Chris Rock’s attack on cops had no place at the Hollywood awards ceremony
In his skewing of the Oscars for a lack of diversity, Chris Rock also made a crack that this year's ‘in-memoriam’ recognition was "just going to be black people shot by the cops on the way to the movies."
Rock wasn’t joking, but had he been, that was not one bit funny!
Rock also concluded his appearance by shouting “Black Lives Matter,” another reference to police shootings of blacks.
Rock has long criticized the police for shooting black men. He’s entitled to his unwarranted criticism, but the Oscars was not the place for it. Just like Beyonce’s performance at the Super Bowl honoring the Black Panthers who advocated the killing of cops, Rock’s performance at the Oscars clearly crossed the line when he made his crack about cops shooting black moviegoers.
Rock conveniently fails to consider that most black men killed by the police posed an imminent threat to the lives of cops or to the lives of some citizens. And his concern for black lives should start with killer blacks rather than killer cops, since killer blacks murder black men, women and children nonstop every day.
Here’s a little reminder to the asshole: Cop Lives Matter too!
Monday, February 29, 2016
TRUMP DOES NOT KNOW WHO DAVID DUKE IS ….. SAY WHAT???
Appearing Sunday on Jake Tapper's State of the Union show, Donald Trump was asked if he would disavow the endorsements of David Duke and white supremacist groups. Trump said he had no idea who David Duke was.
Here is what Trump said:
Honestly, I don't know David Duke. I don't believe I've ever met him. I'm pretty sure I didn't meet him. And I just don't know anything about him.
Holy stinking shit! Trump doesn’t know anything about David Duke? Come on now. It is inconceivable to me that anyone of Trump’s generation with minimal intelligence hasn’t heard of former Louisiana KKK leader David Duke. The white supremacist, running as a Republican in the 1991 Louisiana gubernatorial election, received – can you believe this? – 39 percent of the vote. And that alone made big, big news. Was Trump too busy counting his money to pay attention?
While I’ve talked about some of the dumb things Trump has said on the campaign trail, I’ve never thought The Donald was ignorant. But this is even worse than Hillary’s confusing the Declaration of Independence with the Constitution. Does the country really want to elect someone this stupid to be our President? I don’t think so.
If Trump ends up the Republican nominee, he’d better avoid having any debates with Hillary because the beast will eat his lunch and his election chances will go down like the Bismarck.
Here is what Trump said:
Honestly, I don't know David Duke. I don't believe I've ever met him. I'm pretty sure I didn't meet him. And I just don't know anything about him.
Holy stinking shit! Trump doesn’t know anything about David Duke? Come on now. It is inconceivable to me that anyone of Trump’s generation with minimal intelligence hasn’t heard of former Louisiana KKK leader David Duke. The white supremacist, running as a Republican in the 1991 Louisiana gubernatorial election, received – can you believe this? – 39 percent of the vote. And that alone made big, big news. Was Trump too busy counting his money to pay attention?
While I’ve talked about some of the dumb things Trump has said on the campaign trail, I’ve never thought The Donald was ignorant. But this is even worse than Hillary’s confusing the Declaration of Independence with the Constitution. Does the country really want to elect someone this stupid to be our President? I don’t think so.
If Trump ends up the Republican nominee, he’d better avoid having any debates with Hillary because the beast will eat his lunch and his election chances will go down like the Bismarck.
TRAGICALLY BRIEF CAREER
By Bob Walsh
Three Prince William County, VA., police officers were shot Saturday morning after responding to a domestic violence call in Lake Ridge, about 20 miles from D.C. One of the officers, Ashley Guindon, was on her first day on the job. She died from her wounds.
The suspect survived being taken into custody and was in fact not injured.
RIP sister.
Three Prince William County, VA., police officers were shot Saturday morning after responding to a domestic violence call in Lake Ridge, about 20 miles from D.C. One of the officers, Ashley Guindon, was on her first day on the job. She died from her wounds.
The suspect survived being taken into custody and was in fact not injured.
RIP sister.
WHY WAS THIS COP KILLER TAKEN ALIVE?
Three Virginia cops were shot, with one being killed on her vert first day as a police officer
On Saturday night, officers from the Prince William County Police Department responded to a domestic shooting in Woodbridge, Virginia, 20 miles south of Washington, D.C. As the officers approached the house in which an Army sergeant had shot his wife to death, they were met by a hail of gunfire. Three of the officers were hit. One of them, Ashley Guindon, died just one day after she had been sworn in as a police officer.
After her graduation in June 2015 from a police basic training academy, Guindon attended Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University in Daytona Beach, Florida where she earned a bachelor’s degree in aeronautics. She than applied for a position with the Prince William County Police Department and was sworn in as an officer on Friday. Saturday was her first day as a police officer.
Pentagon Staff Sergeant Ronald Hamilton, the cop killer, was taken into custody. Why? Back in my day, the scumbag would have been riddled like a Swiss cheese. Now a cop killer is sweet-talked into surrendering and the taxpayers will be stuck with a huge bill for his incarceration and a prolonged court process.
Hamilton’s attorneys will get a psychiatrist to testify that the black Army sergeant suffered from diminished capacity because his mother looked backwards in the mirror while she was pregnant and his daddy took away the rubber ducky he played with in the bathtub, causing him to be traumatized when he saw white cops approaching his house.
Whether he is white, black or whatever, anyone who shoots three cops doesn’t deserve to be taken alive. The loved ones of a cop killed in the line of duty don’t deserve to suffer through a long trial and years of appeals after his murderer has been convicted. When caught, the scumbag should be Swiss-cheesed on the spot!
VIRGINIA POLICE OFFICER KILLED ONE DAY AFTER BEING SWORN IN
Two other officers were wounded in the shooting outside of Washington D.C.
By Peter Andrew Hart
The Huffington Post
February 28, 2016
A Virginia police officer was killed in the line of duty on Saturday night, one day after being sworn in to the Prince William County Police Department.
Two other officers were also shot while responding to a domestic-related incident in Woodbridge, police told HuffPost. The unidentified officers were both being treated at Inova Fairfax Hospital, and were expected to survive, Prince William County Police Department spokesperson Nathan Probus told HuffPost.
The slain officer was identified as Ashley Guindon, who was on her very first shift, police said. “We ask for everyone’s thoughts and prayers as our department deals with this tragic loss,” the department said in statement.
On Friday, a picture posted to the department’s Twitter account welcomed her and another officer to the force. “Welcome Officers Steven Kendall & Ashley Guindon who were sworn in today & begin their shifts this weekend. Be Safe!”
Guindon and other officers responded to a call in the 13000 block of Lashmere Court in Woodbridge around 5:30 p.m. on Saturday. While the exact nature of the call was not made clear as of early Sunday, Probus said that it appeared to be domestic-related, and that an investigation was ongoing.
One person was taken into custody in connection with the shooting, Probus said, but provided no further information.
Woodbridge is about 25 miles southwest of Washington D.C.
Guindon and accompanying officers were shot while approaching a house on the block, Probus said. The officers were all transported to the hospital, and the department later announced that Guindon had died of her injuries. Police vehicles -- more than 100, according to the AP -- could be seen outside the hospital where the three officers had been taken.
Guindon had received a bachelor’s degree in aeronautics from ¬Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University in Daytona Beach, Fla., according to a statement the department released upon her graduation from police basic recruit school in June 2015. She also served in the U.S. Marine Corps Reserve and had relatives in law enforcement, the statement said.
On Saturday night, officers from the Prince William County Police Department responded to a domestic shooting in Woodbridge, Virginia, 20 miles south of Washington, D.C. As the officers approached the house in which an Army sergeant had shot his wife to death, they were met by a hail of gunfire. Three of the officers were hit. One of them, Ashley Guindon, died just one day after she had been sworn in as a police officer.
After her graduation in June 2015 from a police basic training academy, Guindon attended Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University in Daytona Beach, Florida where she earned a bachelor’s degree in aeronautics. She than applied for a position with the Prince William County Police Department and was sworn in as an officer on Friday. Saturday was her first day as a police officer.
Pentagon Staff Sergeant Ronald Hamilton, the cop killer, was taken into custody. Why? Back in my day, the scumbag would have been riddled like a Swiss cheese. Now a cop killer is sweet-talked into surrendering and the taxpayers will be stuck with a huge bill for his incarceration and a prolonged court process.
Hamilton’s attorneys will get a psychiatrist to testify that the black Army sergeant suffered from diminished capacity because his mother looked backwards in the mirror while she was pregnant and his daddy took away the rubber ducky he played with in the bathtub, causing him to be traumatized when he saw white cops approaching his house.
Whether he is white, black or whatever, anyone who shoots three cops doesn’t deserve to be taken alive. The loved ones of a cop killed in the line of duty don’t deserve to suffer through a long trial and years of appeals after his murderer has been convicted. When caught, the scumbag should be Swiss-cheesed on the spot!
VIRGINIA POLICE OFFICER KILLED ONE DAY AFTER BEING SWORN IN
Two other officers were wounded in the shooting outside of Washington D.C.
By Peter Andrew Hart
The Huffington Post
February 28, 2016
A Virginia police officer was killed in the line of duty on Saturday night, one day after being sworn in to the Prince William County Police Department.
Two other officers were also shot while responding to a domestic-related incident in Woodbridge, police told HuffPost. The unidentified officers were both being treated at Inova Fairfax Hospital, and were expected to survive, Prince William County Police Department spokesperson Nathan Probus told HuffPost.
The slain officer was identified as Ashley Guindon, who was on her very first shift, police said. “We ask for everyone’s thoughts and prayers as our department deals with this tragic loss,” the department said in statement.
On Friday, a picture posted to the department’s Twitter account welcomed her and another officer to the force. “Welcome Officers Steven Kendall & Ashley Guindon who were sworn in today & begin their shifts this weekend. Be Safe!”
Guindon and other officers responded to a call in the 13000 block of Lashmere Court in Woodbridge around 5:30 p.m. on Saturday. While the exact nature of the call was not made clear as of early Sunday, Probus said that it appeared to be domestic-related, and that an investigation was ongoing.
One person was taken into custody in connection with the shooting, Probus said, but provided no further information.
Woodbridge is about 25 miles southwest of Washington D.C.
Guindon and accompanying officers were shot while approaching a house on the block, Probus said. The officers were all transported to the hospital, and the department later announced that Guindon had died of her injuries. Police vehicles -- more than 100, according to the AP -- could be seen outside the hospital where the three officers had been taken.
Guindon had received a bachelor’s degree in aeronautics from ¬Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University in Daytona Beach, Fla., according to a statement the department released upon her graduation from police basic recruit school in June 2015. She also served in the U.S. Marine Corps Reserve and had relatives in law enforcement, the statement said.
LINDSEY GRAHAM: ‘MY PARTY HAS GONE BATSHIT CRAZY’
By German Lopez
Vox
February 26, 2016
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) had some tough words for the Republican Party on Thursday night — at one point declaring, "My party has gone batshit crazy."
Graham, who ran for president in 2015 and dropped out, focused a good chunk of his comedy routine at the Washington Press Club Foundation's annual dinner on Donald Trump. He stated that he's not happy with the state of the country or his party right now.
But he noted, while sarcastically donning Trump's "Make America great again" hat:
Here's my contribution to the country: I ran for president, and I had to get out. I endorsed Jeb Bush, and he had to get out. I'm the Dr. Kevorkian of the Republican primary.
Tonight, I endorse Donald Trump.
Graham also took aim at Ted Cruz, a candidate who notoriously lacks friends in the Senate that both he and Graham serve in. "If you kill Ted Cruz on the floor of the Senate, and the trial was on the Senate, nobody could convict you," Graham said.
He also took shots at several of the other candidates. "The nice guy is Ben Carson," Graham said. "He tried to kill his cousin."
Mostly, it was all in good fun for Graham. Except the Cruz and Trump parts — Graham really, really doesn't like either of them.
Vox
February 26, 2016
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) had some tough words for the Republican Party on Thursday night — at one point declaring, "My party has gone batshit crazy."
Graham, who ran for president in 2015 and dropped out, focused a good chunk of his comedy routine at the Washington Press Club Foundation's annual dinner on Donald Trump. He stated that he's not happy with the state of the country or his party right now.
But he noted, while sarcastically donning Trump's "Make America great again" hat:
Here's my contribution to the country: I ran for president, and I had to get out. I endorsed Jeb Bush, and he had to get out. I'm the Dr. Kevorkian of the Republican primary.
Tonight, I endorse Donald Trump.
Graham also took aim at Ted Cruz, a candidate who notoriously lacks friends in the Senate that both he and Graham serve in. "If you kill Ted Cruz on the floor of the Senate, and the trial was on the Senate, nobody could convict you," Graham said.
He also took shots at several of the other candidates. "The nice guy is Ben Carson," Graham said. "He tried to kill his cousin."
Mostly, it was all in good fun for Graham. Except the Cruz and Trump parts — Graham really, really doesn't like either of them.
CORRUPTION IS STILL WELL AND ALIVE IN LOUISIANA LAW ENFORCEMENT
Officers from a drug task force have been arrested and others are being investigated for stealing cash and selling narcotics seized in drug raids
Louisiana has long been known for sending its governors, other public officials and cops to prison. It seems as though the more things change, the more they stay the same.
Two Tangipahoa Parish sheriff’s deputies who were members of a DEA task force have been arrested for stealing cash and selling narcotics seized in drug raids. Other officers are also under investigation as suspects in similar crimes. One DEA agent, a former Tangipahoa Parish deputy, has been shipped off to New Jersey and the head of the DEA’s New Orleans division has been reassigned to D.C. as a result of the scandals.
SECOND DEA TASK FORCE MEMBER BOOKED IN WIDENING PROBE INTO OFFICERS SUSPECTED OF STEALING RAID-SEIZED DRUGS, CASH
By Jim Mustian and Faimon A. Roberts III
The Advocate
February 25, 2016
Louisiana State Police have arrested a second investigator assigned to a U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration task force, expanding a probe into officers suspected of stealing drugs and cash seized in raids.
Karl E. Newman, a longtime deputy with the Tangipahoa Parish Sheriff’s Office, was booked Thursday on counts of conspiracy to distribute cocaine and abuse of office, said Maj. Doug Cain, a State Police spokesman. Newman, 49, of Kentwood, was being held without bail in the St. Tammany Parish Jail.
The arrest came a month after State Police booked Johnny Domingue, another Tangipahoa Parish Sheriff’s Office deputy who had been assigned to the DEA task force.
Law enforcement officials say authorities are scrutinizing cases made by the task force where drugs and cash disappeared or were never recorded as evidence. One source familiar with the probe said that, in some instances, “not all of (the narcotics) were making it to the evidence room.”
“There’s been a lot of activity and a lot of work being done on the case at State Police headquarters,” the source said, speaking on condition of anonymity. “These boys didn’t do this one time and get caught.”
Newman worked closely with Chad Scott, a DEA special agent who also formerly served as a Tangipahoa sheriff’s deputy. Several sources said Scott has recently been reassigned to the agency’s New Jersey division.
The DEA this month also recalled Keith Brown, who headed the New Orleans field division for two years. The agency has refused to discuss the reasons for Brown’s transfer to Washington, D.C.
Newman’s arrest adds new depth to the unfolding scandal, as he has been involved in far more cases, both local and federal, than Domingue, who was assigned to the DEA task force only in June.
“I can’t imagine the nightmare that the Eastern District of Louisiana U.S. Attorney’s Office is going to have examining a lot of (these) convictions,” a law enforcement source said, referring to the raft of possibly tainted cases handled by the two officers. “There’s going to be a lot of people wanting a new trial.”
Before joining the DEA task force, Domingue, 27, had been considered an outstanding deputy in Tangipahoa Parish. He received high marks from his superiors, twice being named employee of the month, and had a letter commending him for professional conduct from a major in the Livingston Parish Sheriff’s Office, according to personnel records.
Domingue also previously worked with the so-called Tri-Parish Task Force, which is composed of investigators from Tangipahoa, St. Helena and Livingston parishes.
Tangipahoa Parish Sheriff Daniel Edwards, the brother of Gov. John Bel Edwards, has not returned calls seeking comment.
A spokeswoman for U.S. Attorney Kenneth Polite declined to comment Thursday.
A third suspect, Rose P. Graham, of Loranger, has been accused of distributing more than 5 pounds of marijuana. She and Domingue were booked last month on counts of conspiracy and drug distribution. Graham is not a law enforcement official, and her alleged role in the scheme remains unclear.
Louisiana has long been known for sending its governors, other public officials and cops to prison. It seems as though the more things change, the more they stay the same.
Two Tangipahoa Parish sheriff’s deputies who were members of a DEA task force have been arrested for stealing cash and selling narcotics seized in drug raids. Other officers are also under investigation as suspects in similar crimes. One DEA agent, a former Tangipahoa Parish deputy, has been shipped off to New Jersey and the head of the DEA’s New Orleans division has been reassigned to D.C. as a result of the scandals.
SECOND DEA TASK FORCE MEMBER BOOKED IN WIDENING PROBE INTO OFFICERS SUSPECTED OF STEALING RAID-SEIZED DRUGS, CASH
By Jim Mustian and Faimon A. Roberts III
The Advocate
February 25, 2016
Louisiana State Police have arrested a second investigator assigned to a U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration task force, expanding a probe into officers suspected of stealing drugs and cash seized in raids.
Karl E. Newman, a longtime deputy with the Tangipahoa Parish Sheriff’s Office, was booked Thursday on counts of conspiracy to distribute cocaine and abuse of office, said Maj. Doug Cain, a State Police spokesman. Newman, 49, of Kentwood, was being held without bail in the St. Tammany Parish Jail.
The arrest came a month after State Police booked Johnny Domingue, another Tangipahoa Parish Sheriff’s Office deputy who had been assigned to the DEA task force.
Law enforcement officials say authorities are scrutinizing cases made by the task force where drugs and cash disappeared or were never recorded as evidence. One source familiar with the probe said that, in some instances, “not all of (the narcotics) were making it to the evidence room.”
“There’s been a lot of activity and a lot of work being done on the case at State Police headquarters,” the source said, speaking on condition of anonymity. “These boys didn’t do this one time and get caught.”
Newman worked closely with Chad Scott, a DEA special agent who also formerly served as a Tangipahoa sheriff’s deputy. Several sources said Scott has recently been reassigned to the agency’s New Jersey division.
The DEA this month also recalled Keith Brown, who headed the New Orleans field division for two years. The agency has refused to discuss the reasons for Brown’s transfer to Washington, D.C.
Newman’s arrest adds new depth to the unfolding scandal, as he has been involved in far more cases, both local and federal, than Domingue, who was assigned to the DEA task force only in June.
“I can’t imagine the nightmare that the Eastern District of Louisiana U.S. Attorney’s Office is going to have examining a lot of (these) convictions,” a law enforcement source said, referring to the raft of possibly tainted cases handled by the two officers. “There’s going to be a lot of people wanting a new trial.”
Before joining the DEA task force, Domingue, 27, had been considered an outstanding deputy in Tangipahoa Parish. He received high marks from his superiors, twice being named employee of the month, and had a letter commending him for professional conduct from a major in the Livingston Parish Sheriff’s Office, according to personnel records.
Domingue also previously worked with the so-called Tri-Parish Task Force, which is composed of investigators from Tangipahoa, St. Helena and Livingston parishes.
Tangipahoa Parish Sheriff Daniel Edwards, the brother of Gov. John Bel Edwards, has not returned calls seeking comment.
A spokeswoman for U.S. Attorney Kenneth Polite declined to comment Thursday.
A third suspect, Rose P. Graham, of Loranger, has been accused of distributing more than 5 pounds of marijuana. She and Domingue were booked last month on counts of conspiracy and drug distribution. Graham is not a law enforcement official, and her alleged role in the scheme remains unclear.
Sunday, February 28, 2016
SANDERS WILL NOW GET RUN OVER BY THE CLINTON JUGGERNAUT
With all the super delegates already committed to Hillary, she is a sure bet to win the Democratic nomination and if she becomes President, there goes the Second Amendment
Any dreams Bernie Sanders may have had of getting the Democratic nomination went up in smoke in South Carolina Saturday night. Propelled by her black supporters, Clinton scored an overwhelming victory over Sanders.
Hillary had already all of the Democratic super delegates committed to her. She could clinch the nomination on Super Tuesday. In any event, the Clinton juggernaut will run over Sanders, leaving Bernie flatter than a Jewish potato pancake.
In the meantime, the Republican candidates are ripping each other apart with searing personal attacks to the extent that the eventual winner will be damaged goods and easy pickings for the Democratic candidate.
Any hopes the Republicans have of a Hillary indictment over her private email server is simply wishful thinking. It ain’t about to happen under the Obama administration, no matter how hard the FBI might push for it.
What scares the hell out of me with a Hillary Clinton presidency is that she will be able to reshape the Supreme Court so that it will have a solid liberal majority for decades to come. You can look for her court to reverse the Heller and McDonald decisions, thereby depriving individual citizens of the right to keep and bear firearms. Then, for example, my city of Houston could pass a city ordinance prohibiting private citizens from possessing any firearms within the city limits.
Other examples: Oakland and the other Bay Area cities will follow the People’s Republic of San Francisco in banning the private ownership of guns. So will Bob Walsh’s hometown of Stockton, that is if the California state legislature doesn’t beat the cities to it by banning gun ownership within the whole state.
Any dreams Bernie Sanders may have had of getting the Democratic nomination went up in smoke in South Carolina Saturday night. Propelled by her black supporters, Clinton scored an overwhelming victory over Sanders.
Hillary had already all of the Democratic super delegates committed to her. She could clinch the nomination on Super Tuesday. In any event, the Clinton juggernaut will run over Sanders, leaving Bernie flatter than a Jewish potato pancake.
In the meantime, the Republican candidates are ripping each other apart with searing personal attacks to the extent that the eventual winner will be damaged goods and easy pickings for the Democratic candidate.
Any hopes the Republicans have of a Hillary indictment over her private email server is simply wishful thinking. It ain’t about to happen under the Obama administration, no matter how hard the FBI might push for it.
What scares the hell out of me with a Hillary Clinton presidency is that she will be able to reshape the Supreme Court so that it will have a solid liberal majority for decades to come. You can look for her court to reverse the Heller and McDonald decisions, thereby depriving individual citizens of the right to keep and bear firearms. Then, for example, my city of Houston could pass a city ordinance prohibiting private citizens from possessing any firearms within the city limits.
Other examples: Oakland and the other Bay Area cities will follow the People’s Republic of San Francisco in banning the private ownership of guns. So will Bob Walsh’s hometown of Stockton, that is if the California state legislature doesn’t beat the cities to it by banning gun ownership within the whole state.
RULES ARE THE RULES, UNLESS YOU ARE A POWERFUL LIBERAL
By Bob Walsh
Jerry Brown’s current mission in life, besides trying as hard as he can to have his $63 billion toy train built, is to get as many dangerous criminals out of prison and onto the streets as is humanly possible, as fast as possible.
In order to help accomplish this goal he wants to FURTHER enhance early parole for alleged-to-be non-violent felons. However, his timing was bad. He wanted to piggyback into an existing ballot initiative proposal regarding juvenile justice so that he could get his latest hug-a-thug project on the 2016 ballot. A lower court ruled that he couldn’t do it and ordered the A G to NOT issue a title and summary for the initiative, which prevents the gathering of signatures.
Acting on Friday the California State Supreme Court said, “That’s OK, Jerry doesn’t have to follow the actual law” and said that the A G could issue the document. She immediately did so. That does not necessarily mean the original legal challenge is dead, but it does mean the bleeding heart liberals will be able to start suckering other bleeding heart liberals and assorted idiots into signing the thing. It is now being billed as a PUBLIC SAFETY ENHANCEMENT measure, though I still can’t figure out how letting dangerous criminals out of prison early makes the general public safer. I guess they figure they can piss on our shoes, tell us it is raining, and we will believe it. Perhaps enough people WILL believe it to get this latest travesty onto the ballot where it just might get approved.
We may not get the government we deserve, but we sure as hell get the government we tolerate.
Jerry Brown’s current mission in life, besides trying as hard as he can to have his $63 billion toy train built, is to get as many dangerous criminals out of prison and onto the streets as is humanly possible, as fast as possible.
In order to help accomplish this goal he wants to FURTHER enhance early parole for alleged-to-be non-violent felons. However, his timing was bad. He wanted to piggyback into an existing ballot initiative proposal regarding juvenile justice so that he could get his latest hug-a-thug project on the 2016 ballot. A lower court ruled that he couldn’t do it and ordered the A G to NOT issue a title and summary for the initiative, which prevents the gathering of signatures.
Acting on Friday the California State Supreme Court said, “That’s OK, Jerry doesn’t have to follow the actual law” and said that the A G could issue the document. She immediately did so. That does not necessarily mean the original legal challenge is dead, but it does mean the bleeding heart liberals will be able to start suckering other bleeding heart liberals and assorted idiots into signing the thing. It is now being billed as a PUBLIC SAFETY ENHANCEMENT measure, though I still can’t figure out how letting dangerous criminals out of prison early makes the general public safer. I guess they figure they can piss on our shoes, tell us it is raining, and we will believe it. Perhaps enough people WILL believe it to get this latest travesty onto the ballot where it just might get approved.
We may not get the government we deserve, but we sure as hell get the government we tolerate.
SEATTLE OFFICER SUSPENDED OVER RACIAL SLUR
By Steve Miletich
The Seattle Times
February 26, 2016
A veteran Seattle police officer has been suspended for five days without pay for an expletive-laced pursuit three years ago in which she referred to a suspect as a "Negro," punctuated with an obscenity.
Police Chief Kathleen O'Toole imposed the discipline Feb. 10 on Sgt. Lora Alcantara, adding three days to an original recommendation of a two-day suspension.
"Your language, and particularly your use of the term '(expletive) Negro' to describe a suspect was totally unacceptable," O'Toole wrote in a disciplinary report that cited the f-word.
Alcantara, who is white, also was ordered to undergo retraining in department policies regarding profanity, derogatory language and race and social justice.
Video of the incident recorded on Alcantara's dashboard camera recently surfaced on YouTube.
The incident occurred on Feb. 27, 2013, more than a year before O'Toole became chief but after the city agreed in 2012 to adopt federally mandated reforms to curb excessive force and biased policing.
Alcantara, 46, who joined the department in 1993, was an officer at the time. She was promoted to sergeant in April 2014 before the incident came to light.
Alcantara, while in her patrol car, chased a stolen car driven by the male suspect, who fled from her and was subsequently involved in several hit-and-run collisions.
During the pursuit, Alcantara swore at least 10 times over a span of about 10 minutes, according to the disciplinary report. She can be heard on the video repeatedly using the f-word.
While impounding the suspect's then-unoccupied vehicle, Alcantara described the events to her sergeant using language that showed "contempt" or "disrespect" for the suspect based on race, the report says.
"While inside your vehicle and out of earshot of anyone other than your sergeant, you commented: 'The (expletive) Negro, as I was crossing the street, the guy went through the alley,' " the report says.
Alcantara, during the internal investigation, explained she was talking to herself and expressing frustration during the pursuit, while recognizing her patrol car was part of her workplace.
She said she used Negro as a "descriptor" without intending it to be racially derogatory.
In addition, Alcantara acknowledged that using the f-word before uttering Negro could be viewed as particularly troubling. But Alcantara asserted that, although lamentable, it was an extension of the same obscenity she used throughout the pursuit in the course of repeated swearing, not because of race.
But Alcantara acknowledged her language was unacceptable, according to the report.
In retrospect, the report adds, Alcantara recognized her words could be viewed by others as suggesting contempt toward African Americans and could undermine public trust in her and the department.
"You expressed remorse for your actions and apologized for your language," O'Toole noted in the report.
O'Toole wrote that such language wouldn't be tolerated and found the "gravity" of the offense justified an increase in the suspension.
"At the same time, I am cognizant of the fact that the incident is more than two years old and that your supervisors report that you have shown considerable growth since the event, that it was an outlier, and that at no other time have your actions suggested bias of any kind," the chief wrote.
O'Toole also noted Alcantara had received no other discipline during her career.
Had the language been directed at the suspect or the public or tied to a particular action, the discipline would have been far more severe, O'Toole added.
In an interview Thursday, O"Toole said she saw no evidence Alcantara was a racist, based, in part, on Alcantara's personal relationships, nor any evidence of overall biased policing on Alcantara's part.
If she had, O'Toole said, she would have fired Alcantara.
O'Toole noted Alcantara's case was decided before Sunday's shooting of a black man, Che Andre Taylor, by two Seattle officers.
In September, O'Toole fired Officer Cynthia Whitlatch over her arrest in 2014 of an African-American man using a golf club as a cane, in what O'Toole labeled a case of case of biased and overly aggressive policing.
In that case, Whitlatch's actions occurred during a public interaction, along with a subsequent racially charged Facebook post and her claim she was being targeted because she is white.
The incident involving Alcantara came to light on June 1, 2015, and it was referred to the police department's Office of Professional Accountability (OPA) two days later, the department said.
The comments were initially discovered by a prosecutor while reviewing the eventual case against the driver of the car, including the video. The prosecutor alerted the police department, which referred the matter to the OPA.
When the incident occurred, Alcantara's sergeant counseled and corrected her but didn't believe he needed to take formal action under department policy at the time. The policy has since changed to provide clarity on what needs to be referred to OPA and the sergeant has received additional training on that.
EDITOR’S NOTE: She’s lucky she didn’t get demoted or fired!
The Seattle Times
February 26, 2016
A veteran Seattle police officer has been suspended for five days without pay for an expletive-laced pursuit three years ago in which she referred to a suspect as a "Negro," punctuated with an obscenity.
Police Chief Kathleen O'Toole imposed the discipline Feb. 10 on Sgt. Lora Alcantara, adding three days to an original recommendation of a two-day suspension.
"Your language, and particularly your use of the term '(expletive) Negro' to describe a suspect was totally unacceptable," O'Toole wrote in a disciplinary report that cited the f-word.
Alcantara, who is white, also was ordered to undergo retraining in department policies regarding profanity, derogatory language and race and social justice.
Video of the incident recorded on Alcantara's dashboard camera recently surfaced on YouTube.
The incident occurred on Feb. 27, 2013, more than a year before O'Toole became chief but after the city agreed in 2012 to adopt federally mandated reforms to curb excessive force and biased policing.
Alcantara, 46, who joined the department in 1993, was an officer at the time. She was promoted to sergeant in April 2014 before the incident came to light.
Alcantara, while in her patrol car, chased a stolen car driven by the male suspect, who fled from her and was subsequently involved in several hit-and-run collisions.
During the pursuit, Alcantara swore at least 10 times over a span of about 10 minutes, according to the disciplinary report. She can be heard on the video repeatedly using the f-word.
While impounding the suspect's then-unoccupied vehicle, Alcantara described the events to her sergeant using language that showed "contempt" or "disrespect" for the suspect based on race, the report says.
"While inside your vehicle and out of earshot of anyone other than your sergeant, you commented: 'The (expletive) Negro, as I was crossing the street, the guy went through the alley,' " the report says.
Alcantara, during the internal investigation, explained she was talking to herself and expressing frustration during the pursuit, while recognizing her patrol car was part of her workplace.
She said she used Negro as a "descriptor" without intending it to be racially derogatory.
In addition, Alcantara acknowledged that using the f-word before uttering Negro could be viewed as particularly troubling. But Alcantara asserted that, although lamentable, it was an extension of the same obscenity she used throughout the pursuit in the course of repeated swearing, not because of race.
But Alcantara acknowledged her language was unacceptable, according to the report.
In retrospect, the report adds, Alcantara recognized her words could be viewed by others as suggesting contempt toward African Americans and could undermine public trust in her and the department.
"You expressed remorse for your actions and apologized for your language," O'Toole noted in the report.
O'Toole wrote that such language wouldn't be tolerated and found the "gravity" of the offense justified an increase in the suspension.
"At the same time, I am cognizant of the fact that the incident is more than two years old and that your supervisors report that you have shown considerable growth since the event, that it was an outlier, and that at no other time have your actions suggested bias of any kind," the chief wrote.
O'Toole also noted Alcantara had received no other discipline during her career.
Had the language been directed at the suspect or the public or tied to a particular action, the discipline would have been far more severe, O'Toole added.
In an interview Thursday, O"Toole said she saw no evidence Alcantara was a racist, based, in part, on Alcantara's personal relationships, nor any evidence of overall biased policing on Alcantara's part.
If she had, O'Toole said, she would have fired Alcantara.
O'Toole noted Alcantara's case was decided before Sunday's shooting of a black man, Che Andre Taylor, by two Seattle officers.
In September, O'Toole fired Officer Cynthia Whitlatch over her arrest in 2014 of an African-American man using a golf club as a cane, in what O'Toole labeled a case of case of biased and overly aggressive policing.
In that case, Whitlatch's actions occurred during a public interaction, along with a subsequent racially charged Facebook post and her claim she was being targeted because she is white.
The incident involving Alcantara came to light on June 1, 2015, and it was referred to the police department's Office of Professional Accountability (OPA) two days later, the department said.
The comments were initially discovered by a prosecutor while reviewing the eventual case against the driver of the car, including the video. The prosecutor alerted the police department, which referred the matter to the OPA.
When the incident occurred, Alcantara's sergeant counseled and corrected her but didn't believe he needed to take formal action under department policy at the time. The policy has since changed to provide clarity on what needs to be referred to OPA and the sergeant has received additional training on that.
EDITOR’S NOTE: She’s lucky she didn’t get demoted or fired!
WILL AMERICA BE NEXT?
First British schools and now an Australian school allow students to cross dress and use whichever rest room they choose
Times are a changing and catering to transgenders in Americas public schools seems to be on the horizon. First British schools and now an Australian school allow students to cross dress and use whichever rest room they choose. Will America be next? It’s not will, but when.
Look for schools in the San Francisco Bay Area to be the first to permit cross dressing and to have gender-neutral restrooms. Then catering to transgenders will spread to other states that are considered liberal. Southern states like Texas, Mississippi and Alabama will fight such moves all the way to the Supreme Court. And if Hillary becomes president, the makeup of the court will change so that cross dressing and gender-neutral restrooms will be shoved down the southern states’ throats.
AN AUSTRALIAN HIGH SCHOOL IS LETTING ALL GENDERS WEAR DRESSES AND CHRISTIANS ARE UPSET
By Isabelle Hellyer
Vice Mews
February 23, 2016
Newtown High School of the Performing Arts in Sydney, Australia, has updated its policy on uniforms to make life easier for trans, gender queer, and non-binary pupils, following a push from the school's students.
From now on, students will be free to use whatever uniform or bathroom matches their gender identity. They could already do both of those things before the policy was officially changed, but they're now saved the trouble of seeking formal permission from administration, which Newtown student Jo Dwyer called a "long and difficult process" in an interview with the Age.
Speaking to VICE, the New South Wales Department of Education explained that the uniform itself hasn't changed. It's simply been made genderless. "Students can wear any part of the available uniform options," a spokesperson told us. Similarly, Newton's bathroom policy hasn't formally changed from that already in place across NSW. It's just more explicit. "Usually, students should not be required to use the toilets and change rooms used by persons of the sex they were assigned at birth if they identify as a different gender," the spokesperson said. Newtown has just taken the gray area out of the state's policy, by making it clear students are completely free to use the bathroom of their choice.
The move makes sense coming from Newtown, given it's one of the most progressive schools in the country. You might remember when its students were sent to meet then Prime Minister Tony Abbott and completely shredded him in a Q & A session—"Not saying that I don't trust you, just wondering why a man is the minister for women?"
It's not the first school to change its uniform policy to accommodate trans and non-binary students—some British schools began doing so last year—but it's the first in Australia, and as a result, it has become the target for ire from Christian lobbyists. "People are wondering if this is where rainbow ideology and rainbow politics is taking us," Australian Christian Lobby spokesperson Wendy Francis told VICE. "These gender theory ideas go way beyond anti-bullying to almost proselytizing."
Earlier this year, the lobby came out in opposition to the Safe School program, which aims to aide young LGTB students and educate their peers. Francis even claimed the program promotes "queer sex and cross-dressing."
Not that the NSW Department of Education is particularly bothered by these sorts of opinions. When VICE asked the department to comment, a spokesperson said that as a matter of course it doesn't "respond to third parties" and stressed "we do not comment on that organization."
It's also quite unlikely that Newtown will be the only school bringing in genderless uniforms. Last year, the Victorian Youth Parliament created a bill to present to the Victorian government demanding school uniforms be made gender neutral across the state. The Safe School program, which 495 institutions currently participate in, advocates for the same policy. Although given Newtown's change came from pupils pushing for something they cared about, it might not take legislation to implement—just students who give a shit.
(This article originally appeared on VICE Australia.)
Times are a changing and catering to transgenders in Americas public schools seems to be on the horizon. First British schools and now an Australian school allow students to cross dress and use whichever rest room they choose. Will America be next? It’s not will, but when.
Look for schools in the San Francisco Bay Area to be the first to permit cross dressing and to have gender-neutral restrooms. Then catering to transgenders will spread to other states that are considered liberal. Southern states like Texas, Mississippi and Alabama will fight such moves all the way to the Supreme Court. And if Hillary becomes president, the makeup of the court will change so that cross dressing and gender-neutral restrooms will be shoved down the southern states’ throats.
AN AUSTRALIAN HIGH SCHOOL IS LETTING ALL GENDERS WEAR DRESSES AND CHRISTIANS ARE UPSET
By Isabelle Hellyer
Vice Mews
February 23, 2016
Newtown High School of the Performing Arts in Sydney, Australia, has updated its policy on uniforms to make life easier for trans, gender queer, and non-binary pupils, following a push from the school's students.
From now on, students will be free to use whatever uniform or bathroom matches their gender identity. They could already do both of those things before the policy was officially changed, but they're now saved the trouble of seeking formal permission from administration, which Newtown student Jo Dwyer called a "long and difficult process" in an interview with the Age.
Speaking to VICE, the New South Wales Department of Education explained that the uniform itself hasn't changed. It's simply been made genderless. "Students can wear any part of the available uniform options," a spokesperson told us. Similarly, Newton's bathroom policy hasn't formally changed from that already in place across NSW. It's just more explicit. "Usually, students should not be required to use the toilets and change rooms used by persons of the sex they were assigned at birth if they identify as a different gender," the spokesperson said. Newtown has just taken the gray area out of the state's policy, by making it clear students are completely free to use the bathroom of their choice.
The move makes sense coming from Newtown, given it's one of the most progressive schools in the country. You might remember when its students were sent to meet then Prime Minister Tony Abbott and completely shredded him in a Q & A session—"Not saying that I don't trust you, just wondering why a man is the minister for women?"
It's not the first school to change its uniform policy to accommodate trans and non-binary students—some British schools began doing so last year—but it's the first in Australia, and as a result, it has become the target for ire from Christian lobbyists. "People are wondering if this is where rainbow ideology and rainbow politics is taking us," Australian Christian Lobby spokesperson Wendy Francis told VICE. "These gender theory ideas go way beyond anti-bullying to almost proselytizing."
Earlier this year, the lobby came out in opposition to the Safe School program, which aims to aide young LGTB students and educate their peers. Francis even claimed the program promotes "queer sex and cross-dressing."
Not that the NSW Department of Education is particularly bothered by these sorts of opinions. When VICE asked the department to comment, a spokesperson said that as a matter of course it doesn't "respond to third parties" and stressed "we do not comment on that organization."
It's also quite unlikely that Newtown will be the only school bringing in genderless uniforms. Last year, the Victorian Youth Parliament created a bill to present to the Victorian government demanding school uniforms be made gender neutral across the state. The Safe School program, which 495 institutions currently participate in, advocates for the same policy. Although given Newtown's change came from pupils pushing for something they cared about, it might not take legislation to implement—just students who give a shit.
(This article originally appeared on VICE Australia.)
ISRAEL’S OPTIONS IN A CHAOTIC MIDDLE EAST
Faced with a new Palestinian uprising, Israelis have shelved the idea of a two-state solution—and have found surprising new allies in a disintegrating Middle East
By Yossi Klein Halevi
The Wall Street Journal
February 26, 2016
One recent morning, a Palestinian teenager stabbed a security guard at the light rail station minutes from my home in Jerusalem. About an hour later, I drove past the station and was astonished to see—nothing. No increased police presence, not even police barricades. The guard had managed to shoot his attacker, and ambulances had taken both away. Commuters were waiting for the next train. As if nothing unusual had happened.
The ability to instantly resume the pretense of normalcy is one of the ways that Israelis are coping with the latest wave of Palestinian terrorism. For the last six months, Palestinians—some as young as 13—have attacked Jews with knives and hatchets and even scissors, or else driven their cars into Israeli crowds, killing over two dozen people. (About 90 Palestinians have been killed carrying out the attacks.) The violence was provoked by the unsubstantiated Palestinian claim—strongly denied by the government—that Israel intended to permit Jewish prayer on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, a place sacred to both Muslims and Jews.
The almost daily attacks tend to blur together, though several have become emblematic—like the stabbing murder of a mother of six in her home while her teenage daughter ran to protect her siblings. Still, by Israeli standards, the violence so far has been manageable. Israelis recall that in the early 2000s, when suicide bombers were targeting buses and cafes, almost as many victims would die in a single attack as have been murdered in the current wave of terror.
Israelis have been here before. In 1992, a monthslong stabbing spree by Palestinian terrorists in Israel’s streets helped to catalyze one of the great upsets in Israeli politics, the election of Labor Party leader Yitzhak Rabin as prime minister, ending over a decade of rule by the right-wing Likud Party. The stabbings were the culmination of a four-year Palestinian revolt against Israel’s occupation in the West Bank and Gaza. This first intifada (“uprising” in Arabic), as it came to be known, forced the Israeli public to come to terms with Palestinian nationalism. It also convinced many Israelis that the Likud’s policy of incremental annexation of the West Bank and Gaza was simply not worth the price.
Until the first intifada, Israelis had tended to regard control of the territories won by Israel in the 1967 Six Day War as benign, bringing prosperity to the occupied as well as to the occupiers. As the intifada took hold, Israeli anger turned not only against the Palestinians but against the ruling Likud. There were antigovernment riots, and Likud Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir was widely ridiculed for his passivity and lack of vision.
Today, too, there is widespread disaffection with a Likud government’s response to stabbings. Some 70% of Israelis say that the government has been ineffectual, and nearly as many say they feel personally unsafe. Yet, unlike 1992, there are no antigovernment demonstrations, and few calls for a resumption of the moribund peace process.
Indeed, a private poll recently commissioned by one of the parties in the coalition government reveals that only 4% of Israelis consider the peace process their highest priority—the lowest percentage for any major issue. Improbably, the Likud remains the most popular party. And what little support the Likud is losing isn’t to the left but further to its right, to parties advocating a tougher response to terror and the annexation of large parts of the West Bank.
One reason for the radically different responses in 1992 and 2016 is that Israelis are living in a very different Middle East. The Middle East of the early 1990s seemed a place of promise: An American-led coalition, including Arab states, had defeated Saddam Hussein in Kuwait, while the Soviet Union, sponsor of Arab radical regimes and the Palestinian cause, had vanished. Palestinian leaders seemed ready to negotiate an agreement with Israel, and a majority of Israelis, especially after the first intifada, were ready to try.
In today’s disintegrating Middle East, by contrast, Israelis question the viability of a Palestinian state. Which Arab state, Israelis ask, will be a likely model for Palestine: Syria? Iraq? Libya?
Few Israelis believe that a Palestinian state would be a peaceful neighbor. In part that’s because the Palestinian national movement—in both its supposedly moderate nationalist wing and its radical Islamist branch—continues to deny the very legitimacy of Israel. The Palestinian media repeat an almost daily message: The Jews are not a real people, they have no roots in this land and their entire history is a lie, from biblical Israel to the Holocaust. The current wave of stabbings has been lauded not only by the Islamist Hamas but by the Palestinian Authority. “We bless every drop of blood that has been spilled for Jerusalem,” said Palestinian Authority head Mahmoud Abbas in September. “Every martyr will reach paradise.”
The result is profound disillusionment with the peace process across the Israeli political spectrum. Writing recently in the left-wing newspaper Haaretz, the political scientist Shlomo Avineri, long one of Israel’s leading voices against the occupation, lamented that the Palestinian national movement regards Israel “as an illegitimate entity, sooner or later doomed to disappear.” Labor Party leader Yitzhak Herzog, in a dramatic reversal of his rhetoric in last year’s election, recently conceded that there was no chance anytime soon for a deal with the Palestinians.
Most Israelis still support, at least in principle, a two-state solution. Many understand that the creation of a Palestinian state is an existential necessity for Israel, extricating it from a growing pariah status in the world at large, from the wrenching moral dilemmas of occupying another people, from a demographic threat that endangers Israel as both a Jewish and a democratic state. And they understand that the continuing expansion of settlements on the West Bank will only complicate Israel’s ability to withdraw eventually.
But a majority also regards a Palestinian state as an existential threat. They know that it would place Tel Aviv and Ben Gurion Airport, the country’s main link with the world, in easy range of rocket attacks. A Palestinian state also could result in a Hamas takeover of the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
Israelis sense that they have exhausted their political options toward the Palestinians. In the 1970s and ’80s, there was widespread enthusiasm for the expansion of Israeli settlements in the territories. Sooner or later, many Israelis believed, the Palestinians and the Arab world would accept this “Greater Israel”—a Jewish state including the West Bank and Gaza. But that dream was shattered in the first intifada of the late 1980s.
In its place, Rabin offered an alternative dream, promising (in a slogan of those days) “to take Gaza out of Tel Aviv and Tel Aviv out of Gaza.” In 1993 he launched the Oslo peace process, shaking hands with Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat on the White House lawn. But the dream of a negotiated solution also shattered, with the wave of suicide bombings that began in 2000 and became known as the second intifada. The violence followed Israeli offers to withdraw from most of the territories and to uproot dozens of settlements. Almost overnight, a once-vigorous Israeli left, which had assured the public that Israeli acceptance of a two-state solution would be reciprocated by Palestinian moderation, all but collapsed.
Finally, Israel tried a desperate third approach: unilateral withdrawal, dismantling Israel’s settlements and army bases from Gaza in 2005. Many Israelis saw that move as a test case for a future unilateral withdrawal in the West Bank. Ehud Olmert was elected prime minister in 2006 on the promise that he would do precisely that if there was no credible Palestinian partner.
But in the years following the withdrawal from Gaza, Hamas, which seized power there in 2007, fired thousands of rockets at Israeli communities along the southern border, all but destroying normal life there. Israel has since fought two wars in Gaza, trying to stop those attacks. The turmoil—and the vehement criticism around the world of Israel’s military actions, which Israelis overwhelmingly saw as self-defense—has convinced many unilateralists that repeating the process in the West Bank is simply too risky.
Today, Israelis have essentially embraced the status quo as the least terrifying option. The problem with the status quo, however, is that it isn’t static. The current terror campaign has, for the first time, included relatively large numbers of Palestinians from East Jerusalem who, unlike Palestinians in the West Bank, are able to freely travel in Israel. And radicalization is spreading even among Israel’s Arab citizens, a handful of whom have participated in terror attacks.
At the same time, settlement-building in the West Bank continues—though at a slower pace than in the past, according to the Peace Now Settlement Watch, an anti-occupation NGO. This did not deter the European Union from its recent decision to make a distinction in labeling between products made in settlements and those made in what it considers Israel proper—a move endorsed by the Obama administration.
Israel finds itself in perhaps the most frightening time since the weeks before the Six-Day War, when Arab armies massed on its borders and Arab leaders threatened to destroy the Jewish state. Terror enclaves now exist on most of Israel’s borders—Hezbollah in southern Lebanon, Islamic State on the Golan Heights and in Sinai, Hamas in Gaza. Tens of thousands of missiles are aimed at Israeli cities and are capable of reaching any point in Israel. Iran is emerging as the region’s dominant power, even as it remains on the nuclear threshold. And a growing international movement to boycott the Jewish state has deepened Israelis’ sense of siege.
And yet—precisely because of the Iranian threat against the Sunni world and of regional instability generally—the Arab world is opening up to Israel in unprecedented ways. Even with the Palestinian issue festering, Saudi Arabia has all but acknowledged a security dialogue with Israel, and Israeli officials are now being interviewed in Saudi media, which not long ago referred to Israel as the “Zionist entity,” refusing even to name the Jewish state.
By Yossi Klein Halevi
The Wall Street Journal
February 26, 2016
One recent morning, a Palestinian teenager stabbed a security guard at the light rail station minutes from my home in Jerusalem. About an hour later, I drove past the station and was astonished to see—nothing. No increased police presence, not even police barricades. The guard had managed to shoot his attacker, and ambulances had taken both away. Commuters were waiting for the next train. As if nothing unusual had happened.
The ability to instantly resume the pretense of normalcy is one of the ways that Israelis are coping with the latest wave of Palestinian terrorism. For the last six months, Palestinians—some as young as 13—have attacked Jews with knives and hatchets and even scissors, or else driven their cars into Israeli crowds, killing over two dozen people. (About 90 Palestinians have been killed carrying out the attacks.) The violence was provoked by the unsubstantiated Palestinian claim—strongly denied by the government—that Israel intended to permit Jewish prayer on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, a place sacred to both Muslims and Jews.
The almost daily attacks tend to blur together, though several have become emblematic—like the stabbing murder of a mother of six in her home while her teenage daughter ran to protect her siblings. Still, by Israeli standards, the violence so far has been manageable. Israelis recall that in the early 2000s, when suicide bombers were targeting buses and cafes, almost as many victims would die in a single attack as have been murdered in the current wave of terror.
Israelis have been here before. In 1992, a monthslong stabbing spree by Palestinian terrorists in Israel’s streets helped to catalyze one of the great upsets in Israeli politics, the election of Labor Party leader Yitzhak Rabin as prime minister, ending over a decade of rule by the right-wing Likud Party. The stabbings were the culmination of a four-year Palestinian revolt against Israel’s occupation in the West Bank and Gaza. This first intifada (“uprising” in Arabic), as it came to be known, forced the Israeli public to come to terms with Palestinian nationalism. It also convinced many Israelis that the Likud’s policy of incremental annexation of the West Bank and Gaza was simply not worth the price.
Until the first intifada, Israelis had tended to regard control of the territories won by Israel in the 1967 Six Day War as benign, bringing prosperity to the occupied as well as to the occupiers. As the intifada took hold, Israeli anger turned not only against the Palestinians but against the ruling Likud. There were antigovernment riots, and Likud Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir was widely ridiculed for his passivity and lack of vision.
Today, too, there is widespread disaffection with a Likud government’s response to stabbings. Some 70% of Israelis say that the government has been ineffectual, and nearly as many say they feel personally unsafe. Yet, unlike 1992, there are no antigovernment demonstrations, and few calls for a resumption of the moribund peace process.
Indeed, a private poll recently commissioned by one of the parties in the coalition government reveals that only 4% of Israelis consider the peace process their highest priority—the lowest percentage for any major issue. Improbably, the Likud remains the most popular party. And what little support the Likud is losing isn’t to the left but further to its right, to parties advocating a tougher response to terror and the annexation of large parts of the West Bank.
One reason for the radically different responses in 1992 and 2016 is that Israelis are living in a very different Middle East. The Middle East of the early 1990s seemed a place of promise: An American-led coalition, including Arab states, had defeated Saddam Hussein in Kuwait, while the Soviet Union, sponsor of Arab radical regimes and the Palestinian cause, had vanished. Palestinian leaders seemed ready to negotiate an agreement with Israel, and a majority of Israelis, especially after the first intifada, were ready to try.
In today’s disintegrating Middle East, by contrast, Israelis question the viability of a Palestinian state. Which Arab state, Israelis ask, will be a likely model for Palestine: Syria? Iraq? Libya?
Few Israelis believe that a Palestinian state would be a peaceful neighbor. In part that’s because the Palestinian national movement—in both its supposedly moderate nationalist wing and its radical Islamist branch—continues to deny the very legitimacy of Israel. The Palestinian media repeat an almost daily message: The Jews are not a real people, they have no roots in this land and their entire history is a lie, from biblical Israel to the Holocaust. The current wave of stabbings has been lauded not only by the Islamist Hamas but by the Palestinian Authority. “We bless every drop of blood that has been spilled for Jerusalem,” said Palestinian Authority head Mahmoud Abbas in September. “Every martyr will reach paradise.”
The result is profound disillusionment with the peace process across the Israeli political spectrum. Writing recently in the left-wing newspaper Haaretz, the political scientist Shlomo Avineri, long one of Israel’s leading voices against the occupation, lamented that the Palestinian national movement regards Israel “as an illegitimate entity, sooner or later doomed to disappear.” Labor Party leader Yitzhak Herzog, in a dramatic reversal of his rhetoric in last year’s election, recently conceded that there was no chance anytime soon for a deal with the Palestinians.
Most Israelis still support, at least in principle, a two-state solution. Many understand that the creation of a Palestinian state is an existential necessity for Israel, extricating it from a growing pariah status in the world at large, from the wrenching moral dilemmas of occupying another people, from a demographic threat that endangers Israel as both a Jewish and a democratic state. And they understand that the continuing expansion of settlements on the West Bank will only complicate Israel’s ability to withdraw eventually.
But a majority also regards a Palestinian state as an existential threat. They know that it would place Tel Aviv and Ben Gurion Airport, the country’s main link with the world, in easy range of rocket attacks. A Palestinian state also could result in a Hamas takeover of the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
Israelis sense that they have exhausted their political options toward the Palestinians. In the 1970s and ’80s, there was widespread enthusiasm for the expansion of Israeli settlements in the territories. Sooner or later, many Israelis believed, the Palestinians and the Arab world would accept this “Greater Israel”—a Jewish state including the West Bank and Gaza. But that dream was shattered in the first intifada of the late 1980s.
In its place, Rabin offered an alternative dream, promising (in a slogan of those days) “to take Gaza out of Tel Aviv and Tel Aviv out of Gaza.” In 1993 he launched the Oslo peace process, shaking hands with Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat on the White House lawn. But the dream of a negotiated solution also shattered, with the wave of suicide bombings that began in 2000 and became known as the second intifada. The violence followed Israeli offers to withdraw from most of the territories and to uproot dozens of settlements. Almost overnight, a once-vigorous Israeli left, which had assured the public that Israeli acceptance of a two-state solution would be reciprocated by Palestinian moderation, all but collapsed.
Finally, Israel tried a desperate third approach: unilateral withdrawal, dismantling Israel’s settlements and army bases from Gaza in 2005. Many Israelis saw that move as a test case for a future unilateral withdrawal in the West Bank. Ehud Olmert was elected prime minister in 2006 on the promise that he would do precisely that if there was no credible Palestinian partner.
But in the years following the withdrawal from Gaza, Hamas, which seized power there in 2007, fired thousands of rockets at Israeli communities along the southern border, all but destroying normal life there. Israel has since fought two wars in Gaza, trying to stop those attacks. The turmoil—and the vehement criticism around the world of Israel’s military actions, which Israelis overwhelmingly saw as self-defense—has convinced many unilateralists that repeating the process in the West Bank is simply too risky.
Today, Israelis have essentially embraced the status quo as the least terrifying option. The problem with the status quo, however, is that it isn’t static. The current terror campaign has, for the first time, included relatively large numbers of Palestinians from East Jerusalem who, unlike Palestinians in the West Bank, are able to freely travel in Israel. And radicalization is spreading even among Israel’s Arab citizens, a handful of whom have participated in terror attacks.
At the same time, settlement-building in the West Bank continues—though at a slower pace than in the past, according to the Peace Now Settlement Watch, an anti-occupation NGO. This did not deter the European Union from its recent decision to make a distinction in labeling between products made in settlements and those made in what it considers Israel proper—a move endorsed by the Obama administration.
Israel finds itself in perhaps the most frightening time since the weeks before the Six-Day War, when Arab armies massed on its borders and Arab leaders threatened to destroy the Jewish state. Terror enclaves now exist on most of Israel’s borders—Hezbollah in southern Lebanon, Islamic State on the Golan Heights and in Sinai, Hamas in Gaza. Tens of thousands of missiles are aimed at Israeli cities and are capable of reaching any point in Israel. Iran is emerging as the region’s dominant power, even as it remains on the nuclear threshold. And a growing international movement to boycott the Jewish state has deepened Israelis’ sense of siege.
And yet—precisely because of the Iranian threat against the Sunni world and of regional instability generally—the Arab world is opening up to Israel in unprecedented ways. Even with the Palestinian issue festering, Saudi Arabia has all but acknowledged a security dialogue with Israel, and Israeli officials are now being interviewed in Saudi media, which not long ago referred to Israel as the “Zionist entity,” refusing even to name the Jewish state.
Saturday, February 27, 2016
HILLARY DOESN’T KNOW SQUAT ABOUT PEOPLE RIGHTS VERSUS GUN RIGHTS
During an interview on the Steve Harvey Show, Clinton got the Declaration of Independence confused with the Constitution
Hillary Clinton appeared on Wednesday’s Steve Harvey Show and talked about race relations and gun control. In pushing for stricter gun control laws, Clinton said:
“We’ve got to say to the gun lobby, you know what, there is a constitutional right for people to own guns, but there’s also a constitutional right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness that enables us to have a safe country.”
Oh yeah! Apparently Hillary doesn’t know squat about people rights versus gun rights. The Constitution does not guarantee any right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Those words are contained in the Declaration of Independence which was written more than 10 years earlier.
Hillary needs to retake American History 101 since she doesn’t know the difference between the Declaration and the Constitution. The Constitution is the law of the land, the Declaration is not.
The Second Amendment to the Constitution gives people the right to keep and bear arms, and thanks to Justice Antonin Scalia and four other Supreme Court justices, that right has been affirmed.
Hillary Clinton’s ignorance won’t make any difference if she is elected President. She will be able to appoint one or more justices to the Supreme Court and her liberal appointments will result in a majority of justices ruling that the Second Amendment applies only to members of the military.
__________
Hillary's ignorance was not just a minor flub. But where was the media on this story? Shortly after she made her statement on Garvey's show, the internet was flooded with tweets calling attention to Hillary's gaffe. The media constantly browses the internet looking for stories to report. They could not have missed those tweets. Yet, except for Britain's Daily Mail, there hasn't been a word on it. Had Donald Trump said what Hillary said, NBC, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, The New York Times, The Washington Post, etc. would have been all over The Donald to showcase his ignorance.
Hillary Clinton appeared on Wednesday’s Steve Harvey Show and talked about race relations and gun control. In pushing for stricter gun control laws, Clinton said:
“We’ve got to say to the gun lobby, you know what, there is a constitutional right for people to own guns, but there’s also a constitutional right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness that enables us to have a safe country.”
Oh yeah! Apparently Hillary doesn’t know squat about people rights versus gun rights. The Constitution does not guarantee any right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Those words are contained in the Declaration of Independence which was written more than 10 years earlier.
Hillary needs to retake American History 101 since she doesn’t know the difference between the Declaration and the Constitution. The Constitution is the law of the land, the Declaration is not.
The Second Amendment to the Constitution gives people the right to keep and bear arms, and thanks to Justice Antonin Scalia and four other Supreme Court justices, that right has been affirmed.
Hillary Clinton’s ignorance won’t make any difference if she is elected President. She will be able to appoint one or more justices to the Supreme Court and her liberal appointments will result in a majority of justices ruling that the Second Amendment applies only to members of the military.
__________
Hillary's ignorance was not just a minor flub. But where was the media on this story? Shortly after she made her statement on Garvey's show, the internet was flooded with tweets calling attention to Hillary's gaffe. The media constantly browses the internet looking for stories to report. They could not have missed those tweets. Yet, except for Britain's Daily Mail, there hasn't been a word on it. Had Donald Trump said what Hillary said, NBC, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, The New York Times, The Washington Post, etc. would have been all over The Donald to showcase his ignorance.
SAN FRANCISCO COPS BEING DISCOURAGED FROM POINTING THEIR GUNS AT ANYONE
When an officer points his or her gun at a suspect, it will now be considered a use of force
The San Francisco mayor and police chief, succumbing to pressure from the black community following the shooting of a young black man who on video did not appear to pose any threat to the officers, are instituting a set of policies regarding the use of force by SFPD officers.
These changes will reduce police shootings, but not by 80 percent, which is the goal of the new policies. On the downside, the new policies could result in some officers being injured or killed.
SAN FRANCISCO CHIEF UNVEILS NEW POLICIES
Officials outlined a series of changes designed to reduce police killings and rebuild community trust
By Evan Sernoffsky
San Francisco Chronicle
February 26, 2016
As San Francisco officials outlined a series of changes Monday designed to reduce police killings and rebuild community trust, they described a fundamental shift in tactics in which officers encountering knife-wielding suspects should focus on keeping their distance and de-escalating the situation.
The package, announced by Police Chief Greg Suhr and Mayor Ed Lee at a City Hall news conference, includes more training and new weaponry as well as changes in philosophy. It seeks to respond to criticism that mounted, particularly in the city's African American community, after the Dec. 2 police killing of Mario Woods in the Bayview neighborhood.
And it lays out a formidable goal: to reduce San Francisco police shootings by 80 percent.
Suhr and Lee have been under immense pressure since videos of Woods' shooting showed several officers firing on the young man -- who was a suspect in an earlier stabbing and was allegedly still holding a knife -- even though he was shuffling slowly along a wall with his arms at his sides and did not appear to directly threaten the officers.
"It's a huge cultural shift to ask officers to step back, and seems counterintuitive when it's an edged weapon," Suhr said. He added that "trust was shattered with the officer-involved shooting of Mario Woods. We need to figure out a way to re-engineer force."
Mixed response
The initiative described Monday combines dozens of changes that were launched both before and after the shooting, and which were developed with input from the city Police Commission and a group of black community leaders that counsels Suhr called the African American Advisory Forum. Members stood with the chief and mayor at the news conference.
Attorney John Burris, who represents Woods' family and has monitored years of court-ordered police reforms in Oakland, called the changes "a step in the right direction." But he added, "Now the issue is that these extraordinary reforms get implemented."
The effort, though, was blasted by the Police Department's rank and file, with the officers union saying the new policies haven't been properly negotiated and may endanger police.
Among the policies: Officers are prohibited from using force against a person deemed to be a danger only to himself. They cannot shoot at vehicles, nor apply choke holds. Police plan to give all patrol officers body cameras by the end of the year. And they hope to equip many officers with Taser stun guns.
When an officer points his or her gun at a suspect, it will now be considered a use of force that requires a report -- an acknowledgment of the inherent seriousness and danger of such a move. In the past, when officers drew a weapon, their only responsibility was to tell a supervisor about the incident. A supervisor is also mandated to respond to any call involving a weapon.
Suhr and Police Commission President Suzy Loftus said officers will be equipped with helmets, 36-inch batons, gloves and a greater number of less-lethal bean bag rounds -- gear that could help subdue a suspect with an edged weapon. However, officers struck Woods with at least four bean bags, which only bruised and staggered him.
Knife-wielding suspects
Currently, officers must have a two-hour firearms qualification every six months, proving they can hit a target. That will be bumped up, officials said, to an eight-hour session that includes training on how to best use force in different scenarios, resorting to gunfire only when necessary.
In situations involving a person with a knife or other blade -- which have been particularly troublesome for officers in San Francisco and around the nation -- the idea is to create more time and space, Suhr said. Up to 80 percent of police shootings happen within minutes of officers coming in contact with a subject, the chief said.
Suhr pointed to an episode earlier this month in which officers encountered a knife-wielding suspect who refused to surrender on Fourth Street in the South of Market neighborhood. He said officers specially trained in crisis intervention engaged the 6-foot, 195-pound man and eventually talked him down.
"We want advanced crisis intervention officers -- just short of hostage negotiators," Suhr said.
The changes outlined Monday include an expansion of that training to more officers, and an improvement in technology to get those officers quickly dispatched to tense situations.
Other shifts include the creation of a Professional Standards and Principled Policing Bureau, headed by Deputy Chief Toney Chaplin. It will oversee proposed reforms going forward and work with the U.S. Department of Justice, which is conducting a top-to-bottom review of the San Francisco force.
The city, officials said, will step up efforts to recruit people of color to become cops, and expand a program that invites young people from neighborhoods touched by violence to work closely with police.
Lee called the new policies "substantial and meaningful changes to training and equipment as to how and when officers will use force." He said the policies will "help our sworn officers strengthen their ties with the community and keep our city safe through a culture change in how we handle conflicts on our streets."
NAACP leader weighs in
The changes were applauded by the Rev. Amos Brown, a pastor at Third Baptist Church in the Western Addition and president of the San Francisco branch of the NAACP who is part of Suhr's advisory panel.
"I should like to first commend you for responding to the appeal that came from the womb of the African American community," Brown said to Suhr and Lee. "I promise the NAACP will be watching to make sure these words do not ring hollow."
Leaders of the San Francisco Police Officers Association, the union that represents all city officers, were absent from Monday's news conference. City leaders and union officials continue to argue about whether the union is being properly included -- and whether it is cooperating -- in discussions about changes.
"These are the biggest changes proposed to police policy in over 35 years and -- although some of the policies may be good ones -- some of the policies may expose our members to harm. We are not going to let that happen," the union president, Martin Halloran, said in a statement.
"We expect the mayor and the police chief to fulfill their ethical and legal duty to our members and let our voices be heard," he added. "Our officers put their lives on the line every day to protect this city, and we deserve a seat at the table."
The San Francisco mayor and police chief, succumbing to pressure from the black community following the shooting of a young black man who on video did not appear to pose any threat to the officers, are instituting a set of policies regarding the use of force by SFPD officers.
These changes will reduce police shootings, but not by 80 percent, which is the goal of the new policies. On the downside, the new policies could result in some officers being injured or killed.
SAN FRANCISCO CHIEF UNVEILS NEW POLICIES
Officials outlined a series of changes designed to reduce police killings and rebuild community trust
By Evan Sernoffsky
San Francisco Chronicle
February 26, 2016
As San Francisco officials outlined a series of changes Monday designed to reduce police killings and rebuild community trust, they described a fundamental shift in tactics in which officers encountering knife-wielding suspects should focus on keeping their distance and de-escalating the situation.
The package, announced by Police Chief Greg Suhr and Mayor Ed Lee at a City Hall news conference, includes more training and new weaponry as well as changes in philosophy. It seeks to respond to criticism that mounted, particularly in the city's African American community, after the Dec. 2 police killing of Mario Woods in the Bayview neighborhood.
And it lays out a formidable goal: to reduce San Francisco police shootings by 80 percent.
Suhr and Lee have been under immense pressure since videos of Woods' shooting showed several officers firing on the young man -- who was a suspect in an earlier stabbing and was allegedly still holding a knife -- even though he was shuffling slowly along a wall with his arms at his sides and did not appear to directly threaten the officers.
"It's a huge cultural shift to ask officers to step back, and seems counterintuitive when it's an edged weapon," Suhr said. He added that "trust was shattered with the officer-involved shooting of Mario Woods. We need to figure out a way to re-engineer force."
Mixed response
The initiative described Monday combines dozens of changes that were launched both before and after the shooting, and which were developed with input from the city Police Commission and a group of black community leaders that counsels Suhr called the African American Advisory Forum. Members stood with the chief and mayor at the news conference.
Attorney John Burris, who represents Woods' family and has monitored years of court-ordered police reforms in Oakland, called the changes "a step in the right direction." But he added, "Now the issue is that these extraordinary reforms get implemented."
The effort, though, was blasted by the Police Department's rank and file, with the officers union saying the new policies haven't been properly negotiated and may endanger police.
Among the policies: Officers are prohibited from using force against a person deemed to be a danger only to himself. They cannot shoot at vehicles, nor apply choke holds. Police plan to give all patrol officers body cameras by the end of the year. And they hope to equip many officers with Taser stun guns.
When an officer points his or her gun at a suspect, it will now be considered a use of force that requires a report -- an acknowledgment of the inherent seriousness and danger of such a move. In the past, when officers drew a weapon, their only responsibility was to tell a supervisor about the incident. A supervisor is also mandated to respond to any call involving a weapon.
Suhr and Police Commission President Suzy Loftus said officers will be equipped with helmets, 36-inch batons, gloves and a greater number of less-lethal bean bag rounds -- gear that could help subdue a suspect with an edged weapon. However, officers struck Woods with at least four bean bags, which only bruised and staggered him.
Knife-wielding suspects
Currently, officers must have a two-hour firearms qualification every six months, proving they can hit a target. That will be bumped up, officials said, to an eight-hour session that includes training on how to best use force in different scenarios, resorting to gunfire only when necessary.
In situations involving a person with a knife or other blade -- which have been particularly troublesome for officers in San Francisco and around the nation -- the idea is to create more time and space, Suhr said. Up to 80 percent of police shootings happen within minutes of officers coming in contact with a subject, the chief said.
Suhr pointed to an episode earlier this month in which officers encountered a knife-wielding suspect who refused to surrender on Fourth Street in the South of Market neighborhood. He said officers specially trained in crisis intervention engaged the 6-foot, 195-pound man and eventually talked him down.
"We want advanced crisis intervention officers -- just short of hostage negotiators," Suhr said.
The changes outlined Monday include an expansion of that training to more officers, and an improvement in technology to get those officers quickly dispatched to tense situations.
Other shifts include the creation of a Professional Standards and Principled Policing Bureau, headed by Deputy Chief Toney Chaplin. It will oversee proposed reforms going forward and work with the U.S. Department of Justice, which is conducting a top-to-bottom review of the San Francisco force.
The city, officials said, will step up efforts to recruit people of color to become cops, and expand a program that invites young people from neighborhoods touched by violence to work closely with police.
Lee called the new policies "substantial and meaningful changes to training and equipment as to how and when officers will use force." He said the policies will "help our sworn officers strengthen their ties with the community and keep our city safe through a culture change in how we handle conflicts on our streets."
NAACP leader weighs in
The changes were applauded by the Rev. Amos Brown, a pastor at Third Baptist Church in the Western Addition and president of the San Francisco branch of the NAACP who is part of Suhr's advisory panel.
"I should like to first commend you for responding to the appeal that came from the womb of the African American community," Brown said to Suhr and Lee. "I promise the NAACP will be watching to make sure these words do not ring hollow."
Leaders of the San Francisco Police Officers Association, the union that represents all city officers, were absent from Monday's news conference. City leaders and union officials continue to argue about whether the union is being properly included -- and whether it is cooperating -- in discussions about changes.
"These are the biggest changes proposed to police policy in over 35 years and -- although some of the policies may be good ones -- some of the policies may expose our members to harm. We are not going to let that happen," the union president, Martin Halloran, said in a statement.
"We expect the mayor and the police chief to fulfill their ethical and legal duty to our members and let our voices be heard," he added. "Our officers put their lives on the line every day to protect this city, and we deserve a seat at the table."
MISSOURI PROFESSOR WHO CURSED AT POLICE FIRED
A profanity-laced outburst by media professor Melissa Click caught by a cop's body cam was described as "appalling" by the University of Missouri's interim chancellor
By Koran Addo
The St. Louis Post-Dispatch
February 25, 2016
COLUMBIA, Missouri -- The University of Missouri Board of Curators has fired embattled professor Melissa Click.
Click was caught on camera in November calling for "muscle" while blocking student journalists from covering a campus demonstration. A second video surfaced this month showing Click cursing at a police officer during the University of Missouri-Columbia's homecoming parade.
Later, more than 100 Republican lawmakers in the Missouri Legislature sent a letter to the university calling on the administration to fire Click.
Interim Chancellor Hank Foley said Sunday that Click’s conduct was “appalling” and that he was angry and disappointed at her “pattern of misconduct.”
The board voted 4-2 in favor of termination during a closed session in Kansas City, with Pamela Quigg Henrickson and John R. Phillips voting no. The vote came after an investigation that involved videos and interviews, including Click, and more than 20 witnesses.
Henrickson, chair, said the board believes that Click’s conduct was not compatible with university policies and did not meet expectations for a university faculty member and "demands serious action."
"The board respects Dr. Click’s right to express her views and does not base this decision on her support for students engaged in protest or their views," Henrickson said. "However, Dr. Click was not entitled to interfere with the rights of others, to confront members of law enforcement or to encourage potential physical intimidation against a student."
Interim Chancellor Hank Foley said he agrees with the decision to fire Click.
"It was in the best interest of the university," Foley said in a conference call with reporters this afternoon.
Click has the right to appeal.
In her written response to the investigative report, Click says it "omits a number of crucial descriptions and events that give context to my actions at both" the Homecoming parade and the protests on Nov. 9 at Mizzou. The report does not accurately describe characterize the precarious environment of the Homecoming Parade, she wrote, and because it draws only from one brief, edited video of the day it provides a limited description of these tense moments.
"While some would judge me by a short portion of videotape, I do not think that this is a fair way to evaluate these events," she said. "Those videotaped moments (for which I have formally and publicly apologized) deserve to be understood in a wider frame of reference, among all of the momentous events of the fall semester."
EDITOR’S NOTE: One less uber-liberal prof at U Mo. She’ll probably end up at that Marxist bastion, UC Berkeley. If this had happened in Berkeley, instead of being fired, Click would have been promoted.
By Koran Addo
The St. Louis Post-Dispatch
February 25, 2016
COLUMBIA, Missouri -- The University of Missouri Board of Curators has fired embattled professor Melissa Click.
Click was caught on camera in November calling for "muscle" while blocking student journalists from covering a campus demonstration. A second video surfaced this month showing Click cursing at a police officer during the University of Missouri-Columbia's homecoming parade.
Later, more than 100 Republican lawmakers in the Missouri Legislature sent a letter to the university calling on the administration to fire Click.
Interim Chancellor Hank Foley said Sunday that Click’s conduct was “appalling” and that he was angry and disappointed at her “pattern of misconduct.”
The board voted 4-2 in favor of termination during a closed session in Kansas City, with Pamela Quigg Henrickson and John R. Phillips voting no. The vote came after an investigation that involved videos and interviews, including Click, and more than 20 witnesses.
Henrickson, chair, said the board believes that Click’s conduct was not compatible with university policies and did not meet expectations for a university faculty member and "demands serious action."
"The board respects Dr. Click’s right to express her views and does not base this decision on her support for students engaged in protest or their views," Henrickson said. "However, Dr. Click was not entitled to interfere with the rights of others, to confront members of law enforcement or to encourage potential physical intimidation against a student."
Interim Chancellor Hank Foley said he agrees with the decision to fire Click.
"It was in the best interest of the university," Foley said in a conference call with reporters this afternoon.
Click has the right to appeal.
In her written response to the investigative report, Click says it "omits a number of crucial descriptions and events that give context to my actions at both" the Homecoming parade and the protests on Nov. 9 at Mizzou. The report does not accurately describe characterize the precarious environment of the Homecoming Parade, she wrote, and because it draws only from one brief, edited video of the day it provides a limited description of these tense moments.
"While some would judge me by a short portion of videotape, I do not think that this is a fair way to evaluate these events," she said. "Those videotaped moments (for which I have formally and publicly apologized) deserve to be understood in a wider frame of reference, among all of the momentous events of the fall semester."
EDITOR’S NOTE: One less uber-liberal prof at U Mo. She’ll probably end up at that Marxist bastion, UC Berkeley. If this had happened in Berkeley, instead of being fired, Click would have been promoted.
MISSOURI OFFICER FIRED OVER RACIALLY CHARGED RAP VIDEO
St. Joseph Police Officer Zackary Craft is seen walking down the street, holding signs and reaching for his gun
By Dave Hon
St. Joseph News-Press
February 25, 2016
ST. JOSEPH, Missouri -- Zackary Craft's employment with the St. Joseph Police has been terminated.
Craft was placed on leave two weeks ago after being involved in a racially charged video. Craft appeared in his St. Joseph Police Department uniform in J.Smitty’s “Before This Bomb Blows Up (Racism Goes Both Ways.)” Craft is seen walking down the street, holding signs and reaching for his firearm.
The signs held by Craft include “cop lives matter,” “wrong is wrong” and “right is right.” Signs held by others in the video include racial epithets. Other signs include derogatory language toward President Barack Obama, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. At one point, J.Smitty is seen spitting on a picture of Sharpton.
Original Story
A St. Joseph Police Department officer has been placed on unpaid administrative leave after appearing in a racially charged rap video.
Zackary Craft appears in his St. Joseph Police Department uniform in J.Smitty's "Before This Bomb Blows Up (Racism Goes Both Ways.)" Craft is seen walking down the street, holding signs and reaching for his firearm.
The signs held by Craft include "cop lives matter," "wrong is wrong" and "right is right." Signs held by others in the video include racial epithets. Other signs include derogatory language toward President Barack Obama, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. At one point, J.Smitty is seen spitting on a picture of Sharpton.
Capt. Jeff Wilson, public information officer for the St. Joseph Police Department, said the incident is being investigated.
"We in no way condone that video," Wilson said. "It is in violation of our policies and procedures concerning social media."
Craft's lawyer, Morgan Roach, said his client allowed himself to be filmed for the video, but wasn't aware of the other content.
"When Officer Craft saw the finished product for the first time recently, he was appalled and promptly acted to repudiate the song and to have it removed from the public's view," Roach said in a news release. "Officer Craft did not know or give permission for the images to be used in the manner depicted in the music video.
"He whole-hardheartedly rejects the song, the music video, and the misguided message in it's entirety."
The video was posted online Feb. 5 and Josh Smith, who goes by J.Smitty, said he took down the video at the request of Roach, but said he's not happy because he lost all his shares and views.
"I tried to paint a good picture of police officers in this video," he said. "The message behind it is very controversial and I understand they're trying to do damage control, but he didn't hold up any bad signs in the video."
He also said officers are "going through a lot right now" but he's very upset with the St. Joseph Police Department.
"I'm not real happy about it," he said. "It's a lot of politics."
EDITOR’S NOTE: What an idiot!
By Dave Hon
St. Joseph News-Press
February 25, 2016
ST. JOSEPH, Missouri -- Zackary Craft's employment with the St. Joseph Police has been terminated.
Craft was placed on leave two weeks ago after being involved in a racially charged video. Craft appeared in his St. Joseph Police Department uniform in J.Smitty’s “Before This Bomb Blows Up (Racism Goes Both Ways.)” Craft is seen walking down the street, holding signs and reaching for his firearm.
The signs held by Craft include “cop lives matter,” “wrong is wrong” and “right is right.” Signs held by others in the video include racial epithets. Other signs include derogatory language toward President Barack Obama, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. At one point, J.Smitty is seen spitting on a picture of Sharpton.
Original Story
A St. Joseph Police Department officer has been placed on unpaid administrative leave after appearing in a racially charged rap video.
Zackary Craft appears in his St. Joseph Police Department uniform in J.Smitty's "Before This Bomb Blows Up (Racism Goes Both Ways.)" Craft is seen walking down the street, holding signs and reaching for his firearm.
The signs held by Craft include "cop lives matter," "wrong is wrong" and "right is right." Signs held by others in the video include racial epithets. Other signs include derogatory language toward President Barack Obama, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. At one point, J.Smitty is seen spitting on a picture of Sharpton.
Capt. Jeff Wilson, public information officer for the St. Joseph Police Department, said the incident is being investigated.
"We in no way condone that video," Wilson said. "It is in violation of our policies and procedures concerning social media."
Craft's lawyer, Morgan Roach, said his client allowed himself to be filmed for the video, but wasn't aware of the other content.
"When Officer Craft saw the finished product for the first time recently, he was appalled and promptly acted to repudiate the song and to have it removed from the public's view," Roach said in a news release. "Officer Craft did not know or give permission for the images to be used in the manner depicted in the music video.
"He whole-hardheartedly rejects the song, the music video, and the misguided message in it's entirety."
The video was posted online Feb. 5 and Josh Smith, who goes by J.Smitty, said he took down the video at the request of Roach, but said he's not happy because he lost all his shares and views.
"I tried to paint a good picture of police officers in this video," he said. "The message behind it is very controversial and I understand they're trying to do damage control, but he didn't hold up any bad signs in the video."
He also said officers are "going through a lot right now" but he's very upset with the St. Joseph Police Department.
"I'm not real happy about it," he said. "It's a lot of politics."
EDITOR’S NOTE: What an idiot!
Friday, February 26, 2016
FARRAKHAN VOWS HIS NATION OF ISLAM WILL PROTECT BEYONCE
Because the Miami police union has called on its members not to work security for Beyonce’s concert, the hate-mongering Farrakhan has promised that the Fruit of Islam will protect her
Reacting to a call by the Miami police union for its members not to provide security for a Bryonce concert, Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan gave a sermon in Detroit on Sunday during which he attacked 'white folks' and former NY mayor Rudy Giuliani, and he vowed that his Fruit of Islam would protect the singer in place of the cops.
From Farrakhan’s sermon:
"She started talking all that black stuff [Beyonce’s half-time show at the Super Bowl] ... and white folks were like, 'We don't know how to deal with that.'"
"[ Giuliani] Look at how you treatin' Beyonce now. You gonna picket. You not gonna offer her police protection. But the FOI [Fruit of Islam] will."
So the Minister of Hate is going to have his Fruit of Islam thugs protect Beyonce. After her Super Bowl performance honoring the Black Panthers who advocated the killing of cops, Beyonce and Farrakhan deserve each other.
Reacting to a call by the Miami police union for its members not to provide security for a Bryonce concert, Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan gave a sermon in Detroit on Sunday during which he attacked 'white folks' and former NY mayor Rudy Giuliani, and he vowed that his Fruit of Islam would protect the singer in place of the cops.
From Farrakhan’s sermon:
"She started talking all that black stuff [Beyonce’s half-time show at the Super Bowl] ... and white folks were like, 'We don't know how to deal with that.'"
"[ Giuliani] Look at how you treatin' Beyonce now. You gonna picket. You not gonna offer her police protection. But the FOI [Fruit of Islam] will."
So the Minister of Hate is going to have his Fruit of Islam thugs protect Beyonce. After her Super Bowl performance honoring the Black Panthers who advocated the killing of cops, Beyonce and Farrakhan deserve each other.
DRUNK OFF-DUTY COPS BREAK INTO PROBATION OFFICER’S HOME
By Bob Walsh
OK, this one doesn’t exactly peg the weirdshitometer, but it is definitely worth an honorable mention.
The incident went down on December 7. The dramatis personae include Olga Cortez, 42, an Alameda County (CA) probation officer, four Oakland P D officers and maybe some higher-ups who may or may not have tried to bury the whole thing.
At about 2130 hours Nemesio Cortez, Olga’s husband, responded to a loud knocking at the front door. He was confronted by a drunken man, who tried to push his way in and demanded to speak with the occupants of the house. As this minor drama was going on Mrs. Cortez noticed a second man in the bushes, who seemed to be hiding a gun under his shirt. As it turns out both of these men were Oakland P D officers. The man on the porch attacked Mrs. Cortez, throwing her to the ground. The second man fled. Neighbors responded to help Mr. Cortez restrain the drunk until the on-duty cops arrived.
The drunken attacker, Officer William Faeth, was arrested that night. He was indeed off duty and was not armed. Faeth was a lateral transfer from another department and had been with Oakland for a tad over two years.
For some reason not entirely clear (to me) a total of four officers have been suspended in this case. Presumably the other two were the responding officers, who have allegedly been trying to bury the incident. The Oakland P D has been pretty much completely non-forthcoming about the incident.
The cops came back to the Cortez home twice that night, the second time at 0300. She believes that they were attempting to get her to back away from her complaint, constantly asking her “Are you sure?” as she recounted the details of the incident. A month after the incident they were still refusing to make a copy of the basic police report available to her.
Therefore Mrs. Cortez has done what any other good American would do in this position and is suing. She hired an asswipe named John Burris, whose primary legal practice seems to be suing the Oakland P D for various civil rights violation, assault, and general lack of niceness. He has plenty of business.
Generally speaking I think that Burris is an unprincipled ass and the people who hire him are slimeballs looking for a payday at public expense. But not always. This looks like one of the not always cases.
OK, this one doesn’t exactly peg the weirdshitometer, but it is definitely worth an honorable mention.
The incident went down on December 7. The dramatis personae include Olga Cortez, 42, an Alameda County (CA) probation officer, four Oakland P D officers and maybe some higher-ups who may or may not have tried to bury the whole thing.
At about 2130 hours Nemesio Cortez, Olga’s husband, responded to a loud knocking at the front door. He was confronted by a drunken man, who tried to push his way in and demanded to speak with the occupants of the house. As this minor drama was going on Mrs. Cortez noticed a second man in the bushes, who seemed to be hiding a gun under his shirt. As it turns out both of these men were Oakland P D officers. The man on the porch attacked Mrs. Cortez, throwing her to the ground. The second man fled. Neighbors responded to help Mr. Cortez restrain the drunk until the on-duty cops arrived.
The drunken attacker, Officer William Faeth, was arrested that night. He was indeed off duty and was not armed. Faeth was a lateral transfer from another department and had been with Oakland for a tad over two years.
For some reason not entirely clear (to me) a total of four officers have been suspended in this case. Presumably the other two were the responding officers, who have allegedly been trying to bury the incident. The Oakland P D has been pretty much completely non-forthcoming about the incident.
The cops came back to the Cortez home twice that night, the second time at 0300. She believes that they were attempting to get her to back away from her complaint, constantly asking her “Are you sure?” as she recounted the details of the incident. A month after the incident they were still refusing to make a copy of the basic police report available to her.
Therefore Mrs. Cortez has done what any other good American would do in this position and is suing. She hired an asswipe named John Burris, whose primary legal practice seems to be suing the Oakland P D for various civil rights violation, assault, and general lack of niceness. He has plenty of business.
Generally speaking I think that Burris is an unprincipled ass and the people who hire him are slimeballs looking for a payday at public expense. But not always. This looks like one of the not always cases.
THE WASHINGTON POST DOES NOT SEEM TO CARE TOO MUCH FOR DONALD TRUMP
The Democratic Party’s favorite rag tells the GOP to dump Trump
The Washington Post has long been the Democratic Party’s favorite rag. On Wednesday the Post’s editorial board told the GOP to dump Trump, excoriating The Donald in its editorial.
The Post can say anything it wants about any presidential candidate, but it has a lot of nerve telling a political party it has always opposed how to run its business.
GOP LEADERS, YOU MUST DO EVERYTHING IN YOUR POWER TO STOP TRUMP
Editorial Board
The Washington Post
February 24, 2016
THE UNTHINKABLE is starting to look like the inevitable: Absent an extraordinary effort from people who understand the menace he represents, Donald Trump is likely to be the presidential nominee of the Republican Party. At this stage, even an extraordinary effort might fall short. But history will not look kindly on GOP leaders who fail to do everything in their power to prevent a bullying demagogue from becoming their standard-bearer.
A few days ago we criticized Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus for his assertion that a Trump victory in November would silence the doubters. “Winning is the antidote to a lot of things,” Mr. Priebus had said. We argued that winning would not erase the bigotry and ugliness of Mr. Trump’s campaign, nor remove the dangers of a Trump presidency. On Wednesday, the GOP chairman, perhaps wanting to show that he can match Mr. Trump in eloquence, responded: “That is the stupidest editorial that I have ever seen.”
So it falls to other leaders to decide if their party will stand for anything other than winning. A political party, after all, isn’t meant to be merely a collection of consultants, lobbyists and functionaries angling for jobs. It is supposed to have principles: in the Republican case, at least as we have always understood it, to include a commitment to efficient government, free markets and open debate.
Now it is faced with a front-runner who, in the interval between the two Priebus comments cited above, said of a protester, “I’d like to punch him in the face.” This is a front-runner with no credible agenda and no suitable experience. He wants the United States to commit war crimes, including torture and the murder of innocent relatives of suspected terrorists. He admires Russian dictator Vladimir Putin and sees no difference between Mr. Putin’s victims and people killed in the defense of the United States. He would round up and deport 11 million people, a forced movement on a scale not attempted since Stalin or perhaps Pol Pot. He has, during the course of his campaign, denigrated women, Jews, Muslims, Mexicans, people with disabilities and many more. He routinely trades in wild falsehoods and doubles down when his lies are exposed.
Certainly there are Republican leaders who understand all this: people such as House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (Wis.); former president George W. Bush and former presidential nominees Bob Dole, John McCain and Mitt Romney; and governors, senators and community leaders across the country. Some have spoken up over the course of Mr. Trump’s campaign, and then stepped back; others have been silent. The silence may reflect an absence of courage and also an element of calculation: There was an assumption that Mr. Trump would fade, and that confronting him would only make him stronger.
The calculations have proved wrong. If Mr. Trump is to be stopped, now is the time for leaders of conscience to say they will not and cannot support him and to do what they can to stop him. We understand that Mr. Trump would seek to use this to his benefit, and that he might succeed. But what is the choice? Is the Republican Party truly not going to resist its own debasement?
The Washington Post has long been the Democratic Party’s favorite rag. On Wednesday the Post’s editorial board told the GOP to dump Trump, excoriating The Donald in its editorial.
The Post can say anything it wants about any presidential candidate, but it has a lot of nerve telling a political party it has always opposed how to run its business.
GOP LEADERS, YOU MUST DO EVERYTHING IN YOUR POWER TO STOP TRUMP
Editorial Board
The Washington Post
February 24, 2016
THE UNTHINKABLE is starting to look like the inevitable: Absent an extraordinary effort from people who understand the menace he represents, Donald Trump is likely to be the presidential nominee of the Republican Party. At this stage, even an extraordinary effort might fall short. But history will not look kindly on GOP leaders who fail to do everything in their power to prevent a bullying demagogue from becoming their standard-bearer.
A few days ago we criticized Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus for his assertion that a Trump victory in November would silence the doubters. “Winning is the antidote to a lot of things,” Mr. Priebus had said. We argued that winning would not erase the bigotry and ugliness of Mr. Trump’s campaign, nor remove the dangers of a Trump presidency. On Wednesday, the GOP chairman, perhaps wanting to show that he can match Mr. Trump in eloquence, responded: “That is the stupidest editorial that I have ever seen.”
So it falls to other leaders to decide if their party will stand for anything other than winning. A political party, after all, isn’t meant to be merely a collection of consultants, lobbyists and functionaries angling for jobs. It is supposed to have principles: in the Republican case, at least as we have always understood it, to include a commitment to efficient government, free markets and open debate.
Now it is faced with a front-runner who, in the interval between the two Priebus comments cited above, said of a protester, “I’d like to punch him in the face.” This is a front-runner with no credible agenda and no suitable experience. He wants the United States to commit war crimes, including torture and the murder of innocent relatives of suspected terrorists. He admires Russian dictator Vladimir Putin and sees no difference between Mr. Putin’s victims and people killed in the defense of the United States. He would round up and deport 11 million people, a forced movement on a scale not attempted since Stalin or perhaps Pol Pot. He has, during the course of his campaign, denigrated women, Jews, Muslims, Mexicans, people with disabilities and many more. He routinely trades in wild falsehoods and doubles down when his lies are exposed.
Certainly there are Republican leaders who understand all this: people such as House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (Wis.); former president George W. Bush and former presidential nominees Bob Dole, John McCain and Mitt Romney; and governors, senators and community leaders across the country. Some have spoken up over the course of Mr. Trump’s campaign, and then stepped back; others have been silent. The silence may reflect an absence of courage and also an element of calculation: There was an assumption that Mr. Trump would fade, and that confronting him would only make him stronger.
The calculations have proved wrong. If Mr. Trump is to be stopped, now is the time for leaders of conscience to say they will not and cannot support him and to do what they can to stop him. We understand that Mr. Trump would seek to use this to his benefit, and that he might succeed. But what is the choice? Is the Republican Party truly not going to resist its own debasement?
THE FERGUSON EFFECT IS FOR REAL
The Black Lives Matter movement dedicated to the proposition that murderous, racist cops are the biggest threat facing young black men today will have its biggest impact on policing in black neighborhoods where cops worry that, if they shoot someone, they will become the latest racist officer-of-the-week on the TV news
Four criminologists led by David Pyrooz of the University of Colorado Boulder have released the findings of their research on the Ferguson Effect. They claim that the Black Lives Matter uproar following the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri has not affected the way cops do police work.
It would appear that Dr. Pyrooz and his colleagues set out to prove what they wanted to show. Heather Mac Donald, a John M. Olin Fellow of the Manhattan Institute and contributing editor to New York's City Journal, has written a column which pretty much throws cold water on the Pyrooz research.
STAT CRIMES MATTER
How researchers try to obscure the existence of the Ferguson effect
By Heather Mac Donald
City Journal
February 22, 2016
A group of criminologists has purported to answer the question: “Was there a Ferguson effect on crime rates in large U.S. cities?” The “Ferguson effect” refers to the phenomenon of police officers backing off from proactive policing in response to the anti-cop Black Lives Matter movement, with a resulting rise in violent crime. The criminologists answer their own question with a minutely qualified “No.” In fact, their analysis resoundingly confirms the existence of the Ferguson effect.
Anyone not well-versed in “discontinuous growth models,” “empirical Bayes predictions,” the “Bonferroni correction,” and “Nakagawa’s hypotheticals” will have to take on faith a great deal of the recent paper published in the Journal of Criminal Justice. The authors, four professors led by sociologist David Pyrooz of the University of Colorado Boulder, created a complex econometric model that analyzed monthly rates of change in crime rates in 81 U.S. cities with populations of 200,000 or more. The other 24 cities in that size cohort were not included in the study due to lack of crime data.
The researchers found that in the 12 months before Michael Brown was shot in Ferguson, Missouri—the event that catalyzed the Black Lives Matter movement—major felony crime, averaged across all 81 cities, was going down. In the 12 months after Brown was shot, that aggregate drop in crime slowed down considerably. But that deceleration of the crime drop was not large enough to be deemed statistically significant, say the criminologists. Therefore, they conclude, “there is no systematic evidence of a Ferguson Effect on aggregate crime rates throughout the large U.S. cities . . . in this study.”
But the existence of a Ferguson effect does not depend on its operating uniformly across the country in cities with very different demographics. When the researchers disaggregated crime trends by city, they found that the variance among those individual city trends had tripled after Ferguson. That is, before the Brown shooting, individual cities’ crime rates tended to move downward together; after Ferguson, their crime rates were all over the map. Some cities had sharp increases in aggregate crime, while others continued their downward trajectory. The variance in homicide trends was even greater—nearly six times as large after Ferguson. And what cities had the largest post-Ferguson homicide surges? Precisely those that the Ferguson effect would predict: cities with high black populations, low white populations, and high preexisting rates of violent crime.
A virulent anti-cop protest movement dedicated to the proposition that murderous, racist cops are the biggest threat facing young black men today will have its biggest impact on policing in black neighborhoods. It is in these neighborhoods that cops will face the most hostility from residents steeped in the Black Lives Matter ideology and where cops will most worry that, if an encounter with a civilian goes awry, they will become the latest racist officer-of-the-week on CNN. It is in black neighborhoods, in other words, where proactive policing—making pedestrian stops, enforcing quality-of-life public order laws—will be most inhibited. And given the already high rates of violent crime in black neighborhoods, any drop-off in policing is going to unleash even more crime, since it is in these high-crime neighborhoods where informal social controls have most disintegrated and where cops alone stand between law-abiding residents and anarchy. Even if the Black Lives Matter movement inhibited proactive policing uniformly in cities across the country, a place like Scottsdale, Arizona, say, will suffer less of an impact if cops back off, because the police are not as essential there to maintaining order as they are in Baltimore and St. Louis.
The researchers are unwilling, however, to accept the implication of their findings. They grudgingly admit that “the data offer preliminary support for a Ferguson Effect on homicide rates in a few select cities in the United States”—those cities, according to their model, are Baltimore, St. Louis, New Orleans, Washington, D.C., Newark, Milwaukee, Rochester, Detroit, Oakland, Richmond, Cincinnati, Fort Wayne, and Baton Rouge—but then they backpedal furiously. (Cities that barely missed making the “statistically significant” cut include Kansas City, Indianapolis, Oklahoma City, and Chicago.) What’s important about those cities, they claim, is that “they had much higher crime rates before Ferguson.” Those higher crime rates, they say, “in turn may have primed [those cities] for increases in crime.”
That conclusion is groundless. The proactive policing revolution that began in the 1990s had its greatest effect on high-crime cities; crime went down dramatically in neighborhoods that had been written off as ungovernable. If cities with a “higher proportion of black residents, lower socioeconomic status, and more police per capita,” in the authors’ words, were primed for a crime increase, and if those factors “lead to questions that may inhibit any ability to attribute crime increases specifically to the Ferguson Effect,” the authors need to explain how those cities experienced a crime drop in the first place. Moreover, if the authors think that high-black, high-crime cities were due for a crime increase regardless of changes in policing and a worsening in resident attitudes toward law enforcement, they didn’t alert us to such a reversal ahead of the fact.
In a separate analysis, the authors disaggregated the seven felonies included in the FBI’s crime index and tracked the movement of each felony averaged across all 81 cities. Robbery registered a statistically significant upward surge in monthly rates: before Ferguson, the aggregate robbery rate was dropping; after Ferguson, the rate reversed course, rising enough to be considered statistically significant. The criminologists conclude that “changes in robbery rates constitute the lone exception to a spurious Ferguson Effect,” but demur from speculating why that may be. Perhaps it is because robbery and drive-by shootings are the quintessential violent street crimes, both committed disproportionately by blacks. If police are making fewer street stops, thus deterring gun-carrying less, a rising robbery rate is not contrary to what the Ferguson effect would predict. (Shootings are not captured in the FBI data used by the researchers, so their pre- and post-Ferguson trajectories are not easily available.)
A few analysts have pointed out that the paper’s dismissal of a more widespread Ferguson effect rests on arbitrary statistical conventions. Fordham law professor John Pfaff notes that the rate of change in the aggregate violent crime rate rose tenfold after Ferguson. That increase was not deemed “statistically significant,” however, because it missed falling within the conventional statistical confidence interval by .02 crimes per 100,000 residents per month. The confidence interval tells you how certain you can be that the events being measured actually happened or were not the products of random chance. Statistical conventions deem a data distribution statistically significant only if there is not more than a 5 percent chance that the data points were arrived at in error or that the distribution curve mapping those data points would have occurred randomly. Had the increase in the rate of change in violent crime increase been .02 crimes per 100,000 per month higher, the authors would likely have had to change their conclusion regarding a “spurious” Ferguson effect. As it is, the existing tenfold increase in the rate of change has only a 12 percent chance of being a mirage—that is, the product of incorrect crime data, say, or of a random distribution of events, according to Manhattan Institute fellow Scott Winship. And the aggregate increase in the homicide rate of change, which the authors dismiss as “statistically insignificant,” has less than an 11 percent chance of being a random occurrence, according to Winship. Concludes Pfaff about the Pyrooz study: “So [the] claim of ‘no Ferguson Effect’ is built on little more than a century-old arbitrary line that arbitrarily balances 2 core error costs.”
The authors are doing nothing untoward in resting their conclusions on statistical conventions. But a lay reader may conflate their finding of “no statistically significant effect” with no effect at all and will likely not understand how narrowly a tenfold rise in the rate of change in violent crime missed being deemed statistically significant—if that lay reader even grasps the change at all from the paper’s tables.
The Pyrooz article will undoubtedly become a standard artillery piece on the activist and academic left. You would think that the fact that the Ferguson effect has been most pronounced in black areas would be cause for concern among those who claim to represent black interests against a sea of racism and oppression. In 2015, homicides in the 50 largest cities rose nearly 17 percent, “the greatest increase in lethal violence in a quarter century,” according to the Washington Post. The overwhelming majority of those additional victims were black. But the furious attempt to deny the Ferguson effect shows yet again that black lives seem to matter only when they are taken by police officers.
Four criminologists led by David Pyrooz of the University of Colorado Boulder have released the findings of their research on the Ferguson Effect. They claim that the Black Lives Matter uproar following the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri has not affected the way cops do police work.
It would appear that Dr. Pyrooz and his colleagues set out to prove what they wanted to show. Heather Mac Donald, a John M. Olin Fellow of the Manhattan Institute and contributing editor to New York's City Journal, has written a column which pretty much throws cold water on the Pyrooz research.
STAT CRIMES MATTER
How researchers try to obscure the existence of the Ferguson effect
By Heather Mac Donald
City Journal
February 22, 2016
A group of criminologists has purported to answer the question: “Was there a Ferguson effect on crime rates in large U.S. cities?” The “Ferguson effect” refers to the phenomenon of police officers backing off from proactive policing in response to the anti-cop Black Lives Matter movement, with a resulting rise in violent crime. The criminologists answer their own question with a minutely qualified “No.” In fact, their analysis resoundingly confirms the existence of the Ferguson effect.
Anyone not well-versed in “discontinuous growth models,” “empirical Bayes predictions,” the “Bonferroni correction,” and “Nakagawa’s hypotheticals” will have to take on faith a great deal of the recent paper published in the Journal of Criminal Justice. The authors, four professors led by sociologist David Pyrooz of the University of Colorado Boulder, created a complex econometric model that analyzed monthly rates of change in crime rates in 81 U.S. cities with populations of 200,000 or more. The other 24 cities in that size cohort were not included in the study due to lack of crime data.
The researchers found that in the 12 months before Michael Brown was shot in Ferguson, Missouri—the event that catalyzed the Black Lives Matter movement—major felony crime, averaged across all 81 cities, was going down. In the 12 months after Brown was shot, that aggregate drop in crime slowed down considerably. But that deceleration of the crime drop was not large enough to be deemed statistically significant, say the criminologists. Therefore, they conclude, “there is no systematic evidence of a Ferguson Effect on aggregate crime rates throughout the large U.S. cities . . . in this study.”
But the existence of a Ferguson effect does not depend on its operating uniformly across the country in cities with very different demographics. When the researchers disaggregated crime trends by city, they found that the variance among those individual city trends had tripled after Ferguson. That is, before the Brown shooting, individual cities’ crime rates tended to move downward together; after Ferguson, their crime rates were all over the map. Some cities had sharp increases in aggregate crime, while others continued their downward trajectory. The variance in homicide trends was even greater—nearly six times as large after Ferguson. And what cities had the largest post-Ferguson homicide surges? Precisely those that the Ferguson effect would predict: cities with high black populations, low white populations, and high preexisting rates of violent crime.
A virulent anti-cop protest movement dedicated to the proposition that murderous, racist cops are the biggest threat facing young black men today will have its biggest impact on policing in black neighborhoods. It is in these neighborhoods that cops will face the most hostility from residents steeped in the Black Lives Matter ideology and where cops will most worry that, if an encounter with a civilian goes awry, they will become the latest racist officer-of-the-week on CNN. It is in black neighborhoods, in other words, where proactive policing—making pedestrian stops, enforcing quality-of-life public order laws—will be most inhibited. And given the already high rates of violent crime in black neighborhoods, any drop-off in policing is going to unleash even more crime, since it is in these high-crime neighborhoods where informal social controls have most disintegrated and where cops alone stand between law-abiding residents and anarchy. Even if the Black Lives Matter movement inhibited proactive policing uniformly in cities across the country, a place like Scottsdale, Arizona, say, will suffer less of an impact if cops back off, because the police are not as essential there to maintaining order as they are in Baltimore and St. Louis.
The researchers are unwilling, however, to accept the implication of their findings. They grudgingly admit that “the data offer preliminary support for a Ferguson Effect on homicide rates in a few select cities in the United States”—those cities, according to their model, are Baltimore, St. Louis, New Orleans, Washington, D.C., Newark, Milwaukee, Rochester, Detroit, Oakland, Richmond, Cincinnati, Fort Wayne, and Baton Rouge—but then they backpedal furiously. (Cities that barely missed making the “statistically significant” cut include Kansas City, Indianapolis, Oklahoma City, and Chicago.) What’s important about those cities, they claim, is that “they had much higher crime rates before Ferguson.” Those higher crime rates, they say, “in turn may have primed [those cities] for increases in crime.”
That conclusion is groundless. The proactive policing revolution that began in the 1990s had its greatest effect on high-crime cities; crime went down dramatically in neighborhoods that had been written off as ungovernable. If cities with a “higher proportion of black residents, lower socioeconomic status, and more police per capita,” in the authors’ words, were primed for a crime increase, and if those factors “lead to questions that may inhibit any ability to attribute crime increases specifically to the Ferguson Effect,” the authors need to explain how those cities experienced a crime drop in the first place. Moreover, if the authors think that high-black, high-crime cities were due for a crime increase regardless of changes in policing and a worsening in resident attitudes toward law enforcement, they didn’t alert us to such a reversal ahead of the fact.
In a separate analysis, the authors disaggregated the seven felonies included in the FBI’s crime index and tracked the movement of each felony averaged across all 81 cities. Robbery registered a statistically significant upward surge in monthly rates: before Ferguson, the aggregate robbery rate was dropping; after Ferguson, the rate reversed course, rising enough to be considered statistically significant. The criminologists conclude that “changes in robbery rates constitute the lone exception to a spurious Ferguson Effect,” but demur from speculating why that may be. Perhaps it is because robbery and drive-by shootings are the quintessential violent street crimes, both committed disproportionately by blacks. If police are making fewer street stops, thus deterring gun-carrying less, a rising robbery rate is not contrary to what the Ferguson effect would predict. (Shootings are not captured in the FBI data used by the researchers, so their pre- and post-Ferguson trajectories are not easily available.)
A few analysts have pointed out that the paper’s dismissal of a more widespread Ferguson effect rests on arbitrary statistical conventions. Fordham law professor John Pfaff notes that the rate of change in the aggregate violent crime rate rose tenfold after Ferguson. That increase was not deemed “statistically significant,” however, because it missed falling within the conventional statistical confidence interval by .02 crimes per 100,000 residents per month. The confidence interval tells you how certain you can be that the events being measured actually happened or were not the products of random chance. Statistical conventions deem a data distribution statistically significant only if there is not more than a 5 percent chance that the data points were arrived at in error or that the distribution curve mapping those data points would have occurred randomly. Had the increase in the rate of change in violent crime increase been .02 crimes per 100,000 per month higher, the authors would likely have had to change their conclusion regarding a “spurious” Ferguson effect. As it is, the existing tenfold increase in the rate of change has only a 12 percent chance of being a mirage—that is, the product of incorrect crime data, say, or of a random distribution of events, according to Manhattan Institute fellow Scott Winship. And the aggregate increase in the homicide rate of change, which the authors dismiss as “statistically insignificant,” has less than an 11 percent chance of being a random occurrence, according to Winship. Concludes Pfaff about the Pyrooz study: “So [the] claim of ‘no Ferguson Effect’ is built on little more than a century-old arbitrary line that arbitrarily balances 2 core error costs.”
The authors are doing nothing untoward in resting their conclusions on statistical conventions. But a lay reader may conflate their finding of “no statistically significant effect” with no effect at all and will likely not understand how narrowly a tenfold rise in the rate of change in violent crime missed being deemed statistically significant—if that lay reader even grasps the change at all from the paper’s tables.
The Pyrooz article will undoubtedly become a standard artillery piece on the activist and academic left. You would think that the fact that the Ferguson effect has been most pronounced in black areas would be cause for concern among those who claim to represent black interests against a sea of racism and oppression. In 2015, homicides in the 50 largest cities rose nearly 17 percent, “the greatest increase in lethal violence in a quarter century,” according to the Washington Post. The overwhelming majority of those additional victims were black. But the furious attempt to deny the Ferguson effect shows yet again that black lives seem to matter only when they are taken by police officers.
BRATTON DEFENDS NYPD’S USE OF COMPSTAT
By Anthony M. Destefano
Newsday
February 24, 2016
NEW YORK --The usually mild-mannered NYPD Commissioner William Bratton let out an angry expletive Tuesday — in the presence of Mayor Bill de Blasio — when asked about allegations the department’s vaunted CompStat system may lead to quotas for arrests and summonses.
And then, as de Blasio cracked a smile, Bratton repeated the off-color phrase for emphasis.
The commissioner made the remark in response to a question about a Sunday New York Times Magazine story concerning NYPD Officer Edwin Raymond.
In August 2015, Raymond, 30, was among a small group of black officers who filed a federal lawsuit alleging the NYPD was violating laws against quotas, according to the Times’ story.
Raymond and other critics believe the NYPD’s reliance on the CompStat data system spurs police commanders to pressure cops into making arrests and taking other enforcement actions, the story said. Bratton strongly disputed the claims of Raymond and other critics.
“If any of my cops think we are pushing for the summonses, etcetera, I am sorry, we are pushing to reduce crime,” Bratton said. “They never talk about the number of summonses, etc. They talk about what is better for collaboration among the various units.”
Bratton went on to say the actions described in the Times story are “not the practice and policies and procedures that I am brining to this organization.”
According to the story, Raymond secretly taped some of his superior officers in preparation for the lawsuit. He couldn’t be reached for comment Tuesday.
The issue of quotas has long been a bone of contention with critics of the NYPD, which over the years has insisted that it sets performance goals, not quotas.
Bratton’s flare-up came during a joint news conference with de Blasio to announce CompStat 2.0, a souped-up version of the crime data system now available to the public weekly at https://compstat.nypdonline.org.
Devised in 1994, CompStat was the brainchild of the late NYPD Deputy Commissioner Jack Maple. It has evolved into a comprehensive system of crime-data collection used by commanders to analyze crime trends and make adjustments in strategies.
De Blasio said the new system will allow anyone to search for what matters in terms of crimes in local neighborhoods.
“This sort of clarity is not merely about useful information,” De Blasio said. “It also builds relationships between the police and the community.”
In a related announcement, deputy commissioner for technology Jessica Tisch said the department will be finished distributing 36,000 smartphones to all officers by March.
To underscore the evolving technology, Bratton showed reporters an old Motorola walkie-talkie, a relatively heavy device weighing about 3 pounds developed in the 1960s for police departments. Tisch then placed a diminutive, current smartphone of the type NYPD officers will carry that weighed just a few ounces.
EDITOR’S NOTE: There have also been numerous allegations that CompStat has led to cooking of the books on crime stats, not only in New York, but also in Los Angeles where Bratton served as police chief before returning to NYPD.
Newsday
February 24, 2016
NEW YORK --The usually mild-mannered NYPD Commissioner William Bratton let out an angry expletive Tuesday — in the presence of Mayor Bill de Blasio — when asked about allegations the department’s vaunted CompStat system may lead to quotas for arrests and summonses.
And then, as de Blasio cracked a smile, Bratton repeated the off-color phrase for emphasis.
The commissioner made the remark in response to a question about a Sunday New York Times Magazine story concerning NYPD Officer Edwin Raymond.
In August 2015, Raymond, 30, was among a small group of black officers who filed a federal lawsuit alleging the NYPD was violating laws against quotas, according to the Times’ story.
Raymond and other critics believe the NYPD’s reliance on the CompStat data system spurs police commanders to pressure cops into making arrests and taking other enforcement actions, the story said. Bratton strongly disputed the claims of Raymond and other critics.
“If any of my cops think we are pushing for the summonses, etcetera, I am sorry, we are pushing to reduce crime,” Bratton said. “They never talk about the number of summonses, etc. They talk about what is better for collaboration among the various units.”
Bratton went on to say the actions described in the Times story are “not the practice and policies and procedures that I am brining to this organization.”
According to the story, Raymond secretly taped some of his superior officers in preparation for the lawsuit. He couldn’t be reached for comment Tuesday.
The issue of quotas has long been a bone of contention with critics of the NYPD, which over the years has insisted that it sets performance goals, not quotas.
Bratton’s flare-up came during a joint news conference with de Blasio to announce CompStat 2.0, a souped-up version of the crime data system now available to the public weekly at https://compstat.nypdonline.org.
Devised in 1994, CompStat was the brainchild of the late NYPD Deputy Commissioner Jack Maple. It has evolved into a comprehensive system of crime-data collection used by commanders to analyze crime trends and make adjustments in strategies.
De Blasio said the new system will allow anyone to search for what matters in terms of crimes in local neighborhoods.
“This sort of clarity is not merely about useful information,” De Blasio said. “It also builds relationships between the police and the community.”
In a related announcement, deputy commissioner for technology Jessica Tisch said the department will be finished distributing 36,000 smartphones to all officers by March.
To underscore the evolving technology, Bratton showed reporters an old Motorola walkie-talkie, a relatively heavy device weighing about 3 pounds developed in the 1960s for police departments. Tisch then placed a diminutive, current smartphone of the type NYPD officers will carry that weighed just a few ounces.
EDITOR’S NOTE: There have also been numerous allegations that CompStat has led to cooking of the books on crime stats, not only in New York, but also in Los Angeles where Bratton served as police chief before returning to NYPD.
MRS. SMITH EXPECTED SURROGATE FATHER
The man told her, ‘if we try several different positions and I shoot from six or seven angles, I'm sure you'll be pleased with the results’
The Smiths were unable to conceive children and decided to use a surrogate father to start their family. On the day the proxy father was to arrive, Mr. Smith kissed his wife goodbye and said, 'Well, I'm off now. The man should be here soon.'
Half an hour later, just by chance, a door-to-door baby photographer happened to ring the doorbell, hoping to make a sale. 'Good morning, Ma'am', he said, 'I've come to...'
'Oh, no need to explain,' Mrs. Smith cut in, embarrassed, 'I've been expecting you.'
'Have you really?' said the photographer. 'Well, that's good. Did you know babies are my specialty?'
'Well that's what my husband and I had hoped. Please come in and have a seat.
After a moment she asked, blushing, 'Well, where do we start?'
'Leave everything to me. I usually try two in the bathtub, one on the couch, and perhaps a couple on the bed. And sometimes the living room floor is fun. You can really spread out there.'
'Bathtub, living room floor? No wonder it didn't work out for Harry and me!'
'Well, Ma'am, none of us can guarantee a good one every time. But if we try several different positions and I shoot from six or seven angles, I'm sure you'll be pleased with the results.'
'My, that's a lot!', gasped Mrs. Smith..
'Ma'am, in my line of work a man has to take his time. I'd love to be In and out in five minutes, but I'm sure you'd be disappointed with that.'
'Don't I know it,' said Mrs. Smith quietly.
The photographer opened his briefcase and pulled out a portfolio of his baby pictures. 'This was done on the top of a bus,' he said.
'Oh, my God!' Mrs. Smith exclaimed, grasping at her throat.
'And these twins turned out exceptionally well - when you consider their mother was so difficult to work with.'
'She was difficult?' asked Mrs. Smith.
'Yes, I'm afraid so. I finally had to take her to the park to get the job done right. People were crowding around four and five deep to get a good look'
'Four and five deep?' said Mrs. Smith, her eyes wide with amazement..
'Yes', the photographer replied. 'And for more than three hours, too. The mother was constantly squealing and yelling - I could hardly concentrate, and when darkness approached I had to rush my shots. Finally, when the squirrels began nibbling on my equipment, I just had to pack it all in.'
Mrs. Smith leaned forward. 'Do you mean they actually chewed on your, uh...equipment?'
'It's true, Ma'am, yes. Well, if you're ready, I'll set-up my tripod and we can get to work right away.'
'Tripod?'
'Oh yes, Ma'am. I need to use a tripod to rest my Canon on. It's much too big to be held in the hand for long.'
Mrs. Smith passed out.
The Smiths were unable to conceive children and decided to use a surrogate father to start their family. On the day the proxy father was to arrive, Mr. Smith kissed his wife goodbye and said, 'Well, I'm off now. The man should be here soon.'
Half an hour later, just by chance, a door-to-door baby photographer happened to ring the doorbell, hoping to make a sale. 'Good morning, Ma'am', he said, 'I've come to...'
'Oh, no need to explain,' Mrs. Smith cut in, embarrassed, 'I've been expecting you.'
'Have you really?' said the photographer. 'Well, that's good. Did you know babies are my specialty?'
'Well that's what my husband and I had hoped. Please come in and have a seat.
After a moment she asked, blushing, 'Well, where do we start?'
'Leave everything to me. I usually try two in the bathtub, one on the couch, and perhaps a couple on the bed. And sometimes the living room floor is fun. You can really spread out there.'
'Bathtub, living room floor? No wonder it didn't work out for Harry and me!'
'Well, Ma'am, none of us can guarantee a good one every time. But if we try several different positions and I shoot from six or seven angles, I'm sure you'll be pleased with the results.'
'My, that's a lot!', gasped Mrs. Smith..
'Ma'am, in my line of work a man has to take his time. I'd love to be In and out in five minutes, but I'm sure you'd be disappointed with that.'
'Don't I know it,' said Mrs. Smith quietly.
The photographer opened his briefcase and pulled out a portfolio of his baby pictures. 'This was done on the top of a bus,' he said.
'Oh, my God!' Mrs. Smith exclaimed, grasping at her throat.
'And these twins turned out exceptionally well - when you consider their mother was so difficult to work with.'
'She was difficult?' asked Mrs. Smith.
'Yes, I'm afraid so. I finally had to take her to the park to get the job done right. People were crowding around four and five deep to get a good look'
'Four and five deep?' said Mrs. Smith, her eyes wide with amazement..
'Yes', the photographer replied. 'And for more than three hours, too. The mother was constantly squealing and yelling - I could hardly concentrate, and when darkness approached I had to rush my shots. Finally, when the squirrels began nibbling on my equipment, I just had to pack it all in.'
Mrs. Smith leaned forward. 'Do you mean they actually chewed on your, uh...equipment?'
'It's true, Ma'am, yes. Well, if you're ready, I'll set-up my tripod and we can get to work right away.'
'Tripod?'
'Oh yes, Ma'am. I need to use a tripod to rest my Canon on. It's much too big to be held in the hand for long.'
Mrs. Smith passed out.
Thursday, February 25, 2016
YET ANOTHER SOCIAL MEDIA COP CASUALTY
A Minnesota cop bites the dust for his Facebook musings
Ben Schlag has been an officer with the Rochester Police Department for five years. It would appear that Ben’s career in law enforcement will be short-lived. The idiot has been posting some racial and religious insensitive shit on Facebook.
After Black Lives Matter blocked Interstate 94 in protest of the November 15 shooting of a black man by Minneapolis police, Schlag posted a drawing on Facebook which showed people being run over by a a car with the caption, "Nobody cares about your protest."
On November 20 the idiot posted this goodie on Facebook:
"Studies show that Muslim Radicals are less prone to violence after they've been shot in the fucking face."
Tsk, tsk Ben, what were you thinking? Anyone with half a brain would surmise that pissed off Muslims would find out who wrote that drivel and seeing that it was a cop, turn him into the mayor and police chief.
On Friday, right after he learned of the Facebook posts, Rochester Police Chief Roger Peterson placed Ben on paid administrative leave. Chief Peterson indicated that as soon as all the due process procedures have been followed, he will fire Schlag.
What Ben said on Facebook may not be all that far off, but if you’re a public servant you should keep in mind that you are serving all of the public and you cannot exclude groups you don’t happen to like.
Ben joins a long list of other idiots among cops who forgot that anything you say on social media can be traced back to you and bite you in the ass … hard!
Ben Schlag has been an officer with the Rochester Police Department for five years. It would appear that Ben’s career in law enforcement will be short-lived. The idiot has been posting some racial and religious insensitive shit on Facebook.
After Black Lives Matter blocked Interstate 94 in protest of the November 15 shooting of a black man by Minneapolis police, Schlag posted a drawing on Facebook which showed people being run over by a a car with the caption, "Nobody cares about your protest."
On November 20 the idiot posted this goodie on Facebook:
"Studies show that Muslim Radicals are less prone to violence after they've been shot in the fucking face."
Tsk, tsk Ben, what were you thinking? Anyone with half a brain would surmise that pissed off Muslims would find out who wrote that drivel and seeing that it was a cop, turn him into the mayor and police chief.
On Friday, right after he learned of the Facebook posts, Rochester Police Chief Roger Peterson placed Ben on paid administrative leave. Chief Peterson indicated that as soon as all the due process procedures have been followed, he will fire Schlag.
What Ben said on Facebook may not be all that far off, but if you’re a public servant you should keep in mind that you are serving all of the public and you cannot exclude groups you don’t happen to like.
Ben joins a long list of other idiots among cops who forgot that anything you say on social media can be traced back to you and bite you in the ass … hard!
CORRUPT HYPOCRITICAL BASTARD LELAND YEE SENTENCED
By Bob Walsh
Leland Yee, 67, used to be a California state senator. He was a good liberal and
supported the liberal party line, including gun control. However, he accepted
bribes to, among other things, facilitate the movement of fully automatic weapons
into California from the Philippines.
That now well-known CORRUPT HYPOCRITICAL BASTARD has just been
sentenced to five years as a guest of the feds. He copped a plea to one count of
conspiracy to engage in racketeering.
Yee’s lawyers requested a sentence of not more than five years and three months,
citing the fact that his wife was ill and he had a long record of public service before
he started selling his votes and influence to organized crime. The prosecution
wanted eight years.
I hope this useless corrupt lump of shit has a very, very unpleasant time in the
slammer. He probably won’t, but I sure as hell hope he does.
Leland Yee, 67, used to be a California state senator. He was a good liberal and
supported the liberal party line, including gun control. However, he accepted
bribes to, among other things, facilitate the movement of fully automatic weapons
into California from the Philippines.
That now well-known CORRUPT HYPOCRITICAL BASTARD has just been
sentenced to five years as a guest of the feds. He copped a plea to one count of
conspiracy to engage in racketeering.
Yee’s lawyers requested a sentence of not more than five years and three months,
citing the fact that his wife was ill and he had a long record of public service before
he started selling his votes and influence to organized crime. The prosecution
wanted eight years.
I hope this useless corrupt lump of shit has a very, very unpleasant time in the
slammer. He probably won’t, but I sure as hell hope he does.
FORMER DEATH ROW INMATE SEEKING COMPENSATION COULD TEST TEXAS’ MUCH-LAUDED REFORMS
Will Texas fork over $2 million to an exonerated death row inmate who is firmly believed to be a cop killer by the Houston Police Union?
By Leif Reigstad
Houston Press
February 23, 2016
A former death row inmate is seeking nearly $2 million from the state after he spent more than 12 years in prison following a wrongful conviction, the Houston Chronicle first reported yesterday.
In 2005, Alfred Brown was convicted of capital murder after he allegedly murdered Houston Police Officer Charles Clarke, "execution style," during a botched robbery at a check-cashing store in southeast Houston two years earlier. Despite his attorneys' claim that he was "borderline mentally handicapped," Brown was sentenced to death.
According to the Chron, Brown was released from jail in June and his conviction was overturned after a detective came forward with telephone records that could have helped Brown's defense. The Harris County District Attorney's Office dismissed the charges against Brown, finding that there was not enough evidence for a re-trial. Now, Brown's attorneys are claiming he is technically an exoneree, which, under a state law passed four years ago, would grant him the right to receive compensation from the state.
In 2011, state legislators passed the Tim Cole Act, which increased the amount of financial compensation Texas could give to exonerees to $80,000 per year served in prison. The legislation was named after a man in Lubbock who was falsely convicted of rape. In 1999, halfway through a 25-year sentence, Cole died in prison. It was later discovered that the actual rapist had confessed to Lubbock prosecutors four years before Cole's death, but it wasn't until 2008 that DNA evidence cleared Cole and the real rapist was finally convicted.
Cole was exonerated in 2009 and posthumously pardoned a year later by the state of Texas, and his story spurred the state to enact a number of criminal justice reforms, including overhauling eyewitness identification practices. (Cole's case was the subject of a lengthy feature in The New Yorker last month — you can read that here.)
Unlike Tim Cole, Alfred Brown's actual innocence is less clear. No official has ever asserted Brown's innocence, and to this day, the Houston Police Union apparently still thinks Brown killed Clarke. But according to Brown's attorney, that doesn't really matter; an exoneree is an exoneree.
"No 'magic words' are required anymore," Brown's lawyer, Neal Manne, told the Chron. "The magic is in the fact that you're released."
Brown's case is an interesting test for this rare progressive criminal justice policy in Texas. Should Texas fork over a couple million dollars in this case, then those in law enforcement who are convinced of Brown's guilt will likely argue that the state is paying a cop killer who got off only on a technicality. But if the state denies Brown's request, it could set a troubling precedent that the wrongfully convicted must be proven — rather than presumed — innocent before they are compensated for their time spent unjustly locked up. It's difficult to see the latter being what legislators had in mind when they passed the Tim Cole Act five years ago.
Whichever way Brown's request goes, the decision could signal just how committed the State of Texas really is to criminal justice reform and righting every wrongful conviction.
EDITOR’S NOTE: From the June 10, 2015 issue of The Washington Post:
Brown had an alibi for the crime for which he was convicted — an armed robbery that resulted in the death of a police officer. Brown said he was staying at his girlfriend’s apartment at the time of the robbery. But after a browbeating from a Houston cop who inexplicably served as foreman on the grand jury that indicted Brown, the woman changed her testimony. Grand jury transcripts would later show that during her testimony, the cop/foreman threatened to indict Brown’s girlfriend for perjury and threatened to take away her children. She was eventually jailed for seven weeks, then released when she changed her testimony to contradict Brown’s alibi. Without his girlfriend’s testimony, Brown was convicted and sentenced to death.
Seven years later, Brown’s attorneys discovered phone records confirming that Brown had called his girlfriend at her job from her apartment around the time of the murder. Not only were those records never given to Brown’s defense attorneys, the records were found in the garage of a Houston homicide detective.
By Leif Reigstad
Houston Press
February 23, 2016
A former death row inmate is seeking nearly $2 million from the state after he spent more than 12 years in prison following a wrongful conviction, the Houston Chronicle first reported yesterday.
In 2005, Alfred Brown was convicted of capital murder after he allegedly murdered Houston Police Officer Charles Clarke, "execution style," during a botched robbery at a check-cashing store in southeast Houston two years earlier. Despite his attorneys' claim that he was "borderline mentally handicapped," Brown was sentenced to death.
According to the Chron, Brown was released from jail in June and his conviction was overturned after a detective came forward with telephone records that could have helped Brown's defense. The Harris County District Attorney's Office dismissed the charges against Brown, finding that there was not enough evidence for a re-trial. Now, Brown's attorneys are claiming he is technically an exoneree, which, under a state law passed four years ago, would grant him the right to receive compensation from the state.
In 2011, state legislators passed the Tim Cole Act, which increased the amount of financial compensation Texas could give to exonerees to $80,000 per year served in prison. The legislation was named after a man in Lubbock who was falsely convicted of rape. In 1999, halfway through a 25-year sentence, Cole died in prison. It was later discovered that the actual rapist had confessed to Lubbock prosecutors four years before Cole's death, but it wasn't until 2008 that DNA evidence cleared Cole and the real rapist was finally convicted.
Cole was exonerated in 2009 and posthumously pardoned a year later by the state of Texas, and his story spurred the state to enact a number of criminal justice reforms, including overhauling eyewitness identification practices. (Cole's case was the subject of a lengthy feature in The New Yorker last month — you can read that here.)
Unlike Tim Cole, Alfred Brown's actual innocence is less clear. No official has ever asserted Brown's innocence, and to this day, the Houston Police Union apparently still thinks Brown killed Clarke. But according to Brown's attorney, that doesn't really matter; an exoneree is an exoneree.
"No 'magic words' are required anymore," Brown's lawyer, Neal Manne, told the Chron. "The magic is in the fact that you're released."
Brown's case is an interesting test for this rare progressive criminal justice policy in Texas. Should Texas fork over a couple million dollars in this case, then those in law enforcement who are convinced of Brown's guilt will likely argue that the state is paying a cop killer who got off only on a technicality. But if the state denies Brown's request, it could set a troubling precedent that the wrongfully convicted must be proven — rather than presumed — innocent before they are compensated for their time spent unjustly locked up. It's difficult to see the latter being what legislators had in mind when they passed the Tim Cole Act five years ago.
Whichever way Brown's request goes, the decision could signal just how committed the State of Texas really is to criminal justice reform and righting every wrongful conviction.
EDITOR’S NOTE: From the June 10, 2015 issue of The Washington Post:
Brown had an alibi for the crime for which he was convicted — an armed robbery that resulted in the death of a police officer. Brown said he was staying at his girlfriend’s apartment at the time of the robbery. But after a browbeating from a Houston cop who inexplicably served as foreman on the grand jury that indicted Brown, the woman changed her testimony. Grand jury transcripts would later show that during her testimony, the cop/foreman threatened to indict Brown’s girlfriend for perjury and threatened to take away her children. She was eventually jailed for seven weeks, then released when she changed her testimony to contradict Brown’s alibi. Without his girlfriend’s testimony, Brown was convicted and sentenced to death.
Seven years later, Brown’s attorneys discovered phone records confirming that Brown had called his girlfriend at her job from her apartment around the time of the murder. Not only were those records never given to Brown’s defense attorneys, the records were found in the garage of a Houston homicide detective.
HOW A BUNCH OF GEORGIA PRISON INMATES DUPED DOZENS OF PEOPLE IN HOUSTON
Dozens of people in Harris County lost hundreds or thousands of dollars to inmates in Georgia who used cellphones supplied by crooked correctional officers
By Meagan Flynn
Houston Press
February 23, 2016
The phone call from the “Harris County Sheriff's Office” went like this: “You have an open warrant. You owe us money. Unless you pay up, we will send somebody to arrest you.”
The caller would then ask the nervous victim to drive to a Kroger or a convenience store to purchase a pre-paid credit card, and to stay on the line. Once they bought it, the caller would ask the person to read the number on the card back to him before mailing it to "court."
That's how dozens of people in Harris County lost hundreds or thousands of dollars to inmates in Georgia prisons who carried out these identity scams, according to sheriff's officials.
“People who have never really been in trouble or know anything about the criminal justice system may actually get freaked out by these things,” said Harris County sheriff's deputy Josh Nowitz. “And that could be their rent money for the month.”
This month, the FBI indicted 46 corrupt guards in Georgia for providing inmates with the cellphones they used to make these scam calls in exchange for thousands of dollars in bribes—money that, at least in part, likely came from naive law-abiding citizens. In a nearly two-year-long investigation, the FBI seized more than 23,500 contraband phones from inmates. In January, the FBI also indicted 15 inmates, 19 former prison officials, and 17 others for helping with the scams.
Nevertheless, Nowitz said the scam is still ongoing and citizens should still be weary of any phone call that comes from the “sheriff's office.” Nowitz said there's a number of different versions of this scam, and that another common one is that “you didn't show up for jury duty, and there's a warrant out for you.”
“That seems reasonable, right? People get jury summons—maybe it didn't get delivered,” Nowitz said. “What was scary about this scam was that they were using actual names of individuals who really do work at the sheriff's office.”
If anyone receives these calls, Nowitz said, they should hang up and call the actual sheriff's office at 713-221-6000. Because if HCSO really had a warrant out for you, he said, deputies wouldn't be calling you. They'd probably be arresting you at your door. And they certainly would not be asking you to go buy a pre-paid credit card at Kroger.
EDITOR’S NOTE: People in other parts of the country who receive these scam calls should report them to their local sheriff’s department.
As for those who’ve fallen for this scam, the saying goes, “There’s no fool like an old fool.” And the crooks know it!
By Meagan Flynn
Houston Press
February 23, 2016
The phone call from the “Harris County Sheriff's Office” went like this: “You have an open warrant. You owe us money. Unless you pay up, we will send somebody to arrest you.”
The caller would then ask the nervous victim to drive to a Kroger or a convenience store to purchase a pre-paid credit card, and to stay on the line. Once they bought it, the caller would ask the person to read the number on the card back to him before mailing it to "court."
That's how dozens of people in Harris County lost hundreds or thousands of dollars to inmates in Georgia prisons who carried out these identity scams, according to sheriff's officials.
“People who have never really been in trouble or know anything about the criminal justice system may actually get freaked out by these things,” said Harris County sheriff's deputy Josh Nowitz. “And that could be their rent money for the month.”
This month, the FBI indicted 46 corrupt guards in Georgia for providing inmates with the cellphones they used to make these scam calls in exchange for thousands of dollars in bribes—money that, at least in part, likely came from naive law-abiding citizens. In a nearly two-year-long investigation, the FBI seized more than 23,500 contraband phones from inmates. In January, the FBI also indicted 15 inmates, 19 former prison officials, and 17 others for helping with the scams.
Nevertheless, Nowitz said the scam is still ongoing and citizens should still be weary of any phone call that comes from the “sheriff's office.” Nowitz said there's a number of different versions of this scam, and that another common one is that “you didn't show up for jury duty, and there's a warrant out for you.”
“That seems reasonable, right? People get jury summons—maybe it didn't get delivered,” Nowitz said. “What was scary about this scam was that they were using actual names of individuals who really do work at the sheriff's office.”
If anyone receives these calls, Nowitz said, they should hang up and call the actual sheriff's office at 713-221-6000. Because if HCSO really had a warrant out for you, he said, deputies wouldn't be calling you. They'd probably be arresting you at your door. And they certainly would not be asking you to go buy a pre-paid credit card at Kroger.
EDITOR’S NOTE: People in other parts of the country who receive these scam calls should report them to their local sheriff’s department.
As for those who’ve fallen for this scam, the saying goes, “There’s no fool like an old fool.” And the crooks know it!
RUSSIA WANTS TO FLY MORE SPY PLANES OVER THE U.S., AND THE PENTAGON CAN’T STOP IT
The U.S. carries out Open Skies missions over Russia regularly, and Russia has done the same over the U.S. many times before as well
By Dan Lamothe
The Washington Post
February 23, 2016
Russia filed a request Monday to fly a spy plane carrying advanced digital cameras over the United States. The move presents the United States with a dilemma: How does Washington respond at a time when Moscow and Washington are at odds over Syria and Ukraine and senior U.S. defense officials have identified Russia as the No. 1 existential threat to America?
It would be complicated for the United States to block Russia’s request. The Treaty on Open Skies, which was first approved in 1992 and went into effect in 2002, allows signatories to fly unarmed aircraft carrying video and still cameras, infrared scanning devices and certain forms of radar over the territory of other treaty members. Inspections are carried out to make sure the cameras used meet the terms of treaty and are not too powerful.
Navy Capt. Jeff Davis, a Pentagon spokesman, said Monday that the treaty, which was ratified by the Senate, helps prevent any misinterpretation of military action that could lead to armed conflict.
“We have to remember that while we have pretty good intelligence on a lot of the world, a lot of other countries don’t necessarily have that great of intelligence on us,” Davis said. “So, in the interest of transparency and [avoiding] miscalculation on their part, sometimes it’s worthwhile to allow them to have a look at what you’re doing or what you’re not doing.”
Davis said the United States carries out Open Skies flights regularly, and Russia “has done it many times before,” as well. In 2014, for example, U.S. pilots described flying Open Skies missions over Russia from Yokota Air Base in Japan.
But concerns have been raised about allowing Russia to carry out more Open Skies flights. In a letter from Adm. Cecil Haney to Rep. Mike Rogers (R.-Ala.) obtained by The Associated Press, the admiral said that the treaty has become a critical component of Russia’s collection of intelligence against the United States.
“In addition to overflying military installations, Russian Open Skies flights can overfly and collect on Department of Defense and national security or national critical infrastructure,” wrote Haney, the chief of U.S. Strategic Command. “The vulnerability exposed by exploitation of this data and costs of mitigation are increasingly difficult to characterize.”
Marine Lt. Gen. Vincent Stewart, the military’s top intelligence officer, said during a House Armed Services Committee last year that he “very concerned” about how Russia was using the Open Skies treaty to observe the United States, but declined to elaborate in an open, unclassified hearing.
“The Open Skies construct was designed for a different era,” Stewart said, adding that he would “love” to talk about it in a session closed to the public.
Treaty members have examined how to modernize the agreement to account for digital cameras, rather than “wet film” devices that were widely used when the treaty was adopted.
The new Russian request comes as Turkey and Russia argue over planned Russian Open Skies flights over southern Turkey that was planned for this month. Russian officials said the requests were denied by the government in Ankara in open violation of the treaty and “testifies to the desire of the Turkish side to hide some activity probably taking place in areas that the Russian plane was to have flown over,” according to the Tass Russian news agency.
Turkey dismissed the allegations, saying in a statement that observation flights are performed when both parties reach an agreement on a mission plan. Russia and Turkey have exchanged a series of tense messages since Nov. 24, when Turkey shot down a Russian bomber near Turkey’s border.
By Dan Lamothe
The Washington Post
February 23, 2016
Russia filed a request Monday to fly a spy plane carrying advanced digital cameras over the United States. The move presents the United States with a dilemma: How does Washington respond at a time when Moscow and Washington are at odds over Syria and Ukraine and senior U.S. defense officials have identified Russia as the No. 1 existential threat to America?
It would be complicated for the United States to block Russia’s request. The Treaty on Open Skies, which was first approved in 1992 and went into effect in 2002, allows signatories to fly unarmed aircraft carrying video and still cameras, infrared scanning devices and certain forms of radar over the territory of other treaty members. Inspections are carried out to make sure the cameras used meet the terms of treaty and are not too powerful.
Navy Capt. Jeff Davis, a Pentagon spokesman, said Monday that the treaty, which was ratified by the Senate, helps prevent any misinterpretation of military action that could lead to armed conflict.
“We have to remember that while we have pretty good intelligence on a lot of the world, a lot of other countries don’t necessarily have that great of intelligence on us,” Davis said. “So, in the interest of transparency and [avoiding] miscalculation on their part, sometimes it’s worthwhile to allow them to have a look at what you’re doing or what you’re not doing.”
Davis said the United States carries out Open Skies flights regularly, and Russia “has done it many times before,” as well. In 2014, for example, U.S. pilots described flying Open Skies missions over Russia from Yokota Air Base in Japan.
But concerns have been raised about allowing Russia to carry out more Open Skies flights. In a letter from Adm. Cecil Haney to Rep. Mike Rogers (R.-Ala.) obtained by The Associated Press, the admiral said that the treaty has become a critical component of Russia’s collection of intelligence against the United States.
“In addition to overflying military installations, Russian Open Skies flights can overfly and collect on Department of Defense and national security or national critical infrastructure,” wrote Haney, the chief of U.S. Strategic Command. “The vulnerability exposed by exploitation of this data and costs of mitigation are increasingly difficult to characterize.”
Marine Lt. Gen. Vincent Stewart, the military’s top intelligence officer, said during a House Armed Services Committee last year that he “very concerned” about how Russia was using the Open Skies treaty to observe the United States, but declined to elaborate in an open, unclassified hearing.
“The Open Skies construct was designed for a different era,” Stewart said, adding that he would “love” to talk about it in a session closed to the public.
Treaty members have examined how to modernize the agreement to account for digital cameras, rather than “wet film” devices that were widely used when the treaty was adopted.
The new Russian request comes as Turkey and Russia argue over planned Russian Open Skies flights over southern Turkey that was planned for this month. Russian officials said the requests were denied by the government in Ankara in open violation of the treaty and “testifies to the desire of the Turkish side to hide some activity probably taking place in areas that the Russian plane was to have flown over,” according to the Tass Russian news agency.
Turkey dismissed the allegations, saying in a statement that observation flights are performed when both parties reach an agreement on a mission plan. Russia and Turkey have exchanged a series of tense messages since Nov. 24, when Turkey shot down a Russian bomber near Turkey’s border.
Wednesday, February 24, 2016
RETIRED COP MURDERED IN STOCKTON
By Bob Walsh
A retired police officer was murdered this morning in a public park next to a retirement center in the crime-ridden and gang-infested shithole of Stockton this morning. A Good Samaritan who attempted to aid the retired officer was seriously injured.
Laurtis Peterson, 75, was knifed to death. An as-yet unnamed passer-by attempted to assist Peterson but was also seriously injured.
A police dog located a suspect named Rafael Watts shortly after the original incident. It is not known if the attack had anything to do with Officer Peterson’s former employment or if he was just a target of opportunity. Watts did survive being taken into custody.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Back in the good old days, had the police known that the victim was a retired cop, the perp probably would not have been taken alive. In those days justice for cop killers was swiftly served and the taxpayers would have been spared the cost of a trial and incarceration.
In today’s era of political correctness and black anger, cop killers are sweet talked into surrendering and the taxpayers are stuck with the cost of prolonged court proceedings and incarceration, whether on death row or otherwise.
A retired police officer was murdered this morning in a public park next to a retirement center in the crime-ridden and gang-infested shithole of Stockton this morning. A Good Samaritan who attempted to aid the retired officer was seriously injured.
Laurtis Peterson, 75, was knifed to death. An as-yet unnamed passer-by attempted to assist Peterson but was also seriously injured.
A police dog located a suspect named Rafael Watts shortly after the original incident. It is not known if the attack had anything to do with Officer Peterson’s former employment or if he was just a target of opportunity. Watts did survive being taken into custody.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Back in the good old days, had the police known that the victim was a retired cop, the perp probably would not have been taken alive. In those days justice for cop killers was swiftly served and the taxpayers would have been spared the cost of a trial and incarceration.
In today’s era of political correctness and black anger, cop killers are sweet talked into surrendering and the taxpayers are stuck with the cost of prolonged court proceedings and incarceration, whether on death row or otherwise.
ALDERMAN CHARGED WITH FELONY BURGLARY
By Bob Walsh
It seems that one of the Aurora, Illinois alderman has a problem with stealing stuff. She doesn’t do it very competently either.
Last month Lynne Johnson was charged with retail theft (shoplifting) but the charge was upgraded yesterday to burglary, which is a class 2 felony.
The Aurora alderman has a history of shoplifting. Ms. Johnson pleaded guilty in 2013 to a charge of retail theft. She was charged with another retail theft in 2003. Then she pleaded guilty to violation of a local ordinance and was sentenced to court supervision. She was also charged with retail theft in 2010 for stealing a bit over $200 in stuff from Target.
If she is found guilty of a felony she is ineligible to serve as alderman and her seat would be declared vacant.
Perhaps the next thief the locals elect will be a more highly skilled thief than the current occupant of the office.
It seems that one of the Aurora, Illinois alderman has a problem with stealing stuff. She doesn’t do it very competently either.
Last month Lynne Johnson was charged with retail theft (shoplifting) but the charge was upgraded yesterday to burglary, which is a class 2 felony.
The Aurora alderman has a history of shoplifting. Ms. Johnson pleaded guilty in 2013 to a charge of retail theft. She was charged with another retail theft in 2003. Then she pleaded guilty to violation of a local ordinance and was sentenced to court supervision. She was also charged with retail theft in 2010 for stealing a bit over $200 in stuff from Target.
If she is found guilty of a felony she is ineligible to serve as alderman and her seat would be declared vacant.
Perhaps the next thief the locals elect will be a more highly skilled thief than the current occupant of the office.
A RINGING ENDORSEMENT OF TED CRUZ
Robert Reich, of late on the faculty of that Marxist bastion known as UC Berkeley, blasts Cruz in a way that many will see as a ringing endorsement instead
Robert Reich, former Labor Secretary under Bill Clinton and now on the faculty of that Marxist bastion known as the University of California Berkeley, has come out with a 2-min. video blasting Ted Cruz. Here in print is what he said on the video:
4 Reasons Ted Cruz is Even More Dangerous than Donald Trump.
1. Cruz is more fanatical. Sure, Trump is a bully and bigot, but he doesn’t hew to any sharp ideological line. Cruz is a fierce ideologue: He denies the existence of man-made climate change, rejects same-sex marriage, wants to abolish the Internal Revenue Service, believes the 2nd amendment guarantees everyone a right to guns. He doesn’t believe in a constitutional divide between church and state, favors the death penalty, rejects immigration reform, demands the repeal of Obamacare, and takes a strict “originalist” view of the meaning of the Constitution.
2. Cruz is a true believer. Trump has no firm principles except making money, getting attention, and gaining power. But Cruz has spent much of his life embracing radical right economic and political views.
3. Cruz is more disciplined and strategic. Trump is all over the place, often winging it, saying whatever pops into his mind. Cruz hews to a clear script and a carefully crafted strategy. He plays the long game (as he’s shown in Iowa).
4. Cruz is a loner who’s willing to destroy government institutions to get his way. Trump has spent his career using the federal government and making friends with big shots. Not Cruz. He has repeatedly led Republicans toward fiscal cliffs. In the Fall of 2013, his opposition to Obamacare led in a significant way to the shutdown of the federal government.
Both men would be disasters for America, but Ted Cruz would be the larger disaster.
Reich posted his comments Saturday on his website.
Hmm, Cruz wants to abolish the IRS, believes the 2nd amendment guarantees everyone a right to guns, favors the death penalty, rejects same-sex marriage and demands the repeal of Obamacare. I’m sure that’s not what Reich intended, but it sure sounds like a ringing endorsement of Ted Cruz.
Robert Reich, former Labor Secretary under Bill Clinton and now on the faculty of that Marxist bastion known as the University of California Berkeley, has come out with a 2-min. video blasting Ted Cruz. Here in print is what he said on the video:
4 Reasons Ted Cruz is Even More Dangerous than Donald Trump.
1. Cruz is more fanatical. Sure, Trump is a bully and bigot, but he doesn’t hew to any sharp ideological line. Cruz is a fierce ideologue: He denies the existence of man-made climate change, rejects same-sex marriage, wants to abolish the Internal Revenue Service, believes the 2nd amendment guarantees everyone a right to guns. He doesn’t believe in a constitutional divide between church and state, favors the death penalty, rejects immigration reform, demands the repeal of Obamacare, and takes a strict “originalist” view of the meaning of the Constitution.
2. Cruz is a true believer. Trump has no firm principles except making money, getting attention, and gaining power. But Cruz has spent much of his life embracing radical right economic and political views.
3. Cruz is more disciplined and strategic. Trump is all over the place, often winging it, saying whatever pops into his mind. Cruz hews to a clear script and a carefully crafted strategy. He plays the long game (as he’s shown in Iowa).
4. Cruz is a loner who’s willing to destroy government institutions to get his way. Trump has spent his career using the federal government and making friends with big shots. Not Cruz. He has repeatedly led Republicans toward fiscal cliffs. In the Fall of 2013, his opposition to Obamacare led in a significant way to the shutdown of the federal government.
Both men would be disasters for America, but Ted Cruz would be the larger disaster.
Reich posted his comments Saturday on his website.
Hmm, Cruz wants to abolish the IRS, believes the 2nd amendment guarantees everyone a right to guns, favors the death penalty, rejects same-sex marriage and demands the repeal of Obamacare. I’m sure that’s not what Reich intended, but it sure sounds like a ringing endorsement of Ted Cruz.
HOW PARENTS ARE TRYING TO END THE ‘NO-SNITCHING’ CULTURE OF GUN VIOLENCE IN FLORIDA
Witnesses refuse to talk to the police because they fear some type of retaliation for ‘snitching’
By Francisco Alvarado
VICE News
February 18, 2016
Sitting in the backyard of his home in Miami's Liberty City neighborhood on Saturday afternoon, August 22, 2009, Antonio Johnson had plenty to look forward to. A young father with another baby on the way, he was supposed to start a new job that Monday, according to his mother, Myrna Williams-Cammon.
Suddenly, a former childhood friend of the 21-year-old came into his backyard and pulled out a gun, his mother tells VICE. Loud pops shattered the air, and bullets tore through Johnson and his pregnant girlfriend, who was sitting next to him. She and the baby survived, but Johnson was killed.
More than six years after his death, Johnson's killer remains free because the only person who provided a name to Miami-Dade Police homicide investigators is also dead, his mother alleges. (A department spokesman declined comment on the still-open investigation). She also claims the killer and the dead witness knew her son very well, but that she does not want to disclose their identities for fear of reprisal.
"The person police believe killed my son practically grew up in my house," Williams-Cammon says. "Apparently, he thought my son was talking to the police about him."
Today, Williams-Cammon is on a mission to end the "no-snitching" culture in Florida's inner-city neighborhoods, especially in her home county of Miami-Dade, where there have been two dozen gun-related incidents involving juveniles in the past 13 months, according to local police reports. On Tuesday, Williams-Cammon and 29 other mothers of murder victims traveled to Tallahassee, the State Capitol, to show support for a bill aimed at protecting the personal identities of witnesses in homicide investigations.
"It may be too late for my son," Williams-Cammon says, "but this bill could help other parents find justice for their murdered children."
The only problem is that the legislative solution Williams-Cammon and her coalition seek threatens to infringe on a suspect's right to face their accuser, civil liberties advocates warn. The debate points to the larger, perennial frustration investigators and prosecutors face across America when trying to convince people who have knowledge about violent crimes to come forward.
"I understand what they are trying to do, but [the bill] doesn't make sense," says Barbara Petersen, president of the Florida First Amendment Foundation. "It is contrary to everything our criminal justice system stands for."
Ed Narain, a Democratic state representative from Tampa, insists his legislation will not prevent defendants and their attorneys from gaining access to witness information during the discovery phase of a case. Instead, he argues the law would only prohibit the media and general public from finding out the names and other personal data about witnesses.
"It's good policy," Narain tells me. "We have to do something to restore people's faith in the criminal justice process."
Narain adds that killings in his home city motivated him to propose the bill, singling out the shooting death of 14-year-old Edward Harris III in May of last year. The teen had survived a prior drive-by, and his father believed Harris was killed for cooperating with police, according to a local CBS news report.
"The victims are not gang bangers," Narain says. "These are good kids who were doing the right thing."
Since filing the bill last fall, Narain has gained support from the Tampa Police Department, which has not been able to make arrests in half of the 62 murder cases initiated in 2014 and 2015, according to department spokeswoman Andrea Davis.
"This is a very real problem," Davis writes VICE in an email. "We have violent crimes where there were dozens of witnesses, but they don't provide the information needed to arrest someone. Many times that is due to fear of some type of retaliation."
Since January, when Narain introduced his bill at the beginning of the Florida state legislative session, the Miami caravan of victims' mothers has traveled to the State Capitol several times to urge legislators to pass the witness protection law, Williams-Cammon says. She believes the bill will make a huge difference in Miami-Dade's inner city neighborhoods, where many gun victims are 18 and under and a high number of homicide cases go unsolved.
February has been a particularly violent month for some children and teenagers in Florida's most populous county.
On the second day of the month, two elementary schools in the city of Opa-Locka were put on lockdown while cops searched the area for shooters who opened fire on a car at a Burger King drive-thru. One victim, 17-year-old Donesha S. Gantt, used her cell phone to live stream dramatic video on Facebook of what she thought were her final moments.
"I know they shot me, but it's good," a sobbing Gantt says in the footage. "God, forgive me for all my sins." Gantt and another woman in the car who was also shot survived the attack. Ten days later, three other public schools were put on lockdown while officers canvassed the area for gunmen who shot up a house in Miami Gardens. In the past week, three teenagers got shot in a 24-hour span; two survived, while 16-year-old La-Nard Wilcher was killed.
Between January of last year and this month, 25 people between the ages 7 and 19 were shot in Miami-Dade, based on a search of daily press releases put out by the Miami Police and county police departments. Fourteen of them died.
In a statement before the Florida Senate criminal justice committee earlier this week, Miami-Dade Public Schools Superintendent Alberto Carvahlohe suggested the numbers are even higher. "Over the past 12 months alone, 60 school age children have been shot in Miami," Carvahlo said. "Over 20 have lost their lives."
In addition, 90 out of 126 homicide cases that occurred between January 1 and January 31, 2013, in the county's Northside District—which includes parts of inner city neighborhoods such as Brownsville and Liberty City—remain unsolved, according to Miami-Dade spokesman Detective Daniel Ferrin. The district also has a homicide clearance rate of 28.6 percent during the same period, which is significantly lower than the national murder clearance rate of 64.5 percent, according to 2014 FBI crime statistics, the most recent available. In a recent press statement, Miami-Dade State Attorney Katherine Fernandez Rundle said "only five of 100 shooting/homicide incidents in the Liberty City area result in an arrest."
The overwhelming support shown by the Miami area parents helped the legislation move quickly through several Florida House and Senate committees, as well as garner bipartisan support in the Republican controlled legislature, according to Narain.
However, the Senate criminal justice committee voted to temporarily postpone, making a recommendation in favor or against Narain's witness protection law. Narain expects the committee will reconsider voting on his bill next week. "I don't see anything standing in its way," Narain says. "But maybe I am naive."
But even if the bill gets approved by the full legislature and Governor Rick Scott, the law would likely be challenged in court, according to Petersen of the Florida First Amendment Foundation.
"There's a lot of room for prosecutorial misconduct involving uncredible witnesses," she says. "Plus, you cannot be accused anonymously of murder."
By Francisco Alvarado
VICE News
February 18, 2016
Sitting in the backyard of his home in Miami's Liberty City neighborhood on Saturday afternoon, August 22, 2009, Antonio Johnson had plenty to look forward to. A young father with another baby on the way, he was supposed to start a new job that Monday, according to his mother, Myrna Williams-Cammon.
Suddenly, a former childhood friend of the 21-year-old came into his backyard and pulled out a gun, his mother tells VICE. Loud pops shattered the air, and bullets tore through Johnson and his pregnant girlfriend, who was sitting next to him. She and the baby survived, but Johnson was killed.
More than six years after his death, Johnson's killer remains free because the only person who provided a name to Miami-Dade Police homicide investigators is also dead, his mother alleges. (A department spokesman declined comment on the still-open investigation). She also claims the killer and the dead witness knew her son very well, but that she does not want to disclose their identities for fear of reprisal.
"The person police believe killed my son practically grew up in my house," Williams-Cammon says. "Apparently, he thought my son was talking to the police about him."
Today, Williams-Cammon is on a mission to end the "no-snitching" culture in Florida's inner-city neighborhoods, especially in her home county of Miami-Dade, where there have been two dozen gun-related incidents involving juveniles in the past 13 months, according to local police reports. On Tuesday, Williams-Cammon and 29 other mothers of murder victims traveled to Tallahassee, the State Capitol, to show support for a bill aimed at protecting the personal identities of witnesses in homicide investigations.
"It may be too late for my son," Williams-Cammon says, "but this bill could help other parents find justice for their murdered children."
The only problem is that the legislative solution Williams-Cammon and her coalition seek threatens to infringe on a suspect's right to face their accuser, civil liberties advocates warn. The debate points to the larger, perennial frustration investigators and prosecutors face across America when trying to convince people who have knowledge about violent crimes to come forward.
"I understand what they are trying to do, but [the bill] doesn't make sense," says Barbara Petersen, president of the Florida First Amendment Foundation. "It is contrary to everything our criminal justice system stands for."
Ed Narain, a Democratic state representative from Tampa, insists his legislation will not prevent defendants and their attorneys from gaining access to witness information during the discovery phase of a case. Instead, he argues the law would only prohibit the media and general public from finding out the names and other personal data about witnesses.
"It's good policy," Narain tells me. "We have to do something to restore people's faith in the criminal justice process."
Narain adds that killings in his home city motivated him to propose the bill, singling out the shooting death of 14-year-old Edward Harris III in May of last year. The teen had survived a prior drive-by, and his father believed Harris was killed for cooperating with police, according to a local CBS news report.
"The victims are not gang bangers," Narain says. "These are good kids who were doing the right thing."
Since filing the bill last fall, Narain has gained support from the Tampa Police Department, which has not been able to make arrests in half of the 62 murder cases initiated in 2014 and 2015, according to department spokeswoman Andrea Davis.
"This is a very real problem," Davis writes VICE in an email. "We have violent crimes where there were dozens of witnesses, but they don't provide the information needed to arrest someone. Many times that is due to fear of some type of retaliation."
Since January, when Narain introduced his bill at the beginning of the Florida state legislative session, the Miami caravan of victims' mothers has traveled to the State Capitol several times to urge legislators to pass the witness protection law, Williams-Cammon says. She believes the bill will make a huge difference in Miami-Dade's inner city neighborhoods, where many gun victims are 18 and under and a high number of homicide cases go unsolved.
February has been a particularly violent month for some children and teenagers in Florida's most populous county.
On the second day of the month, two elementary schools in the city of Opa-Locka were put on lockdown while cops searched the area for shooters who opened fire on a car at a Burger King drive-thru. One victim, 17-year-old Donesha S. Gantt, used her cell phone to live stream dramatic video on Facebook of what she thought were her final moments.
"I know they shot me, but it's good," a sobbing Gantt says in the footage. "God, forgive me for all my sins." Gantt and another woman in the car who was also shot survived the attack. Ten days later, three other public schools were put on lockdown while officers canvassed the area for gunmen who shot up a house in Miami Gardens. In the past week, three teenagers got shot in a 24-hour span; two survived, while 16-year-old La-Nard Wilcher was killed.
Between January of last year and this month, 25 people between the ages 7 and 19 were shot in Miami-Dade, based on a search of daily press releases put out by the Miami Police and county police departments. Fourteen of them died.
In a statement before the Florida Senate criminal justice committee earlier this week, Miami-Dade Public Schools Superintendent Alberto Carvahlohe suggested the numbers are even higher. "Over the past 12 months alone, 60 school age children have been shot in Miami," Carvahlo said. "Over 20 have lost their lives."
In addition, 90 out of 126 homicide cases that occurred between January 1 and January 31, 2013, in the county's Northside District—which includes parts of inner city neighborhoods such as Brownsville and Liberty City—remain unsolved, according to Miami-Dade spokesman Detective Daniel Ferrin. The district also has a homicide clearance rate of 28.6 percent during the same period, which is significantly lower than the national murder clearance rate of 64.5 percent, according to 2014 FBI crime statistics, the most recent available. In a recent press statement, Miami-Dade State Attorney Katherine Fernandez Rundle said "only five of 100 shooting/homicide incidents in the Liberty City area result in an arrest."
The overwhelming support shown by the Miami area parents helped the legislation move quickly through several Florida House and Senate committees, as well as garner bipartisan support in the Republican controlled legislature, according to Narain.
However, the Senate criminal justice committee voted to temporarily postpone, making a recommendation in favor or against Narain's witness protection law. Narain expects the committee will reconsider voting on his bill next week. "I don't see anything standing in its way," Narain says. "But maybe I am naive."
But even if the bill gets approved by the full legislature and Governor Rick Scott, the law would likely be challenged in court, according to Petersen of the Florida First Amendment Foundation.
"There's a lot of room for prosecutorial misconduct involving uncredible witnesses," she says. "Plus, you cannot be accused anonymously of murder."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)