a lawyer's blog, which posted it to the Internet.
Other recent cases involving the officers under investigation are now being reviewed by the Broward public defender's office, Finkelstein said.
The agency has had a string of bungles in recent years. In 2007, four Hollywood police officers were convicted of protecting a heroin shipment they thought belonged to New York-based mobsters. Instead, it was an FBI sting and federal authorities said they could have nabbed more corrupt officers but department higher-ups alerted colleagues.
"The culture in that police department may be spawning that type of scandal on a regular basis that may not be caught on videotape," Finkelstein said.
According to the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics, as of 2003, 54 percent of police departments in cities with more than 250,000 people use in-car cameras.
The videos are considered public record in most states. Oklahoma amended a state law in 2005 to keep them private.
"Originally (dashboard cameras) were there to protect the cops against the citizens but nowadays it's to protect the citizens against the cops, too," said John Wesley Hall, president of National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers based in Washington D.C.
POLICE CAR CAMERAS DON’T LIE, BUT DID FLA. COPS?
By Kelli Kennedy
Associated Press
August 5, 2009
HOLLYWOOD, Fla. — Veteran Hollywood Police Officer Dewey Pressley said he hated lying. But if bending the truth a little would keep a fellow officer out of trouble, well, he was all for it.
A dashboard police camera video that surfaced recently showed Pressley chuckling as he wrote a fake police report, calling his creativity "a little Walt Disney" so another officer wouldn't get in trouble for rear-ending a 23-year-old woman's car in February.
Pressley and four others have been suspended with pay pending an investigation after video of the accident and the officers' attempt to cover it up became public last week, the latest Internet sensation in a line of unsettling police dashcam videos.
On the video, the officers, with calculating authority, are heard laughing about how drunk 23-year-old Alexandra Torrens-Vilas is and how they plan to "hang her out to dry" so the officer that hit her car doesn't get in trouble.
The accident occurred when Vilas had to unexpectedly stop her car. She said she was driving home from a party where she had found a stray cat, and it jumped out of the window. She got out of the car to chase the cat, and that's when officer Joel Francisco rammed the back of the car, she said.
February's crash was Francisco's seventh accident with a patrol car since 2000, according to personnel records.
Authorities said they gave Vilas a breathalyzer test, which showed she was about twice the legal drinking limit.
She admits having a few beers, but her attorney questioned the validity of the test, saying the same officer who gave it to her was the one who fudged the reports.
"I'm gonna tell you exactly how to word this so we can get him off the hook," Pressley says on the video. Later he remarks: "I don't like making things up ever because it's wrong but if I have to bend it a little to protect a cop I'm gonna."
In the report, Pressley wrote Vilas got in the left lane and slammed on the brakes and blamed her for the accident.
The state attorney's office is assisting Hollywood Police to determine whether charges will be brought against any of the officers.
Vilas' attorney Mark Gold, founder of the law firm The Ticket Clinic, said the officers committed perjury when they told the same story in a deposition under oath.
Vilas was charged with DUI and a traffic violation, but the state attorney's office dropped the charges, saying the video raised questions about the officers' account of the crash.
Vilas did spend two nights in jail and missed a semester at Georgetown University, where she is studying international economics, because she wasn't allowed to leave the state while free on bail.
"I was very shocked especially hearing the language they used," she said. "I was in disbelief that they would do so much to cover a fender bender."
Hollywood Police Chief Chadwick Wagner said ethics training has been a priority since he took over more than a year ago.
"I have personally installed integrity and ethics measures in practically ever scenario our employees confront daily," said Wagner, who promised swift action when the investigation is completed.
Broward County Public Defender Howard Finkelstein has called for the FBI or another outside agency to investigate the police department. Saying it was too shocking to keep from the public, Finkelstein gave the video to a lawyer's blog, which posted it to the Internet.
Other recent cases involving the officers under investigation are now being reviewed by the Broward public defender's office, Finkelstein said.
The agency has had a string of bungles in recent years. In 2007, four Hollywood police officers were convicted of protecting a heroin shipment they thought belonged to New York-based mobsters. Instead, it was an FBI sting and federal authorities said they could have nabbed more corrupt officers but department higher-ups alerted colleagues.
"The culture in that police department may be spawning that type of scandal on a regular basis that may not be caught on videotape," Finkelstein said.
According to the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics, as of 2003, 54 percent of police departments in cities with more than 250,000 people use in-car cameras.
The videos are considered public record in most states. Oklahoma amended a state law in 2005 to keep them private.
"Originally (dashboard cameras) were there to protect the cops against the citizens but nowadays it's to protect the citizens against the cops, too," said John Wesley Hall, president of National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers based in Washington D.C.
ANOTHER OBAMA ADMINISTRATION HIT AGAINST ISRAEL
US INSISTS ISRAEL LET ARABS SQUAT IN JERUSALEM
Israel Today Staff
August 5, 2009
The Obama Administration on Tuesday officially registered its displeasure with Israel over the eviction of two Arab families who were illegally squatting in a Jewish-owned building on the eastern side of Jerusalem.
The rebuke was delivered to Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren a day after US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told reporters she viewed the eviction as "deeply regrettable" and "provocative."
Clinton claimed that by enforcing property rights in Jerusalem, Israel was violating its peace obligations. Many Israelis now see the Obama Administration as fully siding with the Arabs in their demand that the entire eastern half of Jerusalem must be surrendered to Palestinian control.
The building in question was originally owned by the Sephardic Jewish community in Jerusalem dating back to the 19th century. The property was abandoned when local Arabs increased the frequency of their attacks on Jews in the run-up to Israel's reestablishment in the 1920s and 1930s. When Jordan illegally occupied the eastern half of Jerusalem in 1948, it took control of the building and allowed Arab families to move in.
The Arab families were able to stay in the building after Israel reunited Jerusalem under its control in 1967 since no one connected to the original owners came forward. But a few years ago, representatives of the original Jewish owners began petitioning Israeli courts to have the Arab squatters thrown out.
This week, the court finally ruled in favor of the Jewish owners, acknowledging their proof of ownership, and ordered police to remove the squatters.
Israel Today Staff
August 5, 2009
The Obama Administration on Tuesday officially registered its displeasure with Israel over the eviction of two Arab families who were illegally squatting in a Jewish-owned building on the eastern side of Jerusalem.
The rebuke was delivered to Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren a day after US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told reporters she viewed the eviction as "deeply regrettable" and "provocative."
Clinton claimed that by enforcing property rights in Jerusalem, Israel was violating its peace obligations. Many Israelis now see the Obama Administration as fully siding with the Arabs in their demand that the entire eastern half of Jerusalem must be surrendered to Palestinian control.
The building in question was originally owned by the Sephardic Jewish community in Jerusalem dating back to the 19th century. The property was abandoned when local Arabs increased the frequency of their attacks on Jews in the run-up to Israel's reestablishment in the 1920s and 1930s. When Jordan illegally occupied the eastern half of Jerusalem in 1948, it took control of the building and allowed Arab families to move in.
The Arab families were able to stay in the building after Israel reunited Jerusalem under its control in 1967 since no one connected to the original owners came forward. But a few years ago, representatives of the original Jewish owners began petitioning Israeli courts to have the Arab squatters thrown out.
This week, the court finally ruled in favor of the Jewish owners, acknowledging their proof of ownership, and ordered police to remove the squatters.
COMMUNICATION SKILLS
SPAGHETTI
For several years, a man was having an affair with an Italian woman. One night, she confided in him that she was pregnant.
Not wanting to ruin his reputation or his marriage, he paid her a large sum of money if she would go to Italy to secretly have the child. If she stayed in Italy to raise the child, he would also provide child support until the child turned 18.
She agreed, but asked how he would know when the baby was born.
To keep it discrete, he told her to simply mail him a post card, and write 'Spaghetti' on the back. He would then arrange for the child support payments to begin.
One day, about 9 months later, he came home to his confused wife. 'Honey,' she said, 'You received a very strange post card today.'
'Oh, just give it to me and I'll explain it later,' he said. The wife obeyed and watched as her husband read the card, turned white,and fainted.
On the card was written:
'Spaghetti, Spaghetti, Spaghetti, Spaghetti, Spaghetti. Three with meatballs, two without. Send extra sauce.'
For several years, a man was having an affair with an Italian woman. One night, she confided in him that she was pregnant.
Not wanting to ruin his reputation or his marriage, he paid her a large sum of money if she would go to Italy to secretly have the child. If she stayed in Italy to raise the child, he would also provide child support until the child turned 18.
She agreed, but asked how he would know when the baby was born.
To keep it discrete, he told her to simply mail him a post card, and write 'Spaghetti' on the back. He would then arrange for the child support payments to begin.
One day, about 9 months later, he came home to his confused wife. 'Honey,' she said, 'You received a very strange post card today.'
'Oh, just give it to me and I'll explain it later,' he said. The wife obeyed and watched as her husband read the card, turned white,and fainted.
On the card was written:
'Spaghetti, Spaghetti, Spaghetti, Spaghetti, Spaghetti. Three with meatballs, two without. Send extra sauce.'
Tuesday, August 04, 2009
A MOTORIST'S WORST NIGHTMARE
I have always maintained that a motorist’s worst nightmare is a traffic collision with a police car. No matter who is at fault, the motorist usually gets fucked. Even when it appears obvious that the officer caused the collision, it is most unlikely that the traffic accident investigation report will show the cop at fault. How come? That’s easy – cops look out for each other.
To avoid this problem, my department’s written policy was that it would not investigate any traffic accidents involving one of our police cars, turning that job over to the California Highway Patrol. Even when the CHP officer personally knew our officer, the motorist was not likely get blamed if he was not at fault.
In most accidents involving police cars, the officer is not at fault! However, because I love police officers, it pains me to say this - every day, throughout the country, some poor slob is going to get blamed for colliding with a police car when it was the cop who was at fault. And a motorist is likely to get blamed if he has an accident with an off-duty cop even though the accident was not his fault
Long ago, I saw a training film that showed a Miami motorcycle officer arriving at the scene of a traffic accident in which another Miami officer had run into a motor vehicle with his police car. Because it was obvious from the get go that the officer had failed to yield the right of way, the motorcycle cop berated his fellow officer in front of a crowd that had gathered. That was a training film , not real life.
Now we have four Miami cops caught on their own dashboard camera conspiring to place the blame on a woman when a police car driven by one of those officers crashed into the back of her car. Incidents like that garner nothing but disrespect for the police! Here is the story of that Miami police conspiracy:
CHARGES DROPPED AGAINST WOMAN FRAMED BY COPS
By Todd Wright
NBCMIAMI.com
July 30, 2009
Alexandra Torrensvilas was the target of cops who pinned a DUI on her for an accident they caused. Now she has been cleared of charges after the Broward State Attorney's Office officially dropped the four DUI citations on Wednesday.
But the saga is far from over as now prosecutors turn their attention to the four Hollywood police officers who made up an intricate story to cover for a February traffic accident involving a cop car. The scheme was caught on one of the officers dashboard cameras.
The disturbing video shows Alexandra Torrensvilas, 23, handcuffed in the back of the squad car as the officers get their stories straight on what they are going to say happened.
Officer Joel Francisco, 36, an 11-year veteran, crashed into the back of Torrensvilas' vehicle at a light on February 17 at midnight. The cop radioed to other officers who converged on the scene and hatched a way to bail Francisco out.
Officer Dewey Pressley, 42, arrives and questions Torrensvilas, who tells him that she has been drinking. The 21-year veteran officer seizes the opportunity and arrests her for DUI. But the plot thickens from there.
The cops begin to brainstorm believable excuses for the accident.
"As far as I'm concerned. I'm going to put words in his mouth. She went to accelerate and a cat jumped out of the window at which point he thought it could have been a pedestrian, which distracted him," Pressley tells Sgt. Andrew Diaz, another veteran of the force. "I mean what's the chances of hitting a f---in drunk when a cat jumps out of the window?"
Still, the cops run with the half-baked idea and rush to get Torrensvilas to do a Breathalyzer test so they can officially say she was drunk.
"I nailed her on the video. I already hung her on video. She said she has been doing a beer party," Pressley says. "She's gonna blow."
Then, another cop debates with Pressley on who is going to write up the fabricated report to clear their police comrade.
"I know how I'm going to word this with the cat so we can get him off the hook. I'll write the narrative," Pressley says. "We're going to bend this a little bit."
Civilian Community Service Officer Karim Thomas joins the three senior officers and the four cops go so far as to change the angle of pictures of the accident to make it look like Torrensvilas swerved in front of the cop car and caused the accident, not Francisco.
Throughout the tape, the cops acknowledged what they are doing is illegal, but when you are the law, there is nothing wrong with bending it for a fellow cop, one says.
"I don't lie and make things up ever because it's wrong, but if I need to bend it a little bit to protect a cop, I'll do it," Pressley tells Francisco after reassuring him no one will ever find out. "She's freaking hammered anyway."
The cops even do a final rehearsal before Villa is taken to the city lock up.
"We'll take care of it," one officer says. The others reply: "We're good."
The police officers are currently on administrative duty pending a state attorney's office investigation.
To avoid this problem, my department’s written policy was that it would not investigate any traffic accidents involving one of our police cars, turning that job over to the California Highway Patrol. Even when the CHP officer personally knew our officer, the motorist was not likely get blamed if he was not at fault.
In most accidents involving police cars, the officer is not at fault! However, because I love police officers, it pains me to say this - every day, throughout the country, some poor slob is going to get blamed for colliding with a police car when it was the cop who was at fault. And a motorist is likely to get blamed if he has an accident with an off-duty cop even though the accident was not his fault
Long ago, I saw a training film that showed a Miami motorcycle officer arriving at the scene of a traffic accident in which another Miami officer had run into a motor vehicle with his police car. Because it was obvious from the get go that the officer had failed to yield the right of way, the motorcycle cop berated his fellow officer in front of a crowd that had gathered. That was a training film , not real life.
Now we have four Miami cops caught on their own dashboard camera conspiring to place the blame on a woman when a police car driven by one of those officers crashed into the back of her car. Incidents like that garner nothing but disrespect for the police! Here is the story of that Miami police conspiracy:
CHARGES DROPPED AGAINST WOMAN FRAMED BY COPS
By Todd Wright
NBCMIAMI.com
July 30, 2009
Alexandra Torrensvilas was the target of cops who pinned a DUI on her for an accident they caused. Now she has been cleared of charges after the Broward State Attorney's Office officially dropped the four DUI citations on Wednesday.
But the saga is far from over as now prosecutors turn their attention to the four Hollywood police officers who made up an intricate story to cover for a February traffic accident involving a cop car. The scheme was caught on one of the officers dashboard cameras.
The disturbing video shows Alexandra Torrensvilas, 23, handcuffed in the back of the squad car as the officers get their stories straight on what they are going to say happened.
Officer Joel Francisco, 36, an 11-year veteran, crashed into the back of Torrensvilas' vehicle at a light on February 17 at midnight. The cop radioed to other officers who converged on the scene and hatched a way to bail Francisco out.
Officer Dewey Pressley, 42, arrives and questions Torrensvilas, who tells him that she has been drinking. The 21-year veteran officer seizes the opportunity and arrests her for DUI. But the plot thickens from there.
The cops begin to brainstorm believable excuses for the accident.
"As far as I'm concerned. I'm going to put words in his mouth. She went to accelerate and a cat jumped out of the window at which point he thought it could have been a pedestrian, which distracted him," Pressley tells Sgt. Andrew Diaz, another veteran of the force. "I mean what's the chances of hitting a f---in drunk when a cat jumps out of the window?"
Still, the cops run with the half-baked idea and rush to get Torrensvilas to do a Breathalyzer test so they can officially say she was drunk.
"I nailed her on the video. I already hung her on video. She said she has been doing a beer party," Pressley says. "She's gonna blow."
Then, another cop debates with Pressley on who is going to write up the fabricated report to clear their police comrade.
"I know how I'm going to word this with the cat so we can get him off the hook. I'll write the narrative," Pressley says. "We're going to bend this a little bit."
Civilian Community Service Officer Karim Thomas joins the three senior officers and the four cops go so far as to change the angle of pictures of the accident to make it look like Torrensvilas swerved in front of the cop car and caused the accident, not Francisco.
Throughout the tape, the cops acknowledged what they are doing is illegal, but when you are the law, there is nothing wrong with bending it for a fellow cop, one says.
"I don't lie and make things up ever because it's wrong, but if I need to bend it a little bit to protect a cop, I'll do it," Pressley tells Francisco after reassuring him no one will ever find out. "She's freaking hammered anyway."
The cops even do a final rehearsal before Villa is taken to the city lock up.
"We'll take care of it," one officer says. The others reply: "We're good."
The police officers are currently on administrative duty pending a state attorney's office investigation.
Monday, August 03, 2009
LIBERALS DEBUNKED ON CRIME
"The Real Murder Mystery? It’s the Low Crime Rate," a report by Shaila Dewan in the August 1 issue of The New York Times, debunked the long-held belief by liberals that (1) misery and poverty are the root causes of crime and (2) that better education and higher incomes are necessary to reduce crime. The article also debunked the conservative belief that longer prison sentences will bring crime down.
Dewan reported on the decline in major crimes for the first half of 2009 which flew in the face of dire predictions that the severe economic downturn would lead to a sharp increase in crime. Here are a few excerpts from the Times story:
The surprise is yet more proof that tea leaves and sun spots may be a better predictor of crime rates than criminologists and the police.
— experts are largely at a loss to explain what makes the crime rate go up or down.
While the decline may not have taken hold in the minds of the public, it has undermined a cherished belief, particularly among liberals, in root causes — that criminals are born of misery and the limited options of poverty. "There are people that are putting up with an awful lot of suffering, and they’re not complaining all that much," said Andrew Karmen, a criminologist at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York.
But the fact that so few forces have a demonstrable effect on crime can be viewed, in a twisted kind of way, as good news. The decline, [University of California law professor Franklin E.] Zimring said, has shown that it isn’t necessary to accomplish major feats, like improving education or raising wages, or punitive ones, like increasing prison sentences, to bring crime down. Smart policing can have an effect.
Dewan reported on the decline in major crimes for the first half of 2009 which flew in the face of dire predictions that the severe economic downturn would lead to a sharp increase in crime. Here are a few excerpts from the Times story:
The surprise is yet more proof that tea leaves and sun spots may be a better predictor of crime rates than criminologists and the police.
— experts are largely at a loss to explain what makes the crime rate go up or down.
While the decline may not have taken hold in the minds of the public, it has undermined a cherished belief, particularly among liberals, in root causes — that criminals are born of misery and the limited options of poverty. "There are people that are putting up with an awful lot of suffering, and they’re not complaining all that much," said Andrew Karmen, a criminologist at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York.
But the fact that so few forces have a demonstrable effect on crime can be viewed, in a twisted kind of way, as good news. The decline, [University of California law professor Franklin E.] Zimring said, has shown that it isn’t necessary to accomplish major feats, like improving education or raising wages, or punitive ones, like increasing prison sentences, to bring crime down. Smart policing can have an effect.
IT'S WHAT LAWYERS DO
GREAT PICKUP LINE
After having downed a few power drinks while sitting at the bar, the beautiful blonde turned around, looked him straight in the eye and said, 'Listen here handsome, I screw anybody, any time, anywhere, your place, my place, in the car, front door, back door, on the ground, standing up, sitting down, naked or with clothes on, dirty, clean ... It doesn't matter to me.’
She continued, ‘I've been doing it ever since I got out of college and I just love it.'
Eyes now wide open with interest, he responded,
'No kidding. I'm a lawyer too. What firm are you with?'
After having downed a few power drinks while sitting at the bar, the beautiful blonde turned around, looked him straight in the eye and said, 'Listen here handsome, I screw anybody, any time, anywhere, your place, my place, in the car, front door, back door, on the ground, standing up, sitting down, naked or with clothes on, dirty, clean ... It doesn't matter to me.’
She continued, ‘I've been doing it ever since I got out of college and I just love it.'
Eyes now wide open with interest, he responded,
'No kidding. I'm a lawyer too. What firm are you with?'
Sunday, August 02, 2009
RACIAL PROFILING AS EFFECTIVE POLICE WORK
This story goes right along with my posting of "Racial Profiling By Police Not Altogether Bad" (8-1-09).
[For the uninitiated, the word "collar" is East Cost cop slang for an arrest.]
I WAS A RACIAL PROFILER: EX-COP SAYS HE USED SKIN COLOR TO MAKE ARRESTS
By Jake Mcnicholas
New York Daily News
August 2, 2009
I'm retired now after a wonderful career with the New York City Police Department, and I have a confession to make.
I used a person's race to initiate investigations and make subsequent arrests. In fact, according to the definition bandied about by those on the left who have no idea what they are talking about nor a clue when it comes to police work, I was - yes - a racial profiler.
A little background. I was a detective, a third generation member of the greatest police department in the world, descendant of my grandfather who sailed from the west of Ireland and then served as a cop for 35 years. My dad, the man I most admire, is a retired first grade detective who put in 33.
In November 1992 I was transferred to Manhattan North Narcotics. We covered the precincts north of 59th St. but rarely did enforcement south of 96th St.
I never had a better time in my life than my early years in Manhattan North. I worked with the greatest guys in the world and had more laughs than you could imagine. I went to war with these guys and gals, white, black, Hispanic.
Put it this way. When you were up there during this time, you didn't want to take off or go on vacation and miss something. There was nothing worse than coming back to work and have some guy say, "Wow, you should have been here yesterday."
I spent a lot of time in Washington Heights during those years, working narcotics in the confines of the 30th Precinct. It was a busy place with loads of illegal drug activity - dealing on the street and in residential buildings outfitted and barricaded as drug spots. We made arrests, thousands of arrests, and here is one of the ways the white cops and Hispanic cops and black cops did it.
We looked for white people.
That's all you really had to do. Cruise Broadway or Amsterdam Ave. or Riverside Drive in an unmarked car, spot the white guy driving the vehicle with the Jersey plate slow and deliberate, watch him park and shuffle to the sale location, watch him walk back to the vehicle with the pep in his step shortly thereafter and bingo. Most times you had a collar.
That's what you were paying us for, wasn't it? The good people of Washington Heights have a right to live in a neighborhood free of cretins driving over the George Washington Bridge to Manhattan for the sole purpose of buying drugs, don't they?
Is that not good police work? Of course it is.
So please, ponder this for a moment. Who do you think is terrorizing the black community? Who do you think is raping and assaulting young black women? Who do you think is pulling out the nine and shooting young male blacks on the corner over a bag of Cheez Doodles and a Philly blunt?
Pause and ask yourself why do you think more blacks and Hispanics are stopped? Because, you guessed it, they are the ones committing the crimes and fitting the description. The Police Department is not making this up. This is the horrible truth. The carnage is appalling, and rather than address the real issue, liberals and civil rights leaders make excuses and ignore the facts.
Now the left is all worked up over a cop responding to a 911 call of a burglary in progress and the resulting collar. Henry Louis Gates Jr. is a Harvard professor. How about this novel approach, "Certainly, here's my ID and thanks for the quick response Sergeant."?
But here is the most profoundly sad part about it all. Even after Thursday's "beer summit," this will be an issue for months, a ridiculous issue. And all the while the body count from black-on-black crime will continue to rise.
---------
McNicholas served with the NYPD from 1985 to 2007, retiring as a first grade detective from the terrorist interdiction unit of the Intelligence Division.
[For the uninitiated, the word "collar" is East Cost cop slang for an arrest.]
I WAS A RACIAL PROFILER: EX-COP SAYS HE USED SKIN COLOR TO MAKE ARRESTS
By Jake Mcnicholas
New York Daily News
August 2, 2009
I'm retired now after a wonderful career with the New York City Police Department, and I have a confession to make.
I used a person's race to initiate investigations and make subsequent arrests. In fact, according to the definition bandied about by those on the left who have no idea what they are talking about nor a clue when it comes to police work, I was - yes - a racial profiler.
A little background. I was a detective, a third generation member of the greatest police department in the world, descendant of my grandfather who sailed from the west of Ireland and then served as a cop for 35 years. My dad, the man I most admire, is a retired first grade detective who put in 33.
In November 1992 I was transferred to Manhattan North Narcotics. We covered the precincts north of 59th St. but rarely did enforcement south of 96th St.
I never had a better time in my life than my early years in Manhattan North. I worked with the greatest guys in the world and had more laughs than you could imagine. I went to war with these guys and gals, white, black, Hispanic.
Put it this way. When you were up there during this time, you didn't want to take off or go on vacation and miss something. There was nothing worse than coming back to work and have some guy say, "Wow, you should have been here yesterday."
I spent a lot of time in Washington Heights during those years, working narcotics in the confines of the 30th Precinct. It was a busy place with loads of illegal drug activity - dealing on the street and in residential buildings outfitted and barricaded as drug spots. We made arrests, thousands of arrests, and here is one of the ways the white cops and Hispanic cops and black cops did it.
We looked for white people.
That's all you really had to do. Cruise Broadway or Amsterdam Ave. or Riverside Drive in an unmarked car, spot the white guy driving the vehicle with the Jersey plate slow and deliberate, watch him park and shuffle to the sale location, watch him walk back to the vehicle with the pep in his step shortly thereafter and bingo. Most times you had a collar.
That's what you were paying us for, wasn't it? The good people of Washington Heights have a right to live in a neighborhood free of cretins driving over the George Washington Bridge to Manhattan for the sole purpose of buying drugs, don't they?
Is that not good police work? Of course it is.
So please, ponder this for a moment. Who do you think is terrorizing the black community? Who do you think is raping and assaulting young black women? Who do you think is pulling out the nine and shooting young male blacks on the corner over a bag of Cheez Doodles and a Philly blunt?
Pause and ask yourself why do you think more blacks and Hispanics are stopped? Because, you guessed it, they are the ones committing the crimes and fitting the description. The Police Department is not making this up. This is the horrible truth. The carnage is appalling, and rather than address the real issue, liberals and civil rights leaders make excuses and ignore the facts.
Now the left is all worked up over a cop responding to a 911 call of a burglary in progress and the resulting collar. Henry Louis Gates Jr. is a Harvard professor. How about this novel approach, "Certainly, here's my ID and thanks for the quick response Sergeant."?
But here is the most profoundly sad part about it all. Even after Thursday's "beer summit," this will be an issue for months, a ridiculous issue. And all the while the body count from black-on-black crime will continue to rise.
---------
McNicholas served with the NYPD from 1985 to 2007, retiring as a first grade detective from the terrorist interdiction unit of the Intelligence Division.
THE PRESIDENT AND THE WHITE DEVILS
HOW OBAMA AND HENRY "YO MAMA" GATES CAN WOO BACK THE "WHITE DEVILS"
by Doug Giles
Townhall.com
August 2, 2009
If Rodney King’s dream of us "all just gettin’ along" is going to come to pass then Obama and Henry "Yo Mama" Gates, Jr. had better dial down on the insults, faux remorse and racial rhetoric aimed at us white devils.
Yep, the generational wounds of discrimination will not heal with Obama calling one of our nation’s best and brightest fair-skinned cops "stupid."
FYI to BHO: That kind of talk, thoughtlessly slurring one of our finer whiteys’ intelligence, will leave a negative mark on our Caucasian consciousness. You can say we can’t jump, or we can’t dance, but you cannot call one of our tribe stupid when, in reality, the guy was just doing his job in an excellent manner while apprehending one of your belligerent, bigoted buddies (I wonder when/if we’ll ever hear the details of Gates’ conversation with Crowley’s superiors the night of Skip’s arrest? That would be interesting, eh?)
You’ve got to work with us white folk, Barack. We’re pretty easy. If you make a completely goofy and racial statement in a moment of flamboyant ignorance, all you have to do is say you screwed up, you’re sorry and that you’ll watch a Leave It to Beaver marathon as penance for jamming your foot into your mouth all the way down to your hip. And you know what? We Anglo Saxons will forgive and forget your foible and go on our merry way shopping at Pottery Barn, eating at the Olive Garden and watching Regis and Kelly (They’re a hoot!).
Because you didn’t choose to own your Biden-eclipsing blunder and instead attempted to assuage public outrage for thy transgression with a specious Beer Summit, you have left us gringos with no other recourse but to suspect your "post racial" posturing and believe, contrary to your claims, that you have indeed been affected by marinating in Reverend Wright’s diatribes for the last two decades. Yep, that Freudian slip minus heartfelt repentance makes us Americans deduce that the content of Ol’ Jeremiah’s sermons soaked into your psyche more than you would care to confess.
[Editor’s Note: Doug Giles goes on to report on some polls which indicate that Obama’s involvement in the Gates case contributed to the decline in his approval ratings. I've deleted the polling data.]
Seeing that there are still a bunch of white dudes in the US of A that you’ll need to sway on your way to the socialization of Amerika, if I were you, President Obama, I would trip over myself to regain that "post racial" ground you lost last week because you’re undoubtedly going to need some pale skin support for your agenda. A giant leap back into the good graces of the pigmentally challenged would be to a.) Truly apologize for your comments about officer Crowley, b.) Attend a Ted Nugent concert, c.) Prosecute the New Black Panther thugs that your DOJ just let off the hook for their voter intimidation and d.) Hang out with Newt Gingrich for a couple of weeks. That would be just peachy.
by Doug Giles
Townhall.com
August 2, 2009
If Rodney King’s dream of us "all just gettin’ along" is going to come to pass then Obama and Henry "Yo Mama" Gates, Jr. had better dial down on the insults, faux remorse and racial rhetoric aimed at us white devils.
Yep, the generational wounds of discrimination will not heal with Obama calling one of our nation’s best and brightest fair-skinned cops "stupid."
FYI to BHO: That kind of talk, thoughtlessly slurring one of our finer whiteys’ intelligence, will leave a negative mark on our Caucasian consciousness. You can say we can’t jump, or we can’t dance, but you cannot call one of our tribe stupid when, in reality, the guy was just doing his job in an excellent manner while apprehending one of your belligerent, bigoted buddies (I wonder when/if we’ll ever hear the details of Gates’ conversation with Crowley’s superiors the night of Skip’s arrest? That would be interesting, eh?)
You’ve got to work with us white folk, Barack. We’re pretty easy. If you make a completely goofy and racial statement in a moment of flamboyant ignorance, all you have to do is say you screwed up, you’re sorry and that you’ll watch a Leave It to Beaver marathon as penance for jamming your foot into your mouth all the way down to your hip. And you know what? We Anglo Saxons will forgive and forget your foible and go on our merry way shopping at Pottery Barn, eating at the Olive Garden and watching Regis and Kelly (They’re a hoot!).
Because you didn’t choose to own your Biden-eclipsing blunder and instead attempted to assuage public outrage for thy transgression with a specious Beer Summit, you have left us gringos with no other recourse but to suspect your "post racial" posturing and believe, contrary to your claims, that you have indeed been affected by marinating in Reverend Wright’s diatribes for the last two decades. Yep, that Freudian slip minus heartfelt repentance makes us Americans deduce that the content of Ol’ Jeremiah’s sermons soaked into your psyche more than you would care to confess.
[Editor’s Note: Doug Giles goes on to report on some polls which indicate that Obama’s involvement in the Gates case contributed to the decline in his approval ratings. I've deleted the polling data.]
Seeing that there are still a bunch of white dudes in the US of A that you’ll need to sway on your way to the socialization of Amerika, if I were you, President Obama, I would trip over myself to regain that "post racial" ground you lost last week because you’re undoubtedly going to need some pale skin support for your agenda. A giant leap back into the good graces of the pigmentally challenged would be to a.) Truly apologize for your comments about officer Crowley, b.) Attend a Ted Nugent concert, c.) Prosecute the New Black Panther thugs that your DOJ just let off the hook for their voter intimidation and d.) Hang out with Newt Gingrich for a couple of weeks. That would be just peachy.
DIG HIM UP AND CLONE HIM
The following piece was sent to me by a long-time friend in California:
THIS IS THE WAY IT SHOULD BE:
Harry Truman
Harry Truman was a different kind of President. He probably made as many important decisions regarding our nation's history as any of the other 42 Presidents. However, a measure of his greatness may rest on what he did after he left the White House.
The only asset he had when he died was the house he lived in, which was in Independence, Missouri. His wife had inherited the house from her mother and other than their years in the White House, they lived their entire lives there.
When he retired from office in 1952, his income was a U.S. Army pension reported to have been $13,507.72 a year. Congress, noting that he was paying for his stamps and personally licking them, granted him an 'allowance' and, later, a retroactive pension of $25,000 per year.
After President Eisenhower was inaugurated, Harry and Bess drove home to Missouri by themselves. There were no Secret Service agents following them.
When offered corporate positions at large salaries, he declined, stating, "You don't want me. You want the office of the President, and that doesn't belong to me. It belongs to the American people and it's not for sale."
Even later, on May 6, 1971, when Congress was preparing to award him the Medal of Honor on his 87th birthday, he refused to accept it, writing, "I don't consider that I have done anything which should be the reason for any award, Congressional or otherwise."
As president he paid for all of his own travel expenses and food.
Modern politicians have found a new level of success in cashing in on the Presidency, resulting in untold wealth. Today, many in Congress also have found a way to become quite wealthy while enjoying the fruits of their offices. Political offices are now for sale. (sic. Illinois )
Good old Harry Truman was correct when he observed, "My choices in life were either to be a piano player in a whore house or a politician. And to tell the truth, there's hardly any difference!
I say dig him up and clone him!!
A MUST SEE HBO DOCUMENTARY
Whether or not you are a sports fan, and even if you do not like boxing, ASSAULT IN THE RING is a must see HBO documentary.
I saw this excellent documentary last night. It is a compelling story on the tragic consequences of cheating. It’s about the 1983 professional boxing match between Billy Collins, Jr. and Luis Resto, and its tragic aftermath.
Collins was an up-and-coming undefeated Irish fighter from Tennessee. Resto was a journeyman Puerto Rican fighter from New York. Collins was heavily favored to win, but that fight spelled the end of his pugilistic career.
What made this fight different was that the Resto camp cheated. Panama Lewis, Resto’s trainer, removed some of the padding from his fighter’s gloves and added some hard plaster to his hand wraps. Collins was beaten so severely in the face that he would never be able to fight again. He was killed in an automobile accident a few months later. Resto and Lewis both ended up in prison.
After Resto was released from prison he was a washed-up bum in New York. After his release, Lewis moved to Miami where he continued training fighters, although he was barred from working in the ring.
The documentary follows Resto in his long journey of coming to grips with what happened and his attempt to reunite with his two estranged sons and their families some 25 years after that fateful fight. The documentary also covered Resto’s tries at making amends to the Collins family and his confrontation with Panama Lewis in Miami.
As I mentioned, you don’t have to be a sports fan to be enthralled by this documentary. With so much cheating going on in major league baseball, pro football, cycling, and in the Olympic games, ASSAULT IN THE RING is must viewing for the whole family. Resto’s story is heart-rendering. It offers a valuable lesson on the consequences of cheating, a lesson that your youngsters would do well to absorb.
Check your HBO listings. I’m sure this documentary will be repeated several times this week and beyond.
I saw this excellent documentary last night. It is a compelling story on the tragic consequences of cheating. It’s about the 1983 professional boxing match between Billy Collins, Jr. and Luis Resto, and its tragic aftermath.
Collins was an up-and-coming undefeated Irish fighter from Tennessee. Resto was a journeyman Puerto Rican fighter from New York. Collins was heavily favored to win, but that fight spelled the end of his pugilistic career.
What made this fight different was that the Resto camp cheated. Panama Lewis, Resto’s trainer, removed some of the padding from his fighter’s gloves and added some hard plaster to his hand wraps. Collins was beaten so severely in the face that he would never be able to fight again. He was killed in an automobile accident a few months later. Resto and Lewis both ended up in prison.
After Resto was released from prison he was a washed-up bum in New York. After his release, Lewis moved to Miami where he continued training fighters, although he was barred from working in the ring.
The documentary follows Resto in his long journey of coming to grips with what happened and his attempt to reunite with his two estranged sons and their families some 25 years after that fateful fight. The documentary also covered Resto’s tries at making amends to the Collins family and his confrontation with Panama Lewis in Miami.
As I mentioned, you don’t have to be a sports fan to be enthralled by this documentary. With so much cheating going on in major league baseball, pro football, cycling, and in the Olympic games, ASSAULT IN THE RING is must viewing for the whole family. Resto’s story is heart-rendering. It offers a valuable lesson on the consequences of cheating, a lesson that your youngsters would do well to absorb.
Check your HBO listings. I’m sure this documentary will be repeated several times this week and beyond.
Saturday, August 01, 2009
RACIAL PROFILING BY POLICE NOT ALTOGETHER BAD
The recent arrest of Professor Gates has let loose a torrent of accusations that blacks all over the country are victimized daily by racial profiling. Since there will be no political correctness in my blogs, let me start out here by saying that racial profiling by the police is not altogether bad.
Last night I was watching hours of reruns of the HBO comedy series, "Curb Your Enthusiasm." In one episode Larry Davis left his office building and gave his car keys to a well-dressed black man standing by the valet parking sign. The man gave the keys back and berated Davis for assuming that just because he was a well-dressed black man, he was a parking valet. To make matters worse, black actress and comedienne Wanda Sykes, who has a recurring role in the series, observed the encounter and got all over Davis for stereotyping a black man. Near the end of that episode, Davis pulled into the parking lot and walked away without locking his car. After he’s gone quite a ways, a black man who was not dressed up passed by. Davis then hit the remote to lock the car. When the man heard the car horn beep, he accused Davis of thinking that because he was black, he was going to break into the car. And Sykes, who also observed the latest encounter, came over and told Davis: Oh, I see Larry. When a black man is well-dressed you think he’s a valet, but when he’s not, you think he’s a criminal.
OK, so that was a comedic take on stereotyping and racial profiling. Seriously though, I can certainly sympathize with honest and decent black men who become the unfortunate victims of racial profiling, be it by the police or by private citizens. But does that mean the police should never use racial profiling? Not by a long shot!
Back when I was a cop, I was with a California law enforcement agency that was recognized nationally as being very innovative and progressive. Racial discrimination by its officers in any form was not tolerated. But racial profiling was used all the time as an effective crime fighting tool. If a person driving at night looked out of place in a neighborhood, he was stopped and his ID was checked. Did we stop all black drivers in a white neighborhood? No! But if a black driver looked suspicious in a white neighborhood he was stopped and vise versa. The same for Latinos.
Did we prevent a lot of burglaries that way? You bet we did! Did we stop some innocent drivers? Of course we did. Were they pissed off? Yes they were, and rightfully so! But that is the price some had to pay for the protection of society – an embarrassing inconvenience while their ID was being checked out.
Are those same police tactics still being used today? Sure they are. They are probably used on as many whites today as on blacks. Whites driving through black neighborhoods known for crack cocaine sales are going to be stopped because they’re most likely there to buy dope. Are some of those whites innocent? Yes. But again, that’s the price some have to pay as we try to prevent the use and sales of illegal drugs. And don’t buy that crap by Homeland Security that they are not resorting to racial profiling in the fight against terrorism.
So when people scream bloody murder about racial profiling, let’s not throw the baby out with the bath water. I’m sure it’s quite unpleasant to run afoul of racial profiling, but despite the embarrassment and inconvenient delays to those stopped who are innocent of any wrongdoing, the judicious use of racial profiling by the police continues to be an effective crime fighting tool.
As for Professor Gates, there was NO racial profiling in his case. The police did not question him because he was black, but because they responded to a burglary in progress call. And in response to President Obama’s hope that the professor’s arrest would be a "teachable moment," Rudy Giuliani said, "He’s actually right. It is teachable. Here’s the lesson: SHUT UP!"
Last night I was watching hours of reruns of the HBO comedy series, "Curb Your Enthusiasm." In one episode Larry Davis left his office building and gave his car keys to a well-dressed black man standing by the valet parking sign. The man gave the keys back and berated Davis for assuming that just because he was a well-dressed black man, he was a parking valet. To make matters worse, black actress and comedienne Wanda Sykes, who has a recurring role in the series, observed the encounter and got all over Davis for stereotyping a black man. Near the end of that episode, Davis pulled into the parking lot and walked away without locking his car. After he’s gone quite a ways, a black man who was not dressed up passed by. Davis then hit the remote to lock the car. When the man heard the car horn beep, he accused Davis of thinking that because he was black, he was going to break into the car. And Sykes, who also observed the latest encounter, came over and told Davis: Oh, I see Larry. When a black man is well-dressed you think he’s a valet, but when he’s not, you think he’s a criminal.
OK, so that was a comedic take on stereotyping and racial profiling. Seriously though, I can certainly sympathize with honest and decent black men who become the unfortunate victims of racial profiling, be it by the police or by private citizens. But does that mean the police should never use racial profiling? Not by a long shot!
Back when I was a cop, I was with a California law enforcement agency that was recognized nationally as being very innovative and progressive. Racial discrimination by its officers in any form was not tolerated. But racial profiling was used all the time as an effective crime fighting tool. If a person driving at night looked out of place in a neighborhood, he was stopped and his ID was checked. Did we stop all black drivers in a white neighborhood? No! But if a black driver looked suspicious in a white neighborhood he was stopped and vise versa. The same for Latinos.
Did we prevent a lot of burglaries that way? You bet we did! Did we stop some innocent drivers? Of course we did. Were they pissed off? Yes they were, and rightfully so! But that is the price some had to pay for the protection of society – an embarrassing inconvenience while their ID was being checked out.
Are those same police tactics still being used today? Sure they are. They are probably used on as many whites today as on blacks. Whites driving through black neighborhoods known for crack cocaine sales are going to be stopped because they’re most likely there to buy dope. Are some of those whites innocent? Yes. But again, that’s the price some have to pay as we try to prevent the use and sales of illegal drugs. And don’t buy that crap by Homeland Security that they are not resorting to racial profiling in the fight against terrorism.
So when people scream bloody murder about racial profiling, let’s not throw the baby out with the bath water. I’m sure it’s quite unpleasant to run afoul of racial profiling, but despite the embarrassment and inconvenient delays to those stopped who are innocent of any wrongdoing, the judicious use of racial profiling by the police continues to be an effective crime fighting tool.
As for Professor Gates, there was NO racial profiling in his case. The police did not question him because he was black, but because they responded to a burglary in progress call. And in response to President Obama’s hope that the professor’s arrest would be a "teachable moment," Rudy Giuliani said, "He’s actually right. It is teachable. Here’s the lesson: SHUT UP!"
ACLU: "HE'S A ROGUE SHERIFF"
We could sure use some more rogues like Joe Arpaio.
ARIZ. SHERIFF BALKS AT FEDS’ ENFORCEMENT CHANGE
Associated Press
July 31, 2009
PHOENIX — The self-proclaimed "toughest sheriff in America" has never gotten so much resistance from the federal government.
The Homeland Security Department wants Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Ariz., to stop arresting illegal immigrants whose only crime was crossing the U.S.-Mexico border without documents.
The thing is, Arpaio doesn't much care.
"I'm not going to bend to the federal government, I'm going to do my job," he said. "I don't report to the federal government, I report to the people."
Shifting winds in Washington have led the Homeland Security Department to rework a federal program that has allowed Arpaio's deputies to make federal immigration arrests since February 2007.
It's not yet known whether Arpaio - who has 160 deputies and jail officers trained to make federal immigration arrests and speed up deportations - will sign the new deal.
If he doesn't, the feds say he would lose his authority to make any federal immigration arrests.
The revamped program would require Arpaio to clear plans for immigration sweeps beforehand with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and coordinate with ICE before releasing information about such enforcement actions to the news media.
Those requirements don't sit well with the sheriff, who is known for his independence and well-oiled media operation.
Even as he considered whether to sign the deal, Arpaio launched a three-day immigration sweep east of metro Phoenix on July 24. Deputies arrested 74 people; 25 of them were illegal immigrants.
Ten of the illegal immigrants were released because they had committed no other crimes, and that fact pitted Arpaio against Homeland Security. Arpaio says the feds told his deputies to let them go, while Homeland Security says the decision was exclusively Arpaio's.
That sweep was the latest of 10 Arpaio has conducted in the last two and a half years. Many were held in heavily Latino areas in metropolitan Phoenix, with deputies stopping drivers for traffic violations.
The sweeps sparked several angry protests from critics who said they amounted to racial profiling and led to a Justice Department investigation of Arpaio. Arpaio said the people who were pulled over were approached because deputies had probable cause to believe they had committed crimes.
Homeland Security's revamped program focuses on the most serious criminals and creates three priority levels for immigrants who are to be arrested and detained. Immigrants convicted or arrested of major drug offenses or violent offenses such as murder, manslaughter, rape, robbery or kidnapping are the top priority.
The other two levels pertain to immigrants with prior convictions, but people whose only crime is being in the country illegally are not covered under the program.
Eleven agencies in the country have signed the new so-called 287(g) agreement, while 66 agencies operating under the old program - including Arpaio's - were given 90 days starting July 10 to decide whether they want to agree to follow the revamped program, said DHS spokesman Matthew Chandler.
Arpaio called the new program an amnesty for illegal immigrants.
Chandler said changes to the new program were designed to spend Homeland Security resources wisely. "We feel that, you know, with the limited resources we have we need to be focused on criminal aliens who pose a public safety threat," he said.
Chandler declined to say whether DHS could take away Arpaio's option to sign the agreement.
Even if Arpaio doesn't sign it, he vows to continue cracking down on illegal immigration. He will do so by enforcing more limited state immigration laws that prohibit immigrant smuggling and ban employers from knowingly hiring illegal immigrants. Just on Wednesday, his deputies arrested 52 illegal immigrants, 48 of whom will face human smuggling charges.
In a news release about the arrests, Arpaio said: "This is yet another example of my continued promise to enforce all the illegal immigration laws in Maricopa County regardless of the ever-changing policies emanating from Washington, D.C."
Ira Mehlman, a spokesman for the anti-illegal immigration group Federation for American Immigration Reform, said it supports allowing local law enforcement agencies to make federal immigration arrests and that Arpaio should not be limited to targeting only serious criminals.
"If all police departments did was go after serious crimes, most of their other functions would fall by the wayside," he said. "Just because there are murderers in Phoenix doesn't mean cops shouldn't pull someone over for speeding and running a red light."
Alessandra Soler-Meetze, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona, said her group doesn't believe local agencies should be allowed to make any immigration arrests and that Arpaio has abused his power long enough.
"He's a rogue sheriff, and he is the clearest, most visible example of why these 287g ordinances are bad for local communities," she said. "Arpaio demonstrates what happens when there's absolutely no federal oversight of a program that has really led to some serious civil rights abuses."
ARIZ. SHERIFF BALKS AT FEDS’ ENFORCEMENT CHANGE
Associated Press
July 31, 2009
PHOENIX — The self-proclaimed "toughest sheriff in America" has never gotten so much resistance from the federal government.
The Homeland Security Department wants Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Ariz., to stop arresting illegal immigrants whose only crime was crossing the U.S.-Mexico border without documents.
The thing is, Arpaio doesn't much care.
"I'm not going to bend to the federal government, I'm going to do my job," he said. "I don't report to the federal government, I report to the people."
Shifting winds in Washington have led the Homeland Security Department to rework a federal program that has allowed Arpaio's deputies to make federal immigration arrests since February 2007.
It's not yet known whether Arpaio - who has 160 deputies and jail officers trained to make federal immigration arrests and speed up deportations - will sign the new deal.
If he doesn't, the feds say he would lose his authority to make any federal immigration arrests.
The revamped program would require Arpaio to clear plans for immigration sweeps beforehand with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and coordinate with ICE before releasing information about such enforcement actions to the news media.
Those requirements don't sit well with the sheriff, who is known for his independence and well-oiled media operation.
Even as he considered whether to sign the deal, Arpaio launched a three-day immigration sweep east of metro Phoenix on July 24. Deputies arrested 74 people; 25 of them were illegal immigrants.
Ten of the illegal immigrants were released because they had committed no other crimes, and that fact pitted Arpaio against Homeland Security. Arpaio says the feds told his deputies to let them go, while Homeland Security says the decision was exclusively Arpaio's.
That sweep was the latest of 10 Arpaio has conducted in the last two and a half years. Many were held in heavily Latino areas in metropolitan Phoenix, with deputies stopping drivers for traffic violations.
The sweeps sparked several angry protests from critics who said they amounted to racial profiling and led to a Justice Department investigation of Arpaio. Arpaio said the people who were pulled over were approached because deputies had probable cause to believe they had committed crimes.
Homeland Security's revamped program focuses on the most serious criminals and creates three priority levels for immigrants who are to be arrested and detained. Immigrants convicted or arrested of major drug offenses or violent offenses such as murder, manslaughter, rape, robbery or kidnapping are the top priority.
The other two levels pertain to immigrants with prior convictions, but people whose only crime is being in the country illegally are not covered under the program.
Eleven agencies in the country have signed the new so-called 287(g) agreement, while 66 agencies operating under the old program - including Arpaio's - were given 90 days starting July 10 to decide whether they want to agree to follow the revamped program, said DHS spokesman Matthew Chandler.
Arpaio called the new program an amnesty for illegal immigrants.
Chandler said changes to the new program were designed to spend Homeland Security resources wisely. "We feel that, you know, with the limited resources we have we need to be focused on criminal aliens who pose a public safety threat," he said.
Chandler declined to say whether DHS could take away Arpaio's option to sign the agreement.
Even if Arpaio doesn't sign it, he vows to continue cracking down on illegal immigration. He will do so by enforcing more limited state immigration laws that prohibit immigrant smuggling and ban employers from knowingly hiring illegal immigrants. Just on Wednesday, his deputies arrested 52 illegal immigrants, 48 of whom will face human smuggling charges.
In a news release about the arrests, Arpaio said: "This is yet another example of my continued promise to enforce all the illegal immigration laws in Maricopa County regardless of the ever-changing policies emanating from Washington, D.C."
Ira Mehlman, a spokesman for the anti-illegal immigration group Federation for American Immigration Reform, said it supports allowing local law enforcement agencies to make federal immigration arrests and that Arpaio should not be limited to targeting only serious criminals.
"If all police departments did was go after serious crimes, most of their other functions would fall by the wayside," he said. "Just because there are murderers in Phoenix doesn't mean cops shouldn't pull someone over for speeding and running a red light."
Alessandra Soler-Meetze, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona, said her group doesn't believe local agencies should be allowed to make any immigration arrests and that Arpaio has abused his power long enough.
"He's a rogue sheriff, and he is the clearest, most visible example of why these 287g ordinances are bad for local communities," she said. "Arpaio demonstrates what happens when there's absolutely no federal oversight of a program that has really led to some serious civil rights abuses."
AMERICA'S LEFT-WING OBAMA LOVING ANTI-ISRAEL JEWS
THE LONELY ISRAELI LEFT
by Caroline Glick
Townhall.com
August 1, 2009
Israel's leftists are lonely these days. This was the central thrust of an opinion column in Tuesday's New York Times authored by Aluf Benn, editor-at-large of the left-wing Haaretz newspaper.
Benn's article, "Why Won't Obama Talk to Israel?" was a plaintive call for US President Barack Obama to woo the Israeli public. As Benn put it, "Next time you're in the neighborhood, Mr. President, speak to us directly."
Benn's article has been touted by Obama supporters and detractors alike as evidence that the president has a credibility problem with Israelis. Jewish Obama supporters sought to soften the impact of Benn's article on their fellow Jewish leftists by claiming that Obama is listening to the likes of Benn. For instance, the Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg reported without irony that administration officials defend Obama's silence toward Israel by arguing that his June 4 speech to the Muslim world in Cairo was also geared toward Israelis.
The June 4 address of course was the one where Obama compared Israel's treatment of the Palestinians to the Nazi Holocaust of European Jewry and to black slavery in the antebellum American South. It was also the speech where he embraced Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's claim that Israel owes its existence to the Holocaust and not to the Jewish people's legitimate right to self-determination in our homeland.
Benn's piece is an interesting read, but not for the reasons that have been widely cited. It is interesting for what it says about the Israeli Left on the one hand, and what it says about Obama and his American Jewish supporters on the other.
Although Benn gives a long bill of particulars on why Israelis mistrust Obama, the general thrust of the article is supportive of the administration. Far from an attack on Obama, it is a cry for help. Benn and his fellow Israeli leftists want the administration to help them by changing the tenor of its policies, not the policies themselves.
Whereas the American Left was triumphant in the 2008 elections, the Israeli Left was decimated in Israel's general elections in February. Its two standard bearers - Meretz and Labor - were effectively wiped out. Its new flagship, Kadima, failed to win the support of any other party in its bid to form a governing coalition. Worse still, consistent polling shows that the general public rejects every one of the Israeli Left's central policies. From the swift establishment of a Palestinian state, to the mass expulsion of Jews from Judea and Samaria and Jerusalem, to unilateral land giveaways to the Palestinians, the Israeli Left today speaks for a but a small minority of Israelis.
Benn cited last month's Jerusalem Post poll which showed that a mere six percent of Israeli Jews view Obama as pro-Israel while some 50 percent of Israeli Jews perceive the president as more pro-Palestinian than pro-Israel. As he sees it, Obama's failure to win the trust of the Israeli public will make it impossible for him to coerce the Netanyahu government into freezing Jewish construction in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem. This is a disaster for Benn and his colleagues. For unless the US can force the government's hand, there is no chance that they will be able to see their radical policies implemented.
It is in his attempt to convince Obama to help the Israeli Left that Benn makes his most consequential critique of the US leader. As he puts it, Obama "seems to have confused American Jews with Israelis."
Benn points out that Obama's repeated attacks on Holocaust denial resonate more strongly with US Jews than with Israelis and that the two Jewish populations have "different historical narratives."
Benn is onto something when he notes the differences between Israeli and American Jews. But he fails to grasp the real significance of what Obama is doing and what is actually happening in relations between the two communities.
It isn't that Obama is confusing the two groups. Through both his rhetoric and his actions, Obama is demonstrating his priorities and concerns.
Obama cares about securing the support of American Jews. He does not care about gaining the support of Israeli Jews. Moreover, Obama feels comfortable wooing the former while alienating the latter because he recognizes something that Benn has apparently missed: Today a large and growing chasm separates leftist US Jews from leftist Israeli Jews.
During his recent meeting at the White House with hand-picked American Jewish leftist activists and centrist American Jewish leaders, Obama explained that he welcomes open disputes with Israel. As he put it, during the Bush presidency, there was "no daylight [between the US and Israel] and no progress."
Whereas Obama's goal of openly distancing the US from Israel is a source of anxiety and frustration for Israeli leftists who believe that US pressure should be a means to the end of compelling Israel to give away land to the Palestinians, it is a positive development for American Jewish Leftists. Led by the new anti-Israel Jewish lobby J Street, and supported by groups like Americans for Peace Now, the Union for Reform Judaism, the Jewish Council for Public Affairs and the National Jewish Democratic Council, the American Jewish Left supports the White House's hostile positions on Israel as an ends unto themselves.
J Street - a creation of Democratic fund-raiser and anti-Israel activist George Soros - was established ahead of the 2008 elections to lobby the White House and Congress to foment breaches in the US-Israel strategic relationship.
When Soros first raised the prospect of a Jewish anti-Israel lobby in October 2006, he argued that there was a need to institutionalize what had until then been ad-hoc anti-Israel lobbying efforts by American Jewish groups in order to scuttle Congressional support for Israel and undermine mainstream American Jewish organizations.
True to their mandates, today J Street and its fellow leftist Jewish groups Americans for Peace Now and Brit Tzedek v'Shalom lobby Congress to adopt positions that place the US in direct confrontation with Israel. The three groups are presently lobbying Congress to oppose an AIPAC initiative calling on Obama to pressure Arab governments to normalize relations with Israel. In their view, the move is objectionable because it doesn't contain a demand that Israel stop building homes for Jews in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem. J Street similarly opposed Operation Cast Lead, claiming that Israel's actions to defend its citizens from rocket and mortar attacks from Hamas-controlled Gaza were contrary to the interests of peace.
Although attacking Israel on the Palestinian issue is the central pillar of these groups' missions, they are also involved in defending Iran's nuclear weapons program and championing Syria in Washington. In late May, J Street lobbied Congress not to place new sanctions on Iran, claiming, "On Iran, the president is promoting tough, direct diplomacy... but the chances of [his] success won't be helped by Congress imposing tight timelines or a new round of sanctions."
The group has similarly supported ending sanctions against Syria and pressuring Israel to relinquish the Golan Heights to Syrian control.
In short, through their full-throated support for all of the Obama administration's anti-Israel policies, the organized American Jewish Left has made clear that today it does not share a common goal with the Israeli Left. It does not view US pressure on Israel as a means to achieve peace and normalization between Israel and its Arab neighbors. Rather, like Obama, it views pressure on Israel as a means to weaken US ties to Israel in the interest of pursuing closer ties with the Arab world.
THE CURRENT split between the Israeli and American Jewish Left, as well as the Obama administration's disparate treatment of both groups have policy implications for the Netanyahu government in its dealings with all three.
According to a number of American Jewish leaders, Obama's decision to meet with a hand-picked audience of American Jews at the White House on July 13 was a direct response to the Jerusalem Post poll. Obama's senior advisers feared that the massive Israeli mistrust of Obama the poll exposed was liable to spill over into the American Jewish community.
To date, in contending with the White House, Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu has been careful to minimize the significance of the White House-initiated crisis in relations. Fearing a domestic backlash, Netanyahu and his advisers have even gone so far as to leak reports of imminent agreements between the Obama administration and Israel on the issue of home construction for Jews in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria.
What the White House's distress over the Post's poll shows, however, is that today - with a domestic consensus now backing Netanyahu against Obama - Netanyahu has less call to minimize the breach than Obama does. Indeed, doing so only advances Obama's fortunes among American Jews and so strengthens the position of anti-Israel Jewish organizations that support him. Rather than leak stories about an impending deal, Netanyahu's advisers should leak stories about American intransigence and hostility.
Moreover, given the administration's overarching desire to put "daylight" between the US and Israel, reaching an agreement with Washington will bring no relief. Since it is the administration's goal to weaken US ties to the Jewish state, clearly any deal that Israel could obtain would either be antithetical to Israel's national interests or breached by the administration.
Perhaps in response to J Street's ever-expanding media presence, Ambassador Michael Oren intimated last month that he intends to reach out to far-Left American Jewish groups. To the extent that this is a serious initiative, it should be dropped immediately.
Through their actions, J Street and its allies have made clear that their institutional interests are served by weakening Israel. Their mission is to harm Israel's standing in Washington and weaken the influence of the mainstream American Jewish community that supports Israel.
Rather than empower these anti-Israel groups by legitimizing them, the government should take a page out of Obama's playbook. Obama gave the impression of hosting a big tent for American Jews by inviting both friendly far-Left groups and friendly centrist groups to meet with him on July 13. He legitimized his friends at J Street and Americans for Peace Now by treating them as equals of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations.
By the same token, Israel's embassy should act as a big tent by reaching out to Israel's supporters on both the political Right and the center. All groups that support Israel should be welcome.
As to the Israeli Left, to date, Netanyahu has successfully built a strong, stable center-right coalition by going over its head and forming a national consensus around support for defensible borders, a united Jerusalem and rejecting unreciprocated concessions of any kind. While the prime minister arguably made an unnecessary and potentially disastrous mistake in announcing his support for a demilitarized Palestinian state, by and large, he has successfully marginalized the Left.
Benn's anguished plea for help from the Obama administration shows that Netanyahu's policies are having the desired effect. His political opponents are descending into the depths of political irrelevance. Netanyahu should leave them to their richly deserved fate.
by Caroline Glick
Townhall.com
August 1, 2009
Israel's leftists are lonely these days. This was the central thrust of an opinion column in Tuesday's New York Times authored by Aluf Benn, editor-at-large of the left-wing Haaretz newspaper.
Benn's article, "Why Won't Obama Talk to Israel?" was a plaintive call for US President Barack Obama to woo the Israeli public. As Benn put it, "Next time you're in the neighborhood, Mr. President, speak to us directly."
Benn's article has been touted by Obama supporters and detractors alike as evidence that the president has a credibility problem with Israelis. Jewish Obama supporters sought to soften the impact of Benn's article on their fellow Jewish leftists by claiming that Obama is listening to the likes of Benn. For instance, the Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg reported without irony that administration officials defend Obama's silence toward Israel by arguing that his June 4 speech to the Muslim world in Cairo was also geared toward Israelis.
The June 4 address of course was the one where Obama compared Israel's treatment of the Palestinians to the Nazi Holocaust of European Jewry and to black slavery in the antebellum American South. It was also the speech where he embraced Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's claim that Israel owes its existence to the Holocaust and not to the Jewish people's legitimate right to self-determination in our homeland.
Benn's piece is an interesting read, but not for the reasons that have been widely cited. It is interesting for what it says about the Israeli Left on the one hand, and what it says about Obama and his American Jewish supporters on the other.
Although Benn gives a long bill of particulars on why Israelis mistrust Obama, the general thrust of the article is supportive of the administration. Far from an attack on Obama, it is a cry for help. Benn and his fellow Israeli leftists want the administration to help them by changing the tenor of its policies, not the policies themselves.
Whereas the American Left was triumphant in the 2008 elections, the Israeli Left was decimated in Israel's general elections in February. Its two standard bearers - Meretz and Labor - were effectively wiped out. Its new flagship, Kadima, failed to win the support of any other party in its bid to form a governing coalition. Worse still, consistent polling shows that the general public rejects every one of the Israeli Left's central policies. From the swift establishment of a Palestinian state, to the mass expulsion of Jews from Judea and Samaria and Jerusalem, to unilateral land giveaways to the Palestinians, the Israeli Left today speaks for a but a small minority of Israelis.
Benn cited last month's Jerusalem Post poll which showed that a mere six percent of Israeli Jews view Obama as pro-Israel while some 50 percent of Israeli Jews perceive the president as more pro-Palestinian than pro-Israel. As he sees it, Obama's failure to win the trust of the Israeli public will make it impossible for him to coerce the Netanyahu government into freezing Jewish construction in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem. This is a disaster for Benn and his colleagues. For unless the US can force the government's hand, there is no chance that they will be able to see their radical policies implemented.
It is in his attempt to convince Obama to help the Israeli Left that Benn makes his most consequential critique of the US leader. As he puts it, Obama "seems to have confused American Jews with Israelis."
Benn points out that Obama's repeated attacks on Holocaust denial resonate more strongly with US Jews than with Israelis and that the two Jewish populations have "different historical narratives."
Benn is onto something when he notes the differences between Israeli and American Jews. But he fails to grasp the real significance of what Obama is doing and what is actually happening in relations between the two communities.
It isn't that Obama is confusing the two groups. Through both his rhetoric and his actions, Obama is demonstrating his priorities and concerns.
Obama cares about securing the support of American Jews. He does not care about gaining the support of Israeli Jews. Moreover, Obama feels comfortable wooing the former while alienating the latter because he recognizes something that Benn has apparently missed: Today a large and growing chasm separates leftist US Jews from leftist Israeli Jews.
During his recent meeting at the White House with hand-picked American Jewish leftist activists and centrist American Jewish leaders, Obama explained that he welcomes open disputes with Israel. As he put it, during the Bush presidency, there was "no daylight [between the US and Israel] and no progress."
Whereas Obama's goal of openly distancing the US from Israel is a source of anxiety and frustration for Israeli leftists who believe that US pressure should be a means to the end of compelling Israel to give away land to the Palestinians, it is a positive development for American Jewish Leftists. Led by the new anti-Israel Jewish lobby J Street, and supported by groups like Americans for Peace Now, the Union for Reform Judaism, the Jewish Council for Public Affairs and the National Jewish Democratic Council, the American Jewish Left supports the White House's hostile positions on Israel as an ends unto themselves.
J Street - a creation of Democratic fund-raiser and anti-Israel activist George Soros - was established ahead of the 2008 elections to lobby the White House and Congress to foment breaches in the US-Israel strategic relationship.
When Soros first raised the prospect of a Jewish anti-Israel lobby in October 2006, he argued that there was a need to institutionalize what had until then been ad-hoc anti-Israel lobbying efforts by American Jewish groups in order to scuttle Congressional support for Israel and undermine mainstream American Jewish organizations.
True to their mandates, today J Street and its fellow leftist Jewish groups Americans for Peace Now and Brit Tzedek v'Shalom lobby Congress to adopt positions that place the US in direct confrontation with Israel. The three groups are presently lobbying Congress to oppose an AIPAC initiative calling on Obama to pressure Arab governments to normalize relations with Israel. In their view, the move is objectionable because it doesn't contain a demand that Israel stop building homes for Jews in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem. J Street similarly opposed Operation Cast Lead, claiming that Israel's actions to defend its citizens from rocket and mortar attacks from Hamas-controlled Gaza were contrary to the interests of peace.
Although attacking Israel on the Palestinian issue is the central pillar of these groups' missions, they are also involved in defending Iran's nuclear weapons program and championing Syria in Washington. In late May, J Street lobbied Congress not to place new sanctions on Iran, claiming, "On Iran, the president is promoting tough, direct diplomacy... but the chances of [his] success won't be helped by Congress imposing tight timelines or a new round of sanctions."
The group has similarly supported ending sanctions against Syria and pressuring Israel to relinquish the Golan Heights to Syrian control.
In short, through their full-throated support for all of the Obama administration's anti-Israel policies, the organized American Jewish Left has made clear that today it does not share a common goal with the Israeli Left. It does not view US pressure on Israel as a means to achieve peace and normalization between Israel and its Arab neighbors. Rather, like Obama, it views pressure on Israel as a means to weaken US ties to Israel in the interest of pursuing closer ties with the Arab world.
THE CURRENT split between the Israeli and American Jewish Left, as well as the Obama administration's disparate treatment of both groups have policy implications for the Netanyahu government in its dealings with all three.
According to a number of American Jewish leaders, Obama's decision to meet with a hand-picked audience of American Jews at the White House on July 13 was a direct response to the Jerusalem Post poll. Obama's senior advisers feared that the massive Israeli mistrust of Obama the poll exposed was liable to spill over into the American Jewish community.
To date, in contending with the White House, Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu has been careful to minimize the significance of the White House-initiated crisis in relations. Fearing a domestic backlash, Netanyahu and his advisers have even gone so far as to leak reports of imminent agreements between the Obama administration and Israel on the issue of home construction for Jews in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria.
What the White House's distress over the Post's poll shows, however, is that today - with a domestic consensus now backing Netanyahu against Obama - Netanyahu has less call to minimize the breach than Obama does. Indeed, doing so only advances Obama's fortunes among American Jews and so strengthens the position of anti-Israel Jewish organizations that support him. Rather than leak stories about an impending deal, Netanyahu's advisers should leak stories about American intransigence and hostility.
Moreover, given the administration's overarching desire to put "daylight" between the US and Israel, reaching an agreement with Washington will bring no relief. Since it is the administration's goal to weaken US ties to the Jewish state, clearly any deal that Israel could obtain would either be antithetical to Israel's national interests or breached by the administration.
Perhaps in response to J Street's ever-expanding media presence, Ambassador Michael Oren intimated last month that he intends to reach out to far-Left American Jewish groups. To the extent that this is a serious initiative, it should be dropped immediately.
Through their actions, J Street and its allies have made clear that their institutional interests are served by weakening Israel. Their mission is to harm Israel's standing in Washington and weaken the influence of the mainstream American Jewish community that supports Israel.
Rather than empower these anti-Israel groups by legitimizing them, the government should take a page out of Obama's playbook. Obama gave the impression of hosting a big tent for American Jews by inviting both friendly far-Left groups and friendly centrist groups to meet with him on July 13. He legitimized his friends at J Street and Americans for Peace Now by treating them as equals of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations.
By the same token, Israel's embassy should act as a big tent by reaching out to Israel's supporters on both the political Right and the center. All groups that support Israel should be welcome.
As to the Israeli Left, to date, Netanyahu has successfully built a strong, stable center-right coalition by going over its head and forming a national consensus around support for defensible borders, a united Jerusalem and rejecting unreciprocated concessions of any kind. While the prime minister arguably made an unnecessary and potentially disastrous mistake in announcing his support for a demilitarized Palestinian state, by and large, he has successfully marginalized the Left.
Benn's anguished plea for help from the Obama administration shows that Netanyahu's policies are having the desired effect. His political opponents are descending into the depths of political irrelevance. Netanyahu should leave them to their richly deserved fate.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
CHICAGO POLICE WERE GETTING IT RIGHT BEFORE CITTY COUNCIL STEPPED IN
In "Evading Arrest By Fleeing In A Car Should Be Made A Felony" (5-23-09), I wrote that "when a driver attempts to evade arrest, he turns his automobile into a deadly weapon. A person who points a gun at another is committing a felony – aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. And that is exactly what a fleeing driver is doing. The time is way past due for a change in our laws. Evading arrest by fleeing in a car should not be treated as a misdemeanor - it should be made a felony the same way that pointing a gun at someone is a felony."
To its credit, the Chicago Police Department tried to do something about these high speed car chases by authorizing officers to shoot at a fleeing car if the driver or passengers are suspected of committing a felony. But then the city council stepped in and nixed that new policy. It was all about the money – the fear of potential wrongful death, excessive force and other chase-related lawsuits.
The two stories follow:
POLICY WOULD ALLOW COPS TO SHOOT AT FLEEING CARS
By Mike Krauser
CBS -WBBM 780
July 29, 2009
CHICAGO --- The Chicago Police Department is considering a major change in policy regarding the use of deadly force.
The department is looking at allowing police officers to fire their guns under circumstances where they previously could not.
The new policy, from police Supt. Jody Weis and confirmed by WBBM Newsradio 780 Wednesday morning, would allow police officers to shoot at fleeing vehicles if the driver or passengers are suspected of committing a felony.
Earlier today, a police spokesman told Newsradio 780 that the policy would take effect on Monday.
"Now officers will be able to fire upon the driver or passenger in a vehicle if that person is a forcible fleeing felon, someone who has committed a very serious offense resulting in bodily harm or has threatened to commit great bodily harm," Drew told Newsradio 780.
The old policy allowed officers only to shoot at vehicles that pose a threat to them or others, such as if the driver were trying to run down the officer.
Later Wednesday, the department issued a statement saying the plan was under review.
The department is "currently reviewing the existing order [to] provide officers with more clear direction. The review process is ongoing and will not be rushed."
POLICE PULL BACK ON NEW DEADLY FORCE POLICY
Officers Would Be Allowed To Shoot At Fleeing Vehicles
CBS Broadcasting, Inc.
July 30, 2009
CHICAGO --- Chicago Police have pulled back a major policy change that would give officers much more leeway in using deadly force.
On Wednesday, the Chicago Police Department confirmed that Supt. Jody Weis gave an order allowing officers to shoot at drivers or passengers in fleeing vehicles if the driver or passengers are suspected of committing a felony.
A spokesman Wednesday told WBBM Newsradio 780 that the policy would take effect on Monday.
"Now officers will be able to fire upon the driver or passenger in a vehicle if that person is a forcible fleeing felon, someone who has committed a very serious offense resulting in bodily harm or has threatened to commit great bodily harm," police News Affairs Director Roderick Drew said.
But later in the day, it turned out that the change was not cleared with City Hall, and thus may not be instituted. An ordinance was also introduced Wednesday that would require the approval of the City Council for a change in policy regarding deadly force.
Mayor Richard M. Daley told reporters that Weis' policy group had "not changed anything" -- that they are simply attempting to reconcile conflicting general orders. "That's what they're trying to figure out. Nothing more. They're just looking at it. If you have general orders that conflict with one another, you should look at it," the mayor said.
Corporation Counsel Mara Georges said Weis is "reviewing language of existing general orders and just beginning that review. ... There has been no policy change. It is inaccurate to say anything has been issued or anything is going into effect."
Either way, aldermen are not taking any chances.
At Wednesday's City Council meeting, Police Committee Chairman Isaac Carothers (29th) introduced an ordinance that would require Council approval before any change in general orders concerning the use of deadly force. Carothers pointed to a pair of 1999 police shootings over a 24-hour period that killed two unarmed civilians in motor vehicles.
"Let's not forget what happened in the LaTanya Haggerty case, which cost the city a lot of money [$18 million], and the [Robert] Russ case, which cost an awful lot of money [$9.6 million] with police officers firing their weapons," Carothers said. "
They already have a right to fire weapons in their own self-defense and in the defense of others. To go further than that -- the liability could be tremendous."
Finance Committee Chairman Edward M. Burke (14th), a former Chicago Police officer, agreed that City Hall should have the final say.
"There's rarely a Finance [Committee] meeting that goes by without a settlement of a police case due to excessive force, wrongful imprisonment, false arrest. There's a plethora of these cases out there," he said.
"The corporate authorities -- certainly the corporation counsel -- ought to be consulted before there's any change in the policy."
A 26-year-old computer analyst, LaTanya Haggerty was shot to death on June 4, 1999, after her companion, Raymond Smith, led police on a 31-block chase through the South Side -- a chase that was not authorized by police officials.
Russ, a 22-year-old Northwestern University football player just 10 days short of his college graduation, was shot to death hours later during a traffic stop. He did not stop for three miles -- even after police ordered him to do so.
The back-to-back police shootings touched off a tension-filled summer of protests about alleged police brutality.
To its credit, the Chicago Police Department tried to do something about these high speed car chases by authorizing officers to shoot at a fleeing car if the driver or passengers are suspected of committing a felony. But then the city council stepped in and nixed that new policy. It was all about the money – the fear of potential wrongful death, excessive force and other chase-related lawsuits.
The two stories follow:
POLICY WOULD ALLOW COPS TO SHOOT AT FLEEING CARS
By Mike Krauser
CBS -WBBM 780
July 29, 2009
CHICAGO --- The Chicago Police Department is considering a major change in policy regarding the use of deadly force.
The department is looking at allowing police officers to fire their guns under circumstances where they previously could not.
The new policy, from police Supt. Jody Weis and confirmed by WBBM Newsradio 780 Wednesday morning, would allow police officers to shoot at fleeing vehicles if the driver or passengers are suspected of committing a felony.
Earlier today, a police spokesman told Newsradio 780 that the policy would take effect on Monday.
"Now officers will be able to fire upon the driver or passenger in a vehicle if that person is a forcible fleeing felon, someone who has committed a very serious offense resulting in bodily harm or has threatened to commit great bodily harm," Drew told Newsradio 780.
The old policy allowed officers only to shoot at vehicles that pose a threat to them or others, such as if the driver were trying to run down the officer.
Later Wednesday, the department issued a statement saying the plan was under review.
The department is "currently reviewing the existing order [to] provide officers with more clear direction. The review process is ongoing and will not be rushed."
POLICE PULL BACK ON NEW DEADLY FORCE POLICY
Officers Would Be Allowed To Shoot At Fleeing Vehicles
CBS Broadcasting, Inc.
July 30, 2009
CHICAGO --- Chicago Police have pulled back a major policy change that would give officers much more leeway in using deadly force.
On Wednesday, the Chicago Police Department confirmed that Supt. Jody Weis gave an order allowing officers to shoot at drivers or passengers in fleeing vehicles if the driver or passengers are suspected of committing a felony.
A spokesman Wednesday told WBBM Newsradio 780 that the policy would take effect on Monday.
"Now officers will be able to fire upon the driver or passenger in a vehicle if that person is a forcible fleeing felon, someone who has committed a very serious offense resulting in bodily harm or has threatened to commit great bodily harm," police News Affairs Director Roderick Drew said.
But later in the day, it turned out that the change was not cleared with City Hall, and thus may not be instituted. An ordinance was also introduced Wednesday that would require the approval of the City Council for a change in policy regarding deadly force.
Mayor Richard M. Daley told reporters that Weis' policy group had "not changed anything" -- that they are simply attempting to reconcile conflicting general orders. "That's what they're trying to figure out. Nothing more. They're just looking at it. If you have general orders that conflict with one another, you should look at it," the mayor said.
Corporation Counsel Mara Georges said Weis is "reviewing language of existing general orders and just beginning that review. ... There has been no policy change. It is inaccurate to say anything has been issued or anything is going into effect."
Either way, aldermen are not taking any chances.
At Wednesday's City Council meeting, Police Committee Chairman Isaac Carothers (29th) introduced an ordinance that would require Council approval before any change in general orders concerning the use of deadly force. Carothers pointed to a pair of 1999 police shootings over a 24-hour period that killed two unarmed civilians in motor vehicles.
"Let's not forget what happened in the LaTanya Haggerty case, which cost the city a lot of money [$18 million], and the [Robert] Russ case, which cost an awful lot of money [$9.6 million] with police officers firing their weapons," Carothers said. "
They already have a right to fire weapons in their own self-defense and in the defense of others. To go further than that -- the liability could be tremendous."
Finance Committee Chairman Edward M. Burke (14th), a former Chicago Police officer, agreed that City Hall should have the final say.
"There's rarely a Finance [Committee] meeting that goes by without a settlement of a police case due to excessive force, wrongful imprisonment, false arrest. There's a plethora of these cases out there," he said.
"The corporate authorities -- certainly the corporation counsel -- ought to be consulted before there's any change in the policy."
A 26-year-old computer analyst, LaTanya Haggerty was shot to death on June 4, 1999, after her companion, Raymond Smith, led police on a 31-block chase through the South Side -- a chase that was not authorized by police officials.
Russ, a 22-year-old Northwestern University football player just 10 days short of his college graduation, was shot to death hours later during a traffic stop. He did not stop for three miles -- even after police ordered him to do so.
The back-to-back police shootings touched off a tension-filled summer of protests about alleged police brutality.
Monday, July 27, 2009
A HATEFUL AND UNTRUTHFUL INDICTMENT OF AMERICAN POLICE OFFICERS
If you browse the internet, you will find hundreds of takes on the Professor Gates arrest. A surprisingly large number continue to condemn Sgt. Crowley and the Cambridge police while defending Gates and praising President Obama’s "Acted Stupidly" declaration.
Not only that, but now the Gates arrest is no longer just a racial profiling case, it is also a case of class warfare. Crowley is now accused of being a working class cop who put the screws to a member of the upper class. Gates’ black colleagues say that racial profiling is a class warfare weapon that is responsible for 70% of American prison inmates being black and Hispanic.
Crowley’s critics maintain that Gates could not have been charged with disorderly conduct because he was inside his house or on his property and that is why the charge was dropped. Wrong! The charge was dropped because the City of Cambridge wanted to be seen as politically correct since Gates was a prominent black Harvard scholar.
One of the most hateful and untruthful indictments of American police officers that I have ever read was made in response to the Gates arrest by Lawrence O’Donnell in a TIME.com column, part of which follows:
VIEWPOINT: THE STUPIDITY OF THE GATES ARREST
By Lawrence O’Donnell, Jr.
TIME.com
Jul. 25, 2009
"Here is what the absurdist, typically stilted police language of Sergeant James Crowley's official report on his arrest of Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates really means:
Gates: You're not the boss of me!
Crowley: I am the boss of you.
Gates: You are not the boss of me!
Crowley: I'll show you. You're under arrest.
There is no crime described in Crowley's official version of the way Gates behaved. Crowley says explicitly that he arrested Gates for yelling. Nothing else, not a single threatening movement, just yelling. On the steps of his own home. Yelling is not a crime. Yelling does not meet the definition of disorderly conduct in Massachusetts. Not a single shouted word or action that Crowley has attributed to Gates amounts to disorderly conduct. That is why the charges had to be dropped.
In classically phony police talk, Crowley refers to "[Gates'] continued tumultuous behavior." When cops write that way, you know they have nothing. What is tumultuous behavior? Here's what it isn't: he brandished a knife in a threatening manner, he punched and kicked, he clenched his fist in a threatening manner, he threw a wrench or, in the Gates house, maybe a book. If the subject does any of those things, cops always write it out with precision. When they've got nothing, they use phrases that mean nothing. Phrases like tumultuous behavior.
Unless you confess to a crime, or threaten to commit a crime, there is nothing you can say to a cop that makes it legal for him to arrest you. You can tell him he is stupid, you can tell him he is ugly, you can call him racist, you can say anything you might feel like saying about his mother. He has taken an oath to listen to all of that and ignore it. That is the real teachable moment here — cops are paid to be professionals, but even the best of them are human and can make stupid mistakes.
We have an uncomfortable choice with Sergeant Crowley. Either he doesn't know what disorderly conduct is or Crowley simply decided to show Gates who's boss the only way he knew how at the time — by whipping out his handcuffs and abusing his power to arrest. Police make the latter choice in this country every day, knowing that the charges are going to have to be dropped."
So who is this cop hater? Lawrence O'Donnell, Jr. is an actor and MSNBC Political Analyst and the author of Deadly Force: The True Story of How a Badge Can Become a License to Kill. He calls himself a "practical European socialist." His frequent interviews on TV are notable for his angry outbursts at those with whom he disagrees. Martin E. Marty, professor of religious history at the University of Chicago, said of O'Donnell's caustic comments, "criticism is one thing; hate-speech and untruths are another."
O’Donnell is being disingenuous when he writes that Gates' conduct "does not meet the definition of disorderly conduct in Massachusetts." While the state does not have a specific disorderly conduct offense, Massachusetts judges recognize that offense under section 250.2 of the Model Penal Code. Here is an analysis from TPM Media:
"…… this is the section (in the original police report) that directly recounts the arrest:
‘As I descended the stairs to the sidewalk, Gates continued to yell at me, accusing me of racial bias and continued to tell me that I had not heard the last of him. Due to the tumultuous manner Gates had exhibited in his residence as well as his continued tumultuous behavior outside the residence, in view of the public, I warned Gates that he was becoming disorderly. Gates ignored my warning and continued to yell, which drew the attention of both the police officers and citizens, who appeared surprised and alarmed by Gates’s outburst. For a second time I warned Gates to calm down while I withdrew my department issued handcuffs from their carrying case. Gates again ignored my warning and continued to yell at me. It was at this time that I informed Gates that he was under arrest.’
Now it makes sense to ask if the arrest of Professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. matches the criteria of the Model Penal Code section 250.2: (1), and it seems to me that the most significant sub-section is 250.2: (1)(b)... makes unreasonable noise or offensively coarse utterance, gesture or display, or addresses abusive language to any person present...
If you believe the police report, then Professor Gates probably satisfied the criteria of Model Penal Code section 250.2: (1) by shouting insults at the cop from his front porch, and even though the front porch itself is not a public place, it was sufficiently close to the public sidewalk and street so that "persons in a place to which the public or a substantial group has access" were affected.
…… Professor Gates' house is unfenced and adjacent to Ware Street in Cambridge…… It also is possible that behavior occurring on purely private property may be shown to affect or be likely to affect persons in an adjacent or nearby 'place to which the public or a substantial group has access,' Model Penal Code section 250.2, such that a disorderly conduct charge would be appropriate."
O’Donnell goes on to insist that people have a right to call cops any derogatory names they want. It’s true that people don’t have to be nice to police officers, but when they continue to badmouth cops within sight and sound of the public, they have crossed the line from constitutionally protected speech to disorderly conduct.
Worst of all, O’Donnell also accuses the police in this country of abusing their power to arrest every day, "knowing that the charges are going to have to be dropped." He implies that making false arrests on purpose is a common practice. That’s simply not true and he damn well knows it!
This controversy is far from over because people on each side have planted their feet firmly in concrete. (That, obviously, includes me.) Although the courts have ruled that cops must tolerate some verbal abuse, those who don't like the police need to realize there is a limit to the amount of shit that an officer has to take. Gates clearly exceeded that limit. As for the cops, they don’t help their cause by making wisecracks about "attitude adjustment" or the one that goes, "you might beat the rap, but you won't beat the ride."
There are many reasons why people might not like cops. After all, they regulate human behavior and no one likes to have their behavior regulated. But for society's sake, hatred of the police cannot be tolerated! As for O’Donnell, his hatred of the police also comes across loud and clear in the title of his book, "Deadly Force: The True Story of How a Badge Can Become a License to Kill."
Not only that, but now the Gates arrest is no longer just a racial profiling case, it is also a case of class warfare. Crowley is now accused of being a working class cop who put the screws to a member of the upper class. Gates’ black colleagues say that racial profiling is a class warfare weapon that is responsible for 70% of American prison inmates being black and Hispanic.
Crowley’s critics maintain that Gates could not have been charged with disorderly conduct because he was inside his house or on his property and that is why the charge was dropped. Wrong! The charge was dropped because the City of Cambridge wanted to be seen as politically correct since Gates was a prominent black Harvard scholar.
One of the most hateful and untruthful indictments of American police officers that I have ever read was made in response to the Gates arrest by Lawrence O’Donnell in a TIME.com column, part of which follows:
VIEWPOINT: THE STUPIDITY OF THE GATES ARREST
By Lawrence O’Donnell, Jr.
TIME.com
Jul. 25, 2009
"Here is what the absurdist, typically stilted police language of Sergeant James Crowley's official report on his arrest of Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates really means:
Gates: You're not the boss of me!
Crowley: I am the boss of you.
Gates: You are not the boss of me!
Crowley: I'll show you. You're under arrest.
There is no crime described in Crowley's official version of the way Gates behaved. Crowley says explicitly that he arrested Gates for yelling. Nothing else, not a single threatening movement, just yelling. On the steps of his own home. Yelling is not a crime. Yelling does not meet the definition of disorderly conduct in Massachusetts. Not a single shouted word or action that Crowley has attributed to Gates amounts to disorderly conduct. That is why the charges had to be dropped.
In classically phony police talk, Crowley refers to "[Gates'] continued tumultuous behavior." When cops write that way, you know they have nothing. What is tumultuous behavior? Here's what it isn't: he brandished a knife in a threatening manner, he punched and kicked, he clenched his fist in a threatening manner, he threw a wrench or, in the Gates house, maybe a book. If the subject does any of those things, cops always write it out with precision. When they've got nothing, they use phrases that mean nothing. Phrases like tumultuous behavior.
Unless you confess to a crime, or threaten to commit a crime, there is nothing you can say to a cop that makes it legal for him to arrest you. You can tell him he is stupid, you can tell him he is ugly, you can call him racist, you can say anything you might feel like saying about his mother. He has taken an oath to listen to all of that and ignore it. That is the real teachable moment here — cops are paid to be professionals, but even the best of them are human and can make stupid mistakes.
We have an uncomfortable choice with Sergeant Crowley. Either he doesn't know what disorderly conduct is or Crowley simply decided to show Gates who's boss the only way he knew how at the time — by whipping out his handcuffs and abusing his power to arrest. Police make the latter choice in this country every day, knowing that the charges are going to have to be dropped."
So who is this cop hater? Lawrence O'Donnell, Jr. is an actor and MSNBC Political Analyst and the author of Deadly Force: The True Story of How a Badge Can Become a License to Kill. He calls himself a "practical European socialist." His frequent interviews on TV are notable for his angry outbursts at those with whom he disagrees. Martin E. Marty, professor of religious history at the University of Chicago, said of O'Donnell's caustic comments, "criticism is one thing; hate-speech and untruths are another."
O’Donnell is being disingenuous when he writes that Gates' conduct "does not meet the definition of disorderly conduct in Massachusetts." While the state does not have a specific disorderly conduct offense, Massachusetts judges recognize that offense under section 250.2 of the Model Penal Code. Here is an analysis from TPM Media:
"…… this is the section (in the original police report) that directly recounts the arrest:
‘As I descended the stairs to the sidewalk, Gates continued to yell at me, accusing me of racial bias and continued to tell me that I had not heard the last of him. Due to the tumultuous manner Gates had exhibited in his residence as well as his continued tumultuous behavior outside the residence, in view of the public, I warned Gates that he was becoming disorderly. Gates ignored my warning and continued to yell, which drew the attention of both the police officers and citizens, who appeared surprised and alarmed by Gates’s outburst. For a second time I warned Gates to calm down while I withdrew my department issued handcuffs from their carrying case. Gates again ignored my warning and continued to yell at me. It was at this time that I informed Gates that he was under arrest.’
Now it makes sense to ask if the arrest of Professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. matches the criteria of the Model Penal Code section 250.2: (1), and it seems to me that the most significant sub-section is 250.2: (1)(b)... makes unreasonable noise or offensively coarse utterance, gesture or display, or addresses abusive language to any person present...
If you believe the police report, then Professor Gates probably satisfied the criteria of Model Penal Code section 250.2: (1) by shouting insults at the cop from his front porch, and even though the front porch itself is not a public place, it was sufficiently close to the public sidewalk and street so that "persons in a place to which the public or a substantial group has access" were affected.
…… Professor Gates' house is unfenced and adjacent to Ware Street in Cambridge…… It also is possible that behavior occurring on purely private property may be shown to affect or be likely to affect persons in an adjacent or nearby 'place to which the public or a substantial group has access,' Model Penal Code section 250.2, such that a disorderly conduct charge would be appropriate."
O’Donnell goes on to insist that people have a right to call cops any derogatory names they want. It’s true that people don’t have to be nice to police officers, but when they continue to badmouth cops within sight and sound of the public, they have crossed the line from constitutionally protected speech to disorderly conduct.
Worst of all, O’Donnell also accuses the police in this country of abusing their power to arrest every day, "knowing that the charges are going to have to be dropped." He implies that making false arrests on purpose is a common practice. That’s simply not true and he damn well knows it!
This controversy is far from over because people on each side have planted their feet firmly in concrete. (That, obviously, includes me.) Although the courts have ruled that cops must tolerate some verbal abuse, those who don't like the police need to realize there is a limit to the amount of shit that an officer has to take. Gates clearly exceeded that limit. As for the cops, they don’t help their cause by making wisecracks about "attitude adjustment" or the one that goes, "you might beat the rap, but you won't beat the ride."
There are many reasons why people might not like cops. After all, they regulate human behavior and no one likes to have their behavior regulated. But for society's sake, hatred of the police cannot be tolerated! As for O’Donnell, his hatred of the police also comes across loud and clear in the title of his book, "Deadly Force: The True Story of How a Badge Can Become a License to Kill."
Sunday, July 26, 2009
CALIFORNIA'S MOST PROFITABLE CASH CROP
330,000 marijuana plants were seized. One mature plant alone can be sold for $4,000.
CALIF. POLICE SEIZE $1 BILLION IN MARIJUANA PLANTS
By Nick Valencia
CNN.com
July 26, 2009
FRESNO, Calif. — Authorities have seized $1 billion worth of marijuana plants and have arrested 82 Mexican nationals with ties to drug cartels in the first week and half of an effort to eradicate marijuana fields from California's Fresno County, the county sheriff's office said Wednesday.
Operation Save Our Sierra began July 13 and involves local, state and federal agencies working together to remove marijuana growing operations, investigate and arrest drug traffickers, and remove infrastructure on public lands in Fresno County, a news release said.
"This is a high-intensity drug trafficking area," U.S. Drug Czar Gil Kerlikowske said in a phone interview. "I think what should be highlighted here is the local authorities' work to reclaim the land from the drug traffickers."
The 82 suspects arrested so far have links to Mexican drug cartels, local authorities said, though they did not release further details.
Eastern Fresno County, where the seizures have been made, is mountainous and sparsely populated. Growers exploit the area's streams, rivers and lakes to create elaborate drip lines for their plants. A mature plant can be worth $4,000, said Fresno County Sheriff Margaret Mims.
"Fresno County is roughly the size of Connecticut, and the drug traffickers target these areas because they know there is not that significant of a law-enforcement presence," Mims said. "The chances of getting caught are slim."
"The bottom line is our public lands are being destroyed by foreign drug trafficking and heavily armed Mexican cartels," George Anderson of the U.S. Department of Justice said Wednesday at a news conference highlighting the seizures.
The operation is the largest in Fresno County history and one of the largest in California, Mims said.
"What makes this operation unique is the approach: prevention, enforcement, eradication and reclamation," she said.
Intelligence gathered for the operation began in February, with community presentations about prevention. The effort is now focused on shutting down the at least 70 marijuana farms identified by local authorities.
The operation is expected to continue into November, when colder weather makes marijuana growing more difficult.
At least 330,000 marijuana plants have been seized, Mims said.
"This shows what can be accomplished at the local level when agencies work together," Kerlikowske said.
Kerlikowske, who flew to Fresno County on Wednesday and toured a marijuana farm, said his office is one of the primary sponsors of the operation.
CALIF. POLICE SEIZE $1 BILLION IN MARIJUANA PLANTS
By Nick Valencia
CNN.com
July 26, 2009
FRESNO, Calif. — Authorities have seized $1 billion worth of marijuana plants and have arrested 82 Mexican nationals with ties to drug cartels in the first week and half of an effort to eradicate marijuana fields from California's Fresno County, the county sheriff's office said Wednesday.
Operation Save Our Sierra began July 13 and involves local, state and federal agencies working together to remove marijuana growing operations, investigate and arrest drug traffickers, and remove infrastructure on public lands in Fresno County, a news release said.
"This is a high-intensity drug trafficking area," U.S. Drug Czar Gil Kerlikowske said in a phone interview. "I think what should be highlighted here is the local authorities' work to reclaim the land from the drug traffickers."
The 82 suspects arrested so far have links to Mexican drug cartels, local authorities said, though they did not release further details.
Eastern Fresno County, where the seizures have been made, is mountainous and sparsely populated. Growers exploit the area's streams, rivers and lakes to create elaborate drip lines for their plants. A mature plant can be worth $4,000, said Fresno County Sheriff Margaret Mims.
"Fresno County is roughly the size of Connecticut, and the drug traffickers target these areas because they know there is not that significant of a law-enforcement presence," Mims said. "The chances of getting caught are slim."
"The bottom line is our public lands are being destroyed by foreign drug trafficking and heavily armed Mexican cartels," George Anderson of the U.S. Department of Justice said Wednesday at a news conference highlighting the seizures.
The operation is the largest in Fresno County history and one of the largest in California, Mims said.
"What makes this operation unique is the approach: prevention, enforcement, eradication and reclamation," she said.
Intelligence gathered for the operation began in February, with community presentations about prevention. The effort is now focused on shutting down the at least 70 marijuana farms identified by local authorities.
The operation is expected to continue into November, when colder weather makes marijuana growing more difficult.
At least 330,000 marijuana plants have been seized, Mims said.
"This shows what can be accomplished at the local level when agencies work together," Kerlikowske said.
Kerlikowske, who flew to Fresno County on Wednesday and toured a marijuana farm, said his office is one of the primary sponsors of the operation.
FUN AND GAMES WITHIN THE PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY
REPORT: ARAFAT’S WIDOW FORCED TO DENY ASSASSINATION PLOT
According to Saudi newspaper, Suha Arafat blackmailed into denying any knowledge of Abbas and Dahlan's involvement in alleged plot to poison deceased Palestinian leader. Reportedly, Abbas' office threatened not to pay her monthly salary if she declined
By Ali Waked
Ynetnews.com
July 26, 2009
Accusations that Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and others were part of a plot to poison deceased Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat are shaking the PA.
According to reports on Sunday, the late Palestinian leader's widow, Suha Arafat, broke out in tears after being forced to deny any knowledge of the alleged scheme.
The media storm started two weeks ago when the number two PLO figure, Farouk Kaddoumi, claimed in a Jordanian press conference that Abbas together with PA security chief Mohammad Dahlan collaborated in an Israeli-orchestrated plot to poison Arafat.
Kaddoumi asserted that Arafat had shown him documentation proving that Abbas and Hamas leaders met with top American and Israeli officials on the issue.
Fatah quickly went on the offensive against Kaddoumi and his statements, even pointing an angry finger at Jordan and the al-Jazeera news network for covering the affair.
Arafat's widow, Suha, told a Turkish newspaper last week that her deceased husband showed her the minutes of the same Israeli-American-Palestinian meeting of which Kaddoumi spoke. According to her, the ex-leader also said that he feared for his life in light of Dahlan's and Abbas' allegedly peculiar behavior.
Saudi newspaper Okaz quoted Palestinian sources claiming that Abbas' office, acting upon direct orders from the president, threatened to revoke Suha Arafat's monthly PA salary should she decline to deny what the statements she made to the Turkish newspaper.
According to the report, Suha, currently living in Malta near her brother, who is serving as Palestinian ambassador in the country, cried when she learned of the threats.
Pressure from Ramallah brought her to read a script to the media sent to her by Abbas' office denying that she had any knowledge of an assassination plot and attacking Kaddoumi for his statements against the PA.
According to Saudi newspaper, Suha Arafat blackmailed into denying any knowledge of Abbas and Dahlan's involvement in alleged plot to poison deceased Palestinian leader. Reportedly, Abbas' office threatened not to pay her monthly salary if she declined
By Ali Waked
Ynetnews.com
July 26, 2009
Accusations that Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and others were part of a plot to poison deceased Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat are shaking the PA.
According to reports on Sunday, the late Palestinian leader's widow, Suha Arafat, broke out in tears after being forced to deny any knowledge of the alleged scheme.
The media storm started two weeks ago when the number two PLO figure, Farouk Kaddoumi, claimed in a Jordanian press conference that Abbas together with PA security chief Mohammad Dahlan collaborated in an Israeli-orchestrated plot to poison Arafat.
Kaddoumi asserted that Arafat had shown him documentation proving that Abbas and Hamas leaders met with top American and Israeli officials on the issue.
Fatah quickly went on the offensive against Kaddoumi and his statements, even pointing an angry finger at Jordan and the al-Jazeera news network for covering the affair.
Arafat's widow, Suha, told a Turkish newspaper last week that her deceased husband showed her the minutes of the same Israeli-American-Palestinian meeting of which Kaddoumi spoke. According to her, the ex-leader also said that he feared for his life in light of Dahlan's and Abbas' allegedly peculiar behavior.
Saudi newspaper Okaz quoted Palestinian sources claiming that Abbas' office, acting upon direct orders from the president, threatened to revoke Suha Arafat's monthly PA salary should she decline to deny what the statements she made to the Turkish newspaper.
According to the report, Suha, currently living in Malta near her brother, who is serving as Palestinian ambassador in the country, cried when she learned of the threats.
Pressure from Ramallah brought her to read a script to the media sent to her by Abbas' office denying that she had any knowledge of an assassination plot and attacking Kaddoumi for his statements against the PA.
Saturday, July 25, 2009
BLOWS FROM THOR'S HAMMER
OFFICER OF NO COLOR
By Dan Marcou
PoliceOne.com
July 25, 2009
"Racist!"
Every "Officer of no color" has been there. You’ve stopped a car at night for a violation. The windows are tinted to obscure the identity of the driver and when the contact is made it is learned that the person driving is a person of color. The yelling, the invectives, and the charges of racism begin immediately.
The officer will tell the driver the reason for the stop and even try at times to explain that the windows are tinted and jokingly point out a kangaroo could have been driving and you would not have been able to tell, but it is to no avail.
In the eyes of the driver he has judged the officer to be a racist even though the officer’s intentions were pure. The officer made the stop for the offense of the driver not the color of the driver.
You see, there are many officers out there who are "Officers of no color."
These officers enforce the law fairly and impartially and they pride themselves on doing so. They are White American Police Officers, African American Police Officers, Native American Police Officers, Asian American Police Officers, and Hispanic American Police Officers. They are simply American Police Officers.
They are professionals and exhibit fairness in the way they police.
The police professionals realize that criminals come in all colors and therefore to use color as an indicator would not only be unfair, but it would also hamper them in their efficiency. They aggressively pursue the criminal and arrest for the offense.
"Officers of no color" pride themselves on trying to police with a sense of fairness, but they face bigotry every day. They are treated rudely, prejudged, and even physically attacked because of their color -- not the color of their skin, but the color of their uniform.
Every "Officer of no color," has had to bear the burden of ugly words. Every "Officer of no color," has been called "stupid" or "racist" or much worse by people they protect and serve.
But what happens when the people who say these things about you are a "respected" college professor and his friend, the President of the United States? The words must strike like blows from Thor’s hammer.
These things were said about a widely respected police sergeant, who has spent his career as a role model, trying to set an example as an "officer of no color." He has taught other officers that they must pursue the criminal for the crime and not the color of their skin.
The President and the professor judged the noble heart of this officer by the color of his uniform. Considering the dizzying height from which this uninformed judgment came, it must have hurt the sergeant deeply.
The Sergeant will most certainly survive this verbal assault with the support of his family, his department, his community and his fellow officers. The Sergeant-trainer now has a real life example to share with his academy students about the ugly face of prejudice.
Sadly, the faces on the power point slide will belong to a president and a professor.
-----------
Dan Marcou retired as a highly decorated police lieutenant and SWAT Commander with 33 years as a police officer. He is a nationally recognized police trainer in many police disciplines and is a Master Trainer in the State of Wisconsin.
By Dan Marcou
PoliceOne.com
July 25, 2009
"Racist!"
Every "Officer of no color" has been there. You’ve stopped a car at night for a violation. The windows are tinted to obscure the identity of the driver and when the contact is made it is learned that the person driving is a person of color. The yelling, the invectives, and the charges of racism begin immediately.
The officer will tell the driver the reason for the stop and even try at times to explain that the windows are tinted and jokingly point out a kangaroo could have been driving and you would not have been able to tell, but it is to no avail.
In the eyes of the driver he has judged the officer to be a racist even though the officer’s intentions were pure. The officer made the stop for the offense of the driver not the color of the driver.
You see, there are many officers out there who are "Officers of no color."
These officers enforce the law fairly and impartially and they pride themselves on doing so. They are White American Police Officers, African American Police Officers, Native American Police Officers, Asian American Police Officers, and Hispanic American Police Officers. They are simply American Police Officers.
They are professionals and exhibit fairness in the way they police.
The police professionals realize that criminals come in all colors and therefore to use color as an indicator would not only be unfair, but it would also hamper them in their efficiency. They aggressively pursue the criminal and arrest for the offense.
"Officers of no color" pride themselves on trying to police with a sense of fairness, but they face bigotry every day. They are treated rudely, prejudged, and even physically attacked because of their color -- not the color of their skin, but the color of their uniform.
Every "Officer of no color," has had to bear the burden of ugly words. Every "Officer of no color," has been called "stupid" or "racist" or much worse by people they protect and serve.
But what happens when the people who say these things about you are a "respected" college professor and his friend, the President of the United States? The words must strike like blows from Thor’s hammer.
These things were said about a widely respected police sergeant, who has spent his career as a role model, trying to set an example as an "officer of no color." He has taught other officers that they must pursue the criminal for the crime and not the color of their skin.
The President and the professor judged the noble heart of this officer by the color of his uniform. Considering the dizzying height from which this uninformed judgment came, it must have hurt the sergeant deeply.
The Sergeant will most certainly survive this verbal assault with the support of his family, his department, his community and his fellow officers. The Sergeant-trainer now has a real life example to share with his academy students about the ugly face of prejudice.
Sadly, the faces on the power point slide will belong to a president and a professor.
-----------
Dan Marcou retired as a highly decorated police lieutenant and SWAT Commander with 33 years as a police officer. He is a nationally recognized police trainer in many police disciplines and is a Master Trainer in the State of Wisconsin.
POLICE OFFICERS AREN'T LIKE COLLEGE PROFESSORS
President Obama has been trying to wiggle out of the mess he made for himself in the Professor Gates arrest case. Now he says that both Sgt. Crowley and his friend Gates may have overreacted. WHAT A CROCK! Crowley didn’t overreact, it was his buddy Gates who went ballistic. Crowley was subjected to a lot of verbal abuse before he finally arrested the loud-mouthed professor.
Professor Gates and his supporters, including black professors Michael Eric Dyson and Lawrence Bobo, are milking the race card for all it’s worth. They must have earned their doctoral degrees at the Al Sharpton-Jesse Jackson College of Victimology.
Sharpton and Jackson were quick to pounce on the Gates case. Sharpton proclaimed, "This arrest is indicative of at best police abuse of power or at worst the highest example of racial profiling I have seen. I have heard of driving while black and even shopping while black but now even going to your own home while black is a new low." And Jackson said, "The charges have been dropped, but the stain remains. ... Humiliation remains. These incidents are so much of a national pattern on race."
The police did not humiliate Professor Gates - he humiliated himself. This was not a case of racial profiling, nor was it an example of how the police mistreat blacks in America. This was nothing more than a case wherein Gates took offense to the police investigation of a reported "Burglary in Progress" even though the cops were there to protect his property and possibly his life.
And contrary to what all the critics were saying, including Obama, the professor was not arrested inside his home - he was arrested for disorderly conduct only after he followed Sgt. Crowley out the front door and continued to rant and rave his racial crap before a crowd of onlookers and cops. .
"Don't Cop an Attitude" is a column by Rich Tucker that appeared in today’s Townhall.com. I have chosen to reproduce only a small part of Tucker’s column, excerpts that illustrate the milking of the race card in the Gates case and the absurdity of it all. Tucker wrote:
[Professor Gates’] friends plan to flog the supposed police racism for all it’s worth, too. "Ain’t nothing post-racial about the United States of America," wrote fellow Harvard prof Lawrence Bobo in the Post on July 22.
Bobo goes on to draw exactly the wrong lesson, lauding Gates for refusing to go along with the police. "I think my friend could have been physically injured by this police officer (if not worse) had he, in fact, stepped out of his home before showing his ID."
It’s difficult to believe that a Harvard professor would suggest that an American police officer would order a man into the front yard so he could beat or shoot the man. But that’s the gist of Bobo’s argument. Look: If the officer wanted to beat Gates up, he’d keep him in the house. The front yard, surrounded by witnesses and other officers, is the safest place to be if Gates is worried about being beaten.
There’s a reason the officer wanted Gates to come out of the house, and it’s not so he could pistol whip him (if not worse). It’s so the police could check the house and make sure there wasn’t anyone else -- an intruder -- there.
Police officers aren’t like college professors. They don’t have the luxury of being wrong. If the officer had simply left, and there was an intruder in Gates’s home who later attacked the professor ...... he wouldn’t have done his job.
EDITOR’S NOTE: With experience as both a cop and a professor, I can speak with some authority when I say, thank God police officers aren’t like college professors!
Professor Gates and his supporters, including black professors Michael Eric Dyson and Lawrence Bobo, are milking the race card for all it’s worth. They must have earned their doctoral degrees at the Al Sharpton-Jesse Jackson College of Victimology.
Sharpton and Jackson were quick to pounce on the Gates case. Sharpton proclaimed, "This arrest is indicative of at best police abuse of power or at worst the highest example of racial profiling I have seen. I have heard of driving while black and even shopping while black but now even going to your own home while black is a new low." And Jackson said, "The charges have been dropped, but the stain remains. ... Humiliation remains. These incidents are so much of a national pattern on race."
The police did not humiliate Professor Gates - he humiliated himself. This was not a case of racial profiling, nor was it an example of how the police mistreat blacks in America. This was nothing more than a case wherein Gates took offense to the police investigation of a reported "Burglary in Progress" even though the cops were there to protect his property and possibly his life.
And contrary to what all the critics were saying, including Obama, the professor was not arrested inside his home - he was arrested for disorderly conduct only after he followed Sgt. Crowley out the front door and continued to rant and rave his racial crap before a crowd of onlookers and cops. .
"Don't Cop an Attitude" is a column by Rich Tucker that appeared in today’s Townhall.com. I have chosen to reproduce only a small part of Tucker’s column, excerpts that illustrate the milking of the race card in the Gates case and the absurdity of it all. Tucker wrote:
[Professor Gates’] friends plan to flog the supposed police racism for all it’s worth, too. "Ain’t nothing post-racial about the United States of America," wrote fellow Harvard prof Lawrence Bobo in the Post on July 22.
Bobo goes on to draw exactly the wrong lesson, lauding Gates for refusing to go along with the police. "I think my friend could have been physically injured by this police officer (if not worse) had he, in fact, stepped out of his home before showing his ID."
It’s difficult to believe that a Harvard professor would suggest that an American police officer would order a man into the front yard so he could beat or shoot the man. But that’s the gist of Bobo’s argument. Look: If the officer wanted to beat Gates up, he’d keep him in the house. The front yard, surrounded by witnesses and other officers, is the safest place to be if Gates is worried about being beaten.
There’s a reason the officer wanted Gates to come out of the house, and it’s not so he could pistol whip him (if not worse). It’s so the police could check the house and make sure there wasn’t anyone else -- an intruder -- there.
Police officers aren’t like college professors. They don’t have the luxury of being wrong. If the officer had simply left, and there was an intruder in Gates’s home who later attacked the professor ...... he wouldn’t have done his job.
EDITOR’S NOTE: With experience as both a cop and a professor, I can speak with some authority when I say, thank God police officers aren’t like college professors!
Friday, July 24, 2009
A JEWISH MILITIA IN THE U.S.?
This will really give New York authorities a good dose of the shits. And America’s liberal Jews must be bristling at the suggestion they purchase, God forbid, their own firearms for self-defense. Oy vey!
IDF VETS TRAIN U.S. JEWS TO PROTECT THEIR COMMUNITIES
by Maayana Miskin
IsraelNationalNews.com
July 24, 2009
Starting in late July, a group of Israeli combat veterans will be holding a training camp in New York to teach advanced self-defense techniques to Jews in U.S. communities. An increasing number of American Jews have expressed interest in the program following a wave of anti-Semitic incidents worldwide over the past year, organizers report.
The group calls itself Kitat Konenut New York – a reference to the "rapid response teams" active throughout Judea and Samaria. Rapid response teams in Israel, comprised of local civilians who are IDF veterans, have often been the first on the scene of terrorist attacks and other emergencies, and have prevented casualties.
It was founded in 2006 in response to a shooting attack at a Jewish center in Seattle, Washington. One woman was murdered in the attack, and several others were wounded.
The group is apolitical, and does not take part in demonstrations. "Our agenda is to protect Jews," says group member Yonatan Stern.
However, the group does have a firmly held political belief. "We believe in the constitutional right to bear arms," Stern says. Kitat Konenut encourages all American Jews to learn how to use weapons, and to purchase their own firearms for self-defense.
Trainees learn the IDF's unique martial arts style, known as Krav Maga, and learn to identify suspicious objects and dismantle improvised explosives. They are also trained to use a variety of both non-lethal and lethal weapons, including assault rifles and sniper rifles. Trainers review techniques to deal with situations ranging from knife fights to urban warfare.
Training this year will begin on July 31 and conclude on August 9.
IDF VETS TRAIN U.S. JEWS TO PROTECT THEIR COMMUNITIES
by Maayana Miskin
IsraelNationalNews.com
July 24, 2009
Starting in late July, a group of Israeli combat veterans will be holding a training camp in New York to teach advanced self-defense techniques to Jews in U.S. communities. An increasing number of American Jews have expressed interest in the program following a wave of anti-Semitic incidents worldwide over the past year, organizers report.
The group calls itself Kitat Konenut New York – a reference to the "rapid response teams" active throughout Judea and Samaria. Rapid response teams in Israel, comprised of local civilians who are IDF veterans, have often been the first on the scene of terrorist attacks and other emergencies, and have prevented casualties.
It was founded in 2006 in response to a shooting attack at a Jewish center in Seattle, Washington. One woman was murdered in the attack, and several others were wounded.
The group is apolitical, and does not take part in demonstrations. "Our agenda is to protect Jews," says group member Yonatan Stern.
However, the group does have a firmly held political belief. "We believe in the constitutional right to bear arms," Stern says. Kitat Konenut encourages all American Jews to learn how to use weapons, and to purchase their own firearms for self-defense.
Trainees learn the IDF's unique martial arts style, known as Krav Maga, and learn to identify suspicious objects and dismantle improvised explosives. They are also trained to use a variety of both non-lethal and lethal weapons, including assault rifles and sniper rifles. Trainers review techniques to deal with situations ranging from knife fights to urban warfare.
Training this year will begin on July 31 and conclude on August 9.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
"ACTED STUPIDLY" - THE KETTLE CALLING THE POT BLACK
"I don’t know – not having been there and not seeing all the facts – what role race played in that, but I think it’s fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry; number two that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home."
That’s what President Obama told reporters during a press conference in response to a question about the arrest of his friend Henry Louis Gates Jr., director of Harvard University's W.E.B. Du Bois Institute for African and African American Research. Obama admitted that Gates "is a friend, so I may be a little biased here. I don't know all the facts."
Acted stupidly? That’s the kettle calling the pot black. The president acted even more stupidly than the Cambridge police when he made that statement without knowing the actual facts. A little biased? Now that’s an understatement if there ever was one.
When Gates returned home from a trip, he attempted to force open his front door but was unable to gain entrance because it had been jammed during a previous break-in. He and his driver then went to the back and jimmied their way in. They were observed by a woman who called the police to report what she thaught was a burglary being committed. The police responded to a "Burglary in Progress" call and were met at the front door by an outraged Harvard professor.
Instead of calming down while the officers tried to determine whether he was a burlar or not, Gates accused the officers of racism and the situation escalated until he was arrested for disorderly conduct after drawing a crowd of onlookers and cops. After he spent a couple of hours in the pokey, the charges were dropped.
In the arrest report, police said Gates initially refused to step onto his porch when approached by Cambridge Police Sgt. James Crowley. He then allegedly opened his door and shouted, "Why, because I'm a black man in America?"
"As Crowley continued to question Gates, the Harvard professor allegedly told him, 'You don't know who you're messing with.' When Crowley asked to speak with him outside, Gates allegedly said, 'Ya, I'll speak with your momma outside.'"
Crowley says he responded to a call of a possible break-in by a woman on the sidewalk, who said she'd seen a black male "wedging his shoulder into the door as if he was trying to force entry." Crowley reported he "could see an older black male standing in the foyer." He continued: "As I stood in plain view of this man, later identified as Gates, I asked if he would step out onto the porch and speak with me. He replied 'no, I will not.' He then demanded to know who I was. I told him that I was 'Sgt. Crowley from the Cambridge Police' and that I was 'investigating a report of a break in progress' at the residence. While I was making this statement, Gates opened the front door and exclaimed 'why, because I'm a black man in America?' I then asked Gates if there was anyone else in the residence. While yelling, he told me that it was none of my business and accused me of being a racist police officer."
Crowley's report, as well as that of another responding officer, describe Gates yelling repeated accusations of racism while asserting that the officer "had no idea who (he) was 'messing' with" and that the officer "had not heard the last of it."
After initially refusing to produce any identification confirming his residence, Gates finally supplied a Harvard ID. By that time, a crowd of officers and passers-by was outside. In front of the house and "in view of the public," Crowley states he twice warned Gates that he was becoming disorderly. But Gates' yelling and "tumultuous behavior" continued, causing "surprise and alarm" in the citizenry outside. Crowley then placed Gates under arrest.
Crowley "asked Gates if he would like an officer to take possession of his house key and secure his front door, which he left wide open." Gates said "the door was unsecurable due to a previous break attempt at the residence."
Professor Gates' version is that Sgt Crowley walked into his home without his permission and only arrested him as the professor followed him to the porch, repeatedly demanding the sergeant's name and badge number because he was unhappy over his treatment. Gates complained that he was victimized by a "rogue cop." To hear him tell it, Sgt. Crowley was out of control while he was calm, cool and collected throughout.
After his release from jail, Gates asserted that he was the victim of racial profiling. The Congressional Black Caucus quickly chimed in with the same accusation. And Michael Eric Dyson, a prominent black Georgetown University sociology professor, was all over the airwaves spouting off about the mistreatment of blacks by the police in America.
Could the Cambridge police officers have handled this case without making an arrest? Yes, but to accuse them of being racist is a real stretch. At least one of the arresting officers was black. And Crowley was a campus police officer at Brandeis University in July 1993 when he administered mouth to mouth resuscitation trying to save the life of Reggie Lewis, a black former Boston Celtics player, something a racist cop would be reluctant to do.
Police officers in most college towns tend to be well educated and, like campus cops, are instructed to tolerate verbal abuse and to avoid making any unnecessary arrests. Given the same circumstances, I believe that had Gates been white, he would still have been arrested. While I agree with Obama that any of us would be angry in a similar situation, that does not in any way excuse the professor’s abusive behavior.
Stupid is as stupid does. For the president, a graduate of Columbia University and Harvard law school, to make an accusatory public statement without knowing the actual facts is an extraordinary act of stupidity and makes him look like an educated idiot.
That’s what President Obama told reporters during a press conference in response to a question about the arrest of his friend Henry Louis Gates Jr., director of Harvard University's W.E.B. Du Bois Institute for African and African American Research. Obama admitted that Gates "is a friend, so I may be a little biased here. I don't know all the facts."
Acted stupidly? That’s the kettle calling the pot black. The president acted even more stupidly than the Cambridge police when he made that statement without knowing the actual facts. A little biased? Now that’s an understatement if there ever was one.
When Gates returned home from a trip, he attempted to force open his front door but was unable to gain entrance because it had been jammed during a previous break-in. He and his driver then went to the back and jimmied their way in. They were observed by a woman who called the police to report what she thaught was a burglary being committed. The police responded to a "Burglary in Progress" call and were met at the front door by an outraged Harvard professor.
Instead of calming down while the officers tried to determine whether he was a burlar or not, Gates accused the officers of racism and the situation escalated until he was arrested for disorderly conduct after drawing a crowd of onlookers and cops. After he spent a couple of hours in the pokey, the charges were dropped.
In the arrest report, police said Gates initially refused to step onto his porch when approached by Cambridge Police Sgt. James Crowley. He then allegedly opened his door and shouted, "Why, because I'm a black man in America?"
"As Crowley continued to question Gates, the Harvard professor allegedly told him, 'You don't know who you're messing with.' When Crowley asked to speak with him outside, Gates allegedly said, 'Ya, I'll speak with your momma outside.'"
Crowley says he responded to a call of a possible break-in by a woman on the sidewalk, who said she'd seen a black male "wedging his shoulder into the door as if he was trying to force entry." Crowley reported he "could see an older black male standing in the foyer." He continued: "As I stood in plain view of this man, later identified as Gates, I asked if he would step out onto the porch and speak with me. He replied 'no, I will not.' He then demanded to know who I was. I told him that I was 'Sgt. Crowley from the Cambridge Police' and that I was 'investigating a report of a break in progress' at the residence. While I was making this statement, Gates opened the front door and exclaimed 'why, because I'm a black man in America?' I then asked Gates if there was anyone else in the residence. While yelling, he told me that it was none of my business and accused me of being a racist police officer."
Crowley's report, as well as that of another responding officer, describe Gates yelling repeated accusations of racism while asserting that the officer "had no idea who (he) was 'messing' with" and that the officer "had not heard the last of it."
After initially refusing to produce any identification confirming his residence, Gates finally supplied a Harvard ID. By that time, a crowd of officers and passers-by was outside. In front of the house and "in view of the public," Crowley states he twice warned Gates that he was becoming disorderly. But Gates' yelling and "tumultuous behavior" continued, causing "surprise and alarm" in the citizenry outside. Crowley then placed Gates under arrest.
Crowley "asked Gates if he would like an officer to take possession of his house key and secure his front door, which he left wide open." Gates said "the door was unsecurable due to a previous break attempt at the residence."
Professor Gates' version is that Sgt Crowley walked into his home without his permission and only arrested him as the professor followed him to the porch, repeatedly demanding the sergeant's name and badge number because he was unhappy over his treatment. Gates complained that he was victimized by a "rogue cop." To hear him tell it, Sgt. Crowley was out of control while he was calm, cool and collected throughout.
After his release from jail, Gates asserted that he was the victim of racial profiling. The Congressional Black Caucus quickly chimed in with the same accusation. And Michael Eric Dyson, a prominent black Georgetown University sociology professor, was all over the airwaves spouting off about the mistreatment of blacks by the police in America.
Could the Cambridge police officers have handled this case without making an arrest? Yes, but to accuse them of being racist is a real stretch. At least one of the arresting officers was black. And Crowley was a campus police officer at Brandeis University in July 1993 when he administered mouth to mouth resuscitation trying to save the life of Reggie Lewis, a black former Boston Celtics player, something a racist cop would be reluctant to do.
Police officers in most college towns tend to be well educated and, like campus cops, are instructed to tolerate verbal abuse and to avoid making any unnecessary arrests. Given the same circumstances, I believe that had Gates been white, he would still have been arrested. While I agree with Obama that any of us would be angry in a similar situation, that does not in any way excuse the professor’s abusive behavior.
Stupid is as stupid does. For the president, a graduate of Columbia University and Harvard law school, to make an accusatory public statement without knowing the actual facts is an extraordinary act of stupidity and makes him look like an educated idiot.
Monday, July 20, 2009
ISRAEL'S PUBLIC ENEMY NO. 1
Recently I wrote that President Barack Obama was on the verge of becoming Israel’s Public Enemy No. 1. First he insists that Israel must stop all construction for natural growth in long established settlements. Now his administration "demands" that Israel not build any new Jewish housing in East Jerusalem because that part of the city is what the Palestinians want for their capital.
But in order to become public enemy no. 1, Obama has to push former President Jimmy Carter out of that lofty position. When Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu agreed to the establishment of a Palestinian state existing alongside a Jewish state, Jimmy Carter piped in by denouncing the concept of a "Jewish state."
Here is how the Simon Wiesenthal Center recounts the reaction to the speech Netanyahu gave in response to Obama’s Muslim embracing Cairo speech:
"It is increasingly clear that nothing will deter the enemies of a strong Israel. They are hard at work honing their newest tactic: CHALLENGING ISRAEL’S FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO EXIST AS A JEWISH STATE. It’s an insidious campaign that …… in the last few weeks, there have been a number of alarming developments that should have all friends of Israel deeply concerned.
The chorus is growing ever-louder, calling for Israel to do what no other country has ever been asked to do – PLACE ITS VERY IDENTITY AND CORE VALUES ON THE NEGOTIATING TABLE.
[Netanyahu's] words reflected Israel’s deep commitment to seeking a permanent end to the conflict – which will include the establishment of a Palestinian state – after the Palestinian leadership signals its people that it is finally time for a real peace.
But instead of lauding Netanyahu’s initiative, former President Carter, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and top Palestinian leaders declared NETANYAHU’S SPEECH HAD RUINED THE CHANCES FOR AN ACCORD!
Carter cited several ‘hurdles’ to peace in the speech, saying, ‘[Netanyahu) demands that the Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state even though 20% of Israel’s citizens are not Jews.’ And Mubarak declared that ‘the prime minister of Israel’s call to the Palestinians to recognize Israel as a Jewish state thwarts the chances for peace.’
Palestinian Authority negotiations department head Saeb Erekat stated that ‘NOT IN A THOUSAND YEARS’ would the Palestinians agree to Israeli conditions. And Nabil Abu Rudeina, spokesman for the PA president declared, ‘The speech has destroyed all peace initiatives and [chances for] a solution.’
And an editorial in the Palestinian daily newspaper stated, ‘Netanyahu spat in the face of all those who counted on Obama’s magic wand to swallow the serpents of the settlements and to make Netanyahu change his skin and recognize the two state [solution].’
Hamas also issued a statement calling the demand to recognize a Jewish state a ‘racist position.’ And a senior Hamas official declared, ‘This speech proves that resistance is the only way for the Palestinian people to attain its legitimate rights.’
……The current challenges to Israel are many-faceted. Indeed, former President Carter used his recent visit to the region to bestow a measure of legitimacy on the Hamas government by meeting with its leaders – despite the fact that Hamas is still considered an official terrorist organization by the U.S. and the European Union. Carter is even going so far as to lobby the Obama administration to reward Hamas by removing it from the terrorist list.
This dangerous double-standard of befriending and accepting terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hizbollah while condemning democratic Israel serves only one goal – delegitimizing and isolating Israel in the international community, thus endangering her citizens and supporters worldwide."
I don’t know why Carter has taken such virulent anti-Israel and anti-Jewish positions. However, it has become very clear to me that President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are intent on bringing down Netanyahu's fragile government coalition, believing he will be replaced by a dovish leader like Tzipi Livni of the Kadima party.
Friends do not make "demands" of a sovereign nation, only enemies do. As I’ve said before, with friends like Obama and Carter, Israel doesn’t need any enemies.
But in order to become public enemy no. 1, Obama has to push former President Jimmy Carter out of that lofty position. When Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu agreed to the establishment of a Palestinian state existing alongside a Jewish state, Jimmy Carter piped in by denouncing the concept of a "Jewish state."
Here is how the Simon Wiesenthal Center recounts the reaction to the speech Netanyahu gave in response to Obama’s Muslim embracing Cairo speech:
"It is increasingly clear that nothing will deter the enemies of a strong Israel. They are hard at work honing their newest tactic: CHALLENGING ISRAEL’S FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO EXIST AS A JEWISH STATE. It’s an insidious campaign that …… in the last few weeks, there have been a number of alarming developments that should have all friends of Israel deeply concerned.
The chorus is growing ever-louder, calling for Israel to do what no other country has ever been asked to do – PLACE ITS VERY IDENTITY AND CORE VALUES ON THE NEGOTIATING TABLE.
[Netanyahu's] words reflected Israel’s deep commitment to seeking a permanent end to the conflict – which will include the establishment of a Palestinian state – after the Palestinian leadership signals its people that it is finally time for a real peace.
But instead of lauding Netanyahu’s initiative, former President Carter, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and top Palestinian leaders declared NETANYAHU’S SPEECH HAD RUINED THE CHANCES FOR AN ACCORD!
Carter cited several ‘hurdles’ to peace in the speech, saying, ‘[Netanyahu) demands that the Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state even though 20% of Israel’s citizens are not Jews.’ And Mubarak declared that ‘the prime minister of Israel’s call to the Palestinians to recognize Israel as a Jewish state thwarts the chances for peace.’
Palestinian Authority negotiations department head Saeb Erekat stated that ‘NOT IN A THOUSAND YEARS’ would the Palestinians agree to Israeli conditions. And Nabil Abu Rudeina, spokesman for the PA president declared, ‘The speech has destroyed all peace initiatives and [chances for] a solution.’
And an editorial in the Palestinian daily newspaper stated, ‘Netanyahu spat in the face of all those who counted on Obama’s magic wand to swallow the serpents of the settlements and to make Netanyahu change his skin and recognize the two state [solution].’
Hamas also issued a statement calling the demand to recognize a Jewish state a ‘racist position.’ And a senior Hamas official declared, ‘This speech proves that resistance is the only way for the Palestinian people to attain its legitimate rights.’
……The current challenges to Israel are many-faceted. Indeed, former President Carter used his recent visit to the region to bestow a measure of legitimacy on the Hamas government by meeting with its leaders – despite the fact that Hamas is still considered an official terrorist organization by the U.S. and the European Union. Carter is even going so far as to lobby the Obama administration to reward Hamas by removing it from the terrorist list.
This dangerous double-standard of befriending and accepting terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hizbollah while condemning democratic Israel serves only one goal – delegitimizing and isolating Israel in the international community, thus endangering her citizens and supporters worldwide."
I don’t know why Carter has taken such virulent anti-Israel and anti-Jewish positions. However, it has become very clear to me that President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are intent on bringing down Netanyahu's fragile government coalition, believing he will be replaced by a dovish leader like Tzipi Livni of the Kadima party.
Friends do not make "demands" of a sovereign nation, only enemies do. As I’ve said before, with friends like Obama and Carter, Israel doesn’t need any enemies.
Sunday, July 19, 2009
PUSSY LEADS TO LYNCHING BY POSSE
When this report first came out I intended to blog it but got sidetracked. Even at this late date, this story is too good to leave out of my blog.
POLICE: CONN. TEENS MISHEAR SEX SCREEMS, BEAT MAN
By Dave Collins, Associated Press Writer
July 2, 2009
HARTFORD, Conn. – A 16-year-old girl thought she heard her mother being assaulted by her boyfriend and rounded up some friends who beat him up, only to learn later that the couple actually were having sex, the woman and police said. The girl misinterpreted the woman's amorous screams, and she and four other teens went to the woman's bedroom in the Torrington home on June 6, police Lt. Bruce Whiteley said Thursday.
One of the teens beat the 25-year-old man with a bat and others punched him, police said. He suffered a black eye and several bruises.
The girl, two 17-year-old boys and Dilyen Langdeau, 19, of Torrington, were arrested Tuesday night and arraigned in Bantam Superior Court on Wednesday. Langdeau was charged with assault and conspiracy; the teens face similar counts. The fifth teenager was not charged.
A judge sealed the police report. The names of the girl and the two boys were not released because of their ages.
The 34-year-old woman, Melanie Arnold, told The Associated Press on Thursday that the girl is her daughter. Arnold denied she was screaming, and said her daughter thought she heard a slap and believed an assault was happening.
"Instead of asking what was going on, they assumed and took matters into their own hands," Arnold said. "Now they have to learn a lesson."
The teens knocked on the bedroom door and Arnold opened it, according to the couple, who recently broke up.
The teens rushed into the room and the man, Roger Swanson, said he didn't have a chance to explain himself. He said he tried to get away, but the teens chased him down and started beating him in the house.
He said he knelt down over a chair and tried to protect his face, but got hit in the eye and in the back. He said Arnold covered his back to try to protect him, but the teen with the bat started hitting him in the legs. Then the youths left.
"What if they fight someone else and those guys don't walk away? What if they kill somebody?" he said. "Then they're going to spend the rest of their lives in jail. These kids need to learn, go through the court system and see if you do something to somebody, you see what happens."
POLICE: CONN. TEENS MISHEAR SEX SCREEMS, BEAT MAN
By Dave Collins, Associated Press Writer
July 2, 2009
HARTFORD, Conn. – A 16-year-old girl thought she heard her mother being assaulted by her boyfriend and rounded up some friends who beat him up, only to learn later that the couple actually were having sex, the woman and police said. The girl misinterpreted the woman's amorous screams, and she and four other teens went to the woman's bedroom in the Torrington home on June 6, police Lt. Bruce Whiteley said Thursday.
One of the teens beat the 25-year-old man with a bat and others punched him, police said. He suffered a black eye and several bruises.
The girl, two 17-year-old boys and Dilyen Langdeau, 19, of Torrington, were arrested Tuesday night and arraigned in Bantam Superior Court on Wednesday. Langdeau was charged with assault and conspiracy; the teens face similar counts. The fifth teenager was not charged.
A judge sealed the police report. The names of the girl and the two boys were not released because of their ages.
The 34-year-old woman, Melanie Arnold, told The Associated Press on Thursday that the girl is her daughter. Arnold denied she was screaming, and said her daughter thought she heard a slap and believed an assault was happening.
"Instead of asking what was going on, they assumed and took matters into their own hands," Arnold said. "Now they have to learn a lesson."
The teens knocked on the bedroom door and Arnold opened it, according to the couple, who recently broke up.
The teens rushed into the room and the man, Roger Swanson, said he didn't have a chance to explain himself. He said he tried to get away, but the teens chased him down and started beating him in the house.
He said he knelt down over a chair and tried to protect his face, but got hit in the eye and in the back. He said Arnold covered his back to try to protect him, but the teen with the bat started hitting him in the legs. Then the youths left.
"What if they fight someone else and those guys don't walk away? What if they kill somebody?" he said. "Then they're going to spend the rest of their lives in jail. These kids need to learn, go through the court system and see if you do something to somebody, you see what happens."
HOSPTIAL CHARGED EX-CON $6,792 FOR A POLICE-ORDERED RECTAL SEARCH
What really got my attention in this story was the audacity of the hospital in charging a man for a rectal search which had been ordered by law enforcement authorities.
Just as farfetched was the no search warrant "cover your ass" bullshit medical emergency justification put forth by the police and the hospital. Here is the whole story from the Times Union of Albany:
MAN SEDATED DRUING SEARCH GETS $125,000
Out-of-court settlement reached with ex-convict, Albany County, hospital
by Brendan J. Lyons, Senior Writer
timesunion.com
July 18, 2009
ALBANY -- A man who was forcibly sedated so his body could be searched for drugs that were never found will receive $125,000 under an out-of-court settlement reached recently with Albany County and Albany Medical Center Hospital.
The settlement stems from a federal lawsuit filed two years ago by Tunde Clement, an ex-convict arrested by sheriff's investigators on March 13, 2006, at the Albany bus terminal.
Clement was carrying a backpack when he stepped off a bus from New York City and was quickly confronted by investigators who suspected he may be carrying drugs.
Clement, 35, who police claim had an outstanding warrant for failing to appear in court in a neighboring city, was handcuffed and taken to a police station where he was strip-searched. No contraband was found, so Clement was taken to Albany Med, where doctors forcibly sedated him with powerful drugs against his will.
Sheriff's investigators did not obtain a search warrant for the procedure, and hospital officials did not require them to produce one. Police and hospital officials considered the matter a "medical emergency."
While Clement was under sedation, a camera was inserted in his rectum, he was forced to vomit and his blood and urine were tested for drugs and alcohol. Scans of his digestive system were performed using X-ray machines, according to hospital records obtained by the Times Union.
Clement spent more than 10 hours in custody before being released on an appearance ticket for resisting arrest -- a charge that was later thrown out by an Albany City Court judge.
"I think the settlement speaks for itself," said John F. Queenan, Clement's attorney in the federal lawsuit.
Clement's suit claimed his civil rights were violated. He filed the federal complaint against Albany Med and several doctors and nurses, and also sued Albany County and Sheriff James Campbell, Inspector John Burke, who heads the narcotics squad that arrested Clement, and eight investigators assigned to Burke's unit.
He claimed he was a victim of assault and battery when officials strapped him down and injected him with drugs against his will and with no medical need or emergency.
After being led from the bus station in handcuffs, Clement was taken to a holding cell in the county Judicial Center. He was forced to strip naked, squat and cough as investigators wrongly concluded he was hiding drugs inside his body.
He was then taken to the emergency room. Medical records indicate a doctor called the hospital's risk management director to assess the liability exposure of what they were about to do.
People under arrest normally cannot be forcibly sedated without a court order unless they are in imminent danger, such as when a bag of drugs bursts inside them and they have a seizure or fall unconscious. The hospital's records indicate Clement was behaving normally and showed no signs of any medical emergency.
"Spoke to Shirley of Risk Management," a physician wrote, documenting the medical decision-making that day. "OK to treat, sedate & remove FOB (foreign object body) against (patient's) will despite his personal refusal."
The following month Clement received a $6,792 bill from Albany Med for the procedures. Hospital records indicate the final diagnosis as "hemorrhoids."
"Every step of the way there was a factual basis for everything that was done by the law enforcement personnel in the case from the initial stop, and learning there was an arrest warrant, and then being advised there was a medical emergency," said Thomas J. O'Connor, an attorney for Investigator Douglas Vogel, who is assigned to the narcotics unit. "They were afraid for his life."
Lawyers for the hospital and Albany County could not be reached. The county's share is $65,000.
The sheriff's department's stop-and-frisk tactics at the downtown bus station have drawn harsh criticism from defense attorneys and civil rights advocates. Eight years ago, the state's highest court issued a searing rebuke of their methods while overturning the conviction of a passenger who'd been arrested carrying three ounces of cocaine.
The Court of Appeals said it was improper for the investigators to board buses from New York City and flash their badges, waiting for passengers to react. Now, sheriff's investigators said they no longer single out buses from New York City and simply approach passengers who appear to be acting suspiciously.
Clement was paroled from state prison last month after serving less than two years on a drug charge related to an arrest in Albany.
Just as farfetched was the no search warrant "cover your ass" bullshit medical emergency justification put forth by the police and the hospital. Here is the whole story from the Times Union of Albany:
MAN SEDATED DRUING SEARCH GETS $125,000
Out-of-court settlement reached with ex-convict, Albany County, hospital
by Brendan J. Lyons, Senior Writer
timesunion.com
July 18, 2009
ALBANY -- A man who was forcibly sedated so his body could be searched for drugs that were never found will receive $125,000 under an out-of-court settlement reached recently with Albany County and Albany Medical Center Hospital.
The settlement stems from a federal lawsuit filed two years ago by Tunde Clement, an ex-convict arrested by sheriff's investigators on March 13, 2006, at the Albany bus terminal.
Clement was carrying a backpack when he stepped off a bus from New York City and was quickly confronted by investigators who suspected he may be carrying drugs.
Clement, 35, who police claim had an outstanding warrant for failing to appear in court in a neighboring city, was handcuffed and taken to a police station where he was strip-searched. No contraband was found, so Clement was taken to Albany Med, where doctors forcibly sedated him with powerful drugs against his will.
Sheriff's investigators did not obtain a search warrant for the procedure, and hospital officials did not require them to produce one. Police and hospital officials considered the matter a "medical emergency."
While Clement was under sedation, a camera was inserted in his rectum, he was forced to vomit and his blood and urine were tested for drugs and alcohol. Scans of his digestive system were performed using X-ray machines, according to hospital records obtained by the Times Union.
Clement spent more than 10 hours in custody before being released on an appearance ticket for resisting arrest -- a charge that was later thrown out by an Albany City Court judge.
"I think the settlement speaks for itself," said John F. Queenan, Clement's attorney in the federal lawsuit.
Clement's suit claimed his civil rights were violated. He filed the federal complaint against Albany Med and several doctors and nurses, and also sued Albany County and Sheriff James Campbell, Inspector John Burke, who heads the narcotics squad that arrested Clement, and eight investigators assigned to Burke's unit.
He claimed he was a victim of assault and battery when officials strapped him down and injected him with drugs against his will and with no medical need or emergency.
After being led from the bus station in handcuffs, Clement was taken to a holding cell in the county Judicial Center. He was forced to strip naked, squat and cough as investigators wrongly concluded he was hiding drugs inside his body.
He was then taken to the emergency room. Medical records indicate a doctor called the hospital's risk management director to assess the liability exposure of what they were about to do.
People under arrest normally cannot be forcibly sedated without a court order unless they are in imminent danger, such as when a bag of drugs bursts inside them and they have a seizure or fall unconscious. The hospital's records indicate Clement was behaving normally and showed no signs of any medical emergency.
"Spoke to Shirley of Risk Management," a physician wrote, documenting the medical decision-making that day. "OK to treat, sedate & remove FOB (foreign object body) against (patient's) will despite his personal refusal."
The following month Clement received a $6,792 bill from Albany Med for the procedures. Hospital records indicate the final diagnosis as "hemorrhoids."
"Every step of the way there was a factual basis for everything that was done by the law enforcement personnel in the case from the initial stop, and learning there was an arrest warrant, and then being advised there was a medical emergency," said Thomas J. O'Connor, an attorney for Investigator Douglas Vogel, who is assigned to the narcotics unit. "They were afraid for his life."
Lawyers for the hospital and Albany County could not be reached. The county's share is $65,000.
The sheriff's department's stop-and-frisk tactics at the downtown bus station have drawn harsh criticism from defense attorneys and civil rights advocates. Eight years ago, the state's highest court issued a searing rebuke of their methods while overturning the conviction of a passenger who'd been arrested carrying three ounces of cocaine.
The Court of Appeals said it was improper for the investigators to board buses from New York City and flash their badges, waiting for passengers to react. Now, sheriff's investigators said they no longer single out buses from New York City and simply approach passengers who appear to be acting suspiciously.
Clement was paroled from state prison last month after serving less than two years on a drug charge related to an arrest in Albany.
Saturday, July 18, 2009
GUN OWNERS: BE WARY OF USING DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT SOMEONE OTHER THAN A FAMILY MEMBER OR FRIEND
Bob Walsh, a regular contributor to PacoVilla’s Corrections Blog, posted some important information on Paco’s blog concerning the use of deadly force. I have chosen to reproduce the part that deals with the use of deadly force to protect someone other than a family member or friend. Gun owners beware! Use caution in coming to the defense of another because things may not be as they appear to be.
From Bob Walsh on PacoVilla’s Corrections Blog:
"………. using deadly force to protect others is an incredibly risky thing, legally speaking, for a private citizen to do.
When you are protecting yourself (and others immediately with you) you have a pretty good idea of what is going on. When you stick your nose into somebody elses business you can be surprised big time as to what the facts really are. If you do so you are risking your freedom and every nickle you own or can ever hope to own on you being right, and a judge and jury agreeing with you. A case in point.
A young girl, maybe 12 or 13 years old, is riding her bicycle down the street. A much older man in a ratty pickup truck pulls in front of her to stop her and has a few words with her. She appears to be yelling at him. He physically grabs her and forces her into the pickup truck, throws her bicycle in the back and drives off.
What really happened? What, if anything, do you do about it?
What actually happened is that her mother sent her uncle to bring her home for dinner and she didn't want to go, she wanted to keep riding her bike. This real incident kept most of the police force of a major California city busy for the better part of a day. The people involved were immigrants, did not speak English and didn't know every cop in the county was looking for them until a friend who saw the 6:00 o'clock news mentioned it to them in passing that evening.
Let's say for the sake of argument say that you elected to intervene. The uncle sees someone (you) trying to stop his truck, doesn't know what's going on and keeps going. You pull a gun. He tries to run you down in self defense, you shoot at him, maybe hit him, maybe hit the girl. Whose ass do you think is going to be in jail that night?"
From Bob Walsh on PacoVilla’s Corrections Blog:
"………. using deadly force to protect others is an incredibly risky thing, legally speaking, for a private citizen to do.
When you are protecting yourself (and others immediately with you) you have a pretty good idea of what is going on. When you stick your nose into somebody elses business you can be surprised big time as to what the facts really are. If you do so you are risking your freedom and every nickle you own or can ever hope to own on you being right, and a judge and jury agreeing with you. A case in point.
A young girl, maybe 12 or 13 years old, is riding her bicycle down the street. A much older man in a ratty pickup truck pulls in front of her to stop her and has a few words with her. She appears to be yelling at him. He physically grabs her and forces her into the pickup truck, throws her bicycle in the back and drives off.
What really happened? What, if anything, do you do about it?
What actually happened is that her mother sent her uncle to bring her home for dinner and she didn't want to go, she wanted to keep riding her bike. This real incident kept most of the police force of a major California city busy for the better part of a day. The people involved were immigrants, did not speak English and didn't know every cop in the county was looking for them until a friend who saw the 6:00 o'clock news mentioned it to them in passing that evening.
Let's say for the sake of argument say that you elected to intervene. The uncle sees someone (you) trying to stop his truck, doesn't know what's going on and keeps going. You pull a gun. He tries to run you down in self defense, you shoot at him, maybe hit him, maybe hit the girl. Whose ass do you think is going to be in jail that night?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)