By Bob Walsh
There was a shooting in the visiting lobby at the Fresno County, CA, jail on Saturday morning that left two correctional officers in critical condition.
An ex-felon, Thong Vang, showed up there allegedly to visit a prisoner but was acting very strange. (In a jail visiting rom “strange” is a relative concept.) When he tried to cut to the front of the line he was approached by Correctional Officer Juanita Davila. Vang pulled a gun and shot her in the head. He also shot Officer Tomalanma Scanian in the head. Fresno County Correctional Officers are not peace officers and are not armed. At some point an armed Lieutenant showed up and engaged Vang, who was injured and then surrendered. It is not immediately clear if the Lieutenant shot him or if the other visitors kicked the shit out of him for trying to jump the line and messing up their visiting day.
Both officers are in critical condition.
EDITOR’S NOTE: According to the LA Times, the good guy with a gun missed the bad guy with a gun, which is not unusual when cops get in a real-life shootout as opposed to shooting at a stationary firing range target that is incapable of shooting back.
I suppose you could say the bad guy did give up because the good guy had a gun, but I did not read that into the story. See the LA Times story below:
TWO CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS CRITICALLY WOUNDED IN JAIL LOBBY SHOOTING
By Emily Alpert Reyes
Los Angeles Times
September 3, 2016
FRESNO COUNTY, California -- A Fresno, Calif., man was taken into custody Saturday after shooting two correctional officers in the lobby of the Fresno County Jail.
Thong Vang, 37, entered the jail lobby shortly after 8:30 a.m. Saturday, saying he wanted to visit someone and trying to get to the front of the line, Fresno County Sheriff Margaret Mims told reporters. When he was ordered to wait his turn, Vang began to exhibit “bizarre behavior,” pacing back and forth around the lobby, Mims said.
During the confrontation that ensued, Vang pulled out a gun and shot correctional officers Juanita Davila and Toamalama Scanlan, neither of whom were armed, Mims said.
Another correctional officer fired several shots at Vang, who then retreated into a hallway before ultimately dropping his weapon and saying that he wanted to be arrested, Mims said. Vang, who had been previously convicted of rape, was held at gunpoint while the two injured officers were pulled out of the lobby to ambulances outside.
The wounded officers were taken to a regional medical center, where both were scheduled to undergo surgery. Each suffered a single gunshot “in the head and neck area,” the sheriff said.
Davila also suffered a broken jaw and was listed in critical but stable condition; Scanlan was in critical condition, Mims said Saturday afternoon.
Mims said Vang had cuts and scrapes and had been Tased at some point during the struggle, but he was not hit by any gunfire.
The Fresno parolee had been released two years ago after serving 16 years for rape with gang enhancements, the sheriff said, a conviction tied to a notorious case in which gang members kidnapped and raped three young girls. It is unclear who he was seeking to visit at the jail or whether he was planning to visit anyone.
“He will be held accountable for what he did,” the sheriff told reporters at a news conference Saturday.
In reaction to questions about security, Mims said there are two metal detectors that visitors must pass through before entering secure areas of the jail, but the lobby itself is a public area. More than a dozen other people were in the lobby Saturday morning when Vang entered, including four or five small children.
Christy Rodriguez told The Fresno Bee that she hid in a bathroom stall after hearing gunshots. “I just couldn’t believe this was happening,” Rodriguez told the Bee.
The Fresno County Jail was on lockdown Saturday afternoon and no inmate visits were being allowed.
Monday, September 05, 2016
THIS ANTI-AMERICAN BS MUST STOP
The NFL and all of its leadership should be ashamed
By Frank Borelli
Officer.com
September 2, 2016
On the 27th of August, actor James Woods tweeted: “Kaepernick doesn’t stand for the national anthem, Rams players can walk onto the field with their hands up for the “hands up, don’t shoot”, and other players can wear t-shirts saying I can’t breathe. But the Dallas Cowboys can’t put a sticker on their helmets for the 5 police officers who were killed. Way to go NFL….” (grammar and punctuation mistakes were his.)
As I type this, Kaepernick was at another game yesterday and again didn’t stand for the National Anthem.
Now, believe me, I am like a LOT of other people who are angered beyond polite expression at this man’s lack of respect for our nation; and yes, that’s how I see it. I don’t see this as Kaepernick simply disrespecting the flag, but disrespecting the nation as a whole – every American citizen included. My VERY first instinct was that someone (who was there and big enough to do so) should have grabbed him by the jersey or pads and yanked his ass up out of the seat and educated him a bit after the National Anthem was over. Apparently a lot of other people had the same (or similar) thought as the mainstream media and social media blew up with people expressing their displeasure.
Then I saw two observations and I had to take a deep breath… calm down… and think about this from a different perspective. First, there was already talk about Kaepernick being cut from the 49ers. Having never expressed his support for BLM so publicly before, and never having “stood” for all those “oppressed” in our nation by leveraging his exposure through the NFL, Kaepernick picked the ideal time to decide – apparently out of the blue – that he needed to make a statement. In doing so, he thrust himself into the spotlight and, all of a sudden, was a viable media topic. At the same time, he gave himself the perfect race card to pull and play should the 49ers now decide to cut him. He can say it had nothing to do with his performance but was retaliatory for his refusal to respect our nation. Second, and far more importantly (to me), he was exercising his First Amendment right to free “speech;” (self-expression). That’s a right that I have worn a uniform to protect and defend for well over three decades. As I have explained to my children and to many officers I’ve trained: we have a duty to protect the First Amendment right of EVERY American, even when what’s coming out of their mouth angers us or makes us want to… ah… educate them. If we can’t defend their First Amendment right EVEN when they’re saying things we vehemently disagree with, then OUR values and beliefs need to be reexamined.
So, you know what? Kaepernick, I don’t have to agree with you. In fact, I think you’re a narcissistic jerk who needs his attitude adjusted in a major way. That said, I will defend your right to display that lack of respect for our nation “in protest” for the way you think “oppressed” peoples are treated. Yeah, Kaepernick, I think you’re an idiot, but being an idiot is not against the law and we all have to have a talent.
The bigger problem for me is the general outlook of the National Football League. The NFL should be making sure that its players set a good example for our younger folks… and our older folks as well. If you’re a football fan, you should NEVER see someone who plays professional football in the news for ANY crime. “So and so got pulled over for speeding”? Sure. That might be okay. But, for goodness’ sake, “So and so got arrested for domestic abuse? So and so is suspected of homicide? So and so was arrested and convicted of animal cruelty?” NONE of that is acceptable. That the NFL keeps such players around is proof positive that those in charge; those who have the power to make changes; those who SHOULD be insuring the integrity of the NFL have zero concern for moral behavior and 100% concern for the profit dollar.
To that end, the more media exposure they can get, for free, by way of any professional football player’s immoral and/or illegal behavior, is actually of benefit to them. Secretly, behind closed doors in private meetings, those same men (and women) are applauding Kaepernick for his actions. They are LOVING the media attention he generates because it puts the NFL in the spotlight and they didn’t have to pay a single advertising dollar for it.
In this vein they are one of the bigger contributors to a huge societal problem today: that we have a good portion of the current generation of impressionable young people who are trying to figure out who they are; who they want to be; what they want to do with their lives; and, more important than anything else, what their personal values and beliefs will be. What they’re seeing is a motley assortment of immoral and unethical men being paid millions of dollars to play a game, and as long as they do so with any kind of talent whatsoever, they can commit any crime they want in their off time. As long as they can support the effort of putting fans in the stands, they can commit misdemeanor and felony crimes, endanger lives and yes, disrespect the entire freaking nation, and all they get is, at most, a slap on the wrist.
The NFL and all of its leadership should be ashamed. I know they’re not. I know that if any one of them read this they would laugh at how naïve I am in my expectations that moral and ethical behavior should be of greater value than the almighty dollar. They would laugh at my lifestyle, my financial status, my house and the “horrors” my family has to endure because I make so little compared to what they get paid. On the other hand, I don’t know how they manage to look in the mirror and not puke. They are a HUGE part of the problem confronting our society and it’s a problem that is destroying America as we know it. They are so eager to make a buck that they don’t care who commits what act or crime and they actually enjoy seeing “NFL” in the news when it doesn’t cost them advertising dollars. They should be ashamed… but they aren’t, and likely never will be.
That’s part of the battle that we law enforcement professionals fight. WE have to show people what true heroes are and we have to do it in such a way that the mainstream media has no choice but to cover it. Short of that, we have to become our own best promoters. We have to leverage every facet of social media that we can and make undisputable arguments for why public safety professionals are of far greater value than some athlete on any field.
It’s up to us… and we can’t accomplish it by criticizing one idiot’s disrespect for the nation that offered him so much opportunity. We do it by saying, “Yeah, he can do that. Any citizen can, but their right to do that is what WE protect. Without US they couldn’t get away with it.”
Stand tall. Stand proud. Stay safe.
By Frank Borelli
Officer.com
September 2, 2016
On the 27th of August, actor James Woods tweeted: “Kaepernick doesn’t stand for the national anthem, Rams players can walk onto the field with their hands up for the “hands up, don’t shoot”, and other players can wear t-shirts saying I can’t breathe. But the Dallas Cowboys can’t put a sticker on their helmets for the 5 police officers who were killed. Way to go NFL….” (grammar and punctuation mistakes were his.)
As I type this, Kaepernick was at another game yesterday and again didn’t stand for the National Anthem.
Now, believe me, I am like a LOT of other people who are angered beyond polite expression at this man’s lack of respect for our nation; and yes, that’s how I see it. I don’t see this as Kaepernick simply disrespecting the flag, but disrespecting the nation as a whole – every American citizen included. My VERY first instinct was that someone (who was there and big enough to do so) should have grabbed him by the jersey or pads and yanked his ass up out of the seat and educated him a bit after the National Anthem was over. Apparently a lot of other people had the same (or similar) thought as the mainstream media and social media blew up with people expressing their displeasure.
Then I saw two observations and I had to take a deep breath… calm down… and think about this from a different perspective. First, there was already talk about Kaepernick being cut from the 49ers. Having never expressed his support for BLM so publicly before, and never having “stood” for all those “oppressed” in our nation by leveraging his exposure through the NFL, Kaepernick picked the ideal time to decide – apparently out of the blue – that he needed to make a statement. In doing so, he thrust himself into the spotlight and, all of a sudden, was a viable media topic. At the same time, he gave himself the perfect race card to pull and play should the 49ers now decide to cut him. He can say it had nothing to do with his performance but was retaliatory for his refusal to respect our nation. Second, and far more importantly (to me), he was exercising his First Amendment right to free “speech;” (self-expression). That’s a right that I have worn a uniform to protect and defend for well over three decades. As I have explained to my children and to many officers I’ve trained: we have a duty to protect the First Amendment right of EVERY American, even when what’s coming out of their mouth angers us or makes us want to… ah… educate them. If we can’t defend their First Amendment right EVEN when they’re saying things we vehemently disagree with, then OUR values and beliefs need to be reexamined.
So, you know what? Kaepernick, I don’t have to agree with you. In fact, I think you’re a narcissistic jerk who needs his attitude adjusted in a major way. That said, I will defend your right to display that lack of respect for our nation “in protest” for the way you think “oppressed” peoples are treated. Yeah, Kaepernick, I think you’re an idiot, but being an idiot is not against the law and we all have to have a talent.
The bigger problem for me is the general outlook of the National Football League. The NFL should be making sure that its players set a good example for our younger folks… and our older folks as well. If you’re a football fan, you should NEVER see someone who plays professional football in the news for ANY crime. “So and so got pulled over for speeding”? Sure. That might be okay. But, for goodness’ sake, “So and so got arrested for domestic abuse? So and so is suspected of homicide? So and so was arrested and convicted of animal cruelty?” NONE of that is acceptable. That the NFL keeps such players around is proof positive that those in charge; those who have the power to make changes; those who SHOULD be insuring the integrity of the NFL have zero concern for moral behavior and 100% concern for the profit dollar.
To that end, the more media exposure they can get, for free, by way of any professional football player’s immoral and/or illegal behavior, is actually of benefit to them. Secretly, behind closed doors in private meetings, those same men (and women) are applauding Kaepernick for his actions. They are LOVING the media attention he generates because it puts the NFL in the spotlight and they didn’t have to pay a single advertising dollar for it.
In this vein they are one of the bigger contributors to a huge societal problem today: that we have a good portion of the current generation of impressionable young people who are trying to figure out who they are; who they want to be; what they want to do with their lives; and, more important than anything else, what their personal values and beliefs will be. What they’re seeing is a motley assortment of immoral and unethical men being paid millions of dollars to play a game, and as long as they do so with any kind of talent whatsoever, they can commit any crime they want in their off time. As long as they can support the effort of putting fans in the stands, they can commit misdemeanor and felony crimes, endanger lives and yes, disrespect the entire freaking nation, and all they get is, at most, a slap on the wrist.
The NFL and all of its leadership should be ashamed. I know they’re not. I know that if any one of them read this they would laugh at how naïve I am in my expectations that moral and ethical behavior should be of greater value than the almighty dollar. They would laugh at my lifestyle, my financial status, my house and the “horrors” my family has to endure because I make so little compared to what they get paid. On the other hand, I don’t know how they manage to look in the mirror and not puke. They are a HUGE part of the problem confronting our society and it’s a problem that is destroying America as we know it. They are so eager to make a buck that they don’t care who commits what act or crime and they actually enjoy seeing “NFL” in the news when it doesn’t cost them advertising dollars. They should be ashamed… but they aren’t, and likely never will be.
That’s part of the battle that we law enforcement professionals fight. WE have to show people what true heroes are and we have to do it in such a way that the mainstream media has no choice but to cover it. Short of that, we have to become our own best promoters. We have to leverage every facet of social media that we can and make undisputable arguments for why public safety professionals are of far greater value than some athlete on any field.
It’s up to us… and we can’t accomplish it by criticizing one idiot’s disrespect for the nation that offered him so much opportunity. We do it by saying, “Yeah, he can do that. Any citizen can, but their right to do that is what WE protect. Without US they couldn’t get away with it.”
Stand tall. Stand proud. Stay safe.
WHEN POLICE UNIONS IMPEDE JUSTICE
The Editorial Board
The New York Times
September 3, 2016
Across the country, municipal governments have signed contracts with police unions including provisions that shield officers from punishment for brutal behavior as well as from legitimate complaints by the citizens they are supposed to serve.
That may soon change, as public outrage over police killings of civilians is ratcheting up pressure on elected officials to radically revise police contracts that make it almost impossible to bring officers to justice.
The most striking case in point is Chicago, which has been roiled by a police scandal stemming from a cover-up in the case of a 17-year-old named Laquan McDonald, who was executed by a police officer nearly two years ago.
The Police Department first claimed that Mr. McDonald was brandishing a knife and moving toward officers when he was killed. A video — probably available to the city within hours of the shooting but not made public until last November, more than a year later — showed that Mr. McDonald was moving away from the cops when they shot him 16 times, and that the police were obviously lying.
But it was not until last month that the city’s inspector general recommended firing several officers, some of whom have since retired, for making false statements.
That recommendation was passed on to the police superintendent, Eddie Johnson. Mr. Johnson, who lacks the power to fire the officers outright, has filed administrative charges against five officers with an agency known as the Chicago Police Board, whose members are appointed by the mayor and confirmed by the City Council.
It is incredible that this is the first official disciplinary action taken against the officers, 22 months after the killing. And even if the board votes to dismiss the officers, they will be able to challenge their dismissals in court.
As a task force appointed by Chicago’s mayor, Rahm Emanuel, noted in April, “The collective bargaining agreements between the police unions and the city have essentially turned the code of silence into official policy.”
This absurdly slow process is a direct outgrowth of collective bargaining agreements that actually encourage officers to lie. The agreements bar investigators from questioning officers within the first 24 hours after a shooting, giving them time to coordinate their accounts. They micromanage investigations, limiting what interrogators can do. Beyond that, if an officer lies during an investigation, he or she cannot be charged with making a false statement unless the investigator presents the officer with a new set of allegations that specifically address the lie.
The labor agreements also discourage citizens from lodging misconduct complaints. Among other things, they prohibit most anonymous complaints, a problem in a city like Chicago, where the department has a history of brutality and even torture — and where citizens are understandably fearful of reprisal.
As in other cities, officers in Chicago can challenge disciplinary findings in proceedings overseen by arbitrators, who frequently have a vested interest in pleasing the police unions so they can keep their jobs. One earlier review of arbitration cases found that disciplinary sanctions were “routinely cut in half by arbitrators.” The system makes it difficult for citizens to get a full explanation of how their complaints are handled.
Justice Department investigations in other cities — including Baltimore and Ferguson, Mo. — have uncovered poor police oversight systems. To restore public confidence in the law, elected officials around the country will have to stop reflexively truckling to police unions and demand contracts that actually reflect the public interest.
EDITOR’S NOTE: While most of what this Times editorial says is true, it is a stretch to say that police collective bargaining agreements actually encourage cops to lie. They may give officers the opportunity to lie, but they do not encourage them to lie.
It should be noted why there are police unions in the first place. Before the advent of the unions, cops had no say in how much they were to be paid and they were often wrongly disciplined and fired without recourse
The New York Times
September 3, 2016
Across the country, municipal governments have signed contracts with police unions including provisions that shield officers from punishment for brutal behavior as well as from legitimate complaints by the citizens they are supposed to serve.
That may soon change, as public outrage over police killings of civilians is ratcheting up pressure on elected officials to radically revise police contracts that make it almost impossible to bring officers to justice.
The most striking case in point is Chicago, which has been roiled by a police scandal stemming from a cover-up in the case of a 17-year-old named Laquan McDonald, who was executed by a police officer nearly two years ago.
The Police Department first claimed that Mr. McDonald was brandishing a knife and moving toward officers when he was killed. A video — probably available to the city within hours of the shooting but not made public until last November, more than a year later — showed that Mr. McDonald was moving away from the cops when they shot him 16 times, and that the police were obviously lying.
But it was not until last month that the city’s inspector general recommended firing several officers, some of whom have since retired, for making false statements.
That recommendation was passed on to the police superintendent, Eddie Johnson. Mr. Johnson, who lacks the power to fire the officers outright, has filed administrative charges against five officers with an agency known as the Chicago Police Board, whose members are appointed by the mayor and confirmed by the City Council.
It is incredible that this is the first official disciplinary action taken against the officers, 22 months after the killing. And even if the board votes to dismiss the officers, they will be able to challenge their dismissals in court.
As a task force appointed by Chicago’s mayor, Rahm Emanuel, noted in April, “The collective bargaining agreements between the police unions and the city have essentially turned the code of silence into official policy.”
This absurdly slow process is a direct outgrowth of collective bargaining agreements that actually encourage officers to lie. The agreements bar investigators from questioning officers within the first 24 hours after a shooting, giving them time to coordinate their accounts. They micromanage investigations, limiting what interrogators can do. Beyond that, if an officer lies during an investigation, he or she cannot be charged with making a false statement unless the investigator presents the officer with a new set of allegations that specifically address the lie.
The labor agreements also discourage citizens from lodging misconduct complaints. Among other things, they prohibit most anonymous complaints, a problem in a city like Chicago, where the department has a history of brutality and even torture — and where citizens are understandably fearful of reprisal.
As in other cities, officers in Chicago can challenge disciplinary findings in proceedings overseen by arbitrators, who frequently have a vested interest in pleasing the police unions so they can keep their jobs. One earlier review of arbitration cases found that disciplinary sanctions were “routinely cut in half by arbitrators.” The system makes it difficult for citizens to get a full explanation of how their complaints are handled.
Justice Department investigations in other cities — including Baltimore and Ferguson, Mo. — have uncovered poor police oversight systems. To restore public confidence in the law, elected officials around the country will have to stop reflexively truckling to police unions and demand contracts that actually reflect the public interest.
EDITOR’S NOTE: While most of what this Times editorial says is true, it is a stretch to say that police collective bargaining agreements actually encourage cops to lie. They may give officers the opportunity to lie, but they do not encourage them to lie.
It should be noted why there are police unions in the first place. Before the advent of the unions, cops had no say in how much they were to be paid and they were often wrongly disciplined and fired without recourse
CONTENDER FOR ‘COP HATER OF THE YEAR’
He never calls the cops, calls them ‘crazies’ and murderers, and says the police have become the new domestic terrorists
Some shit-for-brains using the name John Infoworld had some unkind – to put it mildly – things to say about crazies (cops) after reading a Newsweek article on the new American cop. Here is what the asshole wrote:
What sort of person is eager to take a job where they strap on an assortment of deadly weapons and ride around all day looking for people to use those weapons on?
The police have shown time and time again that they don't talk to people or try to reason with anyone.
It's drive up, get out of car with hand on gun, and go right to shooting, before you know who is the bad guy or what the whole situation is even about.
Shoot first and make up bullshit stories later, to justify it.
Until just recently, that was the standard procedure for police. Nobody ever questioned them. The dead bodies got cleaned up, and they went on to their next murder and nobody said a word about any of it.
We all saw the Minnesota shooting, right?
The victim is dying and what is the crazy doing?
Holding his gun on the female occupant, ready to shoot her dead, too. No help at all for the dying man, who was shot.
In fact, they decide to handcuff him, long after he is already dead.
For any of you crazies who still trust the police, this clearly shows exactly what you can expect.
Police ride around looking for people to kill. Men, women, and even children.
I would say that I have lost all faith in the police, but that would be a lie, because I never had any faith in them to begin with.
And, NO, I never call the crazies!
That makes about as much sense as calling a street gang-member for help!
Police have become the new domestic terrorists.
If it wasn't for their badges most of them would already be doing hard time for assault or murder or drug crimes.
Some shit-for-brains using the name John Infoworld had some unkind – to put it mildly – things to say about crazies (cops) after reading a Newsweek article on the new American cop. Here is what the asshole wrote:
What sort of person is eager to take a job where they strap on an assortment of deadly weapons and ride around all day looking for people to use those weapons on?
The police have shown time and time again that they don't talk to people or try to reason with anyone.
It's drive up, get out of car with hand on gun, and go right to shooting, before you know who is the bad guy or what the whole situation is even about.
Shoot first and make up bullshit stories later, to justify it.
Until just recently, that was the standard procedure for police. Nobody ever questioned them. The dead bodies got cleaned up, and they went on to their next murder and nobody said a word about any of it.
We all saw the Minnesota shooting, right?
The victim is dying and what is the crazy doing?
Holding his gun on the female occupant, ready to shoot her dead, too. No help at all for the dying man, who was shot.
In fact, they decide to handcuff him, long after he is already dead.
For any of you crazies who still trust the police, this clearly shows exactly what you can expect.
Police ride around looking for people to kill. Men, women, and even children.
I would say that I have lost all faith in the police, but that would be a lie, because I never had any faith in them to begin with.
And, NO, I never call the crazies!
That makes about as much sense as calling a street gang-member for help!
Police have become the new domestic terrorists.
If it wasn't for their badges most of them would already be doing hard time for assault or murder or drug crimes.
THE NAZI DOCTOR FRANKENSTEIN
Horrific experiments of the Nazi’s ‘Angel of Death’
From the Daily Mail:
Immaculately dressed, it was Josef Mengele who greeted doomed arrivals at the Nazi death camp, Auschwitz, in occupied Poland.
With a flick of his gloved hands, the supreme arbiter of life and death would consign terrified prisoners either to work or to death in the gas chambers.
But many, especially twins, were condemned to an altogether more diabolical fate; they became guinea pigs upon his operating table as he pursued his berserk quest to clone blue-eyed Aryan supermen. Most of his victims died in terrible pain without anaesthetic.
Mengele had a doctorate in medicine from Frankfurt University, but used his knowledge in a sickening manner at the Auschwitz concentration camp, where he performed experiments as an SS physician from 1943 to 1945.
Although prisoners transferred to his wing to be studied escaped the gas chambers and were well fed, they often ultimately met an even more painful death.
Mengele regularly performed surgery without anaesthetic and would obtain bodies to work on simply by injecting chloroform into inmates' hearts while they slept, which would kill them in seconds.
He was most interested in heredity and once tried to change the colour of children’s eyes by injecting chemicals directly into them.
Twins held a particular fascination for him and it's estimated that he examined around 3,000 - but only 100 pairs survived.
Pregnant women were also singled out. He was known to have performed vivisections on them before consigning them to the death chambers.
The so-called Angel of Death was on the Allied commanders' most-wanted list from 1944, but he escaped to South America and was never found, despite the best efforts of private investigators and the Israeli secret service, Mossad.
He died in 1979 after suffering a stroke while swimming and thirteen years later, DNA tests proved his identity beyond doubt.
EDITOR’S NOTE: According to the Daily Mail, body parts and brains of victims of horrific experiments by Nazi doctors - including the infamous 'Angel of Death' Josef Mengele of Auschwitz - have been found at a leading German research institute. It is known that in wartime the institute regularly received human body parts from Josef Mengele, the doctor at the Nazi death camp in occupied Poland where he became infamous for carrying out experiments without anaesthetic.
The gruesome remains were discovered in jars during renovations at the Max Planck Psychiatric Institute in Munich last year but reported on by Israeli media only last week.
Just in case you’re wondering how so many top Nazis were able to escape to Argentina, Chile and Paraguay, here’s how they managed it. They fled to Switzerland where they were given sanctuary by the Catholic Church. The church then provided them with false passports and cash, and smuggled them to South America.
From the Daily Mail:
Immaculately dressed, it was Josef Mengele who greeted doomed arrivals at the Nazi death camp, Auschwitz, in occupied Poland.
With a flick of his gloved hands, the supreme arbiter of life and death would consign terrified prisoners either to work or to death in the gas chambers.
But many, especially twins, were condemned to an altogether more diabolical fate; they became guinea pigs upon his operating table as he pursued his berserk quest to clone blue-eyed Aryan supermen. Most of his victims died in terrible pain without anaesthetic.
Mengele had a doctorate in medicine from Frankfurt University, but used his knowledge in a sickening manner at the Auschwitz concentration camp, where he performed experiments as an SS physician from 1943 to 1945.
Although prisoners transferred to his wing to be studied escaped the gas chambers and were well fed, they often ultimately met an even more painful death.
Mengele regularly performed surgery without anaesthetic and would obtain bodies to work on simply by injecting chloroform into inmates' hearts while they slept, which would kill them in seconds.
He was most interested in heredity and once tried to change the colour of children’s eyes by injecting chemicals directly into them.
Twins held a particular fascination for him and it's estimated that he examined around 3,000 - but only 100 pairs survived.
Pregnant women were also singled out. He was known to have performed vivisections on them before consigning them to the death chambers.
The so-called Angel of Death was on the Allied commanders' most-wanted list from 1944, but he escaped to South America and was never found, despite the best efforts of private investigators and the Israeli secret service, Mossad.
He died in 1979 after suffering a stroke while swimming and thirteen years later, DNA tests proved his identity beyond doubt.
EDITOR’S NOTE: According to the Daily Mail, body parts and brains of victims of horrific experiments by Nazi doctors - including the infamous 'Angel of Death' Josef Mengele of Auschwitz - have been found at a leading German research institute. It is known that in wartime the institute regularly received human body parts from Josef Mengele, the doctor at the Nazi death camp in occupied Poland where he became infamous for carrying out experiments without anaesthetic.
The gruesome remains were discovered in jars during renovations at the Max Planck Psychiatric Institute in Munich last year but reported on by Israeli media only last week.
Just in case you’re wondering how so many top Nazis were able to escape to Argentina, Chile and Paraguay, here’s how they managed it. They fled to Switzerland where they were given sanctuary by the Catholic Church. The church then provided them with false passports and cash, and smuggled them to South America.
Sunday, September 04, 2016
MIAMI POLICE UNION CHIEF JAVIER ORTIZ SUED FOR ALLEGEDLY BEATING MAN DURING MIAMI HEAT CHAMPIONSHIP CELEBRATION
By Jerry Iannelli
Miami New Times
September 2, 2016
A couple of hours after the Miami Heat won its second-straight NBA championship title in 2013, François Alexandre was partying in the streets alongside hundreds of other blissed-out fans. Late into the night, as the crowd thinned to about 20 people, Alexandre says, a group of City of Miami bicycle cops turned their bikes sideways, created a wall, and began to march forward to push people away from downtown.
That's when, Alexandre says, his perfect night of Heat celebration turned into a bloody beatdown. After trying to help a woman who fell in front of him, Alexandre claims, he was clotheslined and then walloped by nine cops, who broke the orbital bone in his eye.
Alexandre is now suing the city, Miami Police Chief Rodolfo Llanes, and nine Miami cops — including outspoken police union chief Lt. Javier Ortiz.
Ortiz, an active cop who heads Lodge 20 of the Fraternal Order of Police, made national headlines earlier this year by organizing a boycott of Beyoncé performances over her black-power-referencing Super Bowl performance in 2016. That boycott failed.
Twitter storms regularly erupt around Ortiz, who is quick to defend cops caught in controversial situations: After the shooting of Alton Sterling in Baton Rouge this year, Ortiz said on Facebook that the shooting was "more than justified." When unarmed behavioral technician Charles Kinsey was shot in North Miami in July, Ortiz dismissed the shooting as media "sensationalism." And when Cleveland Police killed 12-year-old Tamir Rice in 2014, Ortiz later offered this: "Act like a thug, and you'll be treated like one."
Ortiz has also faced legal controversies. Earlier this year, he was sued by a man who claims Ortiz wrongfully arrested him on the Rickenbacker Causeway. Ortiz was also sued after allegedly tasering a man at Ultra Music Festival in 2011. After the city settled that case for $400,000, Ortiz was banned from working at Ultra. But he instead fought back and filed a grievance demanding he not only be allowed to work the event but also be paid for the Ultra festivals he was banned from working.
In the latest lawsuit, Ortiz's lawyer, Oscar Marrero, said Ortiz himself had not yet been served with Alexandre's suit and thus could not comment on the specifics.
"Lieutenant Ortiz is an excellent officer," Marrero said. "The filing of a lawsuit does not mean anyone did anything wrong, and he will exercise his constitutionally protected right to aggressively defend the case." Through his lawyer, Ortiz denied any wrongdoing.
The City of Miami, meanwhile, does not comment on active litigation as a matter of policy.
According to the suit, the night of June 21, 2013 — hours after the Heat's clinching win — Alexandre began shouting at the cops as they marched their bicycle wall at him that he, "as a taxpayer, had rights."
"Suddenly and without provocation, an officer ran at [Alexandre] and violently tackled him by 'clotheslining' him with an arm around his throat," the suit alleges. It does not name which officer clotheslined Alexandre. "[Alexandre], taken completely unawares, was violently thrown down and dragged by his neck into an alcove formed by a doorway and entrance into his apartment building. This alcove effectively trapped [Alexandre], so that he was easy to pin down and restrain, and kept him, and the beating he sustained, shielded from view."
The suit then says five cops jumped on Alexandre and began beating him while he lay motionless. Another cop allegedly ran up wielding a baton, he claims, but the five other cops were crowded around Alexandre too tightly, forcing that cop to leave.
After Alexandre was handcuffed and transported to a police station, the suit says, an officer tasked with taking him to the Turner Guilford Knight Correctional Center was so upset by Alexandre's medical condition that the cop drove him to Jackson Memorial Hospital instead. There, Alexandre says, he was taken to the hospital's Bascom Palmer Eye Institute for the fractured orbital bone in his left eye socket.
Alexandre's lawyer, Leonard Fenn, says Ortiz signed one of the police reports during Alexandre's arrest. On Facebook, New Times found photographs Ortiz posted on his Facebook page showing he was patrolling the championship celebrations on a bike that night:
Alexandre is suing the City of Miami, Llanes, and nine cops for unlawful arrest, excessive force, violations of his rights to peacefully assemble, and battery, among other charges.
Fenn tells New Times that, in addition to being compensated for his damages, Alexandre — who now volunteers as a Black Lives Matter activist and holds a Florida International University degree — would like to see some sort of policy change made throughout the department.
Alexandre says he was taunted while the cops beat him. Fenn says, "There was no need to taunt a person you just beat up. The fact that these guys made these taunting remarks just shows this was personal. The cops were ticked off that he wasn’t cowed and he wasn’t afraid of them. That's the kind of attitude we don’t need."
Miami New Times
September 2, 2016
A couple of hours after the Miami Heat won its second-straight NBA championship title in 2013, François Alexandre was partying in the streets alongside hundreds of other blissed-out fans. Late into the night, as the crowd thinned to about 20 people, Alexandre says, a group of City of Miami bicycle cops turned their bikes sideways, created a wall, and began to march forward to push people away from downtown.
That's when, Alexandre says, his perfect night of Heat celebration turned into a bloody beatdown. After trying to help a woman who fell in front of him, Alexandre claims, he was clotheslined and then walloped by nine cops, who broke the orbital bone in his eye.
Alexandre is now suing the city, Miami Police Chief Rodolfo Llanes, and nine Miami cops — including outspoken police union chief Lt. Javier Ortiz.
Ortiz, an active cop who heads Lodge 20 of the Fraternal Order of Police, made national headlines earlier this year by organizing a boycott of Beyoncé performances over her black-power-referencing Super Bowl performance in 2016. That boycott failed.
Twitter storms regularly erupt around Ortiz, who is quick to defend cops caught in controversial situations: After the shooting of Alton Sterling in Baton Rouge this year, Ortiz said on Facebook that the shooting was "more than justified." When unarmed behavioral technician Charles Kinsey was shot in North Miami in July, Ortiz dismissed the shooting as media "sensationalism." And when Cleveland Police killed 12-year-old Tamir Rice in 2014, Ortiz later offered this: "Act like a thug, and you'll be treated like one."
Ortiz has also faced legal controversies. Earlier this year, he was sued by a man who claims Ortiz wrongfully arrested him on the Rickenbacker Causeway. Ortiz was also sued after allegedly tasering a man at Ultra Music Festival in 2011. After the city settled that case for $400,000, Ortiz was banned from working at Ultra. But he instead fought back and filed a grievance demanding he not only be allowed to work the event but also be paid for the Ultra festivals he was banned from working.
In the latest lawsuit, Ortiz's lawyer, Oscar Marrero, said Ortiz himself had not yet been served with Alexandre's suit and thus could not comment on the specifics.
"Lieutenant Ortiz is an excellent officer," Marrero said. "The filing of a lawsuit does not mean anyone did anything wrong, and he will exercise his constitutionally protected right to aggressively defend the case." Through his lawyer, Ortiz denied any wrongdoing.
The City of Miami, meanwhile, does not comment on active litigation as a matter of policy.
According to the suit, the night of June 21, 2013 — hours after the Heat's clinching win — Alexandre began shouting at the cops as they marched their bicycle wall at him that he, "as a taxpayer, had rights."
"Suddenly and without provocation, an officer ran at [Alexandre] and violently tackled him by 'clotheslining' him with an arm around his throat," the suit alleges. It does not name which officer clotheslined Alexandre. "[Alexandre], taken completely unawares, was violently thrown down and dragged by his neck into an alcove formed by a doorway and entrance into his apartment building. This alcove effectively trapped [Alexandre], so that he was easy to pin down and restrain, and kept him, and the beating he sustained, shielded from view."
The suit then says five cops jumped on Alexandre and began beating him while he lay motionless. Another cop allegedly ran up wielding a baton, he claims, but the five other cops were crowded around Alexandre too tightly, forcing that cop to leave.
After Alexandre was handcuffed and transported to a police station, the suit says, an officer tasked with taking him to the Turner Guilford Knight Correctional Center was so upset by Alexandre's medical condition that the cop drove him to Jackson Memorial Hospital instead. There, Alexandre says, he was taken to the hospital's Bascom Palmer Eye Institute for the fractured orbital bone in his left eye socket.
Alexandre's lawyer, Leonard Fenn, says Ortiz signed one of the police reports during Alexandre's arrest. On Facebook, New Times found photographs Ortiz posted on his Facebook page showing he was patrolling the championship celebrations on a bike that night:
Alexandre is suing the City of Miami, Llanes, and nine cops for unlawful arrest, excessive force, violations of his rights to peacefully assemble, and battery, among other charges.
Fenn tells New Times that, in addition to being compensated for his damages, Alexandre — who now volunteers as a Black Lives Matter activist and holds a Florida International University degree — would like to see some sort of policy change made throughout the department.
Alexandre says he was taunted while the cops beat him. Fenn says, "There was no need to taunt a person you just beat up. The fact that these guys made these taunting remarks just shows this was personal. The cops were ticked off that he wasn’t cowed and he wasn’t afraid of them. That's the kind of attitude we don’t need."
WOMAN ARRESTED AT FLORIDA REHAB CENTER IS THE TEEN AT CENTER OF OAKLAND POLICE SEX SCANDAL THAT FORCED THE RESIGNATIONS OF 3 CHIEFS IN 8 DAYS
Jasmine Abuslin, 19, who claims to have had sex with more than 30 California officers from seven agencies, got into a fight with rehab staff and tried to solicit arresting officers for sex
By Chris Pleasance
Daily Mail
September 2, 2016
The 19-year-old woman at the center of the Oakland Police Department sex scandal has been arrested after allegedly suffering a breakdown at a rehab center.
Jasmine Abuslin, who also goes by the name Celeste Guap, was arrested on Monday at Treasure Coast Recovery Center, a voluntary treatment center in Florida.
Police say Abuslin, who joined the center on Friday to be treated for heroin and sex addiction, ran into the street, pulled up her shirt and exposed herself to motorists.
After a security officer convinced her to come back inside she was taken to a small room, but quickly became upset, police said.
As more security officers came into the room, sheriff's deputies say Absulin became violent and balled her fists.
When the guards tried to restrain her she lashed out, attempting to flip over a safe before hitting them and biting one on the arm, police say.
Martin County Sheriff's Office was called and Absulin was arrested on a felony charge of aggravated battery.
Staff at the center told police that she has been extremely hostile toward them since arriving three days prior.
After being arrested police say Absulin managed to slip out of regular sized handcuffs and so they had to use a smaller pair.
When she was put into a police car she began hitting her head on the window and then tried to solicit sex, police say
She was later pictured smiling in her police mugshot while wearing a protective police vest.
According to ABC 7, which spoke to Absulin before her treatment, she was told to go to the center by California police who told her to 'treat it like paid vacation.'
On the way to the treatment center, the station reports that Absulin threatened to jump out of the van transporting her and on to the highway in order to commit suicide.
She also claimed that she had been in contact with a Miami pimp who had offered to come and collect her if things did not go well in rehab.
Absulin is at the center of the Oakland Police sex scandal that forced the resignation of three chiefs in just eight days back in June.
While going under the name of Celeste Guap she claims to have slept with more than 30 police officers from seven agencies, starting at age 16.
Police chief Paul Figueroa stepped down in June after only two days on the job, following predecessor Ben Fairow, who had been fired after just six days.
Fairow himself had been chosen to replace former police chief Sean Whent, who had resigned the week prior.
Whent had quit after multiple officer misconduct cases.
He said at the time that the investigation into possible sexual misconduct with a minor stemmed from the suicide of an officer.
Officer Brendan O'Brien killed himself just hours after Guap started revealing details of the relationships with members of law enforcement on Facebook last September, reports suggest.
Guap, whose mother works as a dispatcher at the Oakland Police Department, hasn't named the officers she claims to have slept with.
She claims that only three officers paid her after their encounters, and recalls having up to ten trysts with a single cop.
Absulin's claims are still being investigated and detectives have not ruled out statutory rape charges.
By Chris Pleasance
Daily Mail
September 2, 2016
The 19-year-old woman at the center of the Oakland Police Department sex scandal has been arrested after allegedly suffering a breakdown at a rehab center.
Jasmine Abuslin, who also goes by the name Celeste Guap, was arrested on Monday at Treasure Coast Recovery Center, a voluntary treatment center in Florida.
Police say Abuslin, who joined the center on Friday to be treated for heroin and sex addiction, ran into the street, pulled up her shirt and exposed herself to motorists.
After a security officer convinced her to come back inside she was taken to a small room, but quickly became upset, police said.
As more security officers came into the room, sheriff's deputies say Absulin became violent and balled her fists.
When the guards tried to restrain her she lashed out, attempting to flip over a safe before hitting them and biting one on the arm, police say.
Martin County Sheriff's Office was called and Absulin was arrested on a felony charge of aggravated battery.
Staff at the center told police that she has been extremely hostile toward them since arriving three days prior.
After being arrested police say Absulin managed to slip out of regular sized handcuffs and so they had to use a smaller pair.
When she was put into a police car she began hitting her head on the window and then tried to solicit sex, police say
She was later pictured smiling in her police mugshot while wearing a protective police vest.
According to ABC 7, which spoke to Absulin before her treatment, she was told to go to the center by California police who told her to 'treat it like paid vacation.'
On the way to the treatment center, the station reports that Absulin threatened to jump out of the van transporting her and on to the highway in order to commit suicide.
She also claimed that she had been in contact with a Miami pimp who had offered to come and collect her if things did not go well in rehab.
Absulin is at the center of the Oakland Police sex scandal that forced the resignation of three chiefs in just eight days back in June.
While going under the name of Celeste Guap she claims to have slept with more than 30 police officers from seven agencies, starting at age 16.
Police chief Paul Figueroa stepped down in June after only two days on the job, following predecessor Ben Fairow, who had been fired after just six days.
Fairow himself had been chosen to replace former police chief Sean Whent, who had resigned the week prior.
Whent had quit after multiple officer misconduct cases.
He said at the time that the investigation into possible sexual misconduct with a minor stemmed from the suicide of an officer.
Officer Brendan O'Brien killed himself just hours after Guap started revealing details of the relationships with members of law enforcement on Facebook last September, reports suggest.
Guap, whose mother works as a dispatcher at the Oakland Police Department, hasn't named the officers she claims to have slept with.
She claims that only three officers paid her after their encounters, and recalls having up to ten trysts with a single cop.
Absulin's claims are still being investigated and detectives have not ruled out statutory rape charges.
OLD OHO FART ACCIDENTALLY SHOOTS HIMSELF WHILE UNDER NITROUS OXIDE AT THE DENTIST’S OFFICE
James White believed he heard his cell phone ringing and went to pick it up, but got his gun instead
By Zoe Szathmary and Associated Press
Daily Mail
September 3, 2016
A 72-year-old patient at an Ohio dentist's office was under nitrous oxide and accidentally shot himself this week.
James White on Wednesday believed he heard his cell phone ringing and went to pick it up, but got his gun, WCMH reported.
White shot himself in the hand, and the bullet grazed his stomach, the TV station said.
Sgt. Christina Evans-Fisher with the Clark County Sheriff's Office told WCMH: 'Going to a doctor's office where you might possibly be placed under some kind of medication that may alter your mental status at the point, you might not want to carry a weapon in there at that time.
'So think about your safety and the safety of the people around you.'
A New Carlisle Dental Group dental worker said in a 911 call broadcast by the TV station: 'We have a patient here in a chair. He accidentally shot himself with a gun in his hand.'
The worker said in the call: 'He was in the chair, and he was doing his filling, and I'm not for sure what happened. He got his gun and I don't know.'
The man was taken to a hospital for treatment of the injury, which wasn't considered serious, the Springfield News-Sun reported. No other injuries were reported.
Sgt. Chad Brown says the patient has a permit to carry a concealed weapon.
The man might be charged with using weapons while intoxicated, the newspaper reported.
New Carlisle Dental Group has talked about prohibiting weapons, according to WCMH.
By Zoe Szathmary and Associated Press
Daily Mail
September 3, 2016
A 72-year-old patient at an Ohio dentist's office was under nitrous oxide and accidentally shot himself this week.
James White on Wednesday believed he heard his cell phone ringing and went to pick it up, but got his gun, WCMH reported.
White shot himself in the hand, and the bullet grazed his stomach, the TV station said.
Sgt. Christina Evans-Fisher with the Clark County Sheriff's Office told WCMH: 'Going to a doctor's office where you might possibly be placed under some kind of medication that may alter your mental status at the point, you might not want to carry a weapon in there at that time.
'So think about your safety and the safety of the people around you.'
A New Carlisle Dental Group dental worker said in a 911 call broadcast by the TV station: 'We have a patient here in a chair. He accidentally shot himself with a gun in his hand.'
The worker said in the call: 'He was in the chair, and he was doing his filling, and I'm not for sure what happened. He got his gun and I don't know.'
The man was taken to a hospital for treatment of the injury, which wasn't considered serious, the Springfield News-Sun reported. No other injuries were reported.
Sgt. Chad Brown says the patient has a permit to carry a concealed weapon.
The man might be charged with using weapons while intoxicated, the newspaper reported.
New Carlisle Dental Group has talked about prohibiting weapons, according to WCMH.
TEXTING AND DRIVING
How laws are enforced in 5 states
Associated Press
September 2, 2016
Forty-six states have laws against texting while driving that typically also ban sending or reading email, using apps or engaging in other internet activity. Fourteen states bar drivers from using hand-held cellphones for any activity, including talking on the phone.
A look at cellphone driving laws and how they are enforced in five states:
---
CALIFORNIA
Bans hand-held cellphones for all uses, including talking and texting.
Citation convictions for texting increased from 2,845 in 2009 to 31,492 in 2015.
---
FLORIDA
Bans texting while driving as a secondary offense, meaning drivers must be stopped for another violation before they can be cited for texting.
Texting violations dropped from 1,587 in 2014 to 1,359 in 2015.
---
MASSACHUSETTS
Bans texting while driving as a primary offense.
Texting citations increased from 1,148 in 2011 to 6,131 in 2015.
---
NEW YORK
Bans hand-held cellphones for all uses, including talking and texting.
Tickets for texting increased from 9,015 in 2011 to 84,757 in 2015.
---
WASHINGTON
Bans hand-held cellphones for all uses, including talking and texting.
Texting citations increased from 118 in 2008 to 2,049 in 2015. (Citations issued by Washington State Patrol only.)
Associated Press
September 2, 2016
Forty-six states have laws against texting while driving that typically also ban sending or reading email, using apps or engaging in other internet activity. Fourteen states bar drivers from using hand-held cellphones for any activity, including talking on the phone.
A look at cellphone driving laws and how they are enforced in five states:
---
CALIFORNIA
Bans hand-held cellphones for all uses, including talking and texting.
Citation convictions for texting increased from 2,845 in 2009 to 31,492 in 2015.
---
FLORIDA
Bans texting while driving as a secondary offense, meaning drivers must be stopped for another violation before they can be cited for texting.
Texting violations dropped from 1,587 in 2014 to 1,359 in 2015.
---
MASSACHUSETTS
Bans texting while driving as a primary offense.
Texting citations increased from 1,148 in 2011 to 6,131 in 2015.
---
NEW YORK
Bans hand-held cellphones for all uses, including talking and texting.
Tickets for texting increased from 9,015 in 2011 to 84,757 in 2015.
---
WASHINGTON
Bans hand-held cellphones for all uses, including talking and texting.
Texting citations increased from 118 in 2008 to 2,049 in 2015. (Citations issued by Washington State Patrol only.)
THE END OF MAHMOUD ABBAS
16 years after the failed Camp David summit, the fiction of the two-state solution is about to be shattered once and for all
By Caroline B. Glick
Jewish World Review
August 31, 2016
Like it or not, the day is fast approaching when the Palestinian Authority we have known for the past 22 years will cease to exist.
PA leader Mahmoud Abbas’s US-trained Palestinian security forces have lost control over the Palestinians cities in Judea and Samaria. His EU- and US-funded bureaucracies are about to lose control over the local governments to Hamas. And his Fatah militias have turned against him.
Palestinian affairs experts Pinchas Inbari of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs and Khaled Abu Toameh of the Gatestone Institute have in recent weeks reported in detail about the insurrection of Fatah militias and tribal leaders against Abbas’s PA.
In Nablus, Fatah terrorist cells are in open rebellion against PA security forces. Since August 18, Fatah cells have repeatedly engaged PA forces in lethal exchanges, and according to Inbari, the town is now in a state of “total anarchy.”
In Hebron, tribal leaders, more or less dormant for the past 20 years, are regenerating a tribal alliance as a means of bypassing the PA, which no longer represents them. Their first major action to date was to send a delegation of tribal leaders to meet with King Abdullah of Jordan.
Even in Ramallah, the seat of Abbas’s power, the PA is losing ground to EU-funded NGOs that seek to limit the PA’s economic control over the groups and their operations.
All of this fighting and maneuvering is taking place against the backdrop of the encroaching PA municipal elections, scheduled for October 8.
Hamas is widely expected to win control over most of the local governments in Judea and Samaria. Hamas’s coming takeover of the municipalities is likely playing a role in decisions by Fatah terrorist cells to reject the authority of the PA. Many of those cells can be expected to transfer their allegiance to Hamas once the terrorist group wins the elections.
Given his Fatah party’s looming electoral defeat, more and more PA functionaries are wondering why Abbas doesn’t use the growing anarchy in Palestinian cities as a reason to cancel them. Abbas seems to have calculated that Israel will step in and, as it has repeatedly done over the past 20 years, cancel the elections for him.
Media organs Abbas controls are full of conspiracy theories whose bottom line is that Israel is not canceling the elections Abbas declared because it is in cahoots with Hamas and other “collaborators” to undermine the PA.
Although Israel, of course, is in cahoots with no one, it is the case that the government has apparently finally lost its patience with Abbas and is looking past him.
Repeated angry denunciations by government leaders of Abbas for his lead role in inciting violence against Israelis, leading the international movement to delegitimize Israel, refusing to negotiate anything with its leaders, and radicalizing Palestinian society, are finally being translated into policy.
Defense Minister Avigdor Liberman’s recent announcement that Israel is adopting a carrot-andstick approach not toward the PA but toward the Palestinians themselves, and will advance development projects in areas where terrorism levels are low and take a hard line against areas where terrorist cells are most active, has sent shock waves through Abbas’s palaces.
For 22 years, Israel has bowed to Palestinian and Western demands and agreed to speak only to PA functionaries and Palestinian civilians authorized by the PA to speak to Israelis. Liberman’s decision to base Israel’s actions on the ground on the behavior of the Palestinians themselves rather than act in accordance with PA directives, along with his decision to speak directly to Palestinian businessmen and others, marks the end of Israel’s acceptance of this practice.
Without a doubt, Israel’s willingness to let Abbas fall is in part a function of the wider Arab world’s increased indifference to, if not disgust with the Palestinians. As MEMRI has documented, the Arab media is registering growing impatience with PA spokespeople. Arab commentators have harshly criticized PA functionaries who continue to insist their conflict with Israel is the most pressing issue on the pan-Arab agenda.
The disintegration of Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Libya and the rise of Iran as a mortal threat, along with Israel’s growing importance as an ally to Sunni Arab regimes have made the Palestinian cause look downright offensive to large swaths of the Arab world.
Part of Israel’s willingness to let Abbas fall also owes to its inevitability. Once Hamas wins the elections and takes control over the local governments, Abbas’s already weakened position will become unsustainable. As is already happening in towns and villages throughout the areas, Fatah cells will transfer their allegiance to Hamas. The areas will become Balkanized and radicalized still further.
Confrontation between Israel and the Hamas-controlled Palestinians in Judea and Samaria is inevitable.
Moreover, this process will likely be rapid. Just as Hamas’s complete takeover of Gaza from Fatah forces happened seemingly overnight in June 2007, so its seizure of control over Judea and Samaria will happen in the blink of an eye.
Many Westerners, Israeli leftists and PA functionaries hope that some deus ex machina will fall from the sky at the last minute and cancel the elections.
But even if that happens, the underlying reality in which Abbas is rapidly losing all semblance of control over events in Judea and Samaria will not be reversed. Abbas has incited the Palestinians to the point where they reject not only Israel, but Abbas and the PA.
Last week, the left-leaning Israeli Democracy Institute released the results of its joint survey with the Palestinian Center for Policy Survey Research regarding levels of support for a two-state solution.
For a generation, we have been told by world leaders that “everyone who is anyone” knows that the only way to reconcile the Palestinians and Israelis is to establish an independent Palestinian state in Judea, Samaria and parts of Jerusalem, as well as Gaza, roughly along the 1949 armistice lines, with land swaps between the sides involving continued Israeli control over a small percentage of the land in exchange for Palestinian control over lands Israel has controlled since its establishment.
The same formula that “everyone who is anyone” agrees on assumes that the Palestinian state will be demilitarized and that Israel will accept around a hundred thousand Palestinians who were displaced in 1949 as citizens in a token acceptance of the Palestinian demand for a so-called “right of return” of the descendants of Arabs who left Israel in 1948-9.
The poll showed that this plan is a nonstarter for the majority of Palestinians and Israelis. Only 46 percent of Israelis accept the formula and a mere 39% of Palestinians do.
The PA itself rejected the two-state formula at Camp David 16 years ago.
The fictional peace process based on the failed policy model has been maintained ever since for two reasons. First, successive Israeli governments have been intimidated by successive US administrations into maintaining faith with it despite its obvious failure.
Second, Abbas has built, secured and maintained his corrupt dictatorship over Palestinian society on the West’s obsession with the two-state formula.
This practice has allowed him to serve into the 11th year of his five-year term of office. It has allowed Abbas, his sons and his cronies to build fortunes on the backs of the Palestinians they are supposedly serving.
Now that Abbas’s reign is ending, the West is losing their man in Ramallah. Abbas’s Hamas successors will not be beholden to Western donors, although to their discredit, the Europeans in all likelihood will shower them with cash and side with them against Israel.
16 years after the failed Camp David summit, the fiction of the two-state solution is about to be shattered once and for all. The only relevant question today, is what does Israel intend to do next?
By Caroline B. Glick
Jewish World Review
August 31, 2016
Like it or not, the day is fast approaching when the Palestinian Authority we have known for the past 22 years will cease to exist.
PA leader Mahmoud Abbas’s US-trained Palestinian security forces have lost control over the Palestinians cities in Judea and Samaria. His EU- and US-funded bureaucracies are about to lose control over the local governments to Hamas. And his Fatah militias have turned against him.
Palestinian affairs experts Pinchas Inbari of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs and Khaled Abu Toameh of the Gatestone Institute have in recent weeks reported in detail about the insurrection of Fatah militias and tribal leaders against Abbas’s PA.
In Nablus, Fatah terrorist cells are in open rebellion against PA security forces. Since August 18, Fatah cells have repeatedly engaged PA forces in lethal exchanges, and according to Inbari, the town is now in a state of “total anarchy.”
In Hebron, tribal leaders, more or less dormant for the past 20 years, are regenerating a tribal alliance as a means of bypassing the PA, which no longer represents them. Their first major action to date was to send a delegation of tribal leaders to meet with King Abdullah of Jordan.
Even in Ramallah, the seat of Abbas’s power, the PA is losing ground to EU-funded NGOs that seek to limit the PA’s economic control over the groups and their operations.
All of this fighting and maneuvering is taking place against the backdrop of the encroaching PA municipal elections, scheduled for October 8.
Hamas is widely expected to win control over most of the local governments in Judea and Samaria. Hamas’s coming takeover of the municipalities is likely playing a role in decisions by Fatah terrorist cells to reject the authority of the PA. Many of those cells can be expected to transfer their allegiance to Hamas once the terrorist group wins the elections.
Given his Fatah party’s looming electoral defeat, more and more PA functionaries are wondering why Abbas doesn’t use the growing anarchy in Palestinian cities as a reason to cancel them. Abbas seems to have calculated that Israel will step in and, as it has repeatedly done over the past 20 years, cancel the elections for him.
Media organs Abbas controls are full of conspiracy theories whose bottom line is that Israel is not canceling the elections Abbas declared because it is in cahoots with Hamas and other “collaborators” to undermine the PA.
Although Israel, of course, is in cahoots with no one, it is the case that the government has apparently finally lost its patience with Abbas and is looking past him.
Repeated angry denunciations by government leaders of Abbas for his lead role in inciting violence against Israelis, leading the international movement to delegitimize Israel, refusing to negotiate anything with its leaders, and radicalizing Palestinian society, are finally being translated into policy.
Defense Minister Avigdor Liberman’s recent announcement that Israel is adopting a carrot-andstick approach not toward the PA but toward the Palestinians themselves, and will advance development projects in areas where terrorism levels are low and take a hard line against areas where terrorist cells are most active, has sent shock waves through Abbas’s palaces.
For 22 years, Israel has bowed to Palestinian and Western demands and agreed to speak only to PA functionaries and Palestinian civilians authorized by the PA to speak to Israelis. Liberman’s decision to base Israel’s actions on the ground on the behavior of the Palestinians themselves rather than act in accordance with PA directives, along with his decision to speak directly to Palestinian businessmen and others, marks the end of Israel’s acceptance of this practice.
Without a doubt, Israel’s willingness to let Abbas fall is in part a function of the wider Arab world’s increased indifference to, if not disgust with the Palestinians. As MEMRI has documented, the Arab media is registering growing impatience with PA spokespeople. Arab commentators have harshly criticized PA functionaries who continue to insist their conflict with Israel is the most pressing issue on the pan-Arab agenda.
The disintegration of Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Libya and the rise of Iran as a mortal threat, along with Israel’s growing importance as an ally to Sunni Arab regimes have made the Palestinian cause look downright offensive to large swaths of the Arab world.
Part of Israel’s willingness to let Abbas fall also owes to its inevitability. Once Hamas wins the elections and takes control over the local governments, Abbas’s already weakened position will become unsustainable. As is already happening in towns and villages throughout the areas, Fatah cells will transfer their allegiance to Hamas. The areas will become Balkanized and radicalized still further.
Confrontation between Israel and the Hamas-controlled Palestinians in Judea and Samaria is inevitable.
Moreover, this process will likely be rapid. Just as Hamas’s complete takeover of Gaza from Fatah forces happened seemingly overnight in June 2007, so its seizure of control over Judea and Samaria will happen in the blink of an eye.
Many Westerners, Israeli leftists and PA functionaries hope that some deus ex machina will fall from the sky at the last minute and cancel the elections.
But even if that happens, the underlying reality in which Abbas is rapidly losing all semblance of control over events in Judea and Samaria will not be reversed. Abbas has incited the Palestinians to the point where they reject not only Israel, but Abbas and the PA.
Last week, the left-leaning Israeli Democracy Institute released the results of its joint survey with the Palestinian Center for Policy Survey Research regarding levels of support for a two-state solution.
For a generation, we have been told by world leaders that “everyone who is anyone” knows that the only way to reconcile the Palestinians and Israelis is to establish an independent Palestinian state in Judea, Samaria and parts of Jerusalem, as well as Gaza, roughly along the 1949 armistice lines, with land swaps between the sides involving continued Israeli control over a small percentage of the land in exchange for Palestinian control over lands Israel has controlled since its establishment.
The same formula that “everyone who is anyone” agrees on assumes that the Palestinian state will be demilitarized and that Israel will accept around a hundred thousand Palestinians who were displaced in 1949 as citizens in a token acceptance of the Palestinian demand for a so-called “right of return” of the descendants of Arabs who left Israel in 1948-9.
The poll showed that this plan is a nonstarter for the majority of Palestinians and Israelis. Only 46 percent of Israelis accept the formula and a mere 39% of Palestinians do.
The PA itself rejected the two-state formula at Camp David 16 years ago.
The fictional peace process based on the failed policy model has been maintained ever since for two reasons. First, successive Israeli governments have been intimidated by successive US administrations into maintaining faith with it despite its obvious failure.
Second, Abbas has built, secured and maintained his corrupt dictatorship over Palestinian society on the West’s obsession with the two-state formula.
This practice has allowed him to serve into the 11th year of his five-year term of office. It has allowed Abbas, his sons and his cronies to build fortunes on the backs of the Palestinians they are supposedly serving.
Now that Abbas’s reign is ending, the West is losing their man in Ramallah. Abbas’s Hamas successors will not be beholden to Western donors, although to their discredit, the Europeans in all likelihood will shower them with cash and side with them against Israel.
16 years after the failed Camp David summit, the fiction of the two-state solution is about to be shattered once and for all. The only relevant question today, is what does Israel intend to do next?
Saturday, September 03, 2016
GANG CLEANSING REQUIRED IN CRIME INFESTED URBAN NEIGHBORHOODS
Inner city black ghettos and Latino barrios will never be safe and will not have crime rates similar to those in white neighborhoods until they are cleansed of gangs
Chicago, a city with some of the most severe gun restrictions in the nation, experienced its bloodiest month in 20 years. This August there were 90 murders, 384 shootings and 472 total shooting victims in the windy city. Most of the shootings occurred in minority neighborhoods and most of the shooters were gangbangers.
Police blame gang members for the shootings and complain that many of them are still on the streets despite having a record of repeat offenses with guns. Police Superintendent Eddie Johnson says that about 1,400 Chicagoans, many of them gang members, are driving 85 percent of the city's gun violence.
Johnson emphasizes that “The historical cycle of violence we have seen in some communities must come to an end. Repeat gun offenders who drive the violence on our streets should not be there in the first place and it is time to changes the laws to ensure these violent offenders are held accountable for their crimes.”
Over the years there have been numerous attempts to bring an end to gang violence in Los Angeles. Efforts by black preachers to establish peace between the Bloods and the Crips failed and programs designed by academics to stop the violence among warring black, Latino and Vietnamese gang factions have been unsuccessful as well. So, is there a solution to the gangbanger violence?
The term ‘ethnic cleansing’ arose out of the Yugoslav Wars in the 1990s. Here at home, ‘gang cleansing’ is needed in today’s crime infested urban neighborhoods.
The spate of shootings in black ghettos and Latino neighborhoods across the nation will not end until the street gangs are completely gone. Those neighborhoods will never be safe, nor will they experience crime rates similar to those in white neighborhoods, without gang cleansing.
Unfortunately – civil libertarians would say fortunately – our constitution does not allow us to throw the hoodlums that make up our nation’s street gangs into concentration camps, but that is exactly what is needed.
Chicago’s police commissioner is correct when he says that violent offenders must be locked up. But what about those gang members that have not yet been caught or have not yet committed an offense with a gun? It is only a matter of time before those hoodlums too will leave their deadly mark on the streets of our inner city neighborhoods.
Believe me, it is not easy for me to advocate gang cleansing because of what Germany’s Jews experienced under the Nazis. My family was fortunate to escape Hitler’s concentration camps and the Nazi death camps in Poland. But reality tells me that America’s black ghettos and Latino barrios will never experience peace and some measure of prosperity without gang cleansing.
Chicago, a city with some of the most severe gun restrictions in the nation, experienced its bloodiest month in 20 years. This August there were 90 murders, 384 shootings and 472 total shooting victims in the windy city. Most of the shootings occurred in minority neighborhoods and most of the shooters were gangbangers.
Police blame gang members for the shootings and complain that many of them are still on the streets despite having a record of repeat offenses with guns. Police Superintendent Eddie Johnson says that about 1,400 Chicagoans, many of them gang members, are driving 85 percent of the city's gun violence.
Johnson emphasizes that “The historical cycle of violence we have seen in some communities must come to an end. Repeat gun offenders who drive the violence on our streets should not be there in the first place and it is time to changes the laws to ensure these violent offenders are held accountable for their crimes.”
Over the years there have been numerous attempts to bring an end to gang violence in Los Angeles. Efforts by black preachers to establish peace between the Bloods and the Crips failed and programs designed by academics to stop the violence among warring black, Latino and Vietnamese gang factions have been unsuccessful as well. So, is there a solution to the gangbanger violence?
The term ‘ethnic cleansing’ arose out of the Yugoslav Wars in the 1990s. Here at home, ‘gang cleansing’ is needed in today’s crime infested urban neighborhoods.
The spate of shootings in black ghettos and Latino neighborhoods across the nation will not end until the street gangs are completely gone. Those neighborhoods will never be safe, nor will they experience crime rates similar to those in white neighborhoods, without gang cleansing.
Unfortunately – civil libertarians would say fortunately – our constitution does not allow us to throw the hoodlums that make up our nation’s street gangs into concentration camps, but that is exactly what is needed.
Chicago’s police commissioner is correct when he says that violent offenders must be locked up. But what about those gang members that have not yet been caught or have not yet committed an offense with a gun? It is only a matter of time before those hoodlums too will leave their deadly mark on the streets of our inner city neighborhoods.
Believe me, it is not easy for me to advocate gang cleansing because of what Germany’s Jews experienced under the Nazis. My family was fortunate to escape Hitler’s concentration camps and the Nazi death camps in Poland. But reality tells me that America’s black ghettos and Latino barrios will never experience peace and some measure of prosperity without gang cleansing.
SUCH THINGS TEND TO NOT STAY SECRET FOR LONG
By Bob Walsh
I wrote recently about the Chief of Police of Hayward, California, being put on paid administrative leave pending an investigation which was, at the time, being kept on the QT. That didn’t last long.
The focus of the investigation appears to be alleged favoritism shown by the chief, Diane Stuart, towards contracting services offered by her then-boyfriend now-husband. The hubby, David Stuart, heads a company that offers certain types of specialized technical services and executive training. The most recent of these training seminars was a Peace Officer Standards and Training certified class called “Effective Executive Communication.”
I wonder if part of that communication involves letting the city manager know the chief of police is banging the contractor.
I wrote recently about the Chief of Police of Hayward, California, being put on paid administrative leave pending an investigation which was, at the time, being kept on the QT. That didn’t last long.
The focus of the investigation appears to be alleged favoritism shown by the chief, Diane Stuart, towards contracting services offered by her then-boyfriend now-husband. The hubby, David Stuart, heads a company that offers certain types of specialized technical services and executive training. The most recent of these training seminars was a Peace Officer Standards and Training certified class called “Effective Executive Communication.”
I wonder if part of that communication involves letting the city manager know the chief of police is banging the contractor.
TOP 9 HIGHLIGHTS FROM HILLARY CLINTON’S FBI REPORT
Report details her evasive answers to questions by FBI investigators
CNN
September 2, 2016
WASHINGTON -- Hillary Clinton's email scandal roared back to life Friday after the FBI released a report detailing her interview with investigators.
The top finding: Clinton seemed repeatedly unable to recall key information about her use of a private email server as secretary of state. Here are some other highlights from the new documents.
'I do not recall'
On 39 separate occasions, Clinton told the FBI that she did not "recall" or remember key elements of the training or classified information process.
What's a classification marking?
In regards to an email with classification markings, Clinton said she did not know what they meant and speculated it indicated paragraph markings.
According to the report, Clinton said "she did not pay attention to the 'level' of classified information and took all classified information seriously. CLINTON was not concerned the displayed email contained classified information. CLINTON believed the email amounted to a 'condolence call' and questioned the classification level."
A level of trust
Clinton repeatedly said she had no reason to think emails to her contained info that was inappropriate for personal email. She said she trusted those emailing understood what was appropriate.
"Clinton did not recall receiving any emails she thought she should not be on an unclassified system," the report read. "She relied on State officials to use their judgment when emailing her and could not recall anyone raising concerns with her regarding the sensitivity of the information she received at her email address."
The drone program
Clinton defended discussion of the Obama administration's controversial drone program in emails on her server, saying she felt conversation was "part of the routine deliberation process" and "did not give her cause for concern" regarding classification. She recalled many conversations about future strikes "that never occurred."
The former secretary of state said she thought drone strike information classification "depended on the context," noting it was an important tool but "frequently in the press."
Hundreds had her address
Clinton said it was well known she used that email address: "At least a hundred, if not several hundred State employees" had that contact info.
Skirting FOIA rules?
Clinton said she did not have conversations with anyone "with regard to using the server to avoid" Freedom of Information Act regulations. Clinton denied that avoiding FOIA rules was a reason for setting up the system.
Sidney Blumenthal's role
Clinton's correspondence with confidante Sidney Blumenthal has drawn particular scrutiny. But Clinton said that while Blumenthal is a "prodigious" writer, she said the information he provided was "sometimes accurate and sometimes not."
Removing markings
Regarding an email asking an aide to remove markings, Clinton said she was directing him to create talking points and "had no intention to remove classification markings." She explained she thought a "non paper" was a way to convey the unofficial stance of the US government to foreign governments.
The 'oh shit moment'
Clinton's team had an "oh shit moment" in late March of last year, according to the report. A few weeks after The New York Times first revealed the information about Clinton's private email use, a person -- whose name has been redacted -- "deleted the Clinton archive mailbox" and "used BleachBit to delete the exported .PST files he had created on the server system containing Clinton's emails."
EDITOR’S NOTE: Liar, liar, fat pants on fire. Hillary’s nose is longer than a telephone wire.
CNN
September 2, 2016
WASHINGTON -- Hillary Clinton's email scandal roared back to life Friday after the FBI released a report detailing her interview with investigators.
The top finding: Clinton seemed repeatedly unable to recall key information about her use of a private email server as secretary of state. Here are some other highlights from the new documents.
'I do not recall'
On 39 separate occasions, Clinton told the FBI that she did not "recall" or remember key elements of the training or classified information process.
What's a classification marking?
In regards to an email with classification markings, Clinton said she did not know what they meant and speculated it indicated paragraph markings.
According to the report, Clinton said "she did not pay attention to the 'level' of classified information and took all classified information seriously. CLINTON was not concerned the displayed email contained classified information. CLINTON believed the email amounted to a 'condolence call' and questioned the classification level."
A level of trust
Clinton repeatedly said she had no reason to think emails to her contained info that was inappropriate for personal email. She said she trusted those emailing understood what was appropriate.
"Clinton did not recall receiving any emails she thought she should not be on an unclassified system," the report read. "She relied on State officials to use their judgment when emailing her and could not recall anyone raising concerns with her regarding the sensitivity of the information she received at her email address."
The drone program
Clinton defended discussion of the Obama administration's controversial drone program in emails on her server, saying she felt conversation was "part of the routine deliberation process" and "did not give her cause for concern" regarding classification. She recalled many conversations about future strikes "that never occurred."
The former secretary of state said she thought drone strike information classification "depended on the context," noting it was an important tool but "frequently in the press."
Hundreds had her address
Clinton said it was well known she used that email address: "At least a hundred, if not several hundred State employees" had that contact info.
Skirting FOIA rules?
Clinton said she did not have conversations with anyone "with regard to using the server to avoid" Freedom of Information Act regulations. Clinton denied that avoiding FOIA rules was a reason for setting up the system.
Sidney Blumenthal's role
Clinton's correspondence with confidante Sidney Blumenthal has drawn particular scrutiny. But Clinton said that while Blumenthal is a "prodigious" writer, she said the information he provided was "sometimes accurate and sometimes not."
Removing markings
Regarding an email asking an aide to remove markings, Clinton said she was directing him to create talking points and "had no intention to remove classification markings." She explained she thought a "non paper" was a way to convey the unofficial stance of the US government to foreign governments.
The 'oh shit moment'
Clinton's team had an "oh shit moment" in late March of last year, according to the report. A few weeks after The New York Times first revealed the information about Clinton's private email use, a person -- whose name has been redacted -- "deleted the Clinton archive mailbox" and "used BleachBit to delete the exported .PST files he had created on the server system containing Clinton's emails."
EDITOR’S NOTE: Liar, liar, fat pants on fire. Hillary’s nose is longer than a telephone wire.
INMATE ‘IN HELL’ GOUGED OUT OWN EYES
Pfizer, drug maker of Chantix, says it’s ‘not our fault’
By Debbie L. Sklar
My News LA
September 1, 2016
Lawyers for Pfizer Inc. want a judge to dismiss the pharmaceutical company as a defendant in a lawsuit brought by a man who claims its anti-smoking medication was a factor in his psychotic breakdown that led him to gouge his eyes out while in jail.
In papers filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, Pfizer’s attorneys say the product label warning for Chantix was adequate and also argue that manufacturers of such prescription drugs have an obligation to provide warnings to doctors, but not to patients like plaintiff Michael Shabsis.
“As a matter of law, Pfizer’s duty to warn runs only to plaintiff’s physician, not to plaintiff or the public at large,” the drug company’s lawyers state in court papers filed Aug. 24.
Shabsis filed his lawsuit in December 2014, alleging negligence, excessive force, battery and products liability. He claims his breakdown occurred “in part or in whole” because he was taking Chantix.
Named as defendants along with Pfizer are the University of California Board of Regents, Resnick Neuropsychiatric Hospital at UCLA, Dr. Philip Cogen, Los Angeles County and former Sheriff Lee Baca. Cogen worked at Resnick Hospital and prescribed Chantix to Shabsis, the suit says.
According to Pfizer’s lawyers’ court papers, since 2009 the FDA-approved Chantix has included a box label warning of possible “serious neuropsychiatric events” that include “worsening pre-existing psychiatric illness and attempted suicide.”
The label further warns that the risks of Chantix “should be weighed against the benefits of its use.” The label also provided a warning notice to Cogen before he prescribed the medicine to Shabis, the suit states.
Pfizer’s lawyers also maintain in their court papers that federal law supersedes Shabsis’ state law claims. A hearing on the dismissal motion is scheduled Sept. 29 before Judge Marc Marmaro.
According to the lawsuit, Shabsis began using Chantix in September 2013 to break a smoking habit, with a prescription provided by Cogen. Four months later, he says he suffered a psychotic breakdown that led to him committing violent behavior toward his grandfather.
Shabsis was arrested and taken to the Twin Towers jail, where he was put in isolation despite being “in the midst of a severe manic episode,” the suit states. He says he became “delirious and delusional” while by himself in a cell.
The pain became so intense and the glare of the lights so disturbing that on Jan. 2, 2014, Shabsis used “his own hands and fingers to gouge out both his eyes as he believed he was in hell,” according to his lawsuit.
EDITOR’S NOTE: When you file a lawsuit always make sure one of the defendants has deep pockets ….. like Pfizer’s.
By Debbie L. Sklar
My News LA
September 1, 2016
Lawyers for Pfizer Inc. want a judge to dismiss the pharmaceutical company as a defendant in a lawsuit brought by a man who claims its anti-smoking medication was a factor in his psychotic breakdown that led him to gouge his eyes out while in jail.
In papers filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, Pfizer’s attorneys say the product label warning for Chantix was adequate and also argue that manufacturers of such prescription drugs have an obligation to provide warnings to doctors, but not to patients like plaintiff Michael Shabsis.
“As a matter of law, Pfizer’s duty to warn runs only to plaintiff’s physician, not to plaintiff or the public at large,” the drug company’s lawyers state in court papers filed Aug. 24.
Shabsis filed his lawsuit in December 2014, alleging negligence, excessive force, battery and products liability. He claims his breakdown occurred “in part or in whole” because he was taking Chantix.
Named as defendants along with Pfizer are the University of California Board of Regents, Resnick Neuropsychiatric Hospital at UCLA, Dr. Philip Cogen, Los Angeles County and former Sheriff Lee Baca. Cogen worked at Resnick Hospital and prescribed Chantix to Shabsis, the suit says.
According to Pfizer’s lawyers’ court papers, since 2009 the FDA-approved Chantix has included a box label warning of possible “serious neuropsychiatric events” that include “worsening pre-existing psychiatric illness and attempted suicide.”
The label further warns that the risks of Chantix “should be weighed against the benefits of its use.” The label also provided a warning notice to Cogen before he prescribed the medicine to Shabis, the suit states.
Pfizer’s lawyers also maintain in their court papers that federal law supersedes Shabsis’ state law claims. A hearing on the dismissal motion is scheduled Sept. 29 before Judge Marc Marmaro.
According to the lawsuit, Shabsis began using Chantix in September 2013 to break a smoking habit, with a prescription provided by Cogen. Four months later, he says he suffered a psychotic breakdown that led to him committing violent behavior toward his grandfather.
Shabsis was arrested and taken to the Twin Towers jail, where he was put in isolation despite being “in the midst of a severe manic episode,” the suit states. He says he became “delirious and delusional” while by himself in a cell.
The pain became so intense and the glare of the lights so disturbing that on Jan. 2, 2014, Shabsis used “his own hands and fingers to gouge out both his eyes as he believed he was in hell,” according to his lawsuit.
EDITOR’S NOTE: When you file a lawsuit always make sure one of the defendants has deep pockets ….. like Pfizer’s.
DONALD AND HILLARY HAVE A FRIENDLY SIT-DOWN OVER A FEW DRINKS
Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are in a bar. After a few rounds of drinks, Donald leans over, and with a smile on his face, says, "The media are really tearing you apart for that scandal."
Hillary: "You mean my lying about Benghazi?"
Trump: "No, the other one."
Hillary: "You mean the massive voter fraud?"
Trump: "No, the other one."
Hillary: "You mean the military not getting their votes counted?"
Trump: "No, the other one."
Hillary: "Using my secret private server with classified material to Hide my Activities?"
Trump: "No, the other one."
Hillary: "The NSA monitoring our phone calls, emails and everything Else?"
Trump: "No, the other one."
Hillary: "Using the Clinton Foundation as a cover for tax evasion, Hiring Cronies, And taking bribes from foreign countries?
Trump: "No, the other one."
Hillary: "You mean the drones being operated in our own country without The Benefit of the law?"
Trump: "No, the other one."
Hillary: "Giving 123 Technologies $300 Million, and right afterward it Declared Bankruptcy and was sold to the Chinese?"
Trump: "No, the other one."
Hillary: "You mean arming the Muslim Brotherhood and hiring them in the White House?"
Trump: "No, the other one."
Hillary: "Whitewater, Watergate committee, Vince Foster, commodity Deals?"
Trump: "No the other one:"
Hillary: "The IRS targeting conservatives?"
Trump: "No the other one:"
Hillary: "Turning Libya into chaos?"
Trump: "No the other one:"
Hillary: "Trashing Mubarak, one of our few Muslim friends?"
Trump: "No the other one:"
Hillary: "Turning our backs on Israel?"
Trump: "No the other one:"
Hillary: "The joke Iran Nuke deal? "
Trump: "No the other one:"
Hillary: "Leaving Iraq in chaos? "
Trump: "No, the other one."
Hillary: "The DOJ spying on the press?"
Trump: "No, the other one."
Hillary: "You mean HHS Secretary Sibelius shaking down health insurance Executives?"
Trump: "No, the other one."
Hillary: "Giving our cronies in SOLYNDRA $500 MILLION DOLLARS and 3 Months Later they declared bankruptcy and then the Chinese bought it?"
Trump: "No, the other one."
Hillary: "The NSA monitoring citizens' ?"
Trump: "No, the other one."
Hillary: "The State Department interfering with an Inspector General Investigation on departmental sexual misconduct?"
Trump: "No, the other one."
Hillary: "Me, The IRS, Clapper and Holder all lying to Congress?"
Trump: "No, the other one."
Hillary: "Threats to all of Bill's former mistresses to keep them quiet"
Trump: "No, the other one."
Hillary: "I give up! ... Oh wait, I think I've got it! When I stole the White House furniture, silverware and China when Bill left Office?"
Trump: "THAT'S IT! I almost forgot about that one".
Hillary: "You mean my lying about Benghazi?"
Trump: "No, the other one."
Hillary: "You mean the massive voter fraud?"
Trump: "No, the other one."
Hillary: "You mean the military not getting their votes counted?"
Trump: "No, the other one."
Hillary: "Using my secret private server with classified material to Hide my Activities?"
Trump: "No, the other one."
Hillary: "The NSA monitoring our phone calls, emails and everything Else?"
Trump: "No, the other one."
Hillary: "Using the Clinton Foundation as a cover for tax evasion, Hiring Cronies, And taking bribes from foreign countries?
Trump: "No, the other one."
Hillary: "You mean the drones being operated in our own country without The Benefit of the law?"
Trump: "No, the other one."
Hillary: "Giving 123 Technologies $300 Million, and right afterward it Declared Bankruptcy and was sold to the Chinese?"
Trump: "No, the other one."
Hillary: "You mean arming the Muslim Brotherhood and hiring them in the White House?"
Trump: "No, the other one."
Hillary: "Whitewater, Watergate committee, Vince Foster, commodity Deals?"
Trump: "No the other one:"
Hillary: "The IRS targeting conservatives?"
Trump: "No the other one:"
Hillary: "Turning Libya into chaos?"
Trump: "No the other one:"
Hillary: "Trashing Mubarak, one of our few Muslim friends?"
Trump: "No the other one:"
Hillary: "Turning our backs on Israel?"
Trump: "No the other one:"
Hillary: "The joke Iran Nuke deal? "
Trump: "No the other one:"
Hillary: "Leaving Iraq in chaos? "
Trump: "No, the other one."
Hillary: "The DOJ spying on the press?"
Trump: "No, the other one."
Hillary: "You mean HHS Secretary Sibelius shaking down health insurance Executives?"
Trump: "No, the other one."
Hillary: "Giving our cronies in SOLYNDRA $500 MILLION DOLLARS and 3 Months Later they declared bankruptcy and then the Chinese bought it?"
Trump: "No, the other one."
Hillary: "The NSA monitoring citizens' ?"
Trump: "No, the other one."
Hillary: "The State Department interfering with an Inspector General Investigation on departmental sexual misconduct?"
Trump: "No, the other one."
Hillary: "Me, The IRS, Clapper and Holder all lying to Congress?"
Trump: "No, the other one."
Hillary: "Threats to all of Bill's former mistresses to keep them quiet"
Trump: "No, the other one."
Hillary: "I give up! ... Oh wait, I think I've got it! When I stole the White House furniture, silverware and China when Bill left Office?"
Trump: "THAT'S IT! I almost forgot about that one".
Friday, September 02, 2016
IOWA COP WON’T FACE CHARGES
Angry white officer yanks on handcuffed black man's dreadlocks before hitting him twice on the back of the head
Associated Press and Daily Mail
September 1, 2016
An angry white officer who repeatedly yanked on the dreadlocks of a handcuffed black suspect before hitting him twice in the head won't be charged.
Officer Adam Wittmayer was disciplined after the April 19 incident, which occurred after suspect Montavis Keller, 24, nearly ran over the officer after a dangerous high-speed chase in Iowa that ended when he smashed into a house.
A state prosecutor declined to seek criminal charges against the officer, saying jurors would understand why he was was furious at Keller.
Waterloo Police chief Daniel Trelka said details of the discipline are confidential under Iowa law, but he described the punishment as 'significant'.
'I don't condone Officer Wittmayer's conduct whatsoever,' the police chief said.
Keller's attorney, Tom Frerichs, referred the video to the FBI this week and asked for an inquiry. He said the officer crossed the line by trying to punish Keller himself and criticized the department's decision not to fire Wittmayer.
'I can't think of any other job in which an employee is allowed to repeatedly hit another person, pull out some of their hair and still keep their job,' Frerichs said.
The FBI is aware of the video and is considering whether to open a case, spokeswoman Sandy Breault said Thursday.
The Keller chase started when another officer spotted him speeding and weaving and sought to pull him over.
Keller sped away. Several patrol cars joined the chase as the suspect reached up to 90mph.
Wittmayer eventually put down tire-puncturing sticks to disable Keller's vehicle, which veered around a school bus and then toward the officer, 'who had to run to get out of harm's way,' according to a criminal complaint.
The car then crashed into a house where the occupants were not injured but had to evacuate due to a suspected gas line rupture.
Patrol car video shows Keller complying with demands to get on the ground and showing no resistance as he is pinned down by three officers and handcuffed.
Wittmayer then comes running into the frame calling Keller a 'freaking idiot.'
He kneels down, grabs Keller's dreadlocks, yanks on his hair multiple times and calls him a 'moron' and other expletives.
He appears to hit the suspect with his hand twice on the back of the head and continues calling him names.
Wittmayer and another officer then throw Keller into a police car.
In May, Black Hawk County Attorney Brian Williams asked the Iowa attorney general's office to review Wittmayer's actions after discovering the footage on video captured by sheriff's deputies, according to an email obtained by the AP under the open records law.
'I am not prejudging anything, but I do believe it needs an independent review,' Williams wrote to Assistant Attorney General Scott D Brown.
In a June 17 letter, Brown said that he believed no criminal charges were sustainable against Wittmayer, saying the officer was 'understandably agitated'.
Wittmayer could be charged with simple misdemeanor assault, but jurors would learn of all the circumstances that led to the encounter, Brown wrote.
'Based upon this fact and my review of the entire matter, the likelihood of a Black Hawk County jury convicting Officer Wittmayer is minimal if not completely non-existent,' he wrote, adding that the contact happened quickly, 'appears slight' and did not hurt Keller.
Keller, who has no prior criminal record, is charged with four felonies, including attempting to assault a police officer, eluding police and possessing 42.5 grams of marijuana with intent to deliver. He is scheduled to stand trial later this month.
Frerichs provided the AP with the video after the sheriff's office rejected an open-records request for the footage, citing the pending charges. The release of the video surprised the Waterloo chief.
'I certainly agree that it should ultimately be made available due to transparency and public interest,' Trelka said. 'However, this is currently a pending case.'
Waterloo has the highest percentage of black residents of any city in Iowa, but a nearly all-white police department, which has suffered a string of costly missteps involving force and lack of professionalism.
The city has approved settlements with black residents worth at least $2.7million this year.
Racist remarks by officers have also come to light, including comments that may have contributed to an acquittal in a murder case last month.
The police chief confirmed Thursday that another officer was recently disciplined for using a racial slur during a June 10 interaction with a black male.
A phone listing for Wittmayer rang busy. The Waterloo police union did not return a message seeking comment.
EDITOR’S NOTE: These jerks, whether they have a criminal record or not, who flee from the police at speeds that endanger innocent drivers and pedestrians, the pursuing cops and, as in this case, homeowners, deserve to have the shit kicked out of them!
Associated Press and Daily Mail
September 1, 2016
An angry white officer who repeatedly yanked on the dreadlocks of a handcuffed black suspect before hitting him twice in the head won't be charged.
Officer Adam Wittmayer was disciplined after the April 19 incident, which occurred after suspect Montavis Keller, 24, nearly ran over the officer after a dangerous high-speed chase in Iowa that ended when he smashed into a house.
A state prosecutor declined to seek criminal charges against the officer, saying jurors would understand why he was was furious at Keller.
Waterloo Police chief Daniel Trelka said details of the discipline are confidential under Iowa law, but he described the punishment as 'significant'.
'I don't condone Officer Wittmayer's conduct whatsoever,' the police chief said.
Keller's attorney, Tom Frerichs, referred the video to the FBI this week and asked for an inquiry. He said the officer crossed the line by trying to punish Keller himself and criticized the department's decision not to fire Wittmayer.
'I can't think of any other job in which an employee is allowed to repeatedly hit another person, pull out some of their hair and still keep their job,' Frerichs said.
The FBI is aware of the video and is considering whether to open a case, spokeswoman Sandy Breault said Thursday.
The Keller chase started when another officer spotted him speeding and weaving and sought to pull him over.
Keller sped away. Several patrol cars joined the chase as the suspect reached up to 90mph.
Wittmayer eventually put down tire-puncturing sticks to disable Keller's vehicle, which veered around a school bus and then toward the officer, 'who had to run to get out of harm's way,' according to a criminal complaint.
The car then crashed into a house where the occupants were not injured but had to evacuate due to a suspected gas line rupture.
Patrol car video shows Keller complying with demands to get on the ground and showing no resistance as he is pinned down by three officers and handcuffed.
Wittmayer then comes running into the frame calling Keller a 'freaking idiot.'
He kneels down, grabs Keller's dreadlocks, yanks on his hair multiple times and calls him a 'moron' and other expletives.
He appears to hit the suspect with his hand twice on the back of the head and continues calling him names.
Wittmayer and another officer then throw Keller into a police car.
In May, Black Hawk County Attorney Brian Williams asked the Iowa attorney general's office to review Wittmayer's actions after discovering the footage on video captured by sheriff's deputies, according to an email obtained by the AP under the open records law.
'I am not prejudging anything, but I do believe it needs an independent review,' Williams wrote to Assistant Attorney General Scott D Brown.
In a June 17 letter, Brown said that he believed no criminal charges were sustainable against Wittmayer, saying the officer was 'understandably agitated'.
Wittmayer could be charged with simple misdemeanor assault, but jurors would learn of all the circumstances that led to the encounter, Brown wrote.
'Based upon this fact and my review of the entire matter, the likelihood of a Black Hawk County jury convicting Officer Wittmayer is minimal if not completely non-existent,' he wrote, adding that the contact happened quickly, 'appears slight' and did not hurt Keller.
Keller, who has no prior criminal record, is charged with four felonies, including attempting to assault a police officer, eluding police and possessing 42.5 grams of marijuana with intent to deliver. He is scheduled to stand trial later this month.
Frerichs provided the AP with the video after the sheriff's office rejected an open-records request for the footage, citing the pending charges. The release of the video surprised the Waterloo chief.
'I certainly agree that it should ultimately be made available due to transparency and public interest,' Trelka said. 'However, this is currently a pending case.'
Waterloo has the highest percentage of black residents of any city in Iowa, but a nearly all-white police department, which has suffered a string of costly missteps involving force and lack of professionalism.
The city has approved settlements with black residents worth at least $2.7million this year.
Racist remarks by officers have also come to light, including comments that may have contributed to an acquittal in a murder case last month.
The police chief confirmed Thursday that another officer was recently disciplined for using a racial slur during a June 10 interaction with a black male.
A phone listing for Wittmayer rang busy. The Waterloo police union did not return a message seeking comment.
EDITOR’S NOTE: These jerks, whether they have a criminal record or not, who flee from the police at speeds that endanger innocent drivers and pedestrians, the pursuing cops and, as in this case, homeowners, deserve to have the shit kicked out of them!
PISSING CONTEST BETWEEN MASS. AG AND GUN MAKERS
By Bob Walsh
Maura Healy is the Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. She hates guns. She hates people who own guns. She hates the fact that guns exist in the world. She hates the fact that she cannot control people. She has asserted thru her office that Remington and Glock manufacture an essentially unsafe product. Both of those makers are suing to block her from accessing their records of safety complaints about their products.
Much of Healy’s beef with Glock is that their guns fire when you pull the trigger. She cites three specific instances:
One was a negligent discharge of a Glock pistol by a Sheriff’s Deputy in the San Francisco Hall of Justice.
One was the shooting of a LAPD officer by his 3-year-old son, who accessed his gun under his car seat and shot daddy thru the seat back, leaving him crippled. (The gun did work like it was
supposed to; when you pulled the trigger it went bang.)
The third was the accidental-negligent discharge of a Glock in the pocket of a man in Massachusetts, who was dancing at a Fourth of July party when the gun, sans holster, allegedly
fired all by itself from inside his pocket.
So, rather than allowing for the fact that human being on occasion do stupid things with firearms she wants to blame the guns.
Glock has asserted that Healy is engaging in a political action, pointing out that she is on the record as calling guns a “public health crisis” and an “epidemic.” It should be noted that Glock pistols cannot be sold to private individuals in Massachusetts, only to police departments or individual police officers. She countered that illegal purchasers are still residents of the state and entitled to consumer protection.
Remington has asserted that less than 1% of its consumer complaint files have anything to do with the state of Massachusetts and that it is unreasonable to expect them to supply files from complaints from other states or even other countries.
It also seems that these two manufacturers are not the only ones her office is targeting. In July Healy also moved to ban the sales of “military style assault rifles” in her state, including those whose sale was completely legal under Massachusetts law.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Here’s a simple solution to this legal brouhaha. Glock and Remington should just pull their plants out of the state of Massachusetts and set up shop in the gun-friendly state of Texas where they won’t have to put up with such crap.
Maura Healy is the Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. She hates guns. She hates people who own guns. She hates the fact that guns exist in the world. She hates the fact that she cannot control people. She has asserted thru her office that Remington and Glock manufacture an essentially unsafe product. Both of those makers are suing to block her from accessing their records of safety complaints about their products.
Much of Healy’s beef with Glock is that their guns fire when you pull the trigger. She cites three specific instances:
One was a negligent discharge of a Glock pistol by a Sheriff’s Deputy in the San Francisco Hall of Justice.
One was the shooting of a LAPD officer by his 3-year-old son, who accessed his gun under his car seat and shot daddy thru the seat back, leaving him crippled. (The gun did work like it was
supposed to; when you pulled the trigger it went bang.)
The third was the accidental-negligent discharge of a Glock in the pocket of a man in Massachusetts, who was dancing at a Fourth of July party when the gun, sans holster, allegedly
fired all by itself from inside his pocket.
So, rather than allowing for the fact that human being on occasion do stupid things with firearms she wants to blame the guns.
Glock has asserted that Healy is engaging in a political action, pointing out that she is on the record as calling guns a “public health crisis” and an “epidemic.” It should be noted that Glock pistols cannot be sold to private individuals in Massachusetts, only to police departments or individual police officers. She countered that illegal purchasers are still residents of the state and entitled to consumer protection.
Remington has asserted that less than 1% of its consumer complaint files have anything to do with the state of Massachusetts and that it is unreasonable to expect them to supply files from complaints from other states or even other countries.
It also seems that these two manufacturers are not the only ones her office is targeting. In July Healy also moved to ban the sales of “military style assault rifles” in her state, including those whose sale was completely legal under Massachusetts law.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Here’s a simple solution to this legal brouhaha. Glock and Remington should just pull their plants out of the state of Massachusetts and set up shop in the gun-friendly state of Texas where they won’t have to put up with such crap.
COURT SAYS NO SECOND AMENDMENT PROTECTION FOR STONERS
By Bob Walsh
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled today that persons with medical marijuana cards can lose their rights to possess firearms. The official position of the federal government, as expressed by the ATF gun gestapo, is that persons who have medical marijuana cards are in fact habitual drug users and restricted from the legal ownership or possession of firearms.
I feel compelled to point out that a microscopic number of people with such cards in fact do NOT consume pot but use the cards to semi-legally possess marijuana for transportation to people who do consume it. These cards do, again in theory, permit drivers to possess and deliver the stuff without worrying about being arrested and their cars seized.
EDITOR’S NOTE: I feel compelled to say that a macroscopic number of people shouldn’t have the cards in the first place since they conned doctors into writing pot prescriptions for phony ailments and the doctors were eager to be conned as medical marijuana has become a pot of gold for them.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled today that persons with medical marijuana cards can lose their rights to possess firearms. The official position of the federal government, as expressed by the ATF gun gestapo, is that persons who have medical marijuana cards are in fact habitual drug users and restricted from the legal ownership or possession of firearms.
I feel compelled to point out that a microscopic number of people with such cards in fact do NOT consume pot but use the cards to semi-legally possess marijuana for transportation to people who do consume it. These cards do, again in theory, permit drivers to possess and deliver the stuff without worrying about being arrested and their cars seized.
EDITOR’S NOTE: I feel compelled to say that a macroscopic number of people shouldn’t have the cards in the first place since they conned doctors into writing pot prescriptions for phony ailments and the doctors were eager to be conned as medical marijuana has become a pot of gold for them.
CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE GETS ONE RIGHT
Bu Bob Walsh
I have been known, from time to time, to bang on the legislature of the formerly great state of California. They are, for the most part, a pack of marginally competent asswipes who are primarily interested in holding feel-good circle-jerks and lining their own pockets. That is what you get with one party rule super-majorities.
That being said today they got one right. Today the state legislature found and declared that DENIM is now the official fabric of the state of California.
That would, of course, be a lot more meaningful if Levi Strauss & Co. actually had any corporate presence here other than a corporate headquarters. As far as I know all cloth making and manufacturing for them is now done in third-world shitholes but hey, what the hell, the legislature can feel good about themselves again.
So let’s hear three cheers for the most overpaid pack of incompetent asswipes in the state, the state legislature.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Not only that, but in these critical times, declaring denim as the official state fabric was an extremely significant piece of legislation.
I have been known, from time to time, to bang on the legislature of the formerly great state of California. They are, for the most part, a pack of marginally competent asswipes who are primarily interested in holding feel-good circle-jerks and lining their own pockets. That is what you get with one party rule super-majorities.
That being said today they got one right. Today the state legislature found and declared that DENIM is now the official fabric of the state of California.
That would, of course, be a lot more meaningful if Levi Strauss & Co. actually had any corporate presence here other than a corporate headquarters. As far as I know all cloth making and manufacturing for them is now done in third-world shitholes but hey, what the hell, the legislature can feel good about themselves again.
So let’s hear three cheers for the most overpaid pack of incompetent asswipes in the state, the state legislature.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Not only that, but in these critical times, declaring denim as the official state fabric was an extremely significant piece of legislation.
PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN HIGH-CRIME AREAS ASK THE COPS TO ENFORCE NO-LOITERING POLICIES
What should the police to do when their constituents beg them to maintain order? Ignore them?
By Heather Mac Donald
National Review
August 31, 2016
It is starting to dawn on at least some members of the press that law-abiding residents of inner-city areas desperately want the police to maintain order in their neighborhoods.
“Please help me,” a gas station owner in West Baltimore begged his local police commander during a recent police-community meeting attended by a Washington Post reporter. The gas station’s parking lot had been overrun with loiterers and had been the site of a fatal gang shooting, following a Justice Department report that had accused the Baltimore Police Department of racism.
The Justice Department had singled out for particular opprobrium the police practice of trying to “clear corners” of loiterers and trespassers in high-crime areas. Such loitering enforcement merely oppresses minority communities, according to the federal lawyers. Black Lives Matter activists, academics, and the press have leveled that same charge repeatedly over the last two years. (See, for instance, an op-ed titled “Romanticizing Broken Windows Policing,” by New York Times columnist Charles Blow, or the New York Times editorial “Broken Window, Broken Lives.”) These critics have claimed that corner-clearing and other forms of so-called broken-windows policing are invidiously intended to “control African-American and poor communities,” in the words of Columbia law professor Bernard Harcourt.
This critique of public-order enforcement ignores a fundamental truth: It’s the people who live in high-crime areas who petition for “corner-clearing.” The police are simply obeying their will. And when the police back off of such order-maintenance strategies under the accusation of racism, it is the law-abiding poor who pay the price.
The Post reporter, to his credit, accurately captured the demands of those vulnerable residents:
The 40 or so longtime residents who gathered in a West Baltimore church basement on this August night — many of whom were older black women afraid to walk to the store or leave their homes at night — had come to urge police to clear their corners of miscreants and restore order to their crime-plagued community.
A 67-year-old social worker worried that if the convenience stores in her neighborhood received permission to operate around the clock, they would become hangouts for youth. “We’ll need more police to watch it,” she told the commanders. When crowds of teens hang out on corners, she said, residents have no option but to call the police.
The Washington Post is not the only newspaper to belatedly notice the grassroots source of order-maintenance policing. The Baltimore Sun wrote a story on “corner-clearing” after the Justice Department report, and stumbled across the same inconvenient fact: It is locals who urge the police to enforce trespassing and loitering laws. A 54-year-old grandmother told the Sun why she had posted a “No Loitering” sign in her window: “If I come home from work, ain’t nobody supposed to be sitting on my steps,’ Sophia McMurray said. “I don’t even sit on my steps.” Ms. McMurray understands something that eludes the activists and academics: Out of street disorder grows more serious crime. She doesn’t want groups of teens hanging out, she said, because she wants her “grandkids to be in a safe environment.”
The Sun also heard from the beleaguered owner of a local copy store. After the Freddie Gray riots in April 2016, the Baltimore police virtually stopped enforcing drug laws and other low-level offenses. Shootings spiked, along with loitering and other street disorder. The scene outside the copy store got so threatening that the owner, June Crisp, painted the admonition “No loitering. No sitting on steps. Violators will be arrested” on the steps leading to his store and obtained an official No Loitering placard from his local councilman. “
After the riots, it got bad, like the drug dealers were having conventions on this block,” Crisp told the Sun. “All this drug activity, it scares people away. Legitimate people, honest people.” Crisp calls the police if the people hanging out in front of his store don’t leave. “You’ve got to do what you’ve got to do,” he told the paper. “I’m trying to make money. I’m trying to pay my bills.”
It is impossible to attend a police-community meeting in a high-crime area without hearing some variant on these heartfelt requests for public order. Through hard experience, the law-abiding residents of gang- and drug-plagued areas perceive large groups of people hanging out as a threat. In April 2016, a 17-year-old girl in Coney Island, Brooklyn, Ta’Jae Warner, tried to protect her brother from a group of girls gathered outside her apartment building who were threatening to kill him; one of the group knocked Ta’Jae unconscious, and she hit her head on the pavement. She was taken off life support four days later and died.
On March 25, 2016, two groups of youths were fighting on a street corner on Chicago’s West Side. One of the teens started shooting at his rivals, instead hitting 13-year-old Zarriel Trotter, an innocent bystander, in his back near his spine. The bullet punctured Zarriel’s intestines.
In a community-council meeting in the 41st precinct of the South Bronx in June 2015 that I attended, residents complained repeatedly about large groups of youth hanging out on corners. “There’s too much fighting,” one woman said. “There were more than 100 kids the other day; they beat on a girl about 14 years old.” Another man asked: “Why are they hanging out in crowds on the corners? No one does anything about it. Can’t you arrest them for loitering? They’re perched there like birds.” A middle-aged man wondered: “Do truant officers exist anymore?”
At a meeting in the 23rd precinct in East Harlem in 2015 that I observed, residents asked why the police hadn’t stopped a recent stampede of youth down Third Avenue. Several years ago, an elderly lady in the 32nd precinct in Harlem proudly reported to her precinct commander that her building had just gone co-op. But kids had colonized her stoop. “What ever happened to loitering laws?” she asked.
In 2013, I spoke with an elderly cancer amputee in the Mt. Hope section of the Bronx. She was terrified to go to her apartment lobby because of the loiterers hanging out around and in her building. If the loiterers gain access, she said, all hell breaks loose: “You can smell their stuff in the hallway; they’re cussing and urinating.” The only time she felt safe was when the police had cleared the area: “As long as you see the police, everything’s A-okay. . . . You can come down and get your mail and talk to decent people.”
This observed support for public-order enforcement is backed up by polling data. In a Quinnipiac poll from 2015, slightly more black than white voters in New York City said they want the police to “actively issue summonses or make arrests” in their neighborhood for quality-of-life offenses: 61 percent of black voters wanted such summons and arrests, with 33 percent opposed, versus 59 percent of white voters in support, with 37 percent opposed.
The wider public is clueless about the social breakdown in high-crime areas and its effect on street life. The drive-by shootings, the open-air drug-dealing, and the volatility and brutality of those large groups of uncontrolled kids are largely unknown outside of inner-city areas. Ideally, informal social controls, above all the family, preserve public order. But when the family disintegrates, the police are the second-best solution for protecting the law-abiding. (That family disintegration now frequently takes the form of the chaos that social scientists refer to as “multi-partner fertility,” in which females have children by several different males and males have children by several different females, dashing hopes for any straightforward reuniting of biological mothers and fathers.)
This year in Chicago alone, through August 30, 12 people have been shot a day, for a tally of 2,870 shooting victims, 490 of them killed. (By contrast, the police shot 17 people through August 30, or 0.6 percent of the total.) The reason for this mayhem is that cops have backed off of public-order enforcement. Pedestrian stops are down 90 percent. “The streets are gone,” the head of Chicago’s police union, Dean Angelo, told me earlier in August. “The cops are driving by people on the drug corners, they’re not sweeping the corners anymore.” “
Police legitimacy” is a hot topic among academic critics of the police these days. Those critics have never answered the question: What should the police do when their constituents beg them to maintain order? Should the cops ignore them? There would be no surer way to lose legitimacy in the eyes of the people who need them most.
By Heather Mac Donald
National Review
August 31, 2016
It is starting to dawn on at least some members of the press that law-abiding residents of inner-city areas desperately want the police to maintain order in their neighborhoods.
“Please help me,” a gas station owner in West Baltimore begged his local police commander during a recent police-community meeting attended by a Washington Post reporter. The gas station’s parking lot had been overrun with loiterers and had been the site of a fatal gang shooting, following a Justice Department report that had accused the Baltimore Police Department of racism.
The Justice Department had singled out for particular opprobrium the police practice of trying to “clear corners” of loiterers and trespassers in high-crime areas. Such loitering enforcement merely oppresses minority communities, according to the federal lawyers. Black Lives Matter activists, academics, and the press have leveled that same charge repeatedly over the last two years. (See, for instance, an op-ed titled “Romanticizing Broken Windows Policing,” by New York Times columnist Charles Blow, or the New York Times editorial “Broken Window, Broken Lives.”) These critics have claimed that corner-clearing and other forms of so-called broken-windows policing are invidiously intended to “control African-American and poor communities,” in the words of Columbia law professor Bernard Harcourt.
This critique of public-order enforcement ignores a fundamental truth: It’s the people who live in high-crime areas who petition for “corner-clearing.” The police are simply obeying their will. And when the police back off of such order-maintenance strategies under the accusation of racism, it is the law-abiding poor who pay the price.
The Post reporter, to his credit, accurately captured the demands of those vulnerable residents:
The 40 or so longtime residents who gathered in a West Baltimore church basement on this August night — many of whom were older black women afraid to walk to the store or leave their homes at night — had come to urge police to clear their corners of miscreants and restore order to their crime-plagued community.
A 67-year-old social worker worried that if the convenience stores in her neighborhood received permission to operate around the clock, they would become hangouts for youth. “We’ll need more police to watch it,” she told the commanders. When crowds of teens hang out on corners, she said, residents have no option but to call the police.
The Washington Post is not the only newspaper to belatedly notice the grassroots source of order-maintenance policing. The Baltimore Sun wrote a story on “corner-clearing” after the Justice Department report, and stumbled across the same inconvenient fact: It is locals who urge the police to enforce trespassing and loitering laws. A 54-year-old grandmother told the Sun why she had posted a “No Loitering” sign in her window: “If I come home from work, ain’t nobody supposed to be sitting on my steps,’ Sophia McMurray said. “I don’t even sit on my steps.” Ms. McMurray understands something that eludes the activists and academics: Out of street disorder grows more serious crime. She doesn’t want groups of teens hanging out, she said, because she wants her “grandkids to be in a safe environment.”
The Sun also heard from the beleaguered owner of a local copy store. After the Freddie Gray riots in April 2016, the Baltimore police virtually stopped enforcing drug laws and other low-level offenses. Shootings spiked, along with loitering and other street disorder. The scene outside the copy store got so threatening that the owner, June Crisp, painted the admonition “No loitering. No sitting on steps. Violators will be arrested” on the steps leading to his store and obtained an official No Loitering placard from his local councilman. “
After the riots, it got bad, like the drug dealers were having conventions on this block,” Crisp told the Sun. “All this drug activity, it scares people away. Legitimate people, honest people.” Crisp calls the police if the people hanging out in front of his store don’t leave. “You’ve got to do what you’ve got to do,” he told the paper. “I’m trying to make money. I’m trying to pay my bills.”
It is impossible to attend a police-community meeting in a high-crime area without hearing some variant on these heartfelt requests for public order. Through hard experience, the law-abiding residents of gang- and drug-plagued areas perceive large groups of people hanging out as a threat. In April 2016, a 17-year-old girl in Coney Island, Brooklyn, Ta’Jae Warner, tried to protect her brother from a group of girls gathered outside her apartment building who were threatening to kill him; one of the group knocked Ta’Jae unconscious, and she hit her head on the pavement. She was taken off life support four days later and died.
On March 25, 2016, two groups of youths were fighting on a street corner on Chicago’s West Side. One of the teens started shooting at his rivals, instead hitting 13-year-old Zarriel Trotter, an innocent bystander, in his back near his spine. The bullet punctured Zarriel’s intestines.
In a community-council meeting in the 41st precinct of the South Bronx in June 2015 that I attended, residents complained repeatedly about large groups of youth hanging out on corners. “There’s too much fighting,” one woman said. “There were more than 100 kids the other day; they beat on a girl about 14 years old.” Another man asked: “Why are they hanging out in crowds on the corners? No one does anything about it. Can’t you arrest them for loitering? They’re perched there like birds.” A middle-aged man wondered: “Do truant officers exist anymore?”
At a meeting in the 23rd precinct in East Harlem in 2015 that I observed, residents asked why the police hadn’t stopped a recent stampede of youth down Third Avenue. Several years ago, an elderly lady in the 32nd precinct in Harlem proudly reported to her precinct commander that her building had just gone co-op. But kids had colonized her stoop. “What ever happened to loitering laws?” she asked.
In 2013, I spoke with an elderly cancer amputee in the Mt. Hope section of the Bronx. She was terrified to go to her apartment lobby because of the loiterers hanging out around and in her building. If the loiterers gain access, she said, all hell breaks loose: “You can smell their stuff in the hallway; they’re cussing and urinating.” The only time she felt safe was when the police had cleared the area: “As long as you see the police, everything’s A-okay. . . . You can come down and get your mail and talk to decent people.”
This observed support for public-order enforcement is backed up by polling data. In a Quinnipiac poll from 2015, slightly more black than white voters in New York City said they want the police to “actively issue summonses or make arrests” in their neighborhood for quality-of-life offenses: 61 percent of black voters wanted such summons and arrests, with 33 percent opposed, versus 59 percent of white voters in support, with 37 percent opposed.
The wider public is clueless about the social breakdown in high-crime areas and its effect on street life. The drive-by shootings, the open-air drug-dealing, and the volatility and brutality of those large groups of uncontrolled kids are largely unknown outside of inner-city areas. Ideally, informal social controls, above all the family, preserve public order. But when the family disintegrates, the police are the second-best solution for protecting the law-abiding. (That family disintegration now frequently takes the form of the chaos that social scientists refer to as “multi-partner fertility,” in which females have children by several different males and males have children by several different females, dashing hopes for any straightforward reuniting of biological mothers and fathers.)
This year in Chicago alone, through August 30, 12 people have been shot a day, for a tally of 2,870 shooting victims, 490 of them killed. (By contrast, the police shot 17 people through August 30, or 0.6 percent of the total.) The reason for this mayhem is that cops have backed off of public-order enforcement. Pedestrian stops are down 90 percent. “The streets are gone,” the head of Chicago’s police union, Dean Angelo, told me earlier in August. “The cops are driving by people on the drug corners, they’re not sweeping the corners anymore.” “
Police legitimacy” is a hot topic among academic critics of the police these days. Those critics have never answered the question: What should the police do when their constituents beg them to maintain order? Should the cops ignore them? There would be no surer way to lose legitimacy in the eyes of the people who need them most.
DISCIPLINE, CHARGES RARE IN TEXAS POLICE SHOOTINGS
By Alexa Ura and Jolie McCullough
The Texas Tribune
August 30, 2016
WYLIE, TX -- Eight-year-old Natalie Allen sometimes leaves handwritten notes for her father.
A recent one — scribbled in the messy handwriting of a small child — reads, “I love you so much.” It's attached to a silver frame displaying a grainy picture of Michael Vincent Allen that sits on an end table in the home of Natalie's grandparents.
Randy and Stephanie Allen are raising their granddaughter now, determined to teach her that police officers aren't bad, even though one of them awaits trial for killing her father.
In August 2012, Michael Vincent Allen, suspected of fleeing earlier from another officer, led police on a high-speed chase through the eastern Dallas suburbs. He was unarmed, his white GMC pickup struck by a police car, when Garland police officer Patrick Tuter finished firing 41 shots at Allen.
Allen, 25, died at the scene. An internal Garland police department review found that Tuter, a seven-year police veteran, violated the department’s use-of-force and pursuit policies. In 2013, he was indicted by a Dallas County grand jury on a manslaughter charge. His lawyer has previously said the officer believed Allen had a gun.
"I know there’s good police in there," said Randy Allen. "I know we couldn’t make it without police, but it’s just a few of them everywhere that makes it seem so bad."
At least 881 officers were involved in police shootings in Texas’ largest cities between 2010 and 2015, according to data compiled by The Texas Tribune. Tuter is one of seven to face criminal charges for pulling the trigger in that period. None have been convicted, so far.
The use of lethal force by police remains under intense scrutiny nationwide. Fatal police shootings in places like Missouri, Minnesota and Baton Rouge have led to protests and calls for increased police accountability. Officers became targets of gunmen in Dallas and Baton Rouge.
Amid the heightened scrutiny, the Texas numbers underscore how rare it is for police to face criminal prosecution. In the vast majority of cases, investigators and grand juries determine that officers were justified in using their weapons.
By law, police officers aren't supposed to shoot unless they believe their lives or the lives of others are in immediate danger, and that judgment is the filter through which all shootings are investigated. It takes overwhelming evidence for fellow officers, prosecutors or jurors to decide to challenge an officer's decision, even in controversial incidents where circumstances or evidence raise substantive concerns that shootings were unjustified or constituted excessive use of force.
"Cops are expected to go out and deal with the things that go on in the world that most of us would just assume don’t happen, don’t exist," said Kevin Lawrence, executive director of the Texas Municipal Police Association. "Especially if we’re talking about a situation that’s going on at 2 or 3 o’clock in the morning where the shit has already hit the fan, there may not be any good solutions for those officers. There may not be any good options. There’s only the least bad option."
Of the 881 officers involved in cases examined by the Tribune, at least 10 were fired for their actions during a shooting and 14 were suspended. Another was given a written reprimand.
Additional incidents where officers faced no discipline or criminal charges have been controversial, and criminal justice experts say the numbers illustrate how extreme the circumstances must be for an officer to be charged or indicted.
“Either it won’t reach a grand jury, a grand jury will decide not to press charges ... or in the rare instances that it goes to trial, more than likely they’re found innocent or not guilty,” said Scott Bowman, an associate criminal justice professor at Texas State University. “It has to be particularly egregious [for an officer] to be found guilty.”
The most recent police shooting-related conviction officials could recall in the 36 cities the Tribune examined was in 2005, when Houston police officer Arthur Carbonneau was found guilty of criminally negligent homicide for the death of a 14-year-old special education student.
Carbonneau was sentenced to 60 days in jail and five years’ probation for the 2003 shooting of Eli Escobar II, who was being held down by another officer when he was shot. Carbonneau had been dispatched to investigate an assault at an apartment complex, according to news reports. Escobar was unarmed and not involved. Carbonneau chalked up the incident to an accident, saying his gun went off accidentally when Escobar bumped his hand during a struggle.
More recently, an officer with the Conroe Police Department, which is not included in the Tribune’s analysis, was convicted of manslaughter in 2014. Sgt. Jason Blackwelder, who was off duty, killed Russell Rios, an unarmed 19-year-old community college student, by shooting him in the back of the head as he fled a Wal-Mart where he was suspected of shoplifting.
Seven criminal cases
It takes a rare confluence of circumstances for a police officer to face criminal charges over a shooting. Among the seven cases found by the Tribune, two shootings were fatal, and most involved an unarmed individual:
1 Video footage appeared to be key in the case of Dallas police officer Cardan Spencer, who was indicted and fired over a nonfatal 2013 shooting. Spencer and his partner were dispatched to the home of Bobby Bennett’s mother, who called for help with her mentally ill son. The officers pulled up to a cul-de-sac and advanced toward Bennett, who stood up from the rolling computer chair he was sitting in on the street. In a matter of seconds, he was falling to his knees after Spencer shot at him four times, hitting him once.
At first, Bennett was charged with aggravated assault of a public servant. Police said Spencer pulled the trigger after Bennett approached the officers with a knife in an “aggressive manner.” But the charges were dropped within days after a neighbor’s video surveillance showed Bennett standing still with his arms — and the knife — at his sides.
Spencer was fired 10 days after the shooting. He was indicted six months later. Since then, the city and Bennett reached a $1.6 million settlement in a civil suit. After several delays, Spencer’s trial was recently set for Dec. 12. His lawyer declined to comment on the details of the case.
2 Circumstances seemed to play a bigger role in the indictment of Austin police Detective Charles Kleinert, who was charged with manslaughter for shooting and killing Larry Jackson Jr. in 2013.
Kleinert was investigating a bank robbery when he confronted Jackson, who was not involved in the robbery, after learning that Jackson allegedly used a fake name at the bank earlier in the day. Jackson fled after a few minutes of questioning. Commandeering the vehicle of a woman driving nearby, Kleinert pursued him and drew his weapon when he caught up to Jackson underneath a bridge.
The two men struggled, and Kleinert said he accidentally fired while trying to punch Jackson, fatally shooting the unarmed man in the back of the neck. Jackson’s family contends he was on his hands and knees when he was shot. In charging Kleinert, a Travis County grand jury concluded that the detective behaved “recklessly.”
The manslaughter charge against the Austin detective was eventually dismissed by a federal judge after his legal team argued Kleinert was entitled to immunity because he was a member of an FBI task force. Jackson’s family received a $1.25 million settlement from the city. Kleinert's attorneys did not respond to a request for comment on the case.
3 Responding to a 911 call about a man with a knife in 2015, Fort Worth police officer Courtney Johnson shot Craigory Adams in the arm.
Adams dropped to one knee after being ordered to drop his “knife,” which turned out to be a barbecue fork. That’s when Johnson’s gun went off. Johnson’s lawyer has said it was an unintentional discharge.
A Tarrant County grand jury in March indicted Johnson on a charge of aggravated assault by a public servant. Johnson’s next court date is set for Sept. 6 for a status conference.
4 In 2010, El Paso officer Jorge Gonzalez shot at Andres Cortez after Cortez rear-ended the off-duty officer's vehicle. Gonzalez said Cortez hit his girlfriend, a fellow officer, while fleeing. Cortez had said he was trying to get his car out of moving traffic when Gonzalez’s wife began beating on the car.
Police said Cortez put his car in reverse, backed up and then put the car in driving gear with Gonzalez’s girlfriend in his path. That’s when Gonzalez shot.
The officer was cleared of wrongdoing by the police department but was indicted on one count of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and one count of aggravated assault causing serious bodily injury. He continued to work for the department after his indictment until he was fired in 2014 in an unrelated case for rule violations, according to Jim Darnell, Gonzalez’s attorney.
His lawyer said he acted in self-defense and in defense of his girlfriend during the 2010 shooting. Gonzalez’s gunshot paralyzed Cortez from the neck down. He died more than five years later. Gonzalez has yet to stand trial. His case has been delayed several times; it was recently reset for January.
5 Responding to a carjacking call in late 2013, Dallas police officer Amy Wilburn followed a maroon car speeding through the outskirts of the city into a small condominium complex. When the driver bailed out, she rushed toward the car, which was still in motion.
She pulled her gun and fired at 19-year-old Kelvion Walker, who was in the passenger seat. Her attorney has said Wilburn demanded to see Walker's hands, and feared he was reaching for a gun when he did not comply. Walker was unarmed and said he had his hands up. Walker said he wasn't involved in the carjacking, and was hospitalized and underwent surgery after the shooting, according to news reports.
Wilburn was indicted on an aggravated assault charge in 2014 — the first indictment of a police officer in Dallas since the early 1970s. Wilburn was terminated for violating departmental policy three weeks after the shooting, before she was indicted.
Wilburn’s trial is scheduled for January. Her lawyer declined to comment on the details of the case.
6 After a four-day trial, a Harris County jury last year found former Pasadena officer Michael Martin not guilty in the 2011 shooting of an unarmed 20-year-old man, according to news reports. Martin, who was fired for his actions during the shooting, was facing a maximum of one year in jail for the class A misdemeanor of “official oppression.”
Prosecutors had used two police dash cams and surveillance footage from a convenience store that showed Martin pulling Victor Hernandez over in a parking lot. Martin had said he couldn’t see Hernandez’s left arm and claimed he shot him in the face after thinking he was reaching for a weapon.
Prosecutors insisted the video footage showed that Hernandez’s left arm was on the door with his hand on his face — at odds with Martin’s accounts. Martin's attorney told the Tribune he argued at trial that the video showed Martin shooting in reaction to “apparent danger.” A jury concluded there wasn’t enough evidence to convict.
Hernandez took his grievances to federal court in a civil lawsuit filed in 2013. The lawsuit was dismissed in 2014.
7 While on patrol in August 2012, Garland police Officer Patrick Tuter recognized Michael Vincent Allen's truck as the same vehicle that recently fled from another officer. The car chase that ensued turned deadly when it reached a cul-de-sac in Mesquite where Tuter shot at Allen 41 times, stopping twice to reload and striking him three times.
The Garland Police Department first reported that Allen's truck had collided with a Garland police car and that's when Tuter shot, fearing for the safety of the officers. In a statement released 10 days later, the department said “further investigation” revealed that Allen had not rammed into Tuter's squad car; Tuter had actually struck Allen's truck.
Tuter was terminated by Garland six months later and indicted more than a year later, accused of “recklessly” causing Allen's death. His trial was recently rescheduled for Dec. 12. Tuter's lawyer declined to comment on the case for this story.
The trials for Spencer, Wilburn and Tuter were delayed several times — partly due to a change in leadership at the Dallas County District Attorney’s office after the 2014 elections. Susan Hawk recused herself from the cases when she took the helm of the DA’s office, requiring the appointment of special prosecutors who had to get up to speed on the cases.
Officers have wide latitude
Officers have considerable latitude in using deadly force under a legal standard known as objective reasonableness, which was set by the U.S. Supreme Court. Police can use deadly force if they encounter a situation in which they have reasonable fear based on what a reasonable officer would conclude under the same circumstances.
“Ultimately, [a grand jury has] to decide did the officer commit a crime,” said Robert Rogers, a Dallas-based defense attorney representing Spencer, Wilburn and Tuter. “You have to believe that the officer shot the person in cold blood or was unreasonable in their belief that the person presented a deadly threat.” Rogers would not discuss the specific cases involving his clients.
As criminal investigations unfold, police departments also carry out in-house administrative investigations that can lead to other disciplinary actions. While most officers do not face criminal charges, a few have faced some sort of consequence, including termination, for fatal mistakes or potentially deadly actions that violated use-of-force guidelines or other internal policies.
Some officers — including Spencer and Wilburn — were terminated for violating departmental policy and publicly condemned by their chief of police before a decision was made on criminal charges.
It’s a chain of events that law enforcement groups abhor. The Texas Municipal Police Association has publicly criticized police chiefs for quickly firing officers, insisting that police departments should wait for all the facts to avoid coloring criminal proceedings and grand jury investigations.
“Our position is that we should always always wait until a complete vetting of the case,” said Lawrence, the association’s executive director. “What we should all be saying is wait for the facts to come out and we’ll go from there.”
With a public that’s increasingly demanding accountability and transparency, police chiefs are left to strike a balance, but they themselves can face reprimands. Earlier this year, Austin’s city manager punished police Chief Art Acevedo for comments he made in the aftermath of a controversial police shooting that the police union claimed showed he prematurely judged the officer’s actions.
“You’re going to have certain people that line up one way or the other based on their pre-existing biases,” said Rogers, the criminal defense attorney. “And then you have a lot of people in the middle.”
Those are the people who can be swayed one way or the other by news coverage, the release of videos and comments made by department leadership, he added.
But for some community leaders and activists, even just a few questionable cases are enough to cast a shadow over a powerful system that’s granted the power to end someone’s life.
“The difference with these [Dallas] cases is that those folks lived,” Sara Mokuria, co-founder of Mothers Against Police Brutality, said of the indictments in Dallas. “When people survive and there’s more than just one account, there’s more of a potential to actually have some form of justice.”
Before Wilburn, a police officer in Dallas had not faced criminal charges since the 1973 shooting of Santos Rodriguez, a 12-year-old boy who with his brother was pulled out of bed by police over accusations that they had robbed $8 from a vending machine at a convenience store, according to news reports.
The boys denied it, leading to a game of Russian roulette during which Dallas police officer Darrell Cain shot and killed Rodriguez while he was handcuffed inside a squad car.
Cain was indicted and later convicted of murder. He was sentenced to five years in prison but was released after two-and-a-half years.
Even in the few cases in which officers are brought up on criminal charges, prosecutors face a daunting task in winning a conviction — or even getting to court. Prosecutions of officers rarely result in lengthy jail time or even convictions. Only five of the seven officers the Tribune identified still face criminal charges.
“We know he did wrong.”
Tuter’s trial is a day that couldn’t come soon enough for the Allens, who are planning to testify. When they speak about their son's shooting and the toll it’s taken on their family, it’s clear that the Allens are desperate.
They are desperate for answers, questioning why Tuter shot at Michael so many times. They are desperate for justice, holding on to hope that Tuter could be convicted, though they were surprised he was even indicted. And they are desperate for closure, while accepting their grasp on it may be tenuous because their son will remain gone.
“We know he did wrong, but he shouldn’t have got the death sentence,” said Stephanie Allen, Michael’s mother. “He should’ve went through the court system just like everybody else.”
Her sunken eyes drift off regularly when speaking of Michael’s death, and she often ends her statements with a slight shake of her head — disappointment and grief still evident in her words almost four years after the shooting.
“I think [Tuter] did wrong, and I hope he pays for it,” she says of upcoming trial. “I want him to never forget Michael. Because I won’t.”
The Texas Tribune
August 30, 2016
WYLIE, TX -- Eight-year-old Natalie Allen sometimes leaves handwritten notes for her father.
A recent one — scribbled in the messy handwriting of a small child — reads, “I love you so much.” It's attached to a silver frame displaying a grainy picture of Michael Vincent Allen that sits on an end table in the home of Natalie's grandparents.
Randy and Stephanie Allen are raising their granddaughter now, determined to teach her that police officers aren't bad, even though one of them awaits trial for killing her father.
In August 2012, Michael Vincent Allen, suspected of fleeing earlier from another officer, led police on a high-speed chase through the eastern Dallas suburbs. He was unarmed, his white GMC pickup struck by a police car, when Garland police officer Patrick Tuter finished firing 41 shots at Allen.
Allen, 25, died at the scene. An internal Garland police department review found that Tuter, a seven-year police veteran, violated the department’s use-of-force and pursuit policies. In 2013, he was indicted by a Dallas County grand jury on a manslaughter charge. His lawyer has previously said the officer believed Allen had a gun.
"I know there’s good police in there," said Randy Allen. "I know we couldn’t make it without police, but it’s just a few of them everywhere that makes it seem so bad."
At least 881 officers were involved in police shootings in Texas’ largest cities between 2010 and 2015, according to data compiled by The Texas Tribune. Tuter is one of seven to face criminal charges for pulling the trigger in that period. None have been convicted, so far.
The use of lethal force by police remains under intense scrutiny nationwide. Fatal police shootings in places like Missouri, Minnesota and Baton Rouge have led to protests and calls for increased police accountability. Officers became targets of gunmen in Dallas and Baton Rouge.
Amid the heightened scrutiny, the Texas numbers underscore how rare it is for police to face criminal prosecution. In the vast majority of cases, investigators and grand juries determine that officers were justified in using their weapons.
By law, police officers aren't supposed to shoot unless they believe their lives or the lives of others are in immediate danger, and that judgment is the filter through which all shootings are investigated. It takes overwhelming evidence for fellow officers, prosecutors or jurors to decide to challenge an officer's decision, even in controversial incidents where circumstances or evidence raise substantive concerns that shootings were unjustified or constituted excessive use of force.
"Cops are expected to go out and deal with the things that go on in the world that most of us would just assume don’t happen, don’t exist," said Kevin Lawrence, executive director of the Texas Municipal Police Association. "Especially if we’re talking about a situation that’s going on at 2 or 3 o’clock in the morning where the shit has already hit the fan, there may not be any good solutions for those officers. There may not be any good options. There’s only the least bad option."
Of the 881 officers involved in cases examined by the Tribune, at least 10 were fired for their actions during a shooting and 14 were suspended. Another was given a written reprimand.
Additional incidents where officers faced no discipline or criminal charges have been controversial, and criminal justice experts say the numbers illustrate how extreme the circumstances must be for an officer to be charged or indicted.
“Either it won’t reach a grand jury, a grand jury will decide not to press charges ... or in the rare instances that it goes to trial, more than likely they’re found innocent or not guilty,” said Scott Bowman, an associate criminal justice professor at Texas State University. “It has to be particularly egregious [for an officer] to be found guilty.”
The most recent police shooting-related conviction officials could recall in the 36 cities the Tribune examined was in 2005, when Houston police officer Arthur Carbonneau was found guilty of criminally negligent homicide for the death of a 14-year-old special education student.
Carbonneau was sentenced to 60 days in jail and five years’ probation for the 2003 shooting of Eli Escobar II, who was being held down by another officer when he was shot. Carbonneau had been dispatched to investigate an assault at an apartment complex, according to news reports. Escobar was unarmed and not involved. Carbonneau chalked up the incident to an accident, saying his gun went off accidentally when Escobar bumped his hand during a struggle.
More recently, an officer with the Conroe Police Department, which is not included in the Tribune’s analysis, was convicted of manslaughter in 2014. Sgt. Jason Blackwelder, who was off duty, killed Russell Rios, an unarmed 19-year-old community college student, by shooting him in the back of the head as he fled a Wal-Mart where he was suspected of shoplifting.
Seven criminal cases
It takes a rare confluence of circumstances for a police officer to face criminal charges over a shooting. Among the seven cases found by the Tribune, two shootings were fatal, and most involved an unarmed individual:
1 Video footage appeared to be key in the case of Dallas police officer Cardan Spencer, who was indicted and fired over a nonfatal 2013 shooting. Spencer and his partner were dispatched to the home of Bobby Bennett’s mother, who called for help with her mentally ill son. The officers pulled up to a cul-de-sac and advanced toward Bennett, who stood up from the rolling computer chair he was sitting in on the street. In a matter of seconds, he was falling to his knees after Spencer shot at him four times, hitting him once.
At first, Bennett was charged with aggravated assault of a public servant. Police said Spencer pulled the trigger after Bennett approached the officers with a knife in an “aggressive manner.” But the charges were dropped within days after a neighbor’s video surveillance showed Bennett standing still with his arms — and the knife — at his sides.
Spencer was fired 10 days after the shooting. He was indicted six months later. Since then, the city and Bennett reached a $1.6 million settlement in a civil suit. After several delays, Spencer’s trial was recently set for Dec. 12. His lawyer declined to comment on the details of the case.
2 Circumstances seemed to play a bigger role in the indictment of Austin police Detective Charles Kleinert, who was charged with manslaughter for shooting and killing Larry Jackson Jr. in 2013.
Kleinert was investigating a bank robbery when he confronted Jackson, who was not involved in the robbery, after learning that Jackson allegedly used a fake name at the bank earlier in the day. Jackson fled after a few minutes of questioning. Commandeering the vehicle of a woman driving nearby, Kleinert pursued him and drew his weapon when he caught up to Jackson underneath a bridge.
The two men struggled, and Kleinert said he accidentally fired while trying to punch Jackson, fatally shooting the unarmed man in the back of the neck. Jackson’s family contends he was on his hands and knees when he was shot. In charging Kleinert, a Travis County grand jury concluded that the detective behaved “recklessly.”
The manslaughter charge against the Austin detective was eventually dismissed by a federal judge after his legal team argued Kleinert was entitled to immunity because he was a member of an FBI task force. Jackson’s family received a $1.25 million settlement from the city. Kleinert's attorneys did not respond to a request for comment on the case.
3 Responding to a 911 call about a man with a knife in 2015, Fort Worth police officer Courtney Johnson shot Craigory Adams in the arm.
Adams dropped to one knee after being ordered to drop his “knife,” which turned out to be a barbecue fork. That’s when Johnson’s gun went off. Johnson’s lawyer has said it was an unintentional discharge.
A Tarrant County grand jury in March indicted Johnson on a charge of aggravated assault by a public servant. Johnson’s next court date is set for Sept. 6 for a status conference.
4 In 2010, El Paso officer Jorge Gonzalez shot at Andres Cortez after Cortez rear-ended the off-duty officer's vehicle. Gonzalez said Cortez hit his girlfriend, a fellow officer, while fleeing. Cortez had said he was trying to get his car out of moving traffic when Gonzalez’s wife began beating on the car.
Police said Cortez put his car in reverse, backed up and then put the car in driving gear with Gonzalez’s girlfriend in his path. That’s when Gonzalez shot.
The officer was cleared of wrongdoing by the police department but was indicted on one count of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and one count of aggravated assault causing serious bodily injury. He continued to work for the department after his indictment until he was fired in 2014 in an unrelated case for rule violations, according to Jim Darnell, Gonzalez’s attorney.
His lawyer said he acted in self-defense and in defense of his girlfriend during the 2010 shooting. Gonzalez’s gunshot paralyzed Cortez from the neck down. He died more than five years later. Gonzalez has yet to stand trial. His case has been delayed several times; it was recently reset for January.
5 Responding to a carjacking call in late 2013, Dallas police officer Amy Wilburn followed a maroon car speeding through the outskirts of the city into a small condominium complex. When the driver bailed out, she rushed toward the car, which was still in motion.
She pulled her gun and fired at 19-year-old Kelvion Walker, who was in the passenger seat. Her attorney has said Wilburn demanded to see Walker's hands, and feared he was reaching for a gun when he did not comply. Walker was unarmed and said he had his hands up. Walker said he wasn't involved in the carjacking, and was hospitalized and underwent surgery after the shooting, according to news reports.
Wilburn was indicted on an aggravated assault charge in 2014 — the first indictment of a police officer in Dallas since the early 1970s. Wilburn was terminated for violating departmental policy three weeks after the shooting, before she was indicted.
Wilburn’s trial is scheduled for January. Her lawyer declined to comment on the details of the case.
6 After a four-day trial, a Harris County jury last year found former Pasadena officer Michael Martin not guilty in the 2011 shooting of an unarmed 20-year-old man, according to news reports. Martin, who was fired for his actions during the shooting, was facing a maximum of one year in jail for the class A misdemeanor of “official oppression.”
Prosecutors had used two police dash cams and surveillance footage from a convenience store that showed Martin pulling Victor Hernandez over in a parking lot. Martin had said he couldn’t see Hernandez’s left arm and claimed he shot him in the face after thinking he was reaching for a weapon.
Prosecutors insisted the video footage showed that Hernandez’s left arm was on the door with his hand on his face — at odds with Martin’s accounts. Martin's attorney told the Tribune he argued at trial that the video showed Martin shooting in reaction to “apparent danger.” A jury concluded there wasn’t enough evidence to convict.
Hernandez took his grievances to federal court in a civil lawsuit filed in 2013. The lawsuit was dismissed in 2014.
7 While on patrol in August 2012, Garland police Officer Patrick Tuter recognized Michael Vincent Allen's truck as the same vehicle that recently fled from another officer. The car chase that ensued turned deadly when it reached a cul-de-sac in Mesquite where Tuter shot at Allen 41 times, stopping twice to reload and striking him three times.
The Garland Police Department first reported that Allen's truck had collided with a Garland police car and that's when Tuter shot, fearing for the safety of the officers. In a statement released 10 days later, the department said “further investigation” revealed that Allen had not rammed into Tuter's squad car; Tuter had actually struck Allen's truck.
Tuter was terminated by Garland six months later and indicted more than a year later, accused of “recklessly” causing Allen's death. His trial was recently rescheduled for Dec. 12. Tuter's lawyer declined to comment on the case for this story.
The trials for Spencer, Wilburn and Tuter were delayed several times — partly due to a change in leadership at the Dallas County District Attorney’s office after the 2014 elections. Susan Hawk recused herself from the cases when she took the helm of the DA’s office, requiring the appointment of special prosecutors who had to get up to speed on the cases.
Officers have wide latitude
Officers have considerable latitude in using deadly force under a legal standard known as objective reasonableness, which was set by the U.S. Supreme Court. Police can use deadly force if they encounter a situation in which they have reasonable fear based on what a reasonable officer would conclude under the same circumstances.
“Ultimately, [a grand jury has] to decide did the officer commit a crime,” said Robert Rogers, a Dallas-based defense attorney representing Spencer, Wilburn and Tuter. “You have to believe that the officer shot the person in cold blood or was unreasonable in their belief that the person presented a deadly threat.” Rogers would not discuss the specific cases involving his clients.
As criminal investigations unfold, police departments also carry out in-house administrative investigations that can lead to other disciplinary actions. While most officers do not face criminal charges, a few have faced some sort of consequence, including termination, for fatal mistakes or potentially deadly actions that violated use-of-force guidelines or other internal policies.
Some officers — including Spencer and Wilburn — were terminated for violating departmental policy and publicly condemned by their chief of police before a decision was made on criminal charges.
It’s a chain of events that law enforcement groups abhor. The Texas Municipal Police Association has publicly criticized police chiefs for quickly firing officers, insisting that police departments should wait for all the facts to avoid coloring criminal proceedings and grand jury investigations.
“Our position is that we should always always wait until a complete vetting of the case,” said Lawrence, the association’s executive director. “What we should all be saying is wait for the facts to come out and we’ll go from there.”
With a public that’s increasingly demanding accountability and transparency, police chiefs are left to strike a balance, but they themselves can face reprimands. Earlier this year, Austin’s city manager punished police Chief Art Acevedo for comments he made in the aftermath of a controversial police shooting that the police union claimed showed he prematurely judged the officer’s actions.
“You’re going to have certain people that line up one way or the other based on their pre-existing biases,” said Rogers, the criminal defense attorney. “And then you have a lot of people in the middle.”
Those are the people who can be swayed one way or the other by news coverage, the release of videos and comments made by department leadership, he added.
But for some community leaders and activists, even just a few questionable cases are enough to cast a shadow over a powerful system that’s granted the power to end someone’s life.
“The difference with these [Dallas] cases is that those folks lived,” Sara Mokuria, co-founder of Mothers Against Police Brutality, said of the indictments in Dallas. “When people survive and there’s more than just one account, there’s more of a potential to actually have some form of justice.”
Before Wilburn, a police officer in Dallas had not faced criminal charges since the 1973 shooting of Santos Rodriguez, a 12-year-old boy who with his brother was pulled out of bed by police over accusations that they had robbed $8 from a vending machine at a convenience store, according to news reports.
The boys denied it, leading to a game of Russian roulette during which Dallas police officer Darrell Cain shot and killed Rodriguez while he was handcuffed inside a squad car.
Cain was indicted and later convicted of murder. He was sentenced to five years in prison but was released after two-and-a-half years.
Even in the few cases in which officers are brought up on criminal charges, prosecutors face a daunting task in winning a conviction — or even getting to court. Prosecutions of officers rarely result in lengthy jail time or even convictions. Only five of the seven officers the Tribune identified still face criminal charges.
“We know he did wrong.”
Tuter’s trial is a day that couldn’t come soon enough for the Allens, who are planning to testify. When they speak about their son's shooting and the toll it’s taken on their family, it’s clear that the Allens are desperate.
They are desperate for answers, questioning why Tuter shot at Michael so many times. They are desperate for justice, holding on to hope that Tuter could be convicted, though they were surprised he was even indicted. And they are desperate for closure, while accepting their grasp on it may be tenuous because their son will remain gone.
“We know he did wrong, but he shouldn’t have got the death sentence,” said Stephanie Allen, Michael’s mother. “He should’ve went through the court system just like everybody else.”
Her sunken eyes drift off regularly when speaking of Michael’s death, and she often ends her statements with a slight shake of her head — disappointment and grief still evident in her words almost four years after the shooting.
“I think [Tuter] did wrong, and I hope he pays for it,” she says of upcoming trial. “I want him to never forget Michael. Because I won’t.”
Thursday, September 01, 2016
LAPD GIVES CHRIS BROWN THE STAR TREATMENT
When arrested after a 10-hour standoff from 3 a.m. to 1 p.m., Brown was not handcuffed and was allowed to walk freely to a police car
Singer songwriter Chris Brown, well known for rearranging then girlfriend Rihanna’s face with his fists, had a 10-hour standoff with LAPD after a woman reported he had threatened her by pointing a gun at her face. The cops arrived at his mansion at 3 a.m. Tuesday and were not able to arrest him until 1 p.m.
During the standoff Brown made disparaging rants about the police in a series of videos on Instagram. Some of his rants went like this:
So I'm sleep half the damn night. I just wake up. All these motherfucking helicopter choppers is around. Police out there at the gate.
Come on my nigger! What the fuck hell else do you want from me?
I stay out the way, take care of my daughter, do work. I don't fuck ugly bitches, trifling bitches, whatever else.
I'm way too tired to be dealing with this bullshit.
Every three months you come up with something. What's gonna be next?
At the same time when I call the police for stalker people that are endangering my life, they don't come 'til the next day.
Let somebody make a fucked up allegation about me. Oh yeah the whole fucking swat team.
I don't care. Y'all gonna stop playing with me like I'm the villain out here, like I'm going crazy.
When you get the warrant or whatever you need to do, you're going to walk right up in here and you're going to see nothing. You idiots!
I ain't did shit. I ain't gonna do shit!
You idiots. I'm tired of fuckinging with it all. You're the worse gang in the world, the police. And I said it. Fuck you!
When the cops finally entered Brown’s house he surrendered peacefully, but not before pitching a duffel bag out of a window. The bag contained weapons and drugs. The police also found a gun in the house.
While the cops did pat him down, news videos show that they allowed him to walk leisurely to a police car without being handcuffed or led by the arm. Now that’s what I call giving Chris Brown the star treatment.
Any ordinary citizen would have been thrown to the ground, searched and handcuffed with his hands behind him. Then he would have been dragged along and dumped into the cop car. And there sure as hell wouldn’t have been a 10-hour standoff.
Brown was charged with assault with a deadly weapon and released on $250,000 bail.
Brown could be in deep shit, not for pointing a gun at a woman if in fact he did so, but for being a felon in possession of a gun. He was convicted of a felony for the punching bag job he did on Rihanna.
As for the star treatment Brown got from LAPD, here I’ve thought all along that only former Sheriff Lee Baca had his deputies do that.
Singer songwriter Chris Brown, well known for rearranging then girlfriend Rihanna’s face with his fists, had a 10-hour standoff with LAPD after a woman reported he had threatened her by pointing a gun at her face. The cops arrived at his mansion at 3 a.m. Tuesday and were not able to arrest him until 1 p.m.
During the standoff Brown made disparaging rants about the police in a series of videos on Instagram. Some of his rants went like this:
So I'm sleep half the damn night. I just wake up. All these motherfucking helicopter choppers is around. Police out there at the gate.
Come on my nigger! What the fuck hell else do you want from me?
I stay out the way, take care of my daughter, do work. I don't fuck ugly bitches, trifling bitches, whatever else.
I'm way too tired to be dealing with this bullshit.
Every three months you come up with something. What's gonna be next?
At the same time when I call the police for stalker people that are endangering my life, they don't come 'til the next day.
Let somebody make a fucked up allegation about me. Oh yeah the whole fucking swat team.
I don't care. Y'all gonna stop playing with me like I'm the villain out here, like I'm going crazy.
When you get the warrant or whatever you need to do, you're going to walk right up in here and you're going to see nothing. You idiots!
I ain't did shit. I ain't gonna do shit!
You idiots. I'm tired of fuckinging with it all. You're the worse gang in the world, the police. And I said it. Fuck you!
When the cops finally entered Brown’s house he surrendered peacefully, but not before pitching a duffel bag out of a window. The bag contained weapons and drugs. The police also found a gun in the house.
While the cops did pat him down, news videos show that they allowed him to walk leisurely to a police car without being handcuffed or led by the arm. Now that’s what I call giving Chris Brown the star treatment.
Any ordinary citizen would have been thrown to the ground, searched and handcuffed with his hands behind him. Then he would have been dragged along and dumped into the cop car. And there sure as hell wouldn’t have been a 10-hour standoff.
Brown was charged with assault with a deadly weapon and released on $250,000 bail.
Brown could be in deep shit, not for pointing a gun at a woman if in fact he did so, but for being a felon in possession of a gun. He was convicted of a felony for the punching bag job he did on Rihanna.
As for the star treatment Brown got from LAPD, here I’ve thought all along that only former Sheriff Lee Baca had his deputies do that.
HOMIE DON’T PLAY
BY Bob Walsh
Kim Jong-Un is the psychopathic fearless leader of North Korea, with the worst haircut in the known universe. North Korean “news” outlets have released the fact that, back in July, Kim had a vice premier executed “for disrespect” because the man fell asleep on the stage during one of Kim’s speeches.
Damn, isn’t Communism wonderful? (Or not.)
EDITOR’S NOTE: Hey, just a minute there. What do you mean worst haircut in the known universe? I’ve got a haircut exactly like Kim’s and I have to fight off women because of it.
Kim Jong-Un is the psychopathic fearless leader of North Korea, with the worst haircut in the known universe. North Korean “news” outlets have released the fact that, back in July, Kim had a vice premier executed “for disrespect” because the man fell asleep on the stage during one of Kim’s speeches.
Damn, isn’t Communism wonderful? (Or not.)
EDITOR’S NOTE: Hey, just a minute there. What do you mean worst haircut in the known universe? I’ve got a haircut exactly like Kim’s and I have to fight off women because of it.
NOW THERE IS REAL PROOF. DOES ANYBODY REALLY CARE?
Is Hillary a liar and a criminal? Without a doubt, YES
By Bob Walsh
The State Department said yesterday that an “undetermined” number of the 30
emails recovered by the FBI from Hillary’s secret email server relate directly to the
attack on the U. S. Consulate at Benghazi in 2012 and further that they are NOT
among the emails previously turned over to State by the Hildebeast.
This means that we can now say absolutely and without equivocation that Hillary
lied her ass off when she said that she turned over absolutely all work related
emails to State when she left.
State says it will take until the end of September to go over these 30 emails prior to
releasing them. Federal Judge Amit Mehta has questioned the apparently lengthy
period of time necessary to review a relatively small number of documents. He has
ordered State to report back to him in one week as to why the review process is
taking so long.
So, what difference, if any, will any of this make. IMHO unless there is a clear
smoking gun in those emails it will make very little, at least before the election.
Hillary supporters don’t care if Hillary has been murdering pregnant nuns, they
will vote for her anyway. Trump supporters and Hillary haters aren’t going to vote
for her under any circumstances.
It COULD, however, make just enough of a difference to the people in the middle
in places like Ohio, Colorado and Florida where the election is likely to be
decided. A couple of thousand votes in the right districts could determine who our
next president is going to be, especially if Trump does well and the Hildebeast does
poorly in the debates and Trump shuts his yap in the meantime.
Is Hillary a liar and a criminal? Without a doubt, YES. Will it really matter? That
my friends is still an open question. Maybe we will be lucky and she will stroke
out on stage at the third debate. Don’t bet the farm on it.
By Bob Walsh
The State Department said yesterday that an “undetermined” number of the 30
emails recovered by the FBI from Hillary’s secret email server relate directly to the
attack on the U. S. Consulate at Benghazi in 2012 and further that they are NOT
among the emails previously turned over to State by the Hildebeast.
This means that we can now say absolutely and without equivocation that Hillary
lied her ass off when she said that she turned over absolutely all work related
emails to State when she left.
State says it will take until the end of September to go over these 30 emails prior to
releasing them. Federal Judge Amit Mehta has questioned the apparently lengthy
period of time necessary to review a relatively small number of documents. He has
ordered State to report back to him in one week as to why the review process is
taking so long.
So, what difference, if any, will any of this make. IMHO unless there is a clear
smoking gun in those emails it will make very little, at least before the election.
Hillary supporters don’t care if Hillary has been murdering pregnant nuns, they
will vote for her anyway. Trump supporters and Hillary haters aren’t going to vote
for her under any circumstances.
It COULD, however, make just enough of a difference to the people in the middle
in places like Ohio, Colorado and Florida where the election is likely to be
decided. A couple of thousand votes in the right districts could determine who our
next president is going to be, especially if Trump does well and the Hildebeast does
poorly in the debates and Trump shuts his yap in the meantime.
Is Hillary a liar and a criminal? Without a doubt, YES. Will it really matter? That
my friends is still an open question. Maybe we will be lucky and she will stroke
out on stage at the third debate. Don’t bet the farm on it.
REASONABLE CONCLUSION
An air traffic control tower suddenly lost communication with a Cessna aircraft.
A moment later the tower land-line rang and was answered by one of the controllers.
The passenger riding with the pilot who lost communications was on a cellular phone and and yelled, "Mayday, Mayday! The pilot had a fatal heart attack and I grabbed his cell phone out of his pocket. He told me before we took off he had the tower on his speed dial memory. I am flying upside down at 8,000 feet and traveling at 130 mph!”
The controller in the tower immediately put him on speaker phone.
"Calm down," he said. "We acknowledge you and we’ll guide you down after a few questions. The first thing is not to panic, remain calm!"
He then began his series of questions...
Tower: “How do you know you are traveling at 8,000 feet?"
Aircraft: "I can see that it reads 8,000 feet on the altimeter dial in front of me.”
Tower: "Okay, that’s good, remain calm. How do you know you are traveling at 130 mph?”
Aircraft: "I can see that it reads 130 mph on the airspeed dial in front of me.”
Tower: "OK, this is great so far, but it’s heavily overcast down here, how do you know you are flying upside down?”
Aircraft: "Because the shit in my pants is running out of my shirt collar!"
A moment later the tower land-line rang and was answered by one of the controllers.
The passenger riding with the pilot who lost communications was on a cellular phone and and yelled, "Mayday, Mayday! The pilot had a fatal heart attack and I grabbed his cell phone out of his pocket. He told me before we took off he had the tower on his speed dial memory. I am flying upside down at 8,000 feet and traveling at 130 mph!”
The controller in the tower immediately put him on speaker phone.
"Calm down," he said. "We acknowledge you and we’ll guide you down after a few questions. The first thing is not to panic, remain calm!"
He then began his series of questions...
Tower: “How do you know you are traveling at 8,000 feet?"
Aircraft: "I can see that it reads 8,000 feet on the altimeter dial in front of me.”
Tower: "Okay, that’s good, remain calm. How do you know you are traveling at 130 mph?”
Aircraft: "I can see that it reads 130 mph on the airspeed dial in front of me.”
Tower: "OK, this is great so far, but it’s heavily overcast down here, how do you know you are flying upside down?”
Aircraft: "Because the shit in my pants is running out of my shirt collar!"
LITTLE LARRY WANTS TO BE A BILLIONAIRE ….. WHAT DOES CLASSMATE SARAH WANT?
A teacher asks the kids in her 3rd grade class: "What do you want to be when you grow up?"
Little Larry says: "I wanna start out as a Fighter Pilot, then be a billionaire, go to the most expensive clubs, find me the finest whore, give her a Ferrari worth over a million bucks, an apartment in Copacabana, a mansion in Paris, a jet to travel throughout Europe, an Infinite Visa Card, and all the while banging her like a loose screen door in a hurricane.”
The teacher, shocked and not knowing what to do with this horrible response from little Larry, decides not to acknowledge what he said and simply tries to continue with the lesson.
"And how about you, Sarah?"
"I wanna be Larry’s whore..."
Little Larry says: "I wanna start out as a Fighter Pilot, then be a billionaire, go to the most expensive clubs, find me the finest whore, give her a Ferrari worth over a million bucks, an apartment in Copacabana, a mansion in Paris, a jet to travel throughout Europe, an Infinite Visa Card, and all the while banging her like a loose screen door in a hurricane.”
The teacher, shocked and not knowing what to do with this horrible response from little Larry, decides not to acknowledge what he said and simply tries to continue with the lesson.
"And how about you, Sarah?"
"I wanna be Larry’s whore..."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)