Half-hour chase of burglar by LAPD ends at Chanel Washington’s family barbeque
When South Los Angeles homeowners returned to their house around 3 p.m. on Memorial Day they noticed signs that they had been burglarized. When LAPD officers responded to their call they observed a man in the alley behind the home. The suspect jumped into a red Honda and took off with the cops in pursuit.
The chase started at Hoover and 58th streets and ended in the driveway of a duplex on 87th Place a half hour later. During the chase, according to CBS Los Angeles, the suspect circled surrounding neighborhoods, driving erratically, jumping the sidewalk and sideswiping parked cars.
The Chanel Washington family had been enjoying a family barbeque on their front lawn when they noticed the suspect turning into their driveway with the police in pursuit. They did not stay to see what was going on. Instead they fled indoors and locked the doors.
The Honda came to a stop only a few feet from Chanel’s grill. The suspect emerged from the car with his hands up and was taken into custody.
Tuesday, May 26, 2015
Monday, May 25, 2015
MEXICO OFFICIALS STAND BY ACCOUNT OF DEADLY RANCH SHOOTOUT
By E. Eduardo Castillo
Associated Press
May 25, 2015
MORELIA, Mexico -- Mexican officials stood by their account Monday of a shootout that killed 42 suspected criminals and one federal police officer last week, dismissing questions raised about the lopsided death toll.
"There was not one single execution, I can say that categorically," Enrique Galindo, head of Mexico's federal police, told local media.
The 42 men died Friday during a three-hour gun battle on a ranch in Michoacan state. Officials say the fight began when police officers came under fire while responding to a report of armed men taking over the Rancho del Sol, in Ecuandureo, a township near the border with Jalisco state.
It was the deadliest such confrontation in recent memory and followed two deadly clashes in the area controlled by the powerful Jalisco New Generation cartel: The gang is blamed for an ambush that killed 15 state police officers in April and for a May 1 attack in which a rocket launcher shot down an army helicopter, killing eight soldiers.
Families of some of the men killed on Friday told The Associated Press that after viewing the remains of their loved ones, they doubted the official account. Relatives gathered at a local morgue said one body was missing an eye and had facial bruising, another had its teeth knocked inward. Another had a gunshot in the top of the head.
Galindo said a helicopter gunship had participated in the shootout and that its role had been decisive. "If the helicopter had not arrived, the death toll might have been different."
National Security Commissioner Monte Alejandro Rubido said at a news conference later Monday that the helicopter had been hit three times by bullets from an AR-15 assault rifle.
Authorities detained three people and confiscated 38 semi-automatic weapons, two smaller arms, a grenade launcher and a .50-caliber rifle. They had initially said they seized 40 weapons.
Speaking to the television network Televisa earlier Monday, Rubido said tests on the bodies of the victims showed they had been shot "from a considerable distance ... dozens of meters (yards)," ruling out anybody having been finished off at close range.
An official from Michoacan state, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to talk to the press, said all the dead were men and most died from gunfire.
Rubido said the three men arrested were "the only three who when told to surrender, did so. The others refused and continued shooting."
But the lopsided death toll, and photographs from the scene in which bodies appeared to have been moved, raised questions about the official version.
Family members who arrived at the morgue in the state capital, Morelia, to retrieve the bodies spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because they feared reprisals, but some were willing to provide the names of their dead relatives. Many were from Ocotlan in Jalisco state and said that a group of at least 25 men from the town had gone to the ranch after being offered work.
Juan Enrique Romero Caudillo, 34, was one of those men. Family members said he sold scrap metal to make a living.
"He said he had been offered maintenance work at the ranch," said a relative, adding that Romero didn't belong to a gang.
After seeing his corpse, the relative said Romero had been shot in the head from above and there was bruising on his face. On the death certificate, the cause of death was listed as "destruction of the brain mass due to penetration by a projectile from a firearm." It did not say if the gunshot was from close range or far away.
Romero's relative said he believed what happened on the ranch "was a massacre" not a shootout with criminal gunmen.
Relatives of Mario Alberto Valencia Vazquez, 22, said he worked in a furniture business but had been offered employment on the ranch.
One relative said Valencia's teeth had been knocked inward as if "he had been struck by something" and his body showed signs of having received blows. Another woman said her husband's face had been destroyed and was missing an eye.
Photographs from the site showed the bodies of men, some without shirts or barefoot, strewn over the ranch. Some appeared to lie with semi-automatic rifles in a field with farm equipment and others on a blood-stained patio strewn with clothes, mattresses and sleeping bags. Video of the battle obtained by The Associated Press showed federal police officers coming under fire.
Rubido dismissed photos circulating online, saying some were not from Friday's events and others were captured at different points in time.
The debate recalled a June 30 case in Tlatlaya, a rural community in Mexico state in which the army initially said 22 suspected criminals were killed in a confrontation and only one soldier had been wounded. An investigation by The Associated Press revealed that several of the suspects were executed after surrendering. Seven soldiers have been charged with wrongdoing.
"This is in no way anything like what happened in Tlatlaya," Galindo said. Officials say overwhelming power and training — police used four armored cars and the helicopter in the shootout — as well as the suspects' lack of preparation spelled the difference.
And Galindo noted that not all of the suspects at the ranch were killed. Three surrendered and were taken into custody, and a significant number escaped.
"We calculate there could have been between 60 and 70 people, because some fled," Galindo said.
Rubido said the cartel gunmen invaded the ranch last Monday, but the ranch owner, who lives in Guadalajara, did not report the takeover to authorities until Thursday. The gunmen were seeking a safe place to escape the government's pressure in Jalisco, Rubido said.
A convoy of 42 federal police were headed to the ranch to investigate when fired upon Friday morning, Rubido said. About 60 additional personnel joined them after 1 ½ hours of the battle.
EDITOR’S NOTE: 42 suspects and only one cop killed? That does not pass the smell test! Sure seems like a mass execution to me. Probably in retaliation for the ambush that killed 15 state police officers in April and for a May 1 attack in which a rocket launcher shot down an army helicopter, killing eight soldiers.
Associated Press
May 25, 2015
MORELIA, Mexico -- Mexican officials stood by their account Monday of a shootout that killed 42 suspected criminals and one federal police officer last week, dismissing questions raised about the lopsided death toll.
"There was not one single execution, I can say that categorically," Enrique Galindo, head of Mexico's federal police, told local media.
The 42 men died Friday during a three-hour gun battle on a ranch in Michoacan state. Officials say the fight began when police officers came under fire while responding to a report of armed men taking over the Rancho del Sol, in Ecuandureo, a township near the border with Jalisco state.
It was the deadliest such confrontation in recent memory and followed two deadly clashes in the area controlled by the powerful Jalisco New Generation cartel: The gang is blamed for an ambush that killed 15 state police officers in April and for a May 1 attack in which a rocket launcher shot down an army helicopter, killing eight soldiers.
Families of some of the men killed on Friday told The Associated Press that after viewing the remains of their loved ones, they doubted the official account. Relatives gathered at a local morgue said one body was missing an eye and had facial bruising, another had its teeth knocked inward. Another had a gunshot in the top of the head.
Galindo said a helicopter gunship had participated in the shootout and that its role had been decisive. "If the helicopter had not arrived, the death toll might have been different."
National Security Commissioner Monte Alejandro Rubido said at a news conference later Monday that the helicopter had been hit three times by bullets from an AR-15 assault rifle.
Authorities detained three people and confiscated 38 semi-automatic weapons, two smaller arms, a grenade launcher and a .50-caliber rifle. They had initially said they seized 40 weapons.
Speaking to the television network Televisa earlier Monday, Rubido said tests on the bodies of the victims showed they had been shot "from a considerable distance ... dozens of meters (yards)," ruling out anybody having been finished off at close range.
An official from Michoacan state, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to talk to the press, said all the dead were men and most died from gunfire.
Rubido said the three men arrested were "the only three who when told to surrender, did so. The others refused and continued shooting."
But the lopsided death toll, and photographs from the scene in which bodies appeared to have been moved, raised questions about the official version.
Family members who arrived at the morgue in the state capital, Morelia, to retrieve the bodies spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because they feared reprisals, but some were willing to provide the names of their dead relatives. Many were from Ocotlan in Jalisco state and said that a group of at least 25 men from the town had gone to the ranch after being offered work.
Juan Enrique Romero Caudillo, 34, was one of those men. Family members said he sold scrap metal to make a living.
"He said he had been offered maintenance work at the ranch," said a relative, adding that Romero didn't belong to a gang.
After seeing his corpse, the relative said Romero had been shot in the head from above and there was bruising on his face. On the death certificate, the cause of death was listed as "destruction of the brain mass due to penetration by a projectile from a firearm." It did not say if the gunshot was from close range or far away.
Romero's relative said he believed what happened on the ranch "was a massacre" not a shootout with criminal gunmen.
Relatives of Mario Alberto Valencia Vazquez, 22, said he worked in a furniture business but had been offered employment on the ranch.
One relative said Valencia's teeth had been knocked inward as if "he had been struck by something" and his body showed signs of having received blows. Another woman said her husband's face had been destroyed and was missing an eye.
Photographs from the site showed the bodies of men, some without shirts or barefoot, strewn over the ranch. Some appeared to lie with semi-automatic rifles in a field with farm equipment and others on a blood-stained patio strewn with clothes, mattresses and sleeping bags. Video of the battle obtained by The Associated Press showed federal police officers coming under fire.
Rubido dismissed photos circulating online, saying some were not from Friday's events and others were captured at different points in time.
The debate recalled a June 30 case in Tlatlaya, a rural community in Mexico state in which the army initially said 22 suspected criminals were killed in a confrontation and only one soldier had been wounded. An investigation by The Associated Press revealed that several of the suspects were executed after surrendering. Seven soldiers have been charged with wrongdoing.
"This is in no way anything like what happened in Tlatlaya," Galindo said. Officials say overwhelming power and training — police used four armored cars and the helicopter in the shootout — as well as the suspects' lack of preparation spelled the difference.
And Galindo noted that not all of the suspects at the ranch were killed. Three surrendered and were taken into custody, and a significant number escaped.
"We calculate there could have been between 60 and 70 people, because some fled," Galindo said.
Rubido said the cartel gunmen invaded the ranch last Monday, but the ranch owner, who lives in Guadalajara, did not report the takeover to authorities until Thursday. The gunmen were seeking a safe place to escape the government's pressure in Jalisco, Rubido said.
A convoy of 42 federal police were headed to the ranch to investigate when fired upon Friday morning, Rubido said. About 60 additional personnel joined them after 1 ½ hours of the battle.
EDITOR’S NOTE: 42 suspects and only one cop killed? That does not pass the smell test! Sure seems like a mass execution to me. Probably in retaliation for the ambush that killed 15 state police officers in April and for a May 1 attack in which a rocket launcher shot down an army helicopter, killing eight soldiers.
Sunday, May 24, 2015
PROFESSOR DAVID KIRK’S ‘AMAZING’ DISCOVERY
The Oxford University sociology professor discovered that dispersing parolees away from crime-infested neighborhoods reduces the parole recidivism rate
David Kirk, a sociology professor at Britain’s prestigious Oxford University, apparently had a lot of money and time to prove what he most certainly had to have already known - that parolees who are released to crime-infested neighborhoods have a high recidivism rate, but if they are dispersed to crime-free neighborhoods, the recidivism rate is substantially reduced.
Kirk’s study on the consequences of concentrating former prisoners in the same neighborhoods as other parolees has just been published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Here are some excerpts from his study:
The results of my analyses suggest the greater the concentration of ex-prisoners in a neighborhood, the greater the rate of subsequent recidivism. I find that concentrating former prisoners in the same neighborhoods leads to significantly higher recidivism rates than if ex-prisoners were more dispersed across neighborhoods.
The results presented in this study suggest that although parole and public housing policies and practices were designed, in principle, to enhance public safety, they may in fact be undermining it.
The extreme concentration of criminals in geographic space likely produces a contagion effect that not only leads to elevated rates of recidivism among existing criminals but also pulls the previously noncriminal toward deviance.
“Put simply, the alarming rates of recidivism in the United States are partly a consequence of the fact that many individuals being released from prison ultimately reside in the same neighborhoods as other former felons,” says Kirk in summing up his findings.
Wow, double wow, this is really amazing! Who would have ever thought that releasing parolees to the same crime-infested neighborhood results in a high rate of parolee recidivism. Seriously though, here we have another example of how those in academia set out to prove what they most certainly already know.
I don’t know how much time and money Kirk spent on his study, and how many assistants he used to conduct it, but all he had to do was to ask any parole officer and he would have instantly reached the same findings.
Kirk provides us with evidence that professors in academia do not live in the real world. Yes, it would be nice if we could spread all parolees around relatively crime-free America’s middle and upper-class neighborhoods. How about Malibu, the ritzy Dallas suburb of Plano, New York’s upper west side, the Hamptons and other trendy communities? Sorry Prof. Kirk, but it ain’t ever gonna happen. The residents of those communities will not stand for any parolees residing there other than their own family members.
I am sure that Kirk and his assistants have never been involved in counseling prison inmates or in conducting pre-release investigations. Had they been, they would have learned that every counselor and parole officer tries to place each parolee in the best available free world setting.
Here is a dose of reality. Most families of prison inmates live in lower-class neighborhoods, many of which are crime-infested. Other than a halfway house, the only residence usually available to a parolee is with family members. And even if you placed him in a sanitary crime-free environment among complete strangers, he would very likely drift back to his old neighborhood to be in familiar places with old friends, many of them also on parole or engaged in unlawful activities.
Prof. Kirk, I suggest you take a lengthy sabbatical from Oxford to spend time in the real world where you do not have to waste time and money on studies to prove what you already know.
David Kirk, a sociology professor at Britain’s prestigious Oxford University, apparently had a lot of money and time to prove what he most certainly had to have already known - that parolees who are released to crime-infested neighborhoods have a high recidivism rate, but if they are dispersed to crime-free neighborhoods, the recidivism rate is substantially reduced.
Kirk’s study on the consequences of concentrating former prisoners in the same neighborhoods as other parolees has just been published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Here are some excerpts from his study:
The results of my analyses suggest the greater the concentration of ex-prisoners in a neighborhood, the greater the rate of subsequent recidivism. I find that concentrating former prisoners in the same neighborhoods leads to significantly higher recidivism rates than if ex-prisoners were more dispersed across neighborhoods.
The results presented in this study suggest that although parole and public housing policies and practices were designed, in principle, to enhance public safety, they may in fact be undermining it.
The extreme concentration of criminals in geographic space likely produces a contagion effect that not only leads to elevated rates of recidivism among existing criminals but also pulls the previously noncriminal toward deviance.
“Put simply, the alarming rates of recidivism in the United States are partly a consequence of the fact that many individuals being released from prison ultimately reside in the same neighborhoods as other former felons,” says Kirk in summing up his findings.
Wow, double wow, this is really amazing! Who would have ever thought that releasing parolees to the same crime-infested neighborhood results in a high rate of parolee recidivism. Seriously though, here we have another example of how those in academia set out to prove what they most certainly already know.
I don’t know how much time and money Kirk spent on his study, and how many assistants he used to conduct it, but all he had to do was to ask any parole officer and he would have instantly reached the same findings.
Kirk provides us with evidence that professors in academia do not live in the real world. Yes, it would be nice if we could spread all parolees around relatively crime-free America’s middle and upper-class neighborhoods. How about Malibu, the ritzy Dallas suburb of Plano, New York’s upper west side, the Hamptons and other trendy communities? Sorry Prof. Kirk, but it ain’t ever gonna happen. The residents of those communities will not stand for any parolees residing there other than their own family members.
I am sure that Kirk and his assistants have never been involved in counseling prison inmates or in conducting pre-release investigations. Had they been, they would have learned that every counselor and parole officer tries to place each parolee in the best available free world setting.
Here is a dose of reality. Most families of prison inmates live in lower-class neighborhoods, many of which are crime-infested. Other than a halfway house, the only residence usually available to a parolee is with family members. And even if you placed him in a sanitary crime-free environment among complete strangers, he would very likely drift back to his old neighborhood to be in familiar places with old friends, many of them also on parole or engaged in unlawful activities.
Prof. Kirk, I suggest you take a lengthy sabbatical from Oxford to spend time in the real world where you do not have to waste time and money on studies to prove what you already know.
Friday, May 22, 2015
OOPS, THAT DIDN’T WORK OUT TOO WELL !!
L.A. SWAT officer violated policy in use of Taser, police panel says
By Richard Winton and Kate Mather
Los Angeles Times
May 21, 2015
A Los Angeles police SWAT officer violated department policies last year when he used a Taser on a mentally ill homeless man standing on a downtown rooftop who then fell to his death, the LAPD's civilian overseers recently concluded.
The Police Commission voted 3 to 1 in support of Chief Charlie Beck's conclusion that a veteran officer's tactics "substantially and unjustifiably deviated" from his training, according to records obtained by The Times.
The officer said he had fired the electric stun gun to prevent Carlos Ocana from climbing a ladder back up a rooftop billboard. And, he told department investigators, he thought the man would fall in a way that would not hurt him. Instead, the 56-year-old fell to his death.
Another officer on the roof grabbed Ocana's leg, but couldn't keep hold, records show. Ocana fell more than 15 feet and landed in a parking lot below, just missing one of two air cushions that firefighters had deployed, the report states. He was pronounced dead at a hospital.
In his report to the commission, Beck said the officer, as a SWAT member, had the tactical expertise, extensive training and other skills to "ensure the highest degree of operational effectiveness."
"I have high expectations for SWAT. They meet or exceed them almost every time," Beck told The Times. "This was a rare exception."
Sources familiar with the matter said Beck's findings were harsher than those of the commission's inspector general, Alex Bustamante, who did not find fault in the officer's overall tactics and use of the Taser.
The names of the officers involved in the incident were redacted from the report provided to The Times. But multiple sources identified the officer who shot the Taser as Stephen Scallon.
Scallon, who has spent most of his 26 years in the LAPD with the elite Metropolitan Division, received the agency's highest honor, the Medal of Valor, and was recognized at the White House for his role in a deadly 2008 shootout in Winnetka that left one officer dead and another seriously wounded. Scallon helped pull the wounded officer, who was shot in the face, from the house as other officers exchanged gunfire with the suspect.
Scallon could not be reached for comment Thursday.
The incident involving Ocana unfolded the night of May 24, when officers from the LAPD's Central Division responded to a radio call of a homeless man on the roof of the Four Corners Market on San Pedro Street, along downtown's skid row. The officers tried to talk to Ocana, but he ignored them, the report said. Ocana then climbed from the roof to the top of a billboard using a ladder.
Ocana straddled the top of the billboard and began to rock it back and forth. Officers at the scene said he appeared to be under the influence of narcotics or mentally ill, the report said.
Firefighters placed two air cushions, one on the rooftop of a building next to the market and another in the market's parking lot.
When the Central officers were unable to get Ocana down, officials requested SWAT come to the scene.
Believing Ocana posed a threat to himself while atop the billboard, SWAT supervisors devised a plan to prevent Ocana from climbing back up the billboard should he come down to the rooftop. By then, officers said, they had learned Ocana had a history of fighting with police.
Officers planned to grab the suspect but were prepared to use "less-lethal" force, such as a Taser, the chief said in his report.
About 11:30 p.m., an officer placed a cigarette at the bottom of the billboard's ladder and backed away, hoping to lure Ocana down. Ocana hesitantly climbed down to the rooftop and grabbed the cigarette, according to the report.
Another officer then took out a lighter, hoping to coax Ocana further away from the edge of the roof. But the man dug into his shorts pocket and pulled out one of his own. As Ocana smoked the cigarette, Scallon unholstered his Taser and hid it behind his leg, police records state.
Suddenly, Ocana turned and grabbed onto the ladder leading up the billboard. Scallon fired the Taser, causing Ocana to fall.
Coroner's officials determined that he died of blunt force head trauma, with "massive skull fractures," and deemed the death accidental. They also found cocaine in his system.
Although Beck ordered two lieutenants and a sergeant to undergo more training after the incident, the chief primarily faulted Scallon for how he used the Taser. The chief said Scallon deviated from the tactical plan by using the Taser before officers had the chance to grab Ocana and did not provide adequate warning that he was going to deploy the device.
Scallon told investigators that he thought there was only a "small window of opportunity" to use the Taser and take Ocana into custody. He said he thought Ocana would fall onto the roof, the chief's report states.
The Taser was used despite the LAPD's warning to officers against generally using the device against someone who is "in danger of falling which would likely result in death or serious bodily injury," according to the report.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Scallon, a 26-year LAPD veteran, “received the agency's highest honor, the Medal of Valor, and was recognized at the White House for his role in a deadly 2008 shootout in Winnetka that left one officer dead and another seriously wounded. Scallon helped pull the wounded officer, who was shot in the face, from the house as other officers exchanged gunfire with the suspect.”
What’s Chief Beck going to recommend? Does he want to fire this highly decorated veteran officer? Suspend him without pay for 30 days?
Although the use of the taser resulted in a tragic death, I do not believe Scallon meant to harm Ocana. I believe that a reprimand is the most punishment that is called for in this case.
By Richard Winton and Kate Mather
Los Angeles Times
May 21, 2015
A Los Angeles police SWAT officer violated department policies last year when he used a Taser on a mentally ill homeless man standing on a downtown rooftop who then fell to his death, the LAPD's civilian overseers recently concluded.
The Police Commission voted 3 to 1 in support of Chief Charlie Beck's conclusion that a veteran officer's tactics "substantially and unjustifiably deviated" from his training, according to records obtained by The Times.
The officer said he had fired the electric stun gun to prevent Carlos Ocana from climbing a ladder back up a rooftop billboard. And, he told department investigators, he thought the man would fall in a way that would not hurt him. Instead, the 56-year-old fell to his death.
Another officer on the roof grabbed Ocana's leg, but couldn't keep hold, records show. Ocana fell more than 15 feet and landed in a parking lot below, just missing one of two air cushions that firefighters had deployed, the report states. He was pronounced dead at a hospital.
In his report to the commission, Beck said the officer, as a SWAT member, had the tactical expertise, extensive training and other skills to "ensure the highest degree of operational effectiveness."
"I have high expectations for SWAT. They meet or exceed them almost every time," Beck told The Times. "This was a rare exception."
Sources familiar with the matter said Beck's findings were harsher than those of the commission's inspector general, Alex Bustamante, who did not find fault in the officer's overall tactics and use of the Taser.
The names of the officers involved in the incident were redacted from the report provided to The Times. But multiple sources identified the officer who shot the Taser as Stephen Scallon.
Scallon, who has spent most of his 26 years in the LAPD with the elite Metropolitan Division, received the agency's highest honor, the Medal of Valor, and was recognized at the White House for his role in a deadly 2008 shootout in Winnetka that left one officer dead and another seriously wounded. Scallon helped pull the wounded officer, who was shot in the face, from the house as other officers exchanged gunfire with the suspect.
Scallon could not be reached for comment Thursday.
The incident involving Ocana unfolded the night of May 24, when officers from the LAPD's Central Division responded to a radio call of a homeless man on the roof of the Four Corners Market on San Pedro Street, along downtown's skid row. The officers tried to talk to Ocana, but he ignored them, the report said. Ocana then climbed from the roof to the top of a billboard using a ladder.
Ocana straddled the top of the billboard and began to rock it back and forth. Officers at the scene said he appeared to be under the influence of narcotics or mentally ill, the report said.
Firefighters placed two air cushions, one on the rooftop of a building next to the market and another in the market's parking lot.
When the Central officers were unable to get Ocana down, officials requested SWAT come to the scene.
Believing Ocana posed a threat to himself while atop the billboard, SWAT supervisors devised a plan to prevent Ocana from climbing back up the billboard should he come down to the rooftop. By then, officers said, they had learned Ocana had a history of fighting with police.
Officers planned to grab the suspect but were prepared to use "less-lethal" force, such as a Taser, the chief said in his report.
About 11:30 p.m., an officer placed a cigarette at the bottom of the billboard's ladder and backed away, hoping to lure Ocana down. Ocana hesitantly climbed down to the rooftop and grabbed the cigarette, according to the report.
Another officer then took out a lighter, hoping to coax Ocana further away from the edge of the roof. But the man dug into his shorts pocket and pulled out one of his own. As Ocana smoked the cigarette, Scallon unholstered his Taser and hid it behind his leg, police records state.
Suddenly, Ocana turned and grabbed onto the ladder leading up the billboard. Scallon fired the Taser, causing Ocana to fall.
Coroner's officials determined that he died of blunt force head trauma, with "massive skull fractures," and deemed the death accidental. They also found cocaine in his system.
Although Beck ordered two lieutenants and a sergeant to undergo more training after the incident, the chief primarily faulted Scallon for how he used the Taser. The chief said Scallon deviated from the tactical plan by using the Taser before officers had the chance to grab Ocana and did not provide adequate warning that he was going to deploy the device.
Scallon told investigators that he thought there was only a "small window of opportunity" to use the Taser and take Ocana into custody. He said he thought Ocana would fall onto the roof, the chief's report states.
The Taser was used despite the LAPD's warning to officers against generally using the device against someone who is "in danger of falling which would likely result in death or serious bodily injury," according to the report.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Scallon, a 26-year LAPD veteran, “received the agency's highest honor, the Medal of Valor, and was recognized at the White House for his role in a deadly 2008 shootout in Winnetka that left one officer dead and another seriously wounded. Scallon helped pull the wounded officer, who was shot in the face, from the house as other officers exchanged gunfire with the suspect.”
What’s Chief Beck going to recommend? Does he want to fire this highly decorated veteran officer? Suspend him without pay for 30 days?
Although the use of the taser resulted in a tragic death, I do not believe Scallon meant to harm Ocana. I believe that a reprimand is the most punishment that is called for in this case.
Wednesday, May 20, 2015
HISTORY: JAPANESE SURRENDER CEREMONY ON USS MISSOURI
This is an outstanding film of the ceremony on the deck of the U.S. battleship Missouri where the Japanese surrendered to McArthur in Tokyo Bay on September 2, 1945. It is believed to have rarely been seen since 1945. General McArthur's voice is a rarity in these old film clips. This is a 'must see' film for the WWII history buff or anyone else interested in history.
Turn up the volume on your speakers!
Turn up the volume on your speakers!
A NET ASSESSMENT OF THE WORLD
By George Friedman
Stratfor Global Intelligence
May 19, 2015
A pretentious title requires a modest beginning. The world has increasingly destabilized and it is necessary to try to state, as clearly as possible, what has happened and why. This is not because the world is uniquely disorderly; it is that disorder takes a different form each time, though it is always complex.
To put it simply, a vast swath of the Eurasian landmass (understood to be Europe and Asia together) is in political, military and economic disarray. Europe and China are struggling with the consequences of the 2008 crisis, which left not only economic but institutional challenges. Russia is undergoing a geopolitical crisis in Ukraine and an economic problem at home. The Arab world, from the Levant to Iran, from the Turkish border through the Arabian Peninsula, is embroiled in politically destabilizing warfare. The Western Hemisphere is relatively stable, as is the Asian Archipelago. But Eurasia is destabilizing in multiple dimensions.
We can do an infinite regression to try to understand the cause, but let's begin with the last systemic shift the world experienced: the end of the Cold War.
The Repercussions of the Soviet Collapse
The Cold War was a frozen conflict in one sense: The Soviet Union was contained in a line running from the North Cape of Norway to Pakistan. There was some movement, but relatively little. When the Soviet Union fell, two important things happened. First, a massive devolution occurred, freeing some formally independent states from domination by the Soviets and creating independent states within the former Soviet Union. As a result, a potentially unstable belt emerged between the Baltic and Black seas.
Meanwhile, along the southwestern border of the former Soviet Union, the demarcation line of the Cold War that generally cut through the Islamic world disappeared. Countries that were locked into place by the Cold War suddenly were able to move, and internal forces were set into motion that would, in due course, challenge the nation-states created after World War I and the fall of the Ottoman Empire that had been frozen by the Cold War.
Two emblematic events immediately occurred. In 1990, even before the collapse of the Soviet Union was complete, Iraq invaded Kuwait and seemed to threaten Saudi Arabia. This followed an extended war with Iran from which Iraq emerged in a more favorable position than Tehran, and Baghdad seemed to be claiming Kuwait as its prize. The United States mobilized not only its Cold War coalition, but also states from the former Soviet bloc and the Arab world, to reverse this. The unintended consequence was to focus at least some Sunnis both on the possibilities created by the end of the Cold War and on the American role as regional hegemon, which in turn led to 9/11 and is still being played out now, both to the south and north of the old Cold War dividing line.
The second event was the breakup of Yugoslavia and the Serbian-Croatian-Bosnian war that left about 100,000 people dead. It was a war of old grudges and new fears. It seemed to represent a unique situation that was not applicable to the rest of the region, but it in fact defined the new world system in two ways. First, Yugoslavia was the southern extension of the borderland between the Soviet Union and Western Europe. What happened in Yugoslavia raised questions that most people ignored, about what the long-term reality in this borderland would be. Second, among other things, the war centered on an east-west schism between Christians and Muslims, and the worst of the bloodletting occurred in this context. The United States and NATO interceded in Kosovo against Serbia despite Russian protests, and Moscow was ultimately sidelined from the peacekeeping mission that defused the war. The explosion in the Balkans foreshadowed much of what was to come later.
While Russia weakened and declined, the two ends of Eurasia flourished. The decade following the collapse of the Soviet Union and the reunification of Germany ushered in a period of significant prosperity that had two results. The European Union, created through the Maastricht Treaty the same year the Soviet Union disintegrated, expanded its influence eastward into the former Soviet sphere and southward, incorporating disparate states whose differences were hidden by the prosperous period. And China, after the end of the Japanese economic miracle, became the global low-wage, high-growth country, powered by the appetite for its exports in prosperous Europe and North America.
The forces at work in Eurasia were hidden. The fragility of peripheral nations in Europe relative to German economic power was not fully visible. The cyclical nature of China's growth, similar in many ways to the dynamics of Japan in the previous generation, was also invisible. The consequences of the end of the Cold War Islamic world, the forces that were unleashed beneath the surface and the fragility of the states that were containing them were hidden beneath the illusion of American power after the victory in Kuwait. Only in Russia was weakness visible, and one of two erroneous conclusions was reached: Either Russia was permanently impotent, or its misery would cause it to evolve into a liberal democracy. All seemed right with Eurasia.
Signs of Destabilization
The first indication of trouble was, of course, 9/11. It was the American attack that was critical. Drawing on the recollection of Desert Storm, it was assumed that American power could reshape the Islamic world at will. All power has limits, but the limits of American power were not visible until later in the 2000s. At that point two other events intervened. The first was the re-emergence of Russia as at least a regional power when it invaded Georgia in 2008. The other was, of course, the financial crisis. Both combined to define the current situation.
The financial crisis transformed Chinese behavior. Although China was already reaching the end of its economic cycle, the decline in appetites for Chinese exports changed the dynamic of China's economy. Not only did the decline suppress growth, but Beijing's attempts to shift growth to domestic consumption created inflation that made its exports even less competitive. The result was a political crisis as the Chinese government became increasingly concerned about instability and therefore increasingly oppressive in an attempt to control the situation.
At the other end of Eurasia, the differences between the interests of Germany — Europe's major exporter — and those of Southern Europe's developing economies exposed the underlying contradiction in the European Union. Germany had to export. The weaker countries had to develop their economies. The two collided first in the sovereign debt crisis, and again in the austerity policies imposed on Southern Europe and the resulting economic crisis. As a result, Europe became increasingly fragmented.
In a reversal of roles, Russia took advantage of the fragmentation of Europe, using its status as a natural gas supplier to shape Europe's policies toward Russia. Russia was no longer the cripple of Europe but a significant regional power, influencing events not only on the Continent but also in the Middle East.
It was at this point that Russia encountered the United States. The United States has an elective relationship with the rest of the world. Except when a regional hegemon is trying to dominate Europe, the United States limits its global exposure. It exports relatively little, and almost half of what it does export goes to Canada and Mexico. But as Russia became more assertive, and particularly as it tried to recoup its losses after the fall of the Ukrainian government and the ensuing installation of a pro-Western government, the United States began to increase its focus on Ukraine and the borderlands between Europe and Russia.
At the same time that Washington felt it had to respond to Russia, the United States sought to minimize its exposure in the Middle East. Recognizing the limits of its power, the United States came to see the four indigenous powers in the region — Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Israel — as bearing the primary responsibility for regional stability and as counterbalances to each other's power.
The Current State of Play
This brings us to the contemporary world. There is general economic malaise around the globe. That malaise has forced China to control social forces by repression. It has created an existential crisis in Europe that goes far beyond Greece but is being acted out in a Greek-German relationship. The Russians have reached for regional power but have fallen short, for the moment. The nation-states of the Middle East are fraying, and the four major powers are maneuvering in various ways to contain the situation.
The United States remains the world's leading power, but at the same time, the institutions that it used during the Cold War have become ineffective. Even though NATO is increasing deployments and training in Eastern Europe, it is a military alliance that lacks a substantial military. The International Monetary Fund has become, in many cases, the problem and not the solution to economic difficulties. The United States has avoided entanglement in the economic problems in Europe and China and has limited its exposure in the Middle East. Yet it is becoming more directly involved with Russia, with its primordial fear of a European hegemon aroused, however far-fetched the prospect.
After every systemic war, there is an illusion that the victorious coalition will continue to be cohesive and govern as effectively as it fought. After the Napoleonic Wars, the Congress of Vienna sought to meld the alliance against France into an entity that could manage the peace. After World War I, the Allies (absent the United States) created the League of Nations. After World War II, it was the United Nations. After the Cold War ended, it was assumed that the United Nations, NATO, IMF, World Bank and other multinational institutions could manage the global system. In each case, the victorious powers sought to use wartime alliance structures to manage the post-war world. In each case, they failed, because the thing that bound them together — the enemy — no longer existed. Therefore, the institutions became powerless and the illusion of unity dissolved.
This is what has happened here. The collapse of the Soviet Union put into motion processes that the Cold War institutions could not manage. The net assessment, therefore, is that the Cold War delayed the emergence of realities that were buried under its weight, and the prosperity of the 1990s hid the limits of Eurasia as a whole. What we are seeing now are fundamental re-emerging realities that were already there. Europe is a highly fragmented collection of nation-states. China contains its centrifugal forces through a powerful and repressive government in Beijing. Russia is neither an equal of the United States nor a helpless cripple to be ignored or tutored. And the map of the Middle East, created by the Ottomans and the Europeans, has hidden underlying forces that are rearing their heads.
The United States is, by far, the world's most powerful nation. That does not mean that the United States can — or has an interest to — solve the problems of the world, contain the forces that are at work or stand in front of those forces and compel them to stop. Even the toughest guy in the bar can't take on the entire bar and win.
Stratfor Global Intelligence
May 19, 2015
A pretentious title requires a modest beginning. The world has increasingly destabilized and it is necessary to try to state, as clearly as possible, what has happened and why. This is not because the world is uniquely disorderly; it is that disorder takes a different form each time, though it is always complex.
To put it simply, a vast swath of the Eurasian landmass (understood to be Europe and Asia together) is in political, military and economic disarray. Europe and China are struggling with the consequences of the 2008 crisis, which left not only economic but institutional challenges. Russia is undergoing a geopolitical crisis in Ukraine and an economic problem at home. The Arab world, from the Levant to Iran, from the Turkish border through the Arabian Peninsula, is embroiled in politically destabilizing warfare. The Western Hemisphere is relatively stable, as is the Asian Archipelago. But Eurasia is destabilizing in multiple dimensions.
We can do an infinite regression to try to understand the cause, but let's begin with the last systemic shift the world experienced: the end of the Cold War.
The Repercussions of the Soviet Collapse
The Cold War was a frozen conflict in one sense: The Soviet Union was contained in a line running from the North Cape of Norway to Pakistan. There was some movement, but relatively little. When the Soviet Union fell, two important things happened. First, a massive devolution occurred, freeing some formally independent states from domination by the Soviets and creating independent states within the former Soviet Union. As a result, a potentially unstable belt emerged between the Baltic and Black seas.
Meanwhile, along the southwestern border of the former Soviet Union, the demarcation line of the Cold War that generally cut through the Islamic world disappeared. Countries that were locked into place by the Cold War suddenly were able to move, and internal forces were set into motion that would, in due course, challenge the nation-states created after World War I and the fall of the Ottoman Empire that had been frozen by the Cold War.
Two emblematic events immediately occurred. In 1990, even before the collapse of the Soviet Union was complete, Iraq invaded Kuwait and seemed to threaten Saudi Arabia. This followed an extended war with Iran from which Iraq emerged in a more favorable position than Tehran, and Baghdad seemed to be claiming Kuwait as its prize. The United States mobilized not only its Cold War coalition, but also states from the former Soviet bloc and the Arab world, to reverse this. The unintended consequence was to focus at least some Sunnis both on the possibilities created by the end of the Cold War and on the American role as regional hegemon, which in turn led to 9/11 and is still being played out now, both to the south and north of the old Cold War dividing line.
The second event was the breakup of Yugoslavia and the Serbian-Croatian-Bosnian war that left about 100,000 people dead. It was a war of old grudges and new fears. It seemed to represent a unique situation that was not applicable to the rest of the region, but it in fact defined the new world system in two ways. First, Yugoslavia was the southern extension of the borderland between the Soviet Union and Western Europe. What happened in Yugoslavia raised questions that most people ignored, about what the long-term reality in this borderland would be. Second, among other things, the war centered on an east-west schism between Christians and Muslims, and the worst of the bloodletting occurred in this context. The United States and NATO interceded in Kosovo against Serbia despite Russian protests, and Moscow was ultimately sidelined from the peacekeeping mission that defused the war. The explosion in the Balkans foreshadowed much of what was to come later.
While Russia weakened and declined, the two ends of Eurasia flourished. The decade following the collapse of the Soviet Union and the reunification of Germany ushered in a period of significant prosperity that had two results. The European Union, created through the Maastricht Treaty the same year the Soviet Union disintegrated, expanded its influence eastward into the former Soviet sphere and southward, incorporating disparate states whose differences were hidden by the prosperous period. And China, after the end of the Japanese economic miracle, became the global low-wage, high-growth country, powered by the appetite for its exports in prosperous Europe and North America.
The forces at work in Eurasia were hidden. The fragility of peripheral nations in Europe relative to German economic power was not fully visible. The cyclical nature of China's growth, similar in many ways to the dynamics of Japan in the previous generation, was also invisible. The consequences of the end of the Cold War Islamic world, the forces that were unleashed beneath the surface and the fragility of the states that were containing them were hidden beneath the illusion of American power after the victory in Kuwait. Only in Russia was weakness visible, and one of two erroneous conclusions was reached: Either Russia was permanently impotent, or its misery would cause it to evolve into a liberal democracy. All seemed right with Eurasia.
Signs of Destabilization
The first indication of trouble was, of course, 9/11. It was the American attack that was critical. Drawing on the recollection of Desert Storm, it was assumed that American power could reshape the Islamic world at will. All power has limits, but the limits of American power were not visible until later in the 2000s. At that point two other events intervened. The first was the re-emergence of Russia as at least a regional power when it invaded Georgia in 2008. The other was, of course, the financial crisis. Both combined to define the current situation.
The financial crisis transformed Chinese behavior. Although China was already reaching the end of its economic cycle, the decline in appetites for Chinese exports changed the dynamic of China's economy. Not only did the decline suppress growth, but Beijing's attempts to shift growth to domestic consumption created inflation that made its exports even less competitive. The result was a political crisis as the Chinese government became increasingly concerned about instability and therefore increasingly oppressive in an attempt to control the situation.
At the other end of Eurasia, the differences between the interests of Germany — Europe's major exporter — and those of Southern Europe's developing economies exposed the underlying contradiction in the European Union. Germany had to export. The weaker countries had to develop their economies. The two collided first in the sovereign debt crisis, and again in the austerity policies imposed on Southern Europe and the resulting economic crisis. As a result, Europe became increasingly fragmented.
In a reversal of roles, Russia took advantage of the fragmentation of Europe, using its status as a natural gas supplier to shape Europe's policies toward Russia. Russia was no longer the cripple of Europe but a significant regional power, influencing events not only on the Continent but also in the Middle East.
It was at this point that Russia encountered the United States. The United States has an elective relationship with the rest of the world. Except when a regional hegemon is trying to dominate Europe, the United States limits its global exposure. It exports relatively little, and almost half of what it does export goes to Canada and Mexico. But as Russia became more assertive, and particularly as it tried to recoup its losses after the fall of the Ukrainian government and the ensuing installation of a pro-Western government, the United States began to increase its focus on Ukraine and the borderlands between Europe and Russia.
At the same time that Washington felt it had to respond to Russia, the United States sought to minimize its exposure in the Middle East. Recognizing the limits of its power, the United States came to see the four indigenous powers in the region — Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Israel — as bearing the primary responsibility for regional stability and as counterbalances to each other's power.
The Current State of Play
This brings us to the contemporary world. There is general economic malaise around the globe. That malaise has forced China to control social forces by repression. It has created an existential crisis in Europe that goes far beyond Greece but is being acted out in a Greek-German relationship. The Russians have reached for regional power but have fallen short, for the moment. The nation-states of the Middle East are fraying, and the four major powers are maneuvering in various ways to contain the situation.
The United States remains the world's leading power, but at the same time, the institutions that it used during the Cold War have become ineffective. Even though NATO is increasing deployments and training in Eastern Europe, it is a military alliance that lacks a substantial military. The International Monetary Fund has become, in many cases, the problem and not the solution to economic difficulties. The United States has avoided entanglement in the economic problems in Europe and China and has limited its exposure in the Middle East. Yet it is becoming more directly involved with Russia, with its primordial fear of a European hegemon aroused, however far-fetched the prospect.
After every systemic war, there is an illusion that the victorious coalition will continue to be cohesive and govern as effectively as it fought. After the Napoleonic Wars, the Congress of Vienna sought to meld the alliance against France into an entity that could manage the peace. After World War I, the Allies (absent the United States) created the League of Nations. After World War II, it was the United Nations. After the Cold War ended, it was assumed that the United Nations, NATO, IMF, World Bank and other multinational institutions could manage the global system. In each case, the victorious powers sought to use wartime alliance structures to manage the post-war world. In each case, they failed, because the thing that bound them together — the enemy — no longer existed. Therefore, the institutions became powerless and the illusion of unity dissolved.
This is what has happened here. The collapse of the Soviet Union put into motion processes that the Cold War institutions could not manage. The net assessment, therefore, is that the Cold War delayed the emergence of realities that were buried under its weight, and the prosperity of the 1990s hid the limits of Eurasia as a whole. What we are seeing now are fundamental re-emerging realities that were already there. Europe is a highly fragmented collection of nation-states. China contains its centrifugal forces through a powerful and repressive government in Beijing. Russia is neither an equal of the United States nor a helpless cripple to be ignored or tutored. And the map of the Middle East, created by the Ottomans and the Europeans, has hidden underlying forces that are rearing their heads.
The United States is, by far, the world's most powerful nation. That does not mean that the United States can — or has an interest to — solve the problems of the world, contain the forces that are at work or stand in front of those forces and compel them to stop. Even the toughest guy in the bar can't take on the entire bar and win.
Tuesday, May 19, 2015
POLICE NEED MORE AND BETTER TRAINING
The Unconventional Gazette
May 19, 2015
Now let’s see if we can get this right. There's no guidance or discipline in the home.
The family situation is so unstable that Tyrone Washington has never seen his father and doesn’t know who or where he is.
Tyrone gets dumped into the education system where he is socially promoted because the school district will not suspend or expel undisciplined black whelps.
Tyrone's major formative influences are 'gangsta' rap videos and a corresponding peer group of gangsta wannabes.
At age 18, Tyrone is turned loose on society carrying a bad attitude, a broken compass and no respect for authority.
Tyrone gets himself in big trouble with the law because he is illiterate, unskilled, unemployable and his only source of income other than Government assistance is from stealing, burgling, robbing, carjacking and selling dope.
Tyrone points a pistol at the cops and gets shot. ‘Witnesses’ claim Tyrone was unarmed and that the cops shot him for no reason. Massive “No Justice, No Peace” demonstrations follow. Rioting, looting and burning occurs.
Then, according to academia's social scientists, Justice Department officials and civil rights leaders, the solution for situations like those of Tyrone is for the police to get more and better training in compassion, sensitivity and understanding of the urban black culture.
Pardon me for asking, but can you possibly buy this bullshit solution?
May 19, 2015
Now let’s see if we can get this right. There's no guidance or discipline in the home.
The family situation is so unstable that Tyrone Washington has never seen his father and doesn’t know who or where he is.
Tyrone gets dumped into the education system where he is socially promoted because the school district will not suspend or expel undisciplined black whelps.
Tyrone's major formative influences are 'gangsta' rap videos and a corresponding peer group of gangsta wannabes.
At age 18, Tyrone is turned loose on society carrying a bad attitude, a broken compass and no respect for authority.
Tyrone gets himself in big trouble with the law because he is illiterate, unskilled, unemployable and his only source of income other than Government assistance is from stealing, burgling, robbing, carjacking and selling dope.
Tyrone points a pistol at the cops and gets shot. ‘Witnesses’ claim Tyrone was unarmed and that the cops shot him for no reason. Massive “No Justice, No Peace” demonstrations follow. Rioting, looting and burning occurs.
Then, according to academia's social scientists, Justice Department officials and civil rights leaders, the solution for situations like those of Tyrone is for the police to get more and better training in compassion, sensitivity and understanding of the urban black culture.
Pardon me for asking, but can you possibly buy this bullshit solution?
NO GAFFE BY JOE BIDEN AT ‘TOP COPS DINNER’
The Vice President paid a resounding tribute to cops at the ‘Top Cops Dinner’ in the nation’s capital
“What shape we’d be in as a nation if we didn’t have you doing the job. We expect you to do everything. We expect you to be constitutional scholars. We expect you to have instantaneous reactions to a crisis without making any mistake or without knowing what’s behind that door or what’s in that guy’s pocket. When you make a mistake, we come down on you like a ton of bricks. But you still do your job. You do it every single day when no one hears about it, when no one knows. We know the risks you take to protect us every single day — from Hattiesburg, Mississippi, to New York City.”
Thus spoke Vice President Joe Biden in acknowledging the hard task faced by law enforcement officers when he addressed officers at the annual ‘Top Cops Dinner’ in Washington last Tuesday.
“From Hattiesburg, Mississippi, to New York City” referred to the recent murders of officers Benjamin Deen and Liquori Tate in Hattiesburg and the murder of NYPD officer Brian Moore.
Biden, who is known for making gaffes when speaking, got it exactly right this time. He could not have said it any better.
It’s a shame that President Obama, who has been quick to criticize the police, has not seen it fit to made such a resounding tribute to cops in a public address to the nation.
“What shape we’d be in as a nation if we didn’t have you doing the job. We expect you to do everything. We expect you to be constitutional scholars. We expect you to have instantaneous reactions to a crisis without making any mistake or without knowing what’s behind that door or what’s in that guy’s pocket. When you make a mistake, we come down on you like a ton of bricks. But you still do your job. You do it every single day when no one hears about it, when no one knows. We know the risks you take to protect us every single day — from Hattiesburg, Mississippi, to New York City.”
Thus spoke Vice President Joe Biden in acknowledging the hard task faced by law enforcement officers when he addressed officers at the annual ‘Top Cops Dinner’ in Washington last Tuesday.
“From Hattiesburg, Mississippi, to New York City” referred to the recent murders of officers Benjamin Deen and Liquori Tate in Hattiesburg and the murder of NYPD officer Brian Moore.
Biden, who is known for making gaffes when speaking, got it exactly right this time. He could not have said it any better.
It’s a shame that President Obama, who has been quick to criticize the police, has not seen it fit to made such a resounding tribute to cops in a public address to the nation.
Monday, May 18, 2015
SHOOTOUT AT THE TWIN PEAKS CORRAL
Nine outlaw bikers are dead and 18 injured after rival gangs shoot it out in front of the cops at a Waco, Texas Twin Peaks restaurant
The old Wild West was relived in Waco, Texas on Sunday when around 200 bikers from several outlaw biker gangs met up at a Twin Peaks restaurant. A fight and then a gun battle broke out between rival gangs, killing nine bikers and wounding 18 others. And the shootout occurred right in front of the cops who had been sent there to avert any trouble.
The day’s festivities started shortly after noon with some shoving in the Twin Peaks restroom, then spilled out into the corral, err the parking lot that is, where it escalated from fisticuffs to a fight with clubs, chains and knives and then erupted into a blaze of gunfire. What started out as a gunfight between bikers quickly turned into a shootout between the cops and the bikers. None of the cops were injured. It is not known how many of the dead and injured were hit by biker or police gunfire.
Five gangs, including the Bandidos, Cossacks and Scimitars, are believed to have been involved in the battles. After the gun smoke cleared, 170 bikers were arrested and charged with Engaging in Organized Crime. Bond for each was set at $1 million.
Twin Peaks is a chain of restaurants competing with Hooters that employs scantily clad waitresses in plaid tops. The Waco Twin Peaks billed itself as the “ultimate man-cave” and apparently had issued an invitation for a bikers’ night.
An open invitation to bikers? What was the Twin Peaks management thinking? Anytime you get rival biker gangs together you can expect a heap of trouble.
I once supervised a parolee in San Bernardino, California who, unknown to me, was riding with the Devil’s Disciples, a local biker gang. One weekend, he and his fellow bikers were out riding when they had the misfortune to come across a small group of Hells Angels with their ballpeen hammers. Within minutes the Disciples were splattered all over the roadway. When I visited the parolee in the hospital he was unrecognizable. It took two weeks for the swelling in his head to go down before I could actually recognize him.
The biker battle in Waco was the worst ever gunfight within the city limits. It just goes to show that we do things bigger and better in Texas!
The old Wild West was relived in Waco, Texas on Sunday when around 200 bikers from several outlaw biker gangs met up at a Twin Peaks restaurant. A fight and then a gun battle broke out between rival gangs, killing nine bikers and wounding 18 others. And the shootout occurred right in front of the cops who had been sent there to avert any trouble.
The day’s festivities started shortly after noon with some shoving in the Twin Peaks restroom, then spilled out into the corral, err the parking lot that is, where it escalated from fisticuffs to a fight with clubs, chains and knives and then erupted into a blaze of gunfire. What started out as a gunfight between bikers quickly turned into a shootout between the cops and the bikers. None of the cops were injured. It is not known how many of the dead and injured were hit by biker or police gunfire.
Five gangs, including the Bandidos, Cossacks and Scimitars, are believed to have been involved in the battles. After the gun smoke cleared, 170 bikers were arrested and charged with Engaging in Organized Crime. Bond for each was set at $1 million.
Twin Peaks is a chain of restaurants competing with Hooters that employs scantily clad waitresses in plaid tops. The Waco Twin Peaks billed itself as the “ultimate man-cave” and apparently had issued an invitation for a bikers’ night.
An open invitation to bikers? What was the Twin Peaks management thinking? Anytime you get rival biker gangs together you can expect a heap of trouble.
I once supervised a parolee in San Bernardino, California who, unknown to me, was riding with the Devil’s Disciples, a local biker gang. One weekend, he and his fellow bikers were out riding when they had the misfortune to come across a small group of Hells Angels with their ballpeen hammers. Within minutes the Disciples were splattered all over the roadway. When I visited the parolee in the hospital he was unrecognizable. It took two weeks for the swelling in his head to go down before I could actually recognize him.
The biker battle in Waco was the worst ever gunfight within the city limits. It just goes to show that we do things bigger and better in Texas!
Sunday, May 17, 2015
SWEARING AT TEACHERS, REFUSING DIRECT ORDERS AND STORMING OUT OF CLASS IS ACCEPTABLE BEHAVIOR FOR BLACK STUDENTS IN OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA
The school board members were concerned that too many black students are being suspended for ‘willful defiance,’ so they voted unanimously to stop such suspensions
The Oakland, California school board is concerned about too many black students being suspended for “willful defiance,” which includes swearing at teachers, refusing direct orders and storming out of classrooms. Their solution? Stop punishing black students for such behavior.
SFGate reports that Wednesday the Board of the Oakland Unified School District voted unanimously to stop suspending students for acts of willful defiance. The new official policy also bans expulsions and involuntary transfers to other schools.
Apparently, “Fuck you motherfucker!” will now be an appropriate response to a teacher’s direct order.
SFGate also reports that the school districts of Los Angeles, San Francisco and several other California cities had already adopted the same official policy.
Our schools are being run by educated idiots. Will someone please explain to me how permissible disruptive behavior of hoodlums will enhance the classroom learning process.
You can bet your life savings that any kind of defiant behavior is not tolerated and does not occur in the schools of our chief international economic competitors - China, Japan, South Korea, Germany and Russia.
No wonder our public schools turn out students who, for all practical purposes, cannot read or write, and cannot add, subtract, multiply or divide numbers. And if you asked some of those Oakland, Los Angeles and San Francisco black students to name the state capital of California, after a momentary thought their answer would probably be, “Fuck you motherfucker!”
The Oakland, California school board is concerned about too many black students being suspended for “willful defiance,” which includes swearing at teachers, refusing direct orders and storming out of classrooms. Their solution? Stop punishing black students for such behavior.
SFGate reports that Wednesday the Board of the Oakland Unified School District voted unanimously to stop suspending students for acts of willful defiance. The new official policy also bans expulsions and involuntary transfers to other schools.
Apparently, “Fuck you motherfucker!” will now be an appropriate response to a teacher’s direct order.
SFGate also reports that the school districts of Los Angeles, San Francisco and several other California cities had already adopted the same official policy.
Our schools are being run by educated idiots. Will someone please explain to me how permissible disruptive behavior of hoodlums will enhance the classroom learning process.
You can bet your life savings that any kind of defiant behavior is not tolerated and does not occur in the schools of our chief international economic competitors - China, Japan, South Korea, Germany and Russia.
No wonder our public schools turn out students who, for all practical purposes, cannot read or write, and cannot add, subtract, multiply or divide numbers. And if you asked some of those Oakland, Los Angeles and San Francisco black students to name the state capital of California, after a momentary thought their answer would probably be, “Fuck you motherfucker!”
Saturday, May 16, 2015
NATURE PHOTOGRAPHY
A most remarkable photo of a Falcon nesting in a tree
I've received many remarkable nature photographs over the years but this photo of a nesting Falcon is perhaps the most remarkable Nature shot that I've ever seen. I hope you enjoy it as much as I did. Nature is truly breath-taking!
I've sent this to most of my older friends.
The younger ones probably have never seen a falcon and wouldn't recognize it.
(Scroll down)
I've received many remarkable nature photographs over the years but this photo of a nesting Falcon is perhaps the most remarkable Nature shot that I've ever seen. I hope you enjoy it as much as I did. Nature is truly breath-taking!
I've sent this to most of my older friends.
The younger ones probably have never seen a falcon and wouldn't recognize it.
(Scroll down)
CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS’ MOONLIGHTING NOT ON APPROVED LIST
Baltimore correctional officers Tamika Cobb and Kendra Richard looted a 7-Eleven store during the Freddie Gray riots
Two African-American female correctional officers employed by the city of Baltimore were caught on video moonlighting during the Freddie Gray riots, but looting a closed 7-Eleven store is not on the approved moonlighting list.
Friday’s Baltimore Sun reports that in the video Kendra Richard is seen coming out of the closed 7-Eleven store holding Slim Jims, while Tamika Cobb has Tostitos chips, police said. Police identified Richard as the woman exiting the store wearing yellow tennis shoes, black Adidas jogging pants and a jean jacket. They said Cobb was the one in yellow shoes, blue pants and a black sweatshirt with a large white graphic on the front.
Cobb and Richard were busted on theft and burglary charges following a tip to the police. Bond for each was set at $35,000. Both have been suspended without pay.
It’s obvious that Tamika and Kendra were merely participating in the evening’s festivities, but those Tostitos chips turned out to be a very, very costly snack!
Two African-American female correctional officers employed by the city of Baltimore were caught on video moonlighting during the Freddie Gray riots, but looting a closed 7-Eleven store is not on the approved moonlighting list.
Friday’s Baltimore Sun reports that in the video Kendra Richard is seen coming out of the closed 7-Eleven store holding Slim Jims, while Tamika Cobb has Tostitos chips, police said. Police identified Richard as the woman exiting the store wearing yellow tennis shoes, black Adidas jogging pants and a jean jacket. They said Cobb was the one in yellow shoes, blue pants and a black sweatshirt with a large white graphic on the front.
Cobb and Richard were busted on theft and burglary charges following a tip to the police. Bond for each was set at $35,000. Both have been suspended without pay.
It’s obvious that Tamika and Kendra were merely participating in the evening’s festivities, but those Tostitos chips turned out to be a very, very costly snack!
HOW BROKEN WINDOWS POLICING EMPTIES PRISONS AND JAILS
By George L. Kelling
New York Post
May 12, 2015
From the beginning, Broken-Windows policing had its critics.
“Experts” — many of whom had never been in New York City when Broken Windows was being implemented, never walked a New York beat, never rode in a patrol car — pontificated: New York was “cooking the books”; Broken Windows was criminalizing the poor; broken windows had no impact on crime; New York City was not unique, since crime was declining in many cities that did not practice Broken Windows.
In spite of the fact that virtually all of these criticisms have been proved invalid, today’s activists repeat many of them.
There is no denying that the prevailing narrative of police misbehavior is powerful and contains elements of truth. Some police have been abusive to poor and minorities; racist practices do still exist in some police departments; some departments have dubbed high-arrest programs as “broken windows” policing; some citizens, especially African-Americans, have been pointlessly killed.
But indiscriminately attributing all of the ills displayed in recent events in cities to Broken Windows risks taking us back decades in our attempts to improve public safety and quality of life for all citizens.
In fact, the policing actions involved in recent incidents either ignore or misrepresent the Broken-Windows approach that we conceived either in theory or in policy and practice — or both.
There’s every reason to believe de-policing high-crime minority neighborhoods would be a disaster. We tried it in the past, and it’s taken decades for us to regain control of public spaces, and even now some neighborhoods remain under threat.
Similarly, we experimented with decriminalization in New York City from the 1960s through the 1980s, most memorably in the subway.
The transit police at the time, using their discretion, decriminalized farebeating by not enforcing the law. The result was a disaster — with 250,000 people a day not paying their fare and creating chaos in the subways.
The real issue is to do policing,, including Broken-Windows policing, right. Here’s how.
First, we should reaffirm and re-establish the understanding that Broken Windows is a tactic that must be implemented within the framework of community policing.
This requires that police seek the active and ongoing consent of and collaboration with local communities in the development of safe and secure neighborhoods.
It recognizes that police exercise substantial discretion in their work and in contacts with citizens. Such discretion requires appropriate training, guidance from leadership and experience in a community.
Second, police must focus on citizen priorities. Broken Windows as a policing tactic rests clearly upon the law, but policing activities should also be formulated in response to local citizen demands and priorities.
Citizens, especially African-Americans, want an end to police brutality, but they want quality policing and safe and secure neighborhoods at least as much.
Third, we must clear up confusion about certain police activities used today that do not represent Broken Windows, and instead detract from its value.
In particular, Broken Windows is a powerful tool but — contrary to public perception — it does not rest upon a policy of many arrests, which are a last resort.
Similarly, while some have argued that Broken-Windows policing results in higher incarceration rates, research indicates that police crime-prevention methods, including Broken Windows, have actually reduced mass incarceration.
In New York City, both prison commitments and jailings declined substantially between 1992 and 2013 — prison by 69 percent; jailing by 45 percent.
Broken Windows also should not be confused with zero tolerance or stop, question and frisk. The former implies zealotry and no use of discretion — both antithetical to what James Wilson and I put forward in our explication of broken-windows policing three decades ago.
Likewise, Broken Windows, which is based on illegal behavior, is different from stop, question and frisk, which is based on suspicious behavior.
In 2006, when the evidence showed the effectiveness of this kind of policing, James Wilson and I wrote that it remained a strategy worth pursuing. And nearly a full decade after that, it still is.
New York Post
May 12, 2015
From the beginning, Broken-Windows policing had its critics.
“Experts” — many of whom had never been in New York City when Broken Windows was being implemented, never walked a New York beat, never rode in a patrol car — pontificated: New York was “cooking the books”; Broken Windows was criminalizing the poor; broken windows had no impact on crime; New York City was not unique, since crime was declining in many cities that did not practice Broken Windows.
In spite of the fact that virtually all of these criticisms have been proved invalid, today’s activists repeat many of them.
There is no denying that the prevailing narrative of police misbehavior is powerful and contains elements of truth. Some police have been abusive to poor and minorities; racist practices do still exist in some police departments; some departments have dubbed high-arrest programs as “broken windows” policing; some citizens, especially African-Americans, have been pointlessly killed.
But indiscriminately attributing all of the ills displayed in recent events in cities to Broken Windows risks taking us back decades in our attempts to improve public safety and quality of life for all citizens.
In fact, the policing actions involved in recent incidents either ignore or misrepresent the Broken-Windows approach that we conceived either in theory or in policy and practice — or both.
There’s every reason to believe de-policing high-crime minority neighborhoods would be a disaster. We tried it in the past, and it’s taken decades for us to regain control of public spaces, and even now some neighborhoods remain under threat.
Similarly, we experimented with decriminalization in New York City from the 1960s through the 1980s, most memorably in the subway.
The transit police at the time, using their discretion, decriminalized farebeating by not enforcing the law. The result was a disaster — with 250,000 people a day not paying their fare and creating chaos in the subways.
The real issue is to do policing,, including Broken-Windows policing, right. Here’s how.
First, we should reaffirm and re-establish the understanding that Broken Windows is a tactic that must be implemented within the framework of community policing.
This requires that police seek the active and ongoing consent of and collaboration with local communities in the development of safe and secure neighborhoods.
It recognizes that police exercise substantial discretion in their work and in contacts with citizens. Such discretion requires appropriate training, guidance from leadership and experience in a community.
Second, police must focus on citizen priorities. Broken Windows as a policing tactic rests clearly upon the law, but policing activities should also be formulated in response to local citizen demands and priorities.
Citizens, especially African-Americans, want an end to police brutality, but they want quality policing and safe and secure neighborhoods at least as much.
Third, we must clear up confusion about certain police activities used today that do not represent Broken Windows, and instead detract from its value.
In particular, Broken Windows is a powerful tool but — contrary to public perception — it does not rest upon a policy of many arrests, which are a last resort.
Similarly, while some have argued that Broken-Windows policing results in higher incarceration rates, research indicates that police crime-prevention methods, including Broken Windows, have actually reduced mass incarceration.
In New York City, both prison commitments and jailings declined substantially between 1992 and 2013 — prison by 69 percent; jailing by 45 percent.
Broken Windows also should not be confused with zero tolerance or stop, question and frisk. The former implies zealotry and no use of discretion — both antithetical to what James Wilson and I put forward in our explication of broken-windows policing three decades ago.
Likewise, Broken Windows, which is based on illegal behavior, is different from stop, question and frisk, which is based on suspicious behavior.
In 2006, when the evidence showed the effectiveness of this kind of policing, James Wilson and I wrote that it remained a strategy worth pursuing. And nearly a full decade after that, it still is.
Friday, May 15, 2015
NETANYAHU’S RAZOR-THIN MAJORITY COALITION GOVERNMENT LIKELY TO BE SHORT-LIVED
Israel’s new government was formed at the last minute, is hard-nosed on national security and the peace process, but sharply divided on economic issues
In the Israeli elections six weeks ago, Benjamin Netanyahu scored a decisive victory despite the efforts of President Obama’s election team to defeat him. Netanyahu’s Likud party and other right-wing parties together with the center-right parties won 67 seats in the 120-seat Knesset. That should have made it easy for Netanyahu to form a coalition government. But not so fast.
In its attempt to be uber-democratic, Israel established a legislative government with a crazy patchwork of multiple political parties. In 2014, 12 parties held seats in the Knesset. A party needs to win at least 3.25 percent of the national vote to take a seat in the Knesset. That threshold used to be lower prior to 2014.
Because of bickering over ministerial appointments and narrow political concerns among right-wing party leaders, Netanyahu found it hard to put together a majority coalition. Netanyahu presented his new proposed government to President Reuven Rivlin with just 90 minutes to go before the deadline to do so. It has only a one-seat majority in the Knesset.
Netanyahu’s coalition consists of Likud, the centrist Kulanu, right-wing Jewish Home, and the two ultra-Orthodox parties, Shas and United Torah Judaism. It is hard-nosed on national security and the peace process, but sharply divided on economic issues. Both Kulanu and Jewish Home detest the massive government payouts ultra-Orthodox Jews have been getting.
As it stands now, that coalition is likely to fall apart sooner or later and, unless the labor party decides to join in a unity government, Netanyahu’s government will be short-lived.
Prior to the elections, the Labor Party led by Isaac Herzog and Tzipi Livni’s Hatnuah Party joined together to form the Zionist Union Party in an effort to defeat Netanyahu. Obama’s election team came to Israel to help run the Zionist Union campaign and it has been alleged that American tax dollars were used to fund Netanyahu’s opposition.
Reports are that Herzog is thinking about withdrawing Labor from Livni’s Hatnuah Party and joining Netanyahu’s coalition in order to form a unity government. If that does not happen and the present coalition falls apart, Netanyahu will have to call for another round of early elections. And then, much to Obama's joy, that may be the last we’ll see of Netanyahu as Israel’s Prime Minister.
In the Israeli elections six weeks ago, Benjamin Netanyahu scored a decisive victory despite the efforts of President Obama’s election team to defeat him. Netanyahu’s Likud party and other right-wing parties together with the center-right parties won 67 seats in the 120-seat Knesset. That should have made it easy for Netanyahu to form a coalition government. But not so fast.
In its attempt to be uber-democratic, Israel established a legislative government with a crazy patchwork of multiple political parties. In 2014, 12 parties held seats in the Knesset. A party needs to win at least 3.25 percent of the national vote to take a seat in the Knesset. That threshold used to be lower prior to 2014.
Because of bickering over ministerial appointments and narrow political concerns among right-wing party leaders, Netanyahu found it hard to put together a majority coalition. Netanyahu presented his new proposed government to President Reuven Rivlin with just 90 minutes to go before the deadline to do so. It has only a one-seat majority in the Knesset.
Netanyahu’s coalition consists of Likud, the centrist Kulanu, right-wing Jewish Home, and the two ultra-Orthodox parties, Shas and United Torah Judaism. It is hard-nosed on national security and the peace process, but sharply divided on economic issues. Both Kulanu and Jewish Home detest the massive government payouts ultra-Orthodox Jews have been getting.
As it stands now, that coalition is likely to fall apart sooner or later and, unless the labor party decides to join in a unity government, Netanyahu’s government will be short-lived.
Prior to the elections, the Labor Party led by Isaac Herzog and Tzipi Livni’s Hatnuah Party joined together to form the Zionist Union Party in an effort to defeat Netanyahu. Obama’s election team came to Israel to help run the Zionist Union campaign and it has been alleged that American tax dollars were used to fund Netanyahu’s opposition.
Reports are that Herzog is thinking about withdrawing Labor from Livni’s Hatnuah Party and joining Netanyahu’s coalition in order to form a unity government. If that does not happen and the present coalition falls apart, Netanyahu will have to call for another round of early elections. And then, much to Obama's joy, that may be the last we’ll see of Netanyahu as Israel’s Prime Minister.
VATICAN GIVES OFFICIAL RECOGNITION TO PALESTINIAN STATE WHOSE LEADERS CONTINUALLY VOW TO OBLITERATE ISRAEL
On Wednesday, the Vatican finalized a treaty that officially recognizes the State of Palestine. That treaty was obviously drawn up at the behest of Pope Francis.
While Pope Francis has been a great leader of the Catholic church, he clearly made a mistake in recognizing Palestine as a state.
Pope Francis must have been fooled by the declarations in English by Mahmoud Abbas that he wants a two state solution. As a matter of fact, Abbas and other Palestinian Authority leaders, when addressing their Arab audiences in Arabic, have vowed time after time that “there will be only one state from the [Jordan] river to the [Mediterranean] sea and that will be a Palestinian state.” Furthermore, Abbas and other Palestinian leaders have declared that there will be no Jews in a Palestinian State.
It is beyond my comprehension how Pope Francis can give recognition to a Palestinian state whose leaders continually vow to obliterate the State of Israel and to get rid of the Jews.
While Pope Francis has been a great leader of the Catholic church, he clearly made a mistake in recognizing Palestine as a state.
Pope Francis must have been fooled by the declarations in English by Mahmoud Abbas that he wants a two state solution. As a matter of fact, Abbas and other Palestinian Authority leaders, when addressing their Arab audiences in Arabic, have vowed time after time that “there will be only one state from the [Jordan] river to the [Mediterranean] sea and that will be a Palestinian state.” Furthermore, Abbas and other Palestinian leaders have declared that there will be no Jews in a Palestinian State.
It is beyond my comprehension how Pope Francis can give recognition to a Palestinian state whose leaders continually vow to obliterate the State of Israel and to get rid of the Jews.
Thursday, May 14, 2015
WHY WE LOVE WORLD WAR II
By Robert J. Samuelson
The Washington Post
May 13, 2015
To mark the 70th anniversary of the end of World War II — Victory in Europe Day occurred on May 8, Victory over Japan Day happens on Aug. 14 — the Census Bureau has published some fascinating numbers that also throw light on the war’s larger historical meaning. They help explain why WWII remains our favorite war. Here’s an overview.
First, the numbers
They concern the share of Americans who served in the military. That was, Census reports, 16.1 million men. Of these, 6.1 million volunteered and 10 million were drafted. According to Census, 406,000 were killed and 671,000 others were wounded — a casualty rate of about 1 in 15 for all services.
(These figures cover only men. Census also reported separately that 342,000 women served in World War II; 217 died.)
At the war’s end, 12.1 million Americans were still in uniform. This compared with 3.1 million in 1970 at the height of the war in Vietnam and 1.5 million in 2011. In 1950, 28 percent of all men 18 and over were World War II veterans; today, the active-duty military (men and women) are less than 1 percent of the 18-and-older population, says Census.
What these figures show is that, compared with World War II, we fight our wars today from our hip pocket. The Census numbers actually understate the wartime mobilization. Looking at just men ages 15 to 39 in 1940 (as I have), from 50 percent to 60 percent served in World War II. Presumably, the others were unfit, too old or exempted from service.
Now, the implications
This massive mobilization tells us that the triumph in World War II was a collective, democratic and unifying event, the likes of which we never experienced before (the Civil War in some respects rivaled the effect, but of course, it was also hugely divisive). It involved almost everyone. As soldiers, sailors and airmen, rich and the poor were tossed in together; so were North and South, urban and rural.
The triumph was not the property of any group, region or class; the victory was national. It belonged to everyone. One of the war’s great emotional appeals, I think, is this emphasis on communal responsibility, obligation and reward. (Unsurprisingly, there are many exceptions to this, the most conspicuous being the continued segregation, even in fighting units, of African Americans.)
It’s why we love World War II. It reminds us who we can be when we are at our best. There is much focus now on inequality, but the inequality is economic, measured in dollars and cents. World War II did not eliminate differences of income and wealth, but it did emphasize equality of duty and contribution. Patriotic commitment was not a function of bank accounts.
A second great consequence of the war was that it reconciled Americans — not all, but many — to the inevitability of large organizations, even if they were often clumsy, arbitrary and wrong. The U.S. Army was a massive organization. So were the vast corporations that churned out Sherman tanks, B-24s and Liberty ships. Many veterans knew firsthand the vices of the huge military; but they also grudgingly acknowledged the virtues. We could, it seemed, solve many problems simply by throwing resources at them.
Carried into the 1950s, this lesson meant that the violent ideological battles of the 1930s went largely unrepeated. The combination of victory and economic success laid a foundation of confidence for nearly two decades of prosperity and (relatively speaking) domestic tranquility — until we discovered that World War II’s simple and nostalgic teachings no longer matched the real world’s complexities.
EDITOR’S NOTE: During WW II, unlike the Vietnam War where thousands fled to Canada and Sweden in order to dodge the draft, Americans lined up at the recruiting stations to volunteer and those who were called up by the draft boards did no flee this country.
I do not believe many of today’s soldiers have the fortitude or courage to fight mano-a-mano like they had to in the Civil War, WW I, WW II, the Korean War and the Viet Nam War.
The Washington Post
May 13, 2015
To mark the 70th anniversary of the end of World War II — Victory in Europe Day occurred on May 8, Victory over Japan Day happens on Aug. 14 — the Census Bureau has published some fascinating numbers that also throw light on the war’s larger historical meaning. They help explain why WWII remains our favorite war. Here’s an overview.
First, the numbers
They concern the share of Americans who served in the military. That was, Census reports, 16.1 million men. Of these, 6.1 million volunteered and 10 million were drafted. According to Census, 406,000 were killed and 671,000 others were wounded — a casualty rate of about 1 in 15 for all services.
(These figures cover only men. Census also reported separately that 342,000 women served in World War II; 217 died.)
At the war’s end, 12.1 million Americans were still in uniform. This compared with 3.1 million in 1970 at the height of the war in Vietnam and 1.5 million in 2011. In 1950, 28 percent of all men 18 and over were World War II veterans; today, the active-duty military (men and women) are less than 1 percent of the 18-and-older population, says Census.
What these figures show is that, compared with World War II, we fight our wars today from our hip pocket. The Census numbers actually understate the wartime mobilization. Looking at just men ages 15 to 39 in 1940 (as I have), from 50 percent to 60 percent served in World War II. Presumably, the others were unfit, too old or exempted from service.
Now, the implications
This massive mobilization tells us that the triumph in World War II was a collective, democratic and unifying event, the likes of which we never experienced before (the Civil War in some respects rivaled the effect, but of course, it was also hugely divisive). It involved almost everyone. As soldiers, sailors and airmen, rich and the poor were tossed in together; so were North and South, urban and rural.
The triumph was not the property of any group, region or class; the victory was national. It belonged to everyone. One of the war’s great emotional appeals, I think, is this emphasis on communal responsibility, obligation and reward. (Unsurprisingly, there are many exceptions to this, the most conspicuous being the continued segregation, even in fighting units, of African Americans.)
It’s why we love World War II. It reminds us who we can be when we are at our best. There is much focus now on inequality, but the inequality is economic, measured in dollars and cents. World War II did not eliminate differences of income and wealth, but it did emphasize equality of duty and contribution. Patriotic commitment was not a function of bank accounts.
A second great consequence of the war was that it reconciled Americans — not all, but many — to the inevitability of large organizations, even if they were often clumsy, arbitrary and wrong. The U.S. Army was a massive organization. So were the vast corporations that churned out Sherman tanks, B-24s and Liberty ships. Many veterans knew firsthand the vices of the huge military; but they also grudgingly acknowledged the virtues. We could, it seemed, solve many problems simply by throwing resources at them.
Carried into the 1950s, this lesson meant that the violent ideological battles of the 1930s went largely unrepeated. The combination of victory and economic success laid a foundation of confidence for nearly two decades of prosperity and (relatively speaking) domestic tranquility — until we discovered that World War II’s simple and nostalgic teachings no longer matched the real world’s complexities.
EDITOR’S NOTE: During WW II, unlike the Vietnam War where thousands fled to Canada and Sweden in order to dodge the draft, Americans lined up at the recruiting stations to volunteer and those who were called up by the draft boards did no flee this country.
I do not believe many of today’s soldiers have the fortitude or courage to fight mano-a-mano like they had to in the Civil War, WW I, WW II, the Korean War and the Viet Nam War.
POLICE MORALE IS LOW IN DEPARTMENTS ACROSS THE COUNTRY
Fear of legal and political backlash, similar to what was seen in Ferguson, New York City and Baltimore, is hurting morale
By Kerry Picket
The Daily Caller
May 12, 2015
Law enforcement officers at Washington, D.C.’s annual Police Week tell The Daily Caller that the anti-police climate is taking its toll on the men and women in uniform and that morale is low in departments across the country.
One source told TheDC Monday night that officers have stepped back from engaging in proactive policing, because they often see the same violent criminals they arrest immediately released on to the streets.
President of the Fraternal Order of Police Chuck Canterbury told TheDC that he believes that a shortage of cops is the reason. “For the last six or eight years, proactive law enforcement has come to a stop because of shortage of personnel.”
Additionally, cops say that the fear of legal and political backlash, similar to what was seen in Ferguson, New York City and Baltimore, is hurting morale. One source at Police Week who also does part-time security work for private companies was astounded at how young some of the violent individuals were during the Baltimore riots.
Another law enforcement source described how objects like bottles are often thrown at the police cruiser she drives.
One recently retired police officer told TheDC that people do not seem to understand that cops do not get up in the morning thinking about who they want to hurt that day.
“Morale is low because we don’t have the public’s backing,” she said, noting that the same people who verbally or even physically attack police officers are the same ones who call them for help. “I pulled a guy over, recently. He was a drunk driver. He said, ‘Fuck you, I hate cops.'”
Sources attending Police Week seem doubtful that the officers in Baltimore will be found guilty of the charges that Baltimore State’s Attorney Marilyn Mosby slapped on six officers for the death of 25-year old Freddie Gray.
Gray’s death set off violent riots last month in Baltimore, and some at Police Week warned riots could happen again if the officers are not fully convicted.
Baltimore police officers are reportedly feeling dejected since the Freddie Gray riots and the indictments of their fellow officers, The Baltimore Sun reports.
“I’m hearing it from guys who were go-getters, who would go out here and get the guns and the bad guys and drugs. They’re hands-off now,” a shift commander told the Sun. “I’ve never seen so many dejected faces.”
A law enforcement source told TheDC that some attendees are threatening to turn their backs on President Barack Obama at the annual National Peace Officers Memorial Service at the Capitol, where Obama is scheduled to deliver remarks. Obama made comments in the past that many in the police community found offensive.
But Canterbury says he does not think most police officers in attendance will turn their backs on Obama and AG Loretta Lynch at the service.
“This event is not to honor the president of the United States. It’s to honor the officers who have been slain in the line of duty,” he said. “And I think the vast majority of police officers in attendance understand that the National Police Officers Memorial Service is to honor those in our brotherhood that have passed away and that have paid the ultimate sacrifice. No, we don’t anticipate that happening.”
EDITOR'S NOTE: A law enforcement official told me "These cops are not going to do their jobs when they are being thrown under the bus by overzealous prosecutors. President Obama is responsible for a lot of the deteriorating race relations. I believe he has out done President Carter for lack of leadership."
By Kerry Picket
The Daily Caller
May 12, 2015
Law enforcement officers at Washington, D.C.’s annual Police Week tell The Daily Caller that the anti-police climate is taking its toll on the men and women in uniform and that morale is low in departments across the country.
One source told TheDC Monday night that officers have stepped back from engaging in proactive policing, because they often see the same violent criminals they arrest immediately released on to the streets.
President of the Fraternal Order of Police Chuck Canterbury told TheDC that he believes that a shortage of cops is the reason. “For the last six or eight years, proactive law enforcement has come to a stop because of shortage of personnel.”
Additionally, cops say that the fear of legal and political backlash, similar to what was seen in Ferguson, New York City and Baltimore, is hurting morale. One source at Police Week who also does part-time security work for private companies was astounded at how young some of the violent individuals were during the Baltimore riots.
Another law enforcement source described how objects like bottles are often thrown at the police cruiser she drives.
One recently retired police officer told TheDC that people do not seem to understand that cops do not get up in the morning thinking about who they want to hurt that day.
“Morale is low because we don’t have the public’s backing,” she said, noting that the same people who verbally or even physically attack police officers are the same ones who call them for help. “I pulled a guy over, recently. He was a drunk driver. He said, ‘Fuck you, I hate cops.'”
Sources attending Police Week seem doubtful that the officers in Baltimore will be found guilty of the charges that Baltimore State’s Attorney Marilyn Mosby slapped on six officers for the death of 25-year old Freddie Gray.
Gray’s death set off violent riots last month in Baltimore, and some at Police Week warned riots could happen again if the officers are not fully convicted.
Baltimore police officers are reportedly feeling dejected since the Freddie Gray riots and the indictments of their fellow officers, The Baltimore Sun reports.
“I’m hearing it from guys who were go-getters, who would go out here and get the guns and the bad guys and drugs. They’re hands-off now,” a shift commander told the Sun. “I’ve never seen so many dejected faces.”
A law enforcement source told TheDC that some attendees are threatening to turn their backs on President Barack Obama at the annual National Peace Officers Memorial Service at the Capitol, where Obama is scheduled to deliver remarks. Obama made comments in the past that many in the police community found offensive.
But Canterbury says he does not think most police officers in attendance will turn their backs on Obama and AG Loretta Lynch at the service.
“This event is not to honor the president of the United States. It’s to honor the officers who have been slain in the line of duty,” he said. “And I think the vast majority of police officers in attendance understand that the National Police Officers Memorial Service is to honor those in our brotherhood that have passed away and that have paid the ultimate sacrifice. No, we don’t anticipate that happening.”
EDITOR'S NOTE: A law enforcement official told me "These cops are not going to do their jobs when they are being thrown under the bus by overzealous prosecutors. President Obama is responsible for a lot of the deteriorating race relations. I believe he has out done President Carter for lack of leadership."
Wednesday, May 13, 2015
HILLARY NOT THE BISEXUAL CANDIDATE
World News Daily hit the mother lode with report of Yoko Ono saying she had a sexual relationship with Hillary Clinton in the 1970s
“We met many times during the New York Vietnam War protests in the 1970s, and became very intimate. We shared many of the same values about sexual equality, fighting against the authoritarian, patriarchal, male-dominated society we were raised in. We had a brief romantic fling when I lived with John in Manhattan and Hillary was studying at Yale, but eventually we lost touch. I am amazed how things are going well for her and wish her the best for her campaign.”
That’s what World News Daily reported Yoko Ono, widow of icon John Lennon, telling reporters Thursday at a press conference in Los Angeles.
Just as soon as this report was published, the blogosphere filled up with posts by right-wingers and other Hillary haters salivating all over themselves about the expected Democratic presidential candidate’s lesbian relationship. Sorry fellas, but you’ve been had. Yoko Ono never said any such thing.
World News Daily, like The Onion, is a satirical publication that frequently fools its readers with made-up stories. World News Daily hit the mother lode with this laugher.
“We met many times during the New York Vietnam War protests in the 1970s, and became very intimate. We shared many of the same values about sexual equality, fighting against the authoritarian, patriarchal, male-dominated society we were raised in. We had a brief romantic fling when I lived with John in Manhattan and Hillary was studying at Yale, but eventually we lost touch. I am amazed how things are going well for her and wish her the best for her campaign.”
That’s what World News Daily reported Yoko Ono, widow of icon John Lennon, telling reporters Thursday at a press conference in Los Angeles.
Just as soon as this report was published, the blogosphere filled up with posts by right-wingers and other Hillary haters salivating all over themselves about the expected Democratic presidential candidate’s lesbian relationship. Sorry fellas, but you’ve been had. Yoko Ono never said any such thing.
World News Daily, like The Onion, is a satirical publication that frequently fools its readers with made-up stories. World News Daily hit the mother lode with this laugher.
Tuesday, May 12, 2015
JEB BUSH’S DISTRACTORS JUMPING UP AND DOWN WITH JOY OVER IRAQ INVASION STATEMENT
Bush says that like his brother George W., he too would have authorized the 2003 invasion of Iraq
“I would have and so would have Hillary Clinton, just to remind everybody. And so would almost everybody that was confronted with the intelligence they got.”
That’s how Jeb Bush answered Megyn Kelly of Fox News when she asked him, “Knowing what we know now, would you have authorized the invasion?”
The Democrats, as expected, were quick to attack Jeb’s statement. So were some conservative commentators.
Conservative talk show host Laura Ingraham said “there has to be something wrong with” Bush. “You can’t think going into Iraq now, as a sane human being, was the right thing to do. That’s like you have no ability to learn from past mistakes at all.”
Conservative columnist Byron York of The Washington Examiner says, “As for whether Hillary Clinton would have authorized the invasion "knowing what we know now" — it's hard to believe that Jeb Bush is serious when he says she would. Of course she wouldn't.” He added that “If Jeb Bush sticks to his position — that he would still authorize war knowing what we know today — it will represent a step backward for the Republican Party.”
What a bunch of horseshit! Jeb’s distractors are jumping up and down with joy by knowingly and willfully misinterpreting Bush’s position. They are saying that Bush would have invaded Iraq even if he knew Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction. That’s no true and they damn well know it!
Bush said that based on the intelligence supplied by the CIA and Britain’s MI6 that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction in 2003, like his brother George W., he too would have invaded Iraq. That intelligence proved to be bogus. Bush never said he would have invaded Iraq had he known there were no weapons of mass destruction.
In 2013, then Mew York Senator Hillary Clinton voted in support of the Iraq invasion. She has since said she regretted her supporting vote. You can bet every last dime you’ve got that had Hillary been President at the time, she too would have sent our troops into Iraq.
Jeb Bush is not conservative enough for the Republican base which detests him with a purple passion. Yet, Jeb is the only Republican that has a chance to defeat Hillary in next year’s presidential election.
“I would have and so would have Hillary Clinton, just to remind everybody. And so would almost everybody that was confronted with the intelligence they got.”
That’s how Jeb Bush answered Megyn Kelly of Fox News when she asked him, “Knowing what we know now, would you have authorized the invasion?”
The Democrats, as expected, were quick to attack Jeb’s statement. So were some conservative commentators.
Conservative talk show host Laura Ingraham said “there has to be something wrong with” Bush. “You can’t think going into Iraq now, as a sane human being, was the right thing to do. That’s like you have no ability to learn from past mistakes at all.”
Conservative columnist Byron York of The Washington Examiner says, “As for whether Hillary Clinton would have authorized the invasion "knowing what we know now" — it's hard to believe that Jeb Bush is serious when he says she would. Of course she wouldn't.” He added that “If Jeb Bush sticks to his position — that he would still authorize war knowing what we know today — it will represent a step backward for the Republican Party.”
What a bunch of horseshit! Jeb’s distractors are jumping up and down with joy by knowingly and willfully misinterpreting Bush’s position. They are saying that Bush would have invaded Iraq even if he knew Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction. That’s no true and they damn well know it!
Bush said that based on the intelligence supplied by the CIA and Britain’s MI6 that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction in 2003, like his brother George W., he too would have invaded Iraq. That intelligence proved to be bogus. Bush never said he would have invaded Iraq had he known there were no weapons of mass destruction.
In 2013, then Mew York Senator Hillary Clinton voted in support of the Iraq invasion. She has since said she regretted her supporting vote. You can bet every last dime you’ve got that had Hillary been President at the time, she too would have sent our troops into Iraq.
Jeb Bush is not conservative enough for the Republican base which detests him with a purple passion. Yet, Jeb is the only Republican that has a chance to defeat Hillary in next year’s presidential election.
Sunday, May 10, 2015
MAN WHO SPIT POOP AT GALVESTON COPS FACES CHARGE OF AGGRAVATED ASSAULT WITH A DEADLY WEAPON
On his way to jail in the back of a cop car, Jonathon Glenn pooped, managed to put some of it in his mouth, then spit it at the arresting officers
Late Tuesday night Jonathon Glenn, 29, stabbed another Galveston, Texas man, leaving him hospitalized in critical condition. On Wednesday,, investigating officers went to Glenn’s hous to arrest him. He was caught after a brief foot chase.
While on the way to jail, Glenn pooped in the back of the cop car. He managed to put some of the shit in his mouth and spit it at the arresting officers. Then he tried to strangle himself with a seat belt, which the officers promptly cut off of him.
Glenn is being held on an aggravated assault with a deadly weapon charge with bond set at $100,000. He is also wanted in Midland, Texas on a kidnapping charge.
At first glance, I thought Glenn was being charged with aggravated assault for spitting his shit at the officers, but the charge is obviously related to the stabbing incident.
Lately, all you read in the papers and see on the TV news programs are reports of alleged police misconduct. In this case, many would have applaud the officers had they kicked the supreme shit out of Glenn for spitting his poop at them. The fact that Glenn was jailed all in one piece goes to the credit of some very tolerant Galveston police officers.
The restraint and control of temper exercised by those Galveston cops should have made all the papers and the national TV news programs. Sadly, because they did not kick the shit out of Glenn, that did not happen.
Late Tuesday night Jonathon Glenn, 29, stabbed another Galveston, Texas man, leaving him hospitalized in critical condition. On Wednesday,, investigating officers went to Glenn’s hous to arrest him. He was caught after a brief foot chase.
While on the way to jail, Glenn pooped in the back of the cop car. He managed to put some of the shit in his mouth and spit it at the arresting officers. Then he tried to strangle himself with a seat belt, which the officers promptly cut off of him.
Glenn is being held on an aggravated assault with a deadly weapon charge with bond set at $100,000. He is also wanted in Midland, Texas on a kidnapping charge.
At first glance, I thought Glenn was being charged with aggravated assault for spitting his shit at the officers, but the charge is obviously related to the stabbing incident.
Lately, all you read in the papers and see on the TV news programs are reports of alleged police misconduct. In this case, many would have applaud the officers had they kicked the supreme shit out of Glenn for spitting his poop at them. The fact that Glenn was jailed all in one piece goes to the credit of some very tolerant Galveston police officers.
The restraint and control of temper exercised by those Galveston cops should have made all the papers and the national TV news programs. Sadly, because they did not kick the shit out of Glenn, that did not happen.
Saturday, May 09, 2015
SAN FRANSICKO’S SICKO COPS
The Sodom and Gomorrah of our country has a police department that has been beset with a slew of scandals, including racist and homophobic cops
Homophobic cops in the nation’s homosexual capital? All Ian say is, sumbich, what this country isn’t coming to. And that’s just one of the reasons why I call it San Fransicko.
3,000 CASES POSSIBLY AFFECTED BY S.F. POLICE TEXTING, D.A. SAYS
San Francisco Dist. Atty. George Gascon has expanded an investigation into criminal cases that may have been compromised by racist and homophobic text messages sent by members of the police department
By Maura Dolan
Los Angeles Times
May 7, 2015
SAN FRANCISCO -- Prosecutors here are expanding an investigation into criminal cases that might have been compromised by revelations of police officers’ racist, sexist and homophobic texts, Dist. Atty. George Gascon announced Thursday.
Gascon’s probe has so far identified 3,000 criminal cases that could have been affected by perceived bias by 14 officers. Investigators in a task force he created are combing through each case to determine whether some convictions must be overturned or pending cases dismissed.
“If just one individual was wrongly imprisoned because of bias on the part of these officers — that’s one too many,” Gascon said.
He said some pending cases already have been dismissed, and prosecutors so far have alerted defense attorneys of potential problems in about 60 other cases. The office is giving priority to cases that involve people who are behind bars. About 1,400 cases involved arrests but no prosecution.
Gascon also widened the task force’s mission to include an examination of whether a culture of bias exists in the police force, which serves one of the nation’s most liberal cities. He said Thursday he was adding three retired judges, including former California Supreme Court Justice Cruz Reynoso, to work with the group.
The probe began after the U.S. attorney’s office filed a motion in March opposing bail for Ian Furminger, a former San Francisco police officer sentenced to 41 months in prison on various corruption-related charges. The motion, intended to prevent Furminger from obtaining bail while appealing his conviction, listed the texts.
The messages included slurs and disparaging references to African Americans and gays.
Police Chief Greg Suhr has so far recommended that six of the 14 officers who sent such texts be fired and has turned over the results of his investigation to the San Francisco Police Commission.
“We have been cooperating with the district attorney the whole time,” said Officer Grace Gatpamdan, an SFPD spokeswoman. She said some of the officers had “single incidents.”
The furor over the texts followed a series of law enforcement scandals in San Francisco in recent months. Sheriff's deputies have been accused of staging gladiator-like fights among inmates in the jail, and Suhr was suspended for five days for failing to follow department policy in helping a female friend who was a victim of domestic violence.
San Francisco Public Defender Jeff Adachi said he hopes the investigators will interview victims of discriminatory police actions instead of just reviewing documents.
“This is a systemic problem we have in San Francisco,” Adachi said.
He said African Americans are arrested and prosecuted at much higher rates than whites, adding, “This is not an isolated case of 14 officers.”
The Rev. Amos Brown, a San Francisco NAACP board member, said African Americans comprise only about 5% of the city’s population but make up 60% to 70% of those in San Francisco’s juvenile hall.
“This is a moral issue,” Brown said at a news conference with Gascon. “Everybody is guilty, whether Republican or Democrat, whether judge, probation officer or police officer.”
Gascon, a former Los Angeles Police Department assistant chief, served as San Francisco police chief for about a year before his election as district attorney. Suhr succeeded him.
The cases being reviewed go back 10 years, and Gascon acknowledged that some of the alleged officer misconduct took place on his watch.
“I feel terrible,” he said.
The task force’s findings will be made public. Gascon said he hopes the panel will complete the work by the end of the year, but no deadline has been set.
Gascon noted that police misconduct has stirred distrust in cities across the country.
“As recent revelations have shown, we are not immune,” Gascon said. “The actions of a few have undermined the public faith in the system.”
Homophobic cops in the nation’s homosexual capital? All Ian say is, sumbich, what this country isn’t coming to. And that’s just one of the reasons why I call it San Fransicko.
3,000 CASES POSSIBLY AFFECTED BY S.F. POLICE TEXTING, D.A. SAYS
San Francisco Dist. Atty. George Gascon has expanded an investigation into criminal cases that may have been compromised by racist and homophobic text messages sent by members of the police department
By Maura Dolan
Los Angeles Times
May 7, 2015
SAN FRANCISCO -- Prosecutors here are expanding an investigation into criminal cases that might have been compromised by revelations of police officers’ racist, sexist and homophobic texts, Dist. Atty. George Gascon announced Thursday.
Gascon’s probe has so far identified 3,000 criminal cases that could have been affected by perceived bias by 14 officers. Investigators in a task force he created are combing through each case to determine whether some convictions must be overturned or pending cases dismissed.
“If just one individual was wrongly imprisoned because of bias on the part of these officers — that’s one too many,” Gascon said.
He said some pending cases already have been dismissed, and prosecutors so far have alerted defense attorneys of potential problems in about 60 other cases. The office is giving priority to cases that involve people who are behind bars. About 1,400 cases involved arrests but no prosecution.
Gascon also widened the task force’s mission to include an examination of whether a culture of bias exists in the police force, which serves one of the nation’s most liberal cities. He said Thursday he was adding three retired judges, including former California Supreme Court Justice Cruz Reynoso, to work with the group.
The probe began after the U.S. attorney’s office filed a motion in March opposing bail for Ian Furminger, a former San Francisco police officer sentenced to 41 months in prison on various corruption-related charges. The motion, intended to prevent Furminger from obtaining bail while appealing his conviction, listed the texts.
The messages included slurs and disparaging references to African Americans and gays.
Police Chief Greg Suhr has so far recommended that six of the 14 officers who sent such texts be fired and has turned over the results of his investigation to the San Francisco Police Commission.
“We have been cooperating with the district attorney the whole time,” said Officer Grace Gatpamdan, an SFPD spokeswoman. She said some of the officers had “single incidents.”
The furor over the texts followed a series of law enforcement scandals in San Francisco in recent months. Sheriff's deputies have been accused of staging gladiator-like fights among inmates in the jail, and Suhr was suspended for five days for failing to follow department policy in helping a female friend who was a victim of domestic violence.
San Francisco Public Defender Jeff Adachi said he hopes the investigators will interview victims of discriminatory police actions instead of just reviewing documents.
“This is a systemic problem we have in San Francisco,” Adachi said.
He said African Americans are arrested and prosecuted at much higher rates than whites, adding, “This is not an isolated case of 14 officers.”
The Rev. Amos Brown, a San Francisco NAACP board member, said African Americans comprise only about 5% of the city’s population but make up 60% to 70% of those in San Francisco’s juvenile hall.
“This is a moral issue,” Brown said at a news conference with Gascon. “Everybody is guilty, whether Republican or Democrat, whether judge, probation officer or police officer.”
Gascon, a former Los Angeles Police Department assistant chief, served as San Francisco police chief for about a year before his election as district attorney. Suhr succeeded him.
The cases being reviewed go back 10 years, and Gascon acknowledged that some of the alleged officer misconduct took place on his watch.
“I feel terrible,” he said.
The task force’s findings will be made public. Gascon said he hopes the panel will complete the work by the end of the year, but no deadline has been set.
Gascon noted that police misconduct has stirred distrust in cities across the country.
“As recent revelations have shown, we are not immune,” Gascon said. “The actions of a few have undermined the public faith in the system.”
BAN THE OIL BAN
By J.W. "Jay" Wall III
Houston Business Journal
May 7, 2015
In the 1970s, Congress made it illegal to export domestically produced crude oil to try and sustain domestic oil reserves and enhance our national security.
Supporters of the ban argue that it not only keeps prices low, it protects jobs and also helps national security, by promoting self-sufficiency.
It is difficult to listen to the argument that the ban boosts our national security. It undermines America’s moral authority at the World Trade Organization, where the administration berates China, for example, for imposing export bans on scarce minerals. Most important, American crude-oil exports would hurt hostile petrostates, such as Russia and Iran.
Free crude exports would make America richer, its allies stronger, its foes weaker and the world safer, so what stands in the way? Ending the export ban should be an easy call. Not only will it enhance national security, it will also increase jobs and anchor the sputtering U.S. economy. And, it doesn’t take a brain surgeon to figure out how or why.
Today’s oil export ban was part of a wave of ridiculous, ill-considered responses to the 1970's Arab Oil Embargo, all of which produced disasters of different duration. As Milton Friedman said, “Economists may not know much. But we know one thing very well: how to produce surpluses and shortages. Do you want a surplus? Have the government legislate a minimum price that is above the price that would otherwise prevail. Do you want a shortage? Have the government legislate a maximum price that is below the price that would otherwise prevail.”
Allowing domestically produced oil to be exported would raise production at home, helping boost employment. Currently, we are producing more sweet crude than domestic refineries — which are mostly set up for heavier oil imported from Mexico, Venezuela, and Canada — can handle. Oil is overflowing U.S. storage facilities. If the oil ban stays in place, domestic producers may have to shut down production because they won’t have anywhere to store their oil.
Lifting the ban would also put more oil on world markets, cutting the price. Ultra-light crudes account for a high proportion of booming shale production in the U.S. Asian refiners especially covet such crudes, which means domestic producers are denied a premium of $10/bbl because they are not able to export their sweet crude. Understand that the delta between WTI (West Texas Intermediate) and Brent is 20 percent. Somewhat paradoxically, were U.S. producers allowed to compete globally, WTI and Brent prices would converge, and all things being equal, gasoline prices would fall.
Lifting the ban would also help U.S. producers adjust to lower oil prices while creating an incentive to increase U.S. production. The result would be less reliance on foreign oil, while reducing severe economic hardship in the oil patch if prices stay low for a prolonged period.
Who wins with the ban? Domestic refiners get artificially cheap oil to process and often to sell on the international gasoline market. Gasoline flows freely in and out of the country, so its price is set by the world market. U.S. refiners simply pocket a higher margin whether they sell their gasoline at home or abroad.
By the estimate last year of the American Petroleum Institute, if the archaic export ban were lifted, the additional export opportunity would allow another 500,000 barrels a day to be produced, worth 300,000 jobs directly and indirectly. With the global oil price 50 percent lower now than it was a year ago, the difference between the depressed domestic price may well be the margin of ruin for some producers.
Refiners do have one leg to stand on: They would be horribly disadvantaged by exports due to the operation of another idiotic law, the Prohibition-era Jones Act (1920), which only allows oil and other cargo to be hauled between U.S. ports aboard U.S.-built, -owned and –operated vessels. The Jones Act delights ship owners and unions, but imposes a hefty cost on anyone wanting to send a tanker from a refinery on the Gulf Coast to a port in the Northeast.
It costs $2/bbl to ship Texas crude to Europe or Asia and $7/bbl to ship it to Philadelphia. If the Jones Act was to stay in place but the export ban lifted, a great deal of U.S. oil would go to overseas refineries solely to take advantage of cheaper shipping rates.
The noncontiguous states of Alaska and Hawaii are especially damaged by the Jones Act, which is actually an archaic throwback to the steamship era. There is no earthly reason to continue the charade that we are somehow being protected by artificially raising the cost of commercial ocean shipping. In today’s competitive, globally interconnected age, it only raises the cost of goods (gasoline) to American consumers.
We need to repeal the Jones Act and lift the ban on domestically produced crude exports, and we need to do it now.
__________
Jay Wall is a commercial real estate broker and senior vice president with commercial real estate brokerage Moody Rambin in Houston. Jay has also been a personal friend for many years.
Houston Business Journal
May 7, 2015
In the 1970s, Congress made it illegal to export domestically produced crude oil to try and sustain domestic oil reserves and enhance our national security.
Supporters of the ban argue that it not only keeps prices low, it protects jobs and also helps national security, by promoting self-sufficiency.
It is difficult to listen to the argument that the ban boosts our national security. It undermines America’s moral authority at the World Trade Organization, where the administration berates China, for example, for imposing export bans on scarce minerals. Most important, American crude-oil exports would hurt hostile petrostates, such as Russia and Iran.
Free crude exports would make America richer, its allies stronger, its foes weaker and the world safer, so what stands in the way? Ending the export ban should be an easy call. Not only will it enhance national security, it will also increase jobs and anchor the sputtering U.S. economy. And, it doesn’t take a brain surgeon to figure out how or why.
Today’s oil export ban was part of a wave of ridiculous, ill-considered responses to the 1970's Arab Oil Embargo, all of which produced disasters of different duration. As Milton Friedman said, “Economists may not know much. But we know one thing very well: how to produce surpluses and shortages. Do you want a surplus? Have the government legislate a minimum price that is above the price that would otherwise prevail. Do you want a shortage? Have the government legislate a maximum price that is below the price that would otherwise prevail.”
Allowing domestically produced oil to be exported would raise production at home, helping boost employment. Currently, we are producing more sweet crude than domestic refineries — which are mostly set up for heavier oil imported from Mexico, Venezuela, and Canada — can handle. Oil is overflowing U.S. storage facilities. If the oil ban stays in place, domestic producers may have to shut down production because they won’t have anywhere to store their oil.
Lifting the ban would also put more oil on world markets, cutting the price. Ultra-light crudes account for a high proportion of booming shale production in the U.S. Asian refiners especially covet such crudes, which means domestic producers are denied a premium of $10/bbl because they are not able to export their sweet crude. Understand that the delta between WTI (West Texas Intermediate) and Brent is 20 percent. Somewhat paradoxically, were U.S. producers allowed to compete globally, WTI and Brent prices would converge, and all things being equal, gasoline prices would fall.
Lifting the ban would also help U.S. producers adjust to lower oil prices while creating an incentive to increase U.S. production. The result would be less reliance on foreign oil, while reducing severe economic hardship in the oil patch if prices stay low for a prolonged period.
Who wins with the ban? Domestic refiners get artificially cheap oil to process and often to sell on the international gasoline market. Gasoline flows freely in and out of the country, so its price is set by the world market. U.S. refiners simply pocket a higher margin whether they sell their gasoline at home or abroad.
By the estimate last year of the American Petroleum Institute, if the archaic export ban were lifted, the additional export opportunity would allow another 500,000 barrels a day to be produced, worth 300,000 jobs directly and indirectly. With the global oil price 50 percent lower now than it was a year ago, the difference between the depressed domestic price may well be the margin of ruin for some producers.
Refiners do have one leg to stand on: They would be horribly disadvantaged by exports due to the operation of another idiotic law, the Prohibition-era Jones Act (1920), which only allows oil and other cargo to be hauled between U.S. ports aboard U.S.-built, -owned and –operated vessels. The Jones Act delights ship owners and unions, but imposes a hefty cost on anyone wanting to send a tanker from a refinery on the Gulf Coast to a port in the Northeast.
It costs $2/bbl to ship Texas crude to Europe or Asia and $7/bbl to ship it to Philadelphia. If the Jones Act was to stay in place but the export ban lifted, a great deal of U.S. oil would go to overseas refineries solely to take advantage of cheaper shipping rates.
The noncontiguous states of Alaska and Hawaii are especially damaged by the Jones Act, which is actually an archaic throwback to the steamship era. There is no earthly reason to continue the charade that we are somehow being protected by artificially raising the cost of commercial ocean shipping. In today’s competitive, globally interconnected age, it only raises the cost of goods (gasoline) to American consumers.
We need to repeal the Jones Act and lift the ban on domestically produced crude exports, and we need to do it now.
__________
Jay Wall is a commercial real estate broker and senior vice president with commercial real estate brokerage Moody Rambin in Houston. Jay has also been a personal friend for many years.
Friday, May 08, 2015
TEXAS LAWMAKER BELIEVES THAT LIKE TOMATOES, POT IS A GIFT FROM GOD
David Simpson's bill would repeal all the Texas laws against marijuana because "everything that God made is good, even marijuana”
Texas State Representative David Simpson, a Republican from Longview, has introduced a bi that would repeal all the state’s laws against marijuana.
On March 2, when he filed House Bill 2165, the Christian conservative said:
"Everything that God made is good, even marijuana. The conservative thought is that government doesn't need to fix something that God made good. We should use our resources in law enforcement to deal with murder, with rape, with theft, but just possessing a substance that God made is not wrong. Putting people in prison and teaching them a whole lot about crime, separating them from the family, taking away the breadwinners simply for possessing a plant that God made - that's wrong."
Simpson said the state should regulate marijuana like the state regulates "tomatoes, jalapeños or coffee."
On Wednesday the House Criminal Jurisprudence Committee unexpectedly voted 5-2 to support Simpson’s bill, with three Democrats and two Republicans voting in favor of the bill. However, it is predicted that HB 2165 will be DOA when it hits the House floor.
Me thinks the state representative from deep in the heart of the East Texas bible belt has been inhaling too much smoke from a crop which he believes is a gift from God, the same as tomatoes or jalapeños.
Texas State Representative David Simpson, a Republican from Longview, has introduced a bi that would repeal all the state’s laws against marijuana.
On March 2, when he filed House Bill 2165, the Christian conservative said:
"Everything that God made is good, even marijuana. The conservative thought is that government doesn't need to fix something that God made good. We should use our resources in law enforcement to deal with murder, with rape, with theft, but just possessing a substance that God made is not wrong. Putting people in prison and teaching them a whole lot about crime, separating them from the family, taking away the breadwinners simply for possessing a plant that God made - that's wrong."
Simpson said the state should regulate marijuana like the state regulates "tomatoes, jalapeños or coffee."
On Wednesday the House Criminal Jurisprudence Committee unexpectedly voted 5-2 to support Simpson’s bill, with three Democrats and two Republicans voting in favor of the bill. However, it is predicted that HB 2165 will be DOA when it hits the House floor.
Me thinks the state representative from deep in the heart of the East Texas bible belt has been inhaling too much smoke from a crop which he believes is a gift from God, the same as tomatoes or jalapeños.
Thursday, May 07, 2015
TEXAS’ TOP OFFICER CALLS SNOOP DOGG A ‘DOPE SMOKING COP HATER’
The accusation was made before reprimanding a state trooper who posed for a picture with the rapper
By Paul J. Weber
Associated Press
May 6, 2015
AUSTIN, Texas -- Texas’ chief law enforcement official called Snoop Dogg a “dope smoking cop hater” before reprimanding a state trooper who posed for a picture with the rapper, according to emails made public Wednesday.
Snoop Dogg posted a photo to Instagram with Department of Public Safety Trooper Billy Spears in March with the comment “Me n my deputy dogg.” It was taken during the South by Southwest music festival, where Spears was working off-duty as extra security.
Spears is now suing DPS after being disciplined for taking a picture with a public figure who has a several convictions for drug possession.
Emails obtained by Spears’ attorney through open records laws show that the incident went all the way to DPS Director Steve McCraw, who is best known for overseeing the state’s expansive border security operations.
“Apparently he would rather work the convention while on a week’s vacation to earn additional money rather than take an additional tour on the border,” McCraw wrote. “He must not understand that he was being lampooned by a dope smoking cop hater which reflects very poorly on the department.”
DPS spokesman Tom Vinger confirmed the authenticity of the email but did not comment on its content. He referred to the agency previously saying that DPS holds employees to high standards of conduct and judgment.
The emails include a DPS supervisor explaining that Spears and other troopers have routinely taken pictures with other celebrities at SXSW. He mentions actor Robert Duvall, former NBA star Shaquille O’Neal and musicians Cee Lo Green and Rob Zombie.
Spears is seeking unspecified damages in a Travis County court. He claims his discipline was retaliation for filing a complaint several weeks earlier against a superior.
EDITOR’S NOTE: When I was on the Board of Directors of the International Narcotic Enforcement Officers Association (INEOA), John Bellizzi, the association’s founder and executive director, attended one of those infamous parties at the Playboy Mansion and posed for arm-in-arm pictures with Hugh Hefne, pictures which he published in the INEOA publications. I thought it was inappropriate for the head of the INEOA to attend a party at the Playboy Mansion and to publish pictures of him arm-in-arm with Hefner who was widely known for smoking dope and as a proponent of pot, one of the drugs on the IENOA’s hit list. When I proposed that Bellizzi be reprimanded, all the DEA board member supported the motion, but a majority of the board, fearing that he would resign, voted it down.
As for DPD Trooper Billy Spears posing in uniform with Snoop Dogg, a convicted dope smoking celebrity, that was somewhat inappropriate. But since the picture was taken at a musical festival where Spears was working an extra job providing security, a littlr ass-chewing should have been all that was called for.
By Paul J. Weber
Associated Press
May 6, 2015
AUSTIN, Texas -- Texas’ chief law enforcement official called Snoop Dogg a “dope smoking cop hater” before reprimanding a state trooper who posed for a picture with the rapper, according to emails made public Wednesday.
Snoop Dogg posted a photo to Instagram with Department of Public Safety Trooper Billy Spears in March with the comment “Me n my deputy dogg.” It was taken during the South by Southwest music festival, where Spears was working off-duty as extra security.
Spears is now suing DPS after being disciplined for taking a picture with a public figure who has a several convictions for drug possession.
Emails obtained by Spears’ attorney through open records laws show that the incident went all the way to DPS Director Steve McCraw, who is best known for overseeing the state’s expansive border security operations.
“Apparently he would rather work the convention while on a week’s vacation to earn additional money rather than take an additional tour on the border,” McCraw wrote. “He must not understand that he was being lampooned by a dope smoking cop hater which reflects very poorly on the department.”
DPS spokesman Tom Vinger confirmed the authenticity of the email but did not comment on its content. He referred to the agency previously saying that DPS holds employees to high standards of conduct and judgment.
The emails include a DPS supervisor explaining that Spears and other troopers have routinely taken pictures with other celebrities at SXSW. He mentions actor Robert Duvall, former NBA star Shaquille O’Neal and musicians Cee Lo Green and Rob Zombie.
Spears is seeking unspecified damages in a Travis County court. He claims his discipline was retaliation for filing a complaint several weeks earlier against a superior.
EDITOR’S NOTE: When I was on the Board of Directors of the International Narcotic Enforcement Officers Association (INEOA), John Bellizzi, the association’s founder and executive director, attended one of those infamous parties at the Playboy Mansion and posed for arm-in-arm pictures with Hugh Hefne, pictures which he published in the INEOA publications. I thought it was inappropriate for the head of the INEOA to attend a party at the Playboy Mansion and to publish pictures of him arm-in-arm with Hefner who was widely known for smoking dope and as a proponent of pot, one of the drugs on the IENOA’s hit list. When I proposed that Bellizzi be reprimanded, all the DEA board member supported the motion, but a majority of the board, fearing that he would resign, voted it down.
As for DPD Trooper Billy Spears posing in uniform with Snoop Dogg, a convicted dope smoking celebrity, that was somewhat inappropriate. But since the picture was taken at a musical festival where Spears was working an extra job providing security, a littlr ass-chewing should have been all that was called for.
A MULTIMILLION-DOLLAR CLASS-ACTION LAWSUIT HAS BEEN FILED OVER PACQUIANO’S SHOULDER INJURY
AFP
May 5, 2015
Two Nevada men filed a class-action lawsuit against Manny Pacquiao, seeking millions in damages because they say he fraudulently concealed a shoulder injury before his defeat to Floyd Mayweather Jr.
It is just the latest fallout from Mayweather's victory in Las Vegas on Saturday in a unanimous decision, with Pacquiao saying afterward that the shoulder complaint hampered his performance in the welterweight world title showdown.
The plaintiffs argue that by failing to go public with the injury before the feverishly anticipated bout, the Philippine icon and his camp violated the Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act.
The suit filed in a US District Court in Las Vegas names Pacquiao, his manager Michael Koncz and promotional company Top Rank as well as Top Rank chairman Bob Arum and president Todd duBoef.
According to court documents available online, the lawsuit claims that when plaintiffs Stephane Vanel and Kami Rahbaran bought tickets, forked out pay-per-view fees, or bet on the fight, the defendants "knew and had full knowledge and information that defendant Pacquiao had been seriously injured and was suffering from a torn rotator cuff."
"Defendants further know that such injury would severely affect his performance," the lawsuit says.
"None of the defendants informed or apprised the public or even the Nevada Athletic Commission about the injury to defendant Pacquiao."
The clash between Pacquiao and Mayweather at the MGM Grand Garden Arena was billed as the "Fight of the Century."
It's certainly set to go down as the most lucrative bout in history, with possible revenue of $400 million.
That could include as many as 3 million pay-per-view purchases, at about $100 each.
The bout went the full scheduled 12 rounds, Mayweather easily winning on the judges' scorecards to take his perfect record to 48-0.
After the fight, Pacquiao and Top Rank revealed the 36-year-old had been injured in training camp some three weeks earlier.
They said he had been cleared by doctors to fight, though they had expected him to be able to take an anti-inflammatory injection on fight night, but the Nevada State Athletic Commission ultimately denied him.
Pacquiao attorney Daniel Petrocelli told The Los Angeles Times that he expected the lawsuit to be dismissed.
"It claims Pacquiao was injured (immediately) before the bout and that's not true — he was injured (nearly a month) before the bout, was examined by doctors and cleared to fight," Petrocelli said. "And he was examined by the commission right before he fought."
EDITOR’S NOTE: The Pac Man has been my favorite fighter for some years, but he clearly lost his fight with Floyd Mayweather Jr. Manny Pacquiao’s complaint about his shoulder injury is just a ploy to get a big moneymaking rematch with Mayweather.
As for the lawsuit, it’s a big bunch of bullshit. This case should be thrown out of court forthwith!
May 5, 2015
Two Nevada men filed a class-action lawsuit against Manny Pacquiao, seeking millions in damages because they say he fraudulently concealed a shoulder injury before his defeat to Floyd Mayweather Jr.
It is just the latest fallout from Mayweather's victory in Las Vegas on Saturday in a unanimous decision, with Pacquiao saying afterward that the shoulder complaint hampered his performance in the welterweight world title showdown.
The plaintiffs argue that by failing to go public with the injury before the feverishly anticipated bout, the Philippine icon and his camp violated the Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act.
The suit filed in a US District Court in Las Vegas names Pacquiao, his manager Michael Koncz and promotional company Top Rank as well as Top Rank chairman Bob Arum and president Todd duBoef.
According to court documents available online, the lawsuit claims that when plaintiffs Stephane Vanel and Kami Rahbaran bought tickets, forked out pay-per-view fees, or bet on the fight, the defendants "knew and had full knowledge and information that defendant Pacquiao had been seriously injured and was suffering from a torn rotator cuff."
"Defendants further know that such injury would severely affect his performance," the lawsuit says.
"None of the defendants informed or apprised the public or even the Nevada Athletic Commission about the injury to defendant Pacquiao."
The clash between Pacquiao and Mayweather at the MGM Grand Garden Arena was billed as the "Fight of the Century."
It's certainly set to go down as the most lucrative bout in history, with possible revenue of $400 million.
That could include as many as 3 million pay-per-view purchases, at about $100 each.
The bout went the full scheduled 12 rounds, Mayweather easily winning on the judges' scorecards to take his perfect record to 48-0.
After the fight, Pacquiao and Top Rank revealed the 36-year-old had been injured in training camp some three weeks earlier.
They said he had been cleared by doctors to fight, though they had expected him to be able to take an anti-inflammatory injection on fight night, but the Nevada State Athletic Commission ultimately denied him.
Pacquiao attorney Daniel Petrocelli told The Los Angeles Times that he expected the lawsuit to be dismissed.
"It claims Pacquiao was injured (immediately) before the bout and that's not true — he was injured (nearly a month) before the bout, was examined by doctors and cleared to fight," Petrocelli said. "And he was examined by the commission right before he fought."
EDITOR’S NOTE: The Pac Man has been my favorite fighter for some years, but he clearly lost his fight with Floyd Mayweather Jr. Manny Pacquiao’s complaint about his shoulder injury is just a ploy to get a big moneymaking rematch with Mayweather.
As for the lawsuit, it’s a big bunch of bullshit. This case should be thrown out of court forthwith!
Wednesday, May 06, 2015
THIRTY YEARS IN JAIL FOR A SINGLE HAIR: THE FBI’S ‘MASS DISASTER’ OF FALSE CONVICTION
A ‘dirty bomb’ of pseudo-science wrapped up nearly 268 cases – perhaps hundreds more. Now begins the ‘herculean effort to right the wrongs’
By Ed Pilkington
The Guardian
April 21, 2015
George Perrot has spent almost 30 years in prison thanks to a single hair. It was discovered by an FBI agent on the bedsheet of a 78-year-old woman who had been raped by a burglar in her home in Springfield, Massachusetts, in 1985.
Perrot, then 17, was put on trial, despite the absence of physical evidence tying him to the crime scene. There was no semen. There was no blood. And so there was no way to conduct a conclusive DNA test.
Even the victim testified that the defendant looked nothing like her attacker: he had a short haircut and was clean-shaven, while Perrot had a long shaggy mop, a moustache and a goatee beard.
But there was that strand of hair. At a key stage in the 1992 rape and burglary trial, an FBI agent named Wayne Oakes took the witness stand, describing himself to the jury as an expert in hair and textile fibers – as would so many of the agency’s trial witnesses, in condemning hundreds of people to long prison sentences.
Individual head or pubic hairs were distinctive, he told the court, to the extent that a well-trained specialist like himself could tell those belonging to one person from another. Oakes went on to bombard the jury with scientific jargon, referring to the medulla, the cortex and the cuticle of hair, likening the task of comparing individual strands to recognizing a specific person in a crowd.
“In 10 years, it’s extremely rare I will have known hair samples from two different people I can’t tell apart,” the self-proclaimed expert bragged.
The FBI agent’s conclusion in front of the jury was emphatic: “The hair found on the sheet exhibits all the same microscopic hair arranged in the same way as the characteristics present in the known hair from [Perrot]. I conclude that the hair was consistent with coming from the defendant,” he told the court.
That testimony, based on a single hair, was so strong, so wrapped in the certainties of science, that it wiped out all doubts and inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case – indeed, it eviscerated the presumption of innocence.
There was only one problem: the “expert” analysis, delivered by Wayne Oakes under oath and effective enough to obliterate one-third of a man’s life and counting, was wrong.
‘Potentially tens of thousands’ of cases gone wrong
In July 2013, the FBI admitted that the foundations of what it called “hair comparison evidence” – a technique that its agents had used in hundreds of criminal cases nationwide and spread through the training of state-based detectives potentially through tens of thousands of other cases – were scientifically invalid. A preliminary review of the FBI’s follicular flaws found that:
Microscopic hair analysis could not scientifically distinguish one individual to the exclusion of all others.
Statistical weight could not be given to comparisons to suggest a likelihood that the hair derived from a specific source.
Expert witnesses should not cite the number of hair analyses they had conducted in the lab to bolster the idea that they could definitively state that a hair belonged to a specific individual.
All three errors were made by Agent Oakes in front of Perrot’s jury.
Over the past few years, advanced understanding in the science of hair types has left hair analysis, as a forensic tool, in tatters. Today’s consensus by real experts is more straightforward than ever: there is nothing that can credibly be said, by FBI-approved analysts or anyone else, about about the frequency with which particular characteristics of hair are distributed in the human population.
In other words, microscopic analysis of hair – the very analysis that put George Perrot and so many people behind bars – is virtually worthless as a method of identifying someone. It can only safely be used to rule out a suspect as the source of crime-scene materials or in combination with the vastly more accurate technique of DNA testing.
As the scientific basis of hair analysis has crumbled, the scale of the judicial catastrophe caused by the FBI’s enthusiastic use of it for decades until about 2000 has now begun to emerge more fully. On Monday, the FBI and the US Justice Department, together with the Innocence Project and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, released the findings of the first stage of a joint investigation into these historic civil rights mistakes.
The results, first reported by the Washington Post, concluded that an astonishing 26 of the 28 FBI agents who had provided testimony as expert witnesses at trial based on microscopic hair analysis had made statements to juries that are now known to be false. Their erroneous evidence was found in a full 90% of the trial transcripts the team has studied.
The government has identified almost 3,000 cases in which FBI agents may have given testimony involving the now-discredited technique. So far only about 500 of those cases have been been reviewed.
Some 268 of those involved FBI examiners providing expert evidence in court that pointed to the guilt of the defendant – of which 257, or 96%, included false testimony.
Most shockingly, at least 35 defendants received the death penalty, 33 of which were the subject of false FBI testimony. Nine of the prisoners were executed and five died from other causes on death row.
Chris Fabricant, the Innocence Project’s director of strategic litigation who is representing Perrot in his ongoing struggle for freedom, called the FBI’s use of hair analysis a “mass disaster” for the criminal justice system.
“We have potentially tens of thousands of convictions tainted by false evidence,” he told the Guardian. “It’s going to take a herculean effort to right the wrongs in these cases, and so far we have made only a tiny start.”
In a paper published this month and written with William Tucker Carrington of the University of Mississippi law school, Fabricant traces the first reported use of hair analysis to 1855, when John Browning and his son, Gaston, were tried for murdering a plantation overseer. Hairs were found on a rope in the defendants’ home which were compared to the Brownings’ hair and found to be identical.
The pseudo-science deployed in 1855 changed little in over a century. What did change was that after the second world war, the FBI embraced the technique, giving it a professional veneer – a government stamp of approval.
“They began presenting false evidence to juries based on scientific language that was very impressive to juries. It was like a dirty bomb that went off in the criminal justice system – hair analysis was said to be objective, unbiased and definitive, so it was both very prejudicial against defendants and very powerful,” Fabricant said.
Admitting fault as a nation, as cold cases persist
Despite the FBI’s unqualified admission of error, George Perrot remains in prison, with no immediate resolution to his case in sight. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts continues to oppose a retrial, with a hearing scheduled for late this summer.
Fabricant said he is particularly anxious about the future for potentially thousands of people convicted for serious crimes such as murder and rape on the basis of false evidence given by detectives at state level, nearly all of whom were trained by the FBI in microscopic hair analysis. The federal agency has admitted its mistakes and is now working hard to address the miscarriages of justice on a national level, but state authorities are proving much more sluggish in their responses.
Typical is the case of Timothy Bridges, who is 23 years into his sentence in North Carolina. He was convicted of the 1989 sexual assault and beating of an elderly woman in Charlotte.
The criminal investigation uncovered no physical evidence of any sort to link Bridges to the scene – like Perrot, no semen or fingerprints were found, nor blood or DNA of any sort. But there were two hairs collected at the victim’s home and analyzed by an examiner for the state of North Carolina, who had been trained by the FBI in precisely the same now-discredited techniques.
The two hairs, the examiner told the jury at trial, had “likely originated” with the defendant. Bridges was sentenced to life in prison.
This month lawyers acting for Bridges, with the backing of the Innocence Project, petitioned the county court of Mecklenburg calling for a retrial. The state attorney general is opposing such a measure, but has initiated a search for the hairs in hopes that DNA testing could be carried out that would provide reliable clues. Previously, the state had indicated that the hairs had been destroyed, in violation of North Carolina law.
Fabricant, who is also acting on the Bridges case, said that states where examiners had been trained by the FBI in hair analysis had to act.
“Tens of thousands of people may have been caught in this trap,” he said. “When even the FBI has admitted liability, then states who were trained to use this discredited technique are now legally and morally obligated to step up to the plate.”
EDITOR’S NOTE: In my day, back in the ‘50s and ‘60s, hair evidence, bullet comparisons, shoe prints, and reconstruction of the crime from blood splatters were considered state of the art evidence. Now they seem to have fallen into some disrepute. Much of what used to be known as scientific evidence in criminal cases is now ridiculed as pseudoscience and junk science.
Jim Leitner, long a senior prosecutor in the Harris County [Houston] District Attorney's office and now General Counsel at the Harris County Sheriff's Department, says:
We had hair experts at Houston PD for years that were instrumental in getting people convicted.
We had blood spatter people who could tell an entire story of what happened from one drop of blood.
I had a DPS shoe print analysis who testified that she could make a 100% match of a shoe to a print with only ONE point of comparison.
Firearm experts routinely testify that every barrel makes different marking on a bullet and a shell casing. So you could take 100 Weatherby Rifles from the factory and match 100 bullets to each rifle without a doubt.
By Ed Pilkington
The Guardian
April 21, 2015
George Perrot has spent almost 30 years in prison thanks to a single hair. It was discovered by an FBI agent on the bedsheet of a 78-year-old woman who had been raped by a burglar in her home in Springfield, Massachusetts, in 1985.
Perrot, then 17, was put on trial, despite the absence of physical evidence tying him to the crime scene. There was no semen. There was no blood. And so there was no way to conduct a conclusive DNA test.
Even the victim testified that the defendant looked nothing like her attacker: he had a short haircut and was clean-shaven, while Perrot had a long shaggy mop, a moustache and a goatee beard.
But there was that strand of hair. At a key stage in the 1992 rape and burglary trial, an FBI agent named Wayne Oakes took the witness stand, describing himself to the jury as an expert in hair and textile fibers – as would so many of the agency’s trial witnesses, in condemning hundreds of people to long prison sentences.
Individual head or pubic hairs were distinctive, he told the court, to the extent that a well-trained specialist like himself could tell those belonging to one person from another. Oakes went on to bombard the jury with scientific jargon, referring to the medulla, the cortex and the cuticle of hair, likening the task of comparing individual strands to recognizing a specific person in a crowd.
“In 10 years, it’s extremely rare I will have known hair samples from two different people I can’t tell apart,” the self-proclaimed expert bragged.
The FBI agent’s conclusion in front of the jury was emphatic: “The hair found on the sheet exhibits all the same microscopic hair arranged in the same way as the characteristics present in the known hair from [Perrot]. I conclude that the hair was consistent with coming from the defendant,” he told the court.
That testimony, based on a single hair, was so strong, so wrapped in the certainties of science, that it wiped out all doubts and inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case – indeed, it eviscerated the presumption of innocence.
There was only one problem: the “expert” analysis, delivered by Wayne Oakes under oath and effective enough to obliterate one-third of a man’s life and counting, was wrong.
‘Potentially tens of thousands’ of cases gone wrong
In July 2013, the FBI admitted that the foundations of what it called “hair comparison evidence” – a technique that its agents had used in hundreds of criminal cases nationwide and spread through the training of state-based detectives potentially through tens of thousands of other cases – were scientifically invalid. A preliminary review of the FBI’s follicular flaws found that:
Microscopic hair analysis could not scientifically distinguish one individual to the exclusion of all others.
Statistical weight could not be given to comparisons to suggest a likelihood that the hair derived from a specific source.
Expert witnesses should not cite the number of hair analyses they had conducted in the lab to bolster the idea that they could definitively state that a hair belonged to a specific individual.
All three errors were made by Agent Oakes in front of Perrot’s jury.
Over the past few years, advanced understanding in the science of hair types has left hair analysis, as a forensic tool, in tatters. Today’s consensus by real experts is more straightforward than ever: there is nothing that can credibly be said, by FBI-approved analysts or anyone else, about about the frequency with which particular characteristics of hair are distributed in the human population.
In other words, microscopic analysis of hair – the very analysis that put George Perrot and so many people behind bars – is virtually worthless as a method of identifying someone. It can only safely be used to rule out a suspect as the source of crime-scene materials or in combination with the vastly more accurate technique of DNA testing.
As the scientific basis of hair analysis has crumbled, the scale of the judicial catastrophe caused by the FBI’s enthusiastic use of it for decades until about 2000 has now begun to emerge more fully. On Monday, the FBI and the US Justice Department, together with the Innocence Project and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, released the findings of the first stage of a joint investigation into these historic civil rights mistakes.
The results, first reported by the Washington Post, concluded that an astonishing 26 of the 28 FBI agents who had provided testimony as expert witnesses at trial based on microscopic hair analysis had made statements to juries that are now known to be false. Their erroneous evidence was found in a full 90% of the trial transcripts the team has studied.
The government has identified almost 3,000 cases in which FBI agents may have given testimony involving the now-discredited technique. So far only about 500 of those cases have been been reviewed.
Some 268 of those involved FBI examiners providing expert evidence in court that pointed to the guilt of the defendant – of which 257, or 96%, included false testimony.
Most shockingly, at least 35 defendants received the death penalty, 33 of which were the subject of false FBI testimony. Nine of the prisoners were executed and five died from other causes on death row.
Chris Fabricant, the Innocence Project’s director of strategic litigation who is representing Perrot in his ongoing struggle for freedom, called the FBI’s use of hair analysis a “mass disaster” for the criminal justice system.
“We have potentially tens of thousands of convictions tainted by false evidence,” he told the Guardian. “It’s going to take a herculean effort to right the wrongs in these cases, and so far we have made only a tiny start.”
In a paper published this month and written with William Tucker Carrington of the University of Mississippi law school, Fabricant traces the first reported use of hair analysis to 1855, when John Browning and his son, Gaston, were tried for murdering a plantation overseer. Hairs were found on a rope in the defendants’ home which were compared to the Brownings’ hair and found to be identical.
The pseudo-science deployed in 1855 changed little in over a century. What did change was that after the second world war, the FBI embraced the technique, giving it a professional veneer – a government stamp of approval.
“They began presenting false evidence to juries based on scientific language that was very impressive to juries. It was like a dirty bomb that went off in the criminal justice system – hair analysis was said to be objective, unbiased and definitive, so it was both very prejudicial against defendants and very powerful,” Fabricant said.
Admitting fault as a nation, as cold cases persist
Despite the FBI’s unqualified admission of error, George Perrot remains in prison, with no immediate resolution to his case in sight. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts continues to oppose a retrial, with a hearing scheduled for late this summer.
Fabricant said he is particularly anxious about the future for potentially thousands of people convicted for serious crimes such as murder and rape on the basis of false evidence given by detectives at state level, nearly all of whom were trained by the FBI in microscopic hair analysis. The federal agency has admitted its mistakes and is now working hard to address the miscarriages of justice on a national level, but state authorities are proving much more sluggish in their responses.
Typical is the case of Timothy Bridges, who is 23 years into his sentence in North Carolina. He was convicted of the 1989 sexual assault and beating of an elderly woman in Charlotte.
The criminal investigation uncovered no physical evidence of any sort to link Bridges to the scene – like Perrot, no semen or fingerprints were found, nor blood or DNA of any sort. But there were two hairs collected at the victim’s home and analyzed by an examiner for the state of North Carolina, who had been trained by the FBI in precisely the same now-discredited techniques.
The two hairs, the examiner told the jury at trial, had “likely originated” with the defendant. Bridges was sentenced to life in prison.
This month lawyers acting for Bridges, with the backing of the Innocence Project, petitioned the county court of Mecklenburg calling for a retrial. The state attorney general is opposing such a measure, but has initiated a search for the hairs in hopes that DNA testing could be carried out that would provide reliable clues. Previously, the state had indicated that the hairs had been destroyed, in violation of North Carolina law.
Fabricant, who is also acting on the Bridges case, said that states where examiners had been trained by the FBI in hair analysis had to act.
“Tens of thousands of people may have been caught in this trap,” he said. “When even the FBI has admitted liability, then states who were trained to use this discredited technique are now legally and morally obligated to step up to the plate.”
EDITOR’S NOTE: In my day, back in the ‘50s and ‘60s, hair evidence, bullet comparisons, shoe prints, and reconstruction of the crime from blood splatters were considered state of the art evidence. Now they seem to have fallen into some disrepute. Much of what used to be known as scientific evidence in criminal cases is now ridiculed as pseudoscience and junk science.
Jim Leitner, long a senior prosecutor in the Harris County [Houston] District Attorney's office and now General Counsel at the Harris County Sheriff's Department, says:
We had hair experts at Houston PD for years that were instrumental in getting people convicted.
We had blood spatter people who could tell an entire story of what happened from one drop of blood.
I had a DPS shoe print analysis who testified that she could make a 100% match of a shoe to a print with only ONE point of comparison.
Firearm experts routinely testify that every barrel makes different marking on a bullet and a shell casing. So you could take 100 Weatherby Rifles from the factory and match 100 bullets to each rifle without a doubt.
Tuesday, May 05, 2015
BALI NINE: FUNERALS FOR ANDREW CHAN, MYURAN SUKUMARAN TO BE HELD IN SYDNEY THIS WEEK
Funeral services for Bali Nine ringleaders Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran will be held in Sydney this week
ABC Australia News
May 5, 2015
The two men were executed along with six others by firing squad on the Indonesian prison island of Nusakambangan last Wednesday.
Chan's funeral service will be held at the Hillsong Church in Baulkham Hills this Friday.
Sukumaran will be farewelled this Saturday at the DaySpring Church in Castle Hill.
Both families have invited members of the public to attend the ceremonies.
The bodies of Chan and Sukumaran arrived back in Australia on Saturday, three days after the men were executed.
Prime Minister Tony Abbott said the executions were a "dark moment" in the relationship between Australia and Indonesia, and responded by withdrawing the Australian ambassador to Indonesia, Paul Grigson.
Since the executions, backlash against the Australian Federal Police intensified over the fact they did not arrest the two drug smugglers before they left for Indonesia in 2005.
This week, AFP Commissioner Andrew Colvin explained police did not have enough evidence to arrest the men in Australia and it was "operationally appropriate" to cooperate with Indonesia.
Indonesia has staunchly defended the executions as a vital front of its "war" on drugs.
EDITOR’S NOTE: I think it is ridiculous for Australia to recall its ambassador from Indonesia over the executions of two sorry ass drug traffickers. Good riddance!
Dorina Lisson, my Aussie anti-death penalty crusader friend, says: “I have been invited [to the funerals] and I will be attending! Why? Not because they were convicted criminals but because they were 'legally murdered' !!!”
ABC Australia News
May 5, 2015
The two men were executed along with six others by firing squad on the Indonesian prison island of Nusakambangan last Wednesday.
Chan's funeral service will be held at the Hillsong Church in Baulkham Hills this Friday.
Sukumaran will be farewelled this Saturday at the DaySpring Church in Castle Hill.
Both families have invited members of the public to attend the ceremonies.
The bodies of Chan and Sukumaran arrived back in Australia on Saturday, three days after the men were executed.
Prime Minister Tony Abbott said the executions were a "dark moment" in the relationship between Australia and Indonesia, and responded by withdrawing the Australian ambassador to Indonesia, Paul Grigson.
Since the executions, backlash against the Australian Federal Police intensified over the fact they did not arrest the two drug smugglers before they left for Indonesia in 2005.
This week, AFP Commissioner Andrew Colvin explained police did not have enough evidence to arrest the men in Australia and it was "operationally appropriate" to cooperate with Indonesia.
Indonesia has staunchly defended the executions as a vital front of its "war" on drugs.
EDITOR’S NOTE: I think it is ridiculous for Australia to recall its ambassador from Indonesia over the executions of two sorry ass drug traffickers. Good riddance!
Dorina Lisson, my Aussie anti-death penalty crusader friend, says: “I have been invited [to the funerals] and I will be attending! Why? Not because they were convicted criminals but because they were 'legally murdered' !!!”
RIOTING, LOOTING, BURNING AND DESTROYING PROPERTY WORKED
In announcing that she had charged six Baltimore cops in the death of Freddie Gta, prosecutor Marilyn Mosby said she heard the call ‘no justice, no peace’
Who says rioting, looting, burning and destroying property doesn’t work? It sure worked in Baltimore. Last Monday night mobs did just that in reaction to Freddie Gray’s death after a rough and tumble ride in an unpadded paddy wagon that led to the young black man’s death. On Friday, only four days after the riots., Marilyn Mosby, Baltimore’s chief prosecutor, announced that the six officers involved had been charged with various crimes, including murder.
In making her public announcement, Mosby said, "To the people of Baltimore and the demonstrators across America, I heard your call for 'no justice, no peace.'"
Al Sharpton’s slogan “no justice, no peace” is clearly not a call for peaceful
demonstrations! Instead it signals to those who feel they are victims of injustice that it is okay to riot in the streets. Perhaps Mosby misspoke, but she seemed to accept the rioting, looting, burning and destruction of property as the ‘no peace’ part of Sharpton’s slogan.
Gray was arrested on the morning of Sunday, August 19. He died on Saturday, April 25. The riots took place Monday night, April 27. The charges were announced on Friday, May 1.
A special task force of at least 30 Baltimore police officers was put together to investigate Freddie Gray’s death. And still members of the task force were shocked by Mosby’s quick announcement. Had Freddie been white, there would have been no special task force and that investigation would have taken weeks.
In her announcement Mosby said, “The findings of our comprehensive, thorough and independent investigation, coupled with the medical examiner’s determination that Mr. Gray’s death was a homicide that we received today, has led us to believe that we have probable cause to file criminal charges.” Those charges ranged from official misconduct to manslaughter to murder.
The term homicide is frequently confused with the term murder, but the two are not alike. Homicide is a legal term for any killing of a human being by another human being, but it is not necessarily a crime. Murder is merely one type of homicide. For those eager to demonstrate no justice, no peace, homicide means murder.
The arrest of Freddie Gray was a bad arrest. It all started when Baltimore Police Lieutenant Brian W. Rice, while on bike patrol, made eye contact with Freddie, who promptly fled away. Rice chased Freddie on foot, calling for backup along the way. When Rice and two other officers caught up to Freddie he was forced down on the ground and handcuffed from behind. He was arrested for carrying a prohibited weapon, allegedly a switch blade knife.
Video shows a limp Freddie being dragged to a police van. He was placed unbuckled in the unpadded paddy wagon. He pleaded for medical help several times, but the officers disregarded his pleas until he became unresponsive. Paramedics then took him to a hospital where he died a week later.
Freddie’s neck may have been broken during his unbuckled rough and tumble ride in the unpadded paddy wagon. Baltimore Officer Caesar R. Goodson Jr. the driver of the van was charged with second-degree depraved-heart murder, a charge used when a suspect is accused of reckless disregard for another person’s life. He was also charged with involuntary manslaughter, second-degree -assault, manslaughter by vehicle and misconduct in office. The other five officers are charged with involuntary manslaughter, second-degree assault, and misconduct in office.
Oh, and what about that switchblade knife? It wasn’t a switchblade knife after all. It was a legal folded pocket knife.
Defense attorneys from across the country have come forward to say that the most serious charges against the six Baltimore cops will be hard to sustain in court. Here, from the transcript, is what ABC News Legal Analyst Dan Abrams said on Sunday’s This week With George Stephanopoulos:
STEPHANOPOULOS: And Dan, let me begin with you. These six charges came a lot faster than people expected on Friday. And more often than not, these police brutality cases end in acquittals.
DAN ABRAMS, ABC NEWS LEGAL ANALYST: Yeah. And I think that they're going to have some real issues here with some of the charges, meaning you have to look at each officer's actions separately. You can't say there are six officers. We're going to review all six cases together.
For example, I think that there's been some overreaching on the part of the prosecutor based on the facts as she laid them out with regard to two of the officers charged with manslaughter. Why? Because they arrive on the scene later and don't do enough. That's going to be a tough conviction for manslaughter.
The second degree murder charge for the driver also going to be tough.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Let me stop you there, because this is a pretty serious charge, Caesar Goodson, the most serious charge, second degree depraved heart murder. What does that mean?
ABRAMS: In effect, it means we think that he's more culpable. He was more indifferent. He took action and didn't care at all.
And so there's no sort of firm legal line where you cross from manslaughter to depraved murder. Neither one requires specific intent; it just says we think this one is so much worse.
And the reason I think the prosecutor thinks this one is worse is because he had opportunity after opportunity with each stop to end this.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Here's the one I don't understand. I understand perhaps false imprisonment for those two arresting officers.
But manslaughter for them?
ABRAMS: Well, look, I would argue that I think that the initial officers -- if they falsely arrested -- if they had no evidence to really arrest them, I think there's an argument to be made they're more culpable than someone who comes on the scene later, takes a look at him and doesn't take action, and one of the officers who initially arrested him not charged with manslaughter.
The police are within their rights to chase a man who flees after making eye contact with a cop. When they catch up to him, they have the right to frisk and question him. But if they find no evidence of a crime and he has no outstanding arrest warrants, they do not have probable cause for an arrest. Freddie’s arrest was clearly a bad arrest and some of the six officers involved are clearly guilty of misconduct in office. And if that misconduct led to the death of Freddie Gray, involuntary manslaughter charges may stand up for some of the officers.
But by her obvious rush to judgement and her acknowledgement of ‘no justice, no peace,’ State’s Attorney Marilyn Mosby made it crystal clear that rioting, looting, burning and destroying property works.
Who says rioting, looting, burning and destroying property doesn’t work? It sure worked in Baltimore. Last Monday night mobs did just that in reaction to Freddie Gray’s death after a rough and tumble ride in an unpadded paddy wagon that led to the young black man’s death. On Friday, only four days after the riots., Marilyn Mosby, Baltimore’s chief prosecutor, announced that the six officers involved had been charged with various crimes, including murder.
In making her public announcement, Mosby said, "To the people of Baltimore and the demonstrators across America, I heard your call for 'no justice, no peace.'"
Al Sharpton’s slogan “no justice, no peace” is clearly not a call for peaceful
demonstrations! Instead it signals to those who feel they are victims of injustice that it is okay to riot in the streets. Perhaps Mosby misspoke, but she seemed to accept the rioting, looting, burning and destruction of property as the ‘no peace’ part of Sharpton’s slogan.
Gray was arrested on the morning of Sunday, August 19. He died on Saturday, April 25. The riots took place Monday night, April 27. The charges were announced on Friday, May 1.
A special task force of at least 30 Baltimore police officers was put together to investigate Freddie Gray’s death. And still members of the task force were shocked by Mosby’s quick announcement. Had Freddie been white, there would have been no special task force and that investigation would have taken weeks.
In her announcement Mosby said, “The findings of our comprehensive, thorough and independent investigation, coupled with the medical examiner’s determination that Mr. Gray’s death was a homicide that we received today, has led us to believe that we have probable cause to file criminal charges.” Those charges ranged from official misconduct to manslaughter to murder.
The term homicide is frequently confused with the term murder, but the two are not alike. Homicide is a legal term for any killing of a human being by another human being, but it is not necessarily a crime. Murder is merely one type of homicide. For those eager to demonstrate no justice, no peace, homicide means murder.
The arrest of Freddie Gray was a bad arrest. It all started when Baltimore Police Lieutenant Brian W. Rice, while on bike patrol, made eye contact with Freddie, who promptly fled away. Rice chased Freddie on foot, calling for backup along the way. When Rice and two other officers caught up to Freddie he was forced down on the ground and handcuffed from behind. He was arrested for carrying a prohibited weapon, allegedly a switch blade knife.
Video shows a limp Freddie being dragged to a police van. He was placed unbuckled in the unpadded paddy wagon. He pleaded for medical help several times, but the officers disregarded his pleas until he became unresponsive. Paramedics then took him to a hospital where he died a week later.
Freddie’s neck may have been broken during his unbuckled rough and tumble ride in the unpadded paddy wagon. Baltimore Officer Caesar R. Goodson Jr. the driver of the van was charged with second-degree depraved-heart murder, a charge used when a suspect is accused of reckless disregard for another person’s life. He was also charged with involuntary manslaughter, second-degree -assault, manslaughter by vehicle and misconduct in office. The other five officers are charged with involuntary manslaughter, second-degree assault, and misconduct in office.
Oh, and what about that switchblade knife? It wasn’t a switchblade knife after all. It was a legal folded pocket knife.
Defense attorneys from across the country have come forward to say that the most serious charges against the six Baltimore cops will be hard to sustain in court. Here, from the transcript, is what ABC News Legal Analyst Dan Abrams said on Sunday’s This week With George Stephanopoulos:
STEPHANOPOULOS: And Dan, let me begin with you. These six charges came a lot faster than people expected on Friday. And more often than not, these police brutality cases end in acquittals.
DAN ABRAMS, ABC NEWS LEGAL ANALYST: Yeah. And I think that they're going to have some real issues here with some of the charges, meaning you have to look at each officer's actions separately. You can't say there are six officers. We're going to review all six cases together.
For example, I think that there's been some overreaching on the part of the prosecutor based on the facts as she laid them out with regard to two of the officers charged with manslaughter. Why? Because they arrive on the scene later and don't do enough. That's going to be a tough conviction for manslaughter.
The second degree murder charge for the driver also going to be tough.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Let me stop you there, because this is a pretty serious charge, Caesar Goodson, the most serious charge, second degree depraved heart murder. What does that mean?
ABRAMS: In effect, it means we think that he's more culpable. He was more indifferent. He took action and didn't care at all.
And so there's no sort of firm legal line where you cross from manslaughter to depraved murder. Neither one requires specific intent; it just says we think this one is so much worse.
And the reason I think the prosecutor thinks this one is worse is because he had opportunity after opportunity with each stop to end this.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Here's the one I don't understand. I understand perhaps false imprisonment for those two arresting officers.
But manslaughter for them?
ABRAMS: Well, look, I would argue that I think that the initial officers -- if they falsely arrested -- if they had no evidence to really arrest them, I think there's an argument to be made they're more culpable than someone who comes on the scene later, takes a look at him and doesn't take action, and one of the officers who initially arrested him not charged with manslaughter.
The police are within their rights to chase a man who flees after making eye contact with a cop. When they catch up to him, they have the right to frisk and question him. But if they find no evidence of a crime and he has no outstanding arrest warrants, they do not have probable cause for an arrest. Freddie’s arrest was clearly a bad arrest and some of the six officers involved are clearly guilty of misconduct in office. And if that misconduct led to the death of Freddie Gray, involuntary manslaughter charges may stand up for some of the officers.
But by her obvious rush to judgement and her acknowledgement of ‘no justice, no peace,’ State’s Attorney Marilyn Mosby made it crystal clear that rioting, looting, burning and destroying property works.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)