By Rich Schapiro
New York Daily News
November 19, 2015
An American teenager was among five people killed in Israel Thursday in twin attacks carried out by Palestinians, authorities said.
Ezra Schwartz, an 18-year-old from Boston who was spending his gap year in Israel, was among three people slain in a wild drive-by-shooting in the West Bank.
Schwartz was on his way to deliver food to Israeli soldiers when he was gunned down, friends and Jewish groups said.
“An 18-year-old American boy studying in Israel before college was murdered today by Palestinian terrorists,” the AJC-Global Jewish Advocacy group posted on its Facebook page.
“May Ezra Schwartz's memory be for a blessing.”
The attack got underway about 4:30 p.m. when a Palestinian gunman opened fire from his car on another vehicle near the Gush Etzion Junction, authorities said
The attacker drove on some 300 meters before slamming into another car. The gunman, after hopping out of his totaled vehicle, was shot by security forces and taken into custody.
Two people died on the scene, and a third succumbed to his wounds in a nearby hospital.
Six others were injured, authorities said.
Thursday’s fresh wave of violence began a few hours earlier when a Palestinian man fatally stabbed two Israelis who had gathered to pray on the second floor of a building in southern Tel Aviv, authorities said.
One witness described seeing a bloodied man stumble into a nearby room.
“He was all slashed and bloody,” said Shimon Vaknin.
“We were in shock. We didn’t know what happened and then someone near the door shouted there’s a terrorist.”
The attack was cut short when a civilian overpowered the 36-year-old assailant and held him for police, the Haaretz newspaper reported.
The attacker, a West Bank restaurant worker, told investigators he entered Israel with a single purpose — to kill Jews.
A Hamas spokesman hailed the stabbing as “an act of bravery,” Haaretz reported.
The spasm of violence marks the latest flare-up in attacks that have claimed the lives of 17 Israelis over the past seven weeks.
At least 82 Palestinians have also been killed — 52 of them, Israeli officials say, were assailants who were shot dead by security forces.
While most of the assaults have taken place in the West Bank, the Thursday stabbing in Tel Aviv rattled Israelis who fear yet another bloody outbreak of violence in their homeland.
Friday, November 20, 2015
Thursday, November 19, 2015
POLICE HORSE BRUTALITY
But he was only complaining about a parking ticket.
And eight days later, when he got out of the hospital, he was jailed and charged with assaulting a police horse.
FORGET PARIS
The next president must resume leadership of the Free World and develop a comprehensive strategy, including a muscular military component, to defeat jihadism in all its forms — Sunni and Shia alike
By Clifford D. May
The Washington Times
November 17, 2015
For almost two generations, since Iran’s 1979 Islamic Revolution, self-proclaimed jihadis have been fighting to re-establish Islamic supremacy and domination in the world. Leaders of the nations they have been targeting have regarded them as a problem — but mostly not as dangerous enemies who must be decisively defeated. And so their numbers have grown and their ability to project power has increased.
The Islamic State, an al Qaeda splinter that arose after America’s withdrawal from Iraq in 2011, was quick to take responsibility for last week’s carnage in Paris. This follows by less than a year its attacks on Charlie Hebdo and a French Jewish supermarket. Also attributed to the Islamic State: a double suicide-bombing in Beirut on Thursday and, in October, a bombing in Ankara and the blowing up of a Russian passenger jet.
The Islamic State’s rival is the Islamic Republic of Iran, which prefers to pretend it was not behind such attacks as those in Beirut in 1983, Buenos Aires in 1992 and 1994, Berlin in 1992, and Burgas, Bulgaria, in 2012; not to mention the failed plots to bomb New York’s John F. Kennedy International Airport in 2007 and a restaurant in Washington, D.C., in 2011.
Also alive and well and lethal: Nigeria-based Boko Haram, Somalia-based al Shabaab, Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba and the Taliban in both Pakistan and Afghanistan. I could go on.
As the blood ran red in Parisian streets, President Obama responded with expressions of sympathy and support for the victims. He should not be faulted for that. Nor should he be expected, at such moments, to say anything incisive or insightful. What is disappointing — though no longer surprising — is how reflexively he distorts reality to conform to his unwavering preconceptions. The attack in Paris, he insisted, was directed against “all of humanity and the universal values that we share.”
By now it should be fairly obvious that the terrorists are targeting only specific subsets of humanity: e.g., Christians, Jews, secularists and other “infidels,” along with any Muslims who refuse to embrace their medieval reading of Islam. And self-evidently, the jihadis and those cheering for them do not share Mr. Obama’s values, which means, by definition, those values are not “universal.”
Time and again, the jihadis have demonstrated that they have other values and that they are willing — indeed, eager — to both kill and die for them. Ignoring that, Western leaders have prattled on about “countering violent extremism” through jobs programs and foreign aid. They have maintained that “there is no military solution” and that we can rely on diplomats to effectuate “conflict resolution” employing “soft power” and “smart power.” Mr. Obama has reassured us: “The tide of war is receding.”
Will Nov. 13, 2015 prove to be a wake-up call? French President Francois Hollande said: “We are going to lead a war which will be pitiless.” On Sunday, French planes bombed Raqqa, the capital of the Islamic State.
The jihadis, however, are confident that France doesn’t have the stomach for a long war — what the bumper stickers call an “endless war.” They view not just France but also the European Union and NATO as spent forces — weak and war-weary, weighted down by the ever-burgeoning demands of the welfare state. I’m afraid they have a point.
Ironically and inconveniently, the Paris attacks took place just hours after President Obama told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos that, thanks to his policies, the Islamic State had been “contained.” He elaborated: “They have not gained ground in Iraq and in Syria.” That must seem cold comfort to the people of Paris’s 10th, 11th and 18th arrondissements.
Over the weekend, the Islamic State issued “A Statement on the Blessed Onslaught in Paris against the Crusader Nation of France.” The “believers” who carried out the attack, it says, regarded Paris as “the capital of prostitution and vice, the lead carrier of the cross in Europe.” The goal of the young warriors, it added, was “to be killed for Allah’s sake, doing so in support of His religion, His Prophet (blessings and peace be upon him), and His allies.”
When our enemies are more honest about who they are and what motivates them than most of our political leaders, academics and journalists, we have a problem. Who is prepared to begin fixing it?
Among those vying to succeed Mr. Obama is there anyone who strikes you as having the courage and the leadership skills necessary to facilitate what Churchill, at a moment when the Third Reich seemed unstoppable, called “a supreme recovery of moral health and martial vigor”? (Would most Americans today even understand that phrase?)
The next commander in chief must resume leadership of the Free World (another phrase that, sadly, has come to sound archaic) and develop a comprehensive strategy to defeat jihadism in all its forms — Sunni and Shia alike.
Such a strategy will need to include a muscular military component. That necessitates rebuilding, rather than continuing to diminish, the armed forces of both America and Europe. Immigration reform is urgent — with national security as the top priority, not an afterthought. Nations willing to fight jihadi forces require much more support from Washington than they’ve been receiving over recent years. A war of ideas — a war against jihadism and Islamic supremacism — is long overdue. Such endangered Western values as freedom and tolerance must be defended. Currently, that’s not even happening on American campuses.
If you can identify such a candidate, he (or she) deserves your vote. The alternative is to forget Paris and let this cancer metastasize for another generation or two. By then, however, our children and grandchildren will be living in a very different world from the one our parents bequeathed to us.
By Clifford D. May
The Washington Times
November 17, 2015
For almost two generations, since Iran’s 1979 Islamic Revolution, self-proclaimed jihadis have been fighting to re-establish Islamic supremacy and domination in the world. Leaders of the nations they have been targeting have regarded them as a problem — but mostly not as dangerous enemies who must be decisively defeated. And so their numbers have grown and their ability to project power has increased.
The Islamic State, an al Qaeda splinter that arose after America’s withdrawal from Iraq in 2011, was quick to take responsibility for last week’s carnage in Paris. This follows by less than a year its attacks on Charlie Hebdo and a French Jewish supermarket. Also attributed to the Islamic State: a double suicide-bombing in Beirut on Thursday and, in October, a bombing in Ankara and the blowing up of a Russian passenger jet.
The Islamic State’s rival is the Islamic Republic of Iran, which prefers to pretend it was not behind such attacks as those in Beirut in 1983, Buenos Aires in 1992 and 1994, Berlin in 1992, and Burgas, Bulgaria, in 2012; not to mention the failed plots to bomb New York’s John F. Kennedy International Airport in 2007 and a restaurant in Washington, D.C., in 2011.
Also alive and well and lethal: Nigeria-based Boko Haram, Somalia-based al Shabaab, Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba and the Taliban in both Pakistan and Afghanistan. I could go on.
As the blood ran red in Parisian streets, President Obama responded with expressions of sympathy and support for the victims. He should not be faulted for that. Nor should he be expected, at such moments, to say anything incisive or insightful. What is disappointing — though no longer surprising — is how reflexively he distorts reality to conform to his unwavering preconceptions. The attack in Paris, he insisted, was directed against “all of humanity and the universal values that we share.”
By now it should be fairly obvious that the terrorists are targeting only specific subsets of humanity: e.g., Christians, Jews, secularists and other “infidels,” along with any Muslims who refuse to embrace their medieval reading of Islam. And self-evidently, the jihadis and those cheering for them do not share Mr. Obama’s values, which means, by definition, those values are not “universal.”
Time and again, the jihadis have demonstrated that they have other values and that they are willing — indeed, eager — to both kill and die for them. Ignoring that, Western leaders have prattled on about “countering violent extremism” through jobs programs and foreign aid. They have maintained that “there is no military solution” and that we can rely on diplomats to effectuate “conflict resolution” employing “soft power” and “smart power.” Mr. Obama has reassured us: “The tide of war is receding.”
Will Nov. 13, 2015 prove to be a wake-up call? French President Francois Hollande said: “We are going to lead a war which will be pitiless.” On Sunday, French planes bombed Raqqa, the capital of the Islamic State.
The jihadis, however, are confident that France doesn’t have the stomach for a long war — what the bumper stickers call an “endless war.” They view not just France but also the European Union and NATO as spent forces — weak and war-weary, weighted down by the ever-burgeoning demands of the welfare state. I’m afraid they have a point.
Ironically and inconveniently, the Paris attacks took place just hours after President Obama told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos that, thanks to his policies, the Islamic State had been “contained.” He elaborated: “They have not gained ground in Iraq and in Syria.” That must seem cold comfort to the people of Paris’s 10th, 11th and 18th arrondissements.
Over the weekend, the Islamic State issued “A Statement on the Blessed Onslaught in Paris against the Crusader Nation of France.” The “believers” who carried out the attack, it says, regarded Paris as “the capital of prostitution and vice, the lead carrier of the cross in Europe.” The goal of the young warriors, it added, was “to be killed for Allah’s sake, doing so in support of His religion, His Prophet (blessings and peace be upon him), and His allies.”
When our enemies are more honest about who they are and what motivates them than most of our political leaders, academics and journalists, we have a problem. Who is prepared to begin fixing it?
Among those vying to succeed Mr. Obama is there anyone who strikes you as having the courage and the leadership skills necessary to facilitate what Churchill, at a moment when the Third Reich seemed unstoppable, called “a supreme recovery of moral health and martial vigor”? (Would most Americans today even understand that phrase?)
The next commander in chief must resume leadership of the Free World (another phrase that, sadly, has come to sound archaic) and develop a comprehensive strategy to defeat jihadism in all its forms — Sunni and Shia alike.
Such a strategy will need to include a muscular military component. That necessitates rebuilding, rather than continuing to diminish, the armed forces of both America and Europe. Immigration reform is urgent — with national security as the top priority, not an afterthought. Nations willing to fight jihadi forces require much more support from Washington than they’ve been receiving over recent years. A war of ideas — a war against jihadism and Islamic supremacism — is long overdue. Such endangered Western values as freedom and tolerance must be defended. Currently, that’s not even happening on American campuses.
If you can identify such a candidate, he (or she) deserves your vote. The alternative is to forget Paris and let this cancer metastasize for another generation or two. By then, however, our children and grandchildren will be living in a very different world from the one our parents bequeathed to us.
Wednesday, November 18, 2015
VIVE LA FRANCE
In response to the terrorist attacks on Paris, Wednesday’s front cover of Charlie Hebdo magazine has a cartoon showing a man riddled with bullet holes, each of which spurts out the champagne which he keeps on drinking
They have weapons
Fuck them. We have champagne!
They have weapons
Fuck them. We have champagne!
IF ONLY SOME OF THE CONCERT GOERS HAD BEEN ARMED
89 Parisians were killed at the Eagles of Death Metal band performance in Bataclan concert hall
Friday night’s terrorist attacks in Paris initially left 129 people dead and 352 wounded with 99 of them hospitalized in critical condition. Most of the deaths occurred at a rock concert.
1,500 patrons packed the Bataclan concert hall for a performance by the California rock band, Eagles of Death Metal. The name of the band seems ironic because many of the concert goers were about to face death by full metal jacket bullets.
Forty minutes after the beginning of the concert, three men - some reports say they were accompanied by a woman - wearing suicide vests and armed with AK-47s entered the concert hall and opened fire. Ironically, the band had just finished playing “Save A Prayer” and had started to play “Kiss The Devil.”
The hall had a wheel chair section where the terrorists struck first, shooting the wheel chair-bound patrons one at a time. Then they began to fire methodically at the other concert goers. The carnage that killed 89 Parisians lasted 2 hours and 40 minutes before a heavily armed French anti-terrorist police unit stormed the concert hall. At that moment two of the terrorists exploded their nail studded vests, while the other one was shot dead by the police.
It didn’t take more than a New York minute for America’s defenders of the Second Amendment right to bear arms to proclaim that if only some of the concert goers had been armed, they could have prevented the carnage.
Speaking Saturday at a rally in Beaumont, Texas, presidential candidate Donald Trump said:
“When you look at Paris, you know the toughest gun laws in the world, Paris, nobody had guns but the bad guys. Nobody had guns. Nobody. You can say what you want, but if they had guns, if our people had guns, if they were allowed to carry --- it would’ve been a much, much different situation.”
Come on, let’s get real. The chances that armed concert goers could have stopped the machinegun toting terrorists with hand guns are slim to none. With 1,500 panicked concert hall patrons scrambling in all directions and the terrorists also moving about, it would have been extremely difficult for someone to shoot well enough to stop the mass killings. After all, the hall was not a firing range with a stationary target that is not shooting back. Unless an armed citizen had been standing practically next to one of the terrorists, the chances are more likely that he would have shot some of his fellow concert goers.
Every time there is a mass shooting, we hear this crap about armed citizens. This is not to say that an armed citizen could never stop some mass shooter, but the chances of that happening are about as good as Bernie Sanders winning the presidency.
The best thing a patron inside a venue under attack by a shooter can do is to throw himself on the floor, curl up and place his head between his legs, and hope he doesn’t have to kiss his ass goodbye. Oh yes, and that includes any armed citizen. Then if a shooter gets to within a few feet of him, maybe he’ll be able to get off some effective shots. But that’s a big maybe!
Friday night’s terrorist attacks in Paris initially left 129 people dead and 352 wounded with 99 of them hospitalized in critical condition. Most of the deaths occurred at a rock concert.
1,500 patrons packed the Bataclan concert hall for a performance by the California rock band, Eagles of Death Metal. The name of the band seems ironic because many of the concert goers were about to face death by full metal jacket bullets.
Forty minutes after the beginning of the concert, three men - some reports say they were accompanied by a woman - wearing suicide vests and armed with AK-47s entered the concert hall and opened fire. Ironically, the band had just finished playing “Save A Prayer” and had started to play “Kiss The Devil.”
The hall had a wheel chair section where the terrorists struck first, shooting the wheel chair-bound patrons one at a time. Then they began to fire methodically at the other concert goers. The carnage that killed 89 Parisians lasted 2 hours and 40 minutes before a heavily armed French anti-terrorist police unit stormed the concert hall. At that moment two of the terrorists exploded their nail studded vests, while the other one was shot dead by the police.
It didn’t take more than a New York minute for America’s defenders of the Second Amendment right to bear arms to proclaim that if only some of the concert goers had been armed, they could have prevented the carnage.
Speaking Saturday at a rally in Beaumont, Texas, presidential candidate Donald Trump said:
“When you look at Paris, you know the toughest gun laws in the world, Paris, nobody had guns but the bad guys. Nobody had guns. Nobody. You can say what you want, but if they had guns, if our people had guns, if they were allowed to carry --- it would’ve been a much, much different situation.”
Come on, let’s get real. The chances that armed concert goers could have stopped the machinegun toting terrorists with hand guns are slim to none. With 1,500 panicked concert hall patrons scrambling in all directions and the terrorists also moving about, it would have been extremely difficult for someone to shoot well enough to stop the mass killings. After all, the hall was not a firing range with a stationary target that is not shooting back. Unless an armed citizen had been standing practically next to one of the terrorists, the chances are more likely that he would have shot some of his fellow concert goers.
Every time there is a mass shooting, we hear this crap about armed citizens. This is not to say that an armed citizen could never stop some mass shooter, but the chances of that happening are about as good as Bernie Sanders winning the presidency.
The best thing a patron inside a venue under attack by a shooter can do is to throw himself on the floor, curl up and place his head between his legs, and hope he doesn’t have to kiss his ass goodbye. Oh yes, and that includes any armed citizen. Then if a shooter gets to within a few feet of him, maybe he’ll be able to get off some effective shots. But that’s a big maybe!
Tuesday, November 17, 2015
WHEN ALL YOUR CO-CONSPIRATORS PLEAD GUILTY, YOU MUST BE INNOCENT
By Richard Krupp, PhD
PACOVILLA Corrections blog
November 17, 2015
A while back we reported on the antics of former state Senator Yee and his friend Shrimp Boy Chow.
While most of the culprits have taken deals, The Shrimp Boy is headed to trial. The long running federal investigation sounds like a Hollywood movie considering the murder-for-hire, gun-running, etc charges.
Also, the cast of characters who weave in and out of the story is a who’s who of well-known people. The latest chapter of the story added a former football hero.
How can these things happen? How can reputable people be sucked into a criminal vortex?
I know little about football great Joe Montana, but doubt that he knowingly had anything to do with criminal shrimp antics.
It appears that Mr. Shrimp had been passing himself off as a reformed criminal doing good things for the community.
On the surface Mr. Shrimp sounds like a character liberals in the limelight would be attracted to. The allure of the “reformed” criminal can be rather compelling.
Here are some highlights from a recent Los Angeles Times article:
‘Shrimp Boy’ Chow federal trial begins in Bay Area
The racketeering and murder-for-hire trial of Raymond “Shrimp Boy” Chow, dragonhead of Chinatown’s Ghee Kung Tong, opened in a San Francisco federal courtroom Monday, with attorneys for both sides pressing a number of motions in advance of opening statements.
Federal prosecutors contend Chow, 55, who previously served time for racketeering and violent crimes, never reformed his ways after he turned government witness and was released early from prison in 2003.
“Operation Whitesuit,” named after the outfit Chow wore to the 2006 funeral of his Ghee Kung Tong predecessor, Alan Leung, ultimately captured more than two dozen others in its widening net. Key among them was former state Sen. Leland Yee, who pleaded guilty last summer to accepting bribes in exchange for political favors, laundering campaign contributions and plotting to traffic in weapons.
Former 49ers quarterback Joe Montana and San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee were among the others captured on wiretap recordings in connection with the broad probe. Neither faced charges.
Half a dozen of Chow’s co-defendants pleaded guilty in September. Chow, however, has vowed to mount a vigorous defense. He faces dozens of counts of money laundering, trafficking in contraband cigarettes and stolen liquor and being part of a violent criminal organization. He also stands accused of arranging the killing of Leung, and conspiring to arrange the killing of another man, an alleged gang rival who was shot to death in Mendocino County along with his wife two years ago (for full story read http://tinyurl.com/olcp26v.)
Sometimes well-known, wealthy, and powerful people are drawn to help “reformed” criminals. We have seen this recently when the Los Angeles Police Department shuttled prison inmate/gang member/murderer Rene Enriquez around to make speeches to police chiefs, business leaders, etc.
Maybe Mr. Shrimp has the same celebrity-appeal that draws in mayors, football players, senators, etc.
In the coming weeks, it will be interesting to see how the cast of characters move in and out of this drama. How will they explain their connections to the major players?
Perhaps Mr. Shrimp is just a poor unfortunate victim of an over-aggressive and exuberant federal investigation. That would be quite a twist if he is found not guilty after many of his co-defendants plead guilty to various charges.
PACOVILLA Corrections blog
November 17, 2015
A while back we reported on the antics of former state Senator Yee and his friend Shrimp Boy Chow.
While most of the culprits have taken deals, The Shrimp Boy is headed to trial. The long running federal investigation sounds like a Hollywood movie considering the murder-for-hire, gun-running, etc charges.
Also, the cast of characters who weave in and out of the story is a who’s who of well-known people. The latest chapter of the story added a former football hero.
How can these things happen? How can reputable people be sucked into a criminal vortex?
I know little about football great Joe Montana, but doubt that he knowingly had anything to do with criminal shrimp antics.
It appears that Mr. Shrimp had been passing himself off as a reformed criminal doing good things for the community.
On the surface Mr. Shrimp sounds like a character liberals in the limelight would be attracted to. The allure of the “reformed” criminal can be rather compelling.
Here are some highlights from a recent Los Angeles Times article:
‘Shrimp Boy’ Chow federal trial begins in Bay Area
The racketeering and murder-for-hire trial of Raymond “Shrimp Boy” Chow, dragonhead of Chinatown’s Ghee Kung Tong, opened in a San Francisco federal courtroom Monday, with attorneys for both sides pressing a number of motions in advance of opening statements.
Federal prosecutors contend Chow, 55, who previously served time for racketeering and violent crimes, never reformed his ways after he turned government witness and was released early from prison in 2003.
“Operation Whitesuit,” named after the outfit Chow wore to the 2006 funeral of his Ghee Kung Tong predecessor, Alan Leung, ultimately captured more than two dozen others in its widening net. Key among them was former state Sen. Leland Yee, who pleaded guilty last summer to accepting bribes in exchange for political favors, laundering campaign contributions and plotting to traffic in weapons.
Former 49ers quarterback Joe Montana and San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee were among the others captured on wiretap recordings in connection with the broad probe. Neither faced charges.
Half a dozen of Chow’s co-defendants pleaded guilty in September. Chow, however, has vowed to mount a vigorous defense. He faces dozens of counts of money laundering, trafficking in contraband cigarettes and stolen liquor and being part of a violent criminal organization. He also stands accused of arranging the killing of Leung, and conspiring to arrange the killing of another man, an alleged gang rival who was shot to death in Mendocino County along with his wife two years ago (for full story read http://tinyurl.com/olcp26v.)
Sometimes well-known, wealthy, and powerful people are drawn to help “reformed” criminals. We have seen this recently when the Los Angeles Police Department shuttled prison inmate/gang member/murderer Rene Enriquez around to make speeches to police chiefs, business leaders, etc.
Maybe Mr. Shrimp has the same celebrity-appeal that draws in mayors, football players, senators, etc.
In the coming weeks, it will be interesting to see how the cast of characters move in and out of this drama. How will they explain their connections to the major players?
Perhaps Mr. Shrimp is just a poor unfortunate victim of an over-aggressive and exuberant federal investigation. That would be quite a twist if he is found not guilty after many of his co-defendants plead guilty to various charges.
AMONG PROSTITUTES ON CRAIGLIST, ONE IS ONLY 4-YEARS-OLD
A Houston father is busted for prostituting his 4-year-old daughter on Craiglist at $1,000 for 2 hours
Click2Houston reported Monday that Houston undercover cops busted Andrew Turley, 28, of West Houston and charged him with trafficking a child and prostitution of a minor after Turley had offered up his 4-year-old daughter for prostitution in the “casual encounters” section of Craiglist.
It all began with Houston Police Department officers doing the usual screening for prostitutes on Craiglist. When they found an ad for "Playing with Daddy's little girl,” they started negotiating with the ad placer and exchanged more than 60 emails with him up until November 12. After reaching an agreement for 2 hours at $1,000, undercover cops went to Turley’s apartment Thursday and found the 4-year-old girl naked under a blanket and doped up, possibly with sleeping pills. The cops then escorted Mr. Turley to the slammer.
When Turley appeared in court on Monday, he found a judge who was not very sympathetic to his predicament. Bond was set at $500,000 for each count and he was ordered to have no contact with the victim or any children, and no access to the internet.
If convicted, the slime bag faces between 5 and 99 years, or life in prison.
Turley remains cooped up in the Harris County jail where he should remain until hell freezes over. Or better yet, until some inmate who is incensed by the stench emitted from that slime ball, carves Turley up like a Thanksgiving Day turkey.
Which brings me back to Craiglist. Police all over the country have been making prostitution cases from ads placed on that website. So when is Craiglist going to be charged with promoting prostitution?
Click2Houston reported Monday that Houston undercover cops busted Andrew Turley, 28, of West Houston and charged him with trafficking a child and prostitution of a minor after Turley had offered up his 4-year-old daughter for prostitution in the “casual encounters” section of Craiglist.
It all began with Houston Police Department officers doing the usual screening for prostitutes on Craiglist. When they found an ad for "Playing with Daddy's little girl,” they started negotiating with the ad placer and exchanged more than 60 emails with him up until November 12. After reaching an agreement for 2 hours at $1,000, undercover cops went to Turley’s apartment Thursday and found the 4-year-old girl naked under a blanket and doped up, possibly with sleeping pills. The cops then escorted Mr. Turley to the slammer.
When Turley appeared in court on Monday, he found a judge who was not very sympathetic to his predicament. Bond was set at $500,000 for each count and he was ordered to have no contact with the victim or any children, and no access to the internet.
If convicted, the slime bag faces between 5 and 99 years, or life in prison.
Turley remains cooped up in the Harris County jail where he should remain until hell freezes over. Or better yet, until some inmate who is incensed by the stench emitted from that slime ball, carves Turley up like a Thanksgiving Day turkey.
Which brings me back to Craiglist. Police all over the country have been making prostitution cases from ads placed on that website. So when is Craiglist going to be charged with promoting prostitution?
Monday, November 16, 2015
THE MOST IMPORTANT BATTLE SINCE WORLD WAR II
The battle at Ia Drang marked the beginning of the end of American military supremacy in the 20th Century
By Cory Franklin
politicalmavens.com
November 16, 2015
This week marks the 50th anniversary of one of the most consequential battles in American history. Most Americans have probably never heard of the Ia Drang Valley, the site of the first major encounter between the regular armies of the United States and North Vietnam. Yet that forgotten battle at Ia Drang in mid-November 1965 probably changed world politics more than any other military engagement since World War II.
Following the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin resolution, the United States began sending men and materiel to South Vietnam. For over a year, American troops served primarily as advisors to the South Vietnamese Army fighting Viet Cong guerillas. Although over a thousand Americans were killed during that time, most deaths occurred in brief skirmishes with the guerillas.
That changed in November 1965, when North Vietnam infiltrated thousands of crack soldiers through the Ho Chi Minh trail into the rural Central Highlands of South Vietnam. Using tactics similar to those used successfully against the French a decade before, the North Vietnamese prepared a deadly ambush in the Ia Drang Valley for the undermanned battalion of the American 7th Cavalry Division. Several thousand against several hundred.
In a brutal four-day battle, the badly outnumbered Americans were surrounded and nearly annihilated. The 7th Cav was saved, barely, by brilliant leadership, last-minute reinforcements, and a new weapon of war, the armed helicopter. The helicopters, or Hueys, were used day and night to transport troops and supplies, evacuate wounded, and launch withering fire on the enemy. The battle of Ia Drang marked the beginning of airmobile infantry warfare.
The mop-up lasted more than a month but after four days each side took stock. Although little territory actually changed hands, both sides claimed victory. In reality, each army suffered horrific losses. The United States lost nearly 250 men and had 250 wounded during the heaviest fighting. For America, November 1965 became the deadliest month of the Vietnam War to date, and Americans became familiar with the term “body bag.” North Vietnamese losses were staggering, perhaps ten times greater than American casualties.
The most important implications of Ia Drang, however, were the lessons the military and political leadership of both countries drew from the battle. In Washington, President Lyndon Johnson sent Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara to Saigon to assess conditions. McNamara prepared a memo informing Johnson the North Vietnamese were far stronger than earlier assessments. McNamara presented two options: either quick diplomatic settlement and withdrawal from Vietnam, or a major escalation of American troops. Johnson and his advisors including McNamara chose the latter, a fateful decision for America, with implications that still resonate today. Within a year, the draft was expanded and American troop strength in Vietnam doubled.
The American general responsible for prosecuting the war, William Westmoreland, shaped his overall strategy based on events at Ia Drang. With 200,000 fresh troops at his disposal, he believed that, based on the ratio of North Vietnamese casualties to American casualties, he could successfully wage a war of attrition. If enough enemy soldiers were killed, North Vietnam would capitulate. Thus was born the “body count.”
It was a foolish, and self-defeating, strategy. Too often, engagements had no strategic purpose other than to inflict losses. Of course, this meant more American deaths as well. When the stubborn Westmoreland informed a senator they were killing the enemy at a 10:1 ratio, the senator replied, “The American people don’t care about the ten. They care about the one.” Two years later, with victory nowhere in sight, Westmoreland was sacked after requesting more troops, and President Johnson declined to run for another term.
The North Vietnamese absorbed their own lessons from Ia Drang. Despite heavy casualties, they had fought the vaunted American Army, and its awesome airpower, to a standstill. Because the Americans were ordered not to pursue the enemy into Cambodia, the North Vietnamese could choose where and when to fight, and then simply break off the encounter by retreating into Cambodia to rest and regroup.
General Vo Nguyen Giap, Westmoreland’s North Vietnamese counterpart, quickly grasped the significance of the helicopter as a tool of war. Giap, one of the 20th Century’s most brilliant generals, masterminded victory over the French in the 1950s and the Americans in the 1960s. Dubbed Vietnam’s “Red Napoleon”, he realized American airpower could be partially neutralized by close quarter fighting, which made the Americans reluctant to risk killing their own troops. Years later, Giap said, “It takes very decisive tactics to win a strategic victory. If we could defeat your tactics, your helicopters, then we could defeat your strategy.”
The seminal account of Ia Drang was written by one of the battles’ heroes, Lt. General Hal Moore, along with the superb war reporter Joseph Galloway. Entitled, “We Were Soldiers Once, and Young”, it is a gripping account of heroism, courage, and tragedy - required reading for students of history.
As veterans of the battle die off, Ia Drang should be remembered in the annals of American military history alongside Yorktown, Antietam, Gettysburg, and Normandy. Despite the uncommon valor of our veterans, Ia Drang marked the beginning of the end of American military supremacy in the 20th Century.
By Cory Franklin
politicalmavens.com
November 16, 2015
This week marks the 50th anniversary of one of the most consequential battles in American history. Most Americans have probably never heard of the Ia Drang Valley, the site of the first major encounter between the regular armies of the United States and North Vietnam. Yet that forgotten battle at Ia Drang in mid-November 1965 probably changed world politics more than any other military engagement since World War II.
Following the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin resolution, the United States began sending men and materiel to South Vietnam. For over a year, American troops served primarily as advisors to the South Vietnamese Army fighting Viet Cong guerillas. Although over a thousand Americans were killed during that time, most deaths occurred in brief skirmishes with the guerillas.
That changed in November 1965, when North Vietnam infiltrated thousands of crack soldiers through the Ho Chi Minh trail into the rural Central Highlands of South Vietnam. Using tactics similar to those used successfully against the French a decade before, the North Vietnamese prepared a deadly ambush in the Ia Drang Valley for the undermanned battalion of the American 7th Cavalry Division. Several thousand against several hundred.
In a brutal four-day battle, the badly outnumbered Americans were surrounded and nearly annihilated. The 7th Cav was saved, barely, by brilliant leadership, last-minute reinforcements, and a new weapon of war, the armed helicopter. The helicopters, or Hueys, were used day and night to transport troops and supplies, evacuate wounded, and launch withering fire on the enemy. The battle of Ia Drang marked the beginning of airmobile infantry warfare.
The mop-up lasted more than a month but after four days each side took stock. Although little territory actually changed hands, both sides claimed victory. In reality, each army suffered horrific losses. The United States lost nearly 250 men and had 250 wounded during the heaviest fighting. For America, November 1965 became the deadliest month of the Vietnam War to date, and Americans became familiar with the term “body bag.” North Vietnamese losses were staggering, perhaps ten times greater than American casualties.
The most important implications of Ia Drang, however, were the lessons the military and political leadership of both countries drew from the battle. In Washington, President Lyndon Johnson sent Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara to Saigon to assess conditions. McNamara prepared a memo informing Johnson the North Vietnamese were far stronger than earlier assessments. McNamara presented two options: either quick diplomatic settlement and withdrawal from Vietnam, or a major escalation of American troops. Johnson and his advisors including McNamara chose the latter, a fateful decision for America, with implications that still resonate today. Within a year, the draft was expanded and American troop strength in Vietnam doubled.
The American general responsible for prosecuting the war, William Westmoreland, shaped his overall strategy based on events at Ia Drang. With 200,000 fresh troops at his disposal, he believed that, based on the ratio of North Vietnamese casualties to American casualties, he could successfully wage a war of attrition. If enough enemy soldiers were killed, North Vietnam would capitulate. Thus was born the “body count.”
It was a foolish, and self-defeating, strategy. Too often, engagements had no strategic purpose other than to inflict losses. Of course, this meant more American deaths as well. When the stubborn Westmoreland informed a senator they were killing the enemy at a 10:1 ratio, the senator replied, “The American people don’t care about the ten. They care about the one.” Two years later, with victory nowhere in sight, Westmoreland was sacked after requesting more troops, and President Johnson declined to run for another term.
The North Vietnamese absorbed their own lessons from Ia Drang. Despite heavy casualties, they had fought the vaunted American Army, and its awesome airpower, to a standstill. Because the Americans were ordered not to pursue the enemy into Cambodia, the North Vietnamese could choose where and when to fight, and then simply break off the encounter by retreating into Cambodia to rest and regroup.
General Vo Nguyen Giap, Westmoreland’s North Vietnamese counterpart, quickly grasped the significance of the helicopter as a tool of war. Giap, one of the 20th Century’s most brilliant generals, masterminded victory over the French in the 1950s and the Americans in the 1960s. Dubbed Vietnam’s “Red Napoleon”, he realized American airpower could be partially neutralized by close quarter fighting, which made the Americans reluctant to risk killing their own troops. Years later, Giap said, “It takes very decisive tactics to win a strategic victory. If we could defeat your tactics, your helicopters, then we could defeat your strategy.”
The seminal account of Ia Drang was written by one of the battles’ heroes, Lt. General Hal Moore, along with the superb war reporter Joseph Galloway. Entitled, “We Were Soldiers Once, and Young”, it is a gripping account of heroism, courage, and tragedy - required reading for students of history.
As veterans of the battle die off, Ia Drang should be remembered in the annals of American military history alongside Yorktown, Antietam, Gettysburg, and Normandy. Despite the uncommon valor of our veterans, Ia Drang marked the beginning of the end of American military supremacy in the 20th Century.
Sunday, November 15, 2015
FLORIDA FOURTH GRADER THREATENED WITH SEXUAL HARASSMENT CHARGE
A 9-year-old Hillsborough County boy is accused of sexual harassment by school authorities for writing an unwanted love note to a classmate
The mother of a 9-year-old boy is highly pissed off at Hillsborough County, Florida school authorities for threatening to file sexual harassment charges against the fourth grader.
Her son has a crush on a girl in his class. He did what any red-blooded fourth grader would do if he had the trots for a girl. He wrote her love notes telling her she was “pretty and cute.” He drew a heart, inside of which he wrote, “I like you.” He also wrote, "I like your hair because it is not sloppy. I like your eyes because they sparkle like diamonds." Sweet, but the notes were unwanted.
To make matters worse, much worse, other boys in the school saw the notes and began teasing the love smitten youngster, saying that he wanted to see the girl naked, even though there was nothing whatsoever in the notes of a sexual nature.
That did it. All of a sudden he’s Public School Enemy Number 1. The 9-year-old sexual predator was sent to the principal’s office and told that if he wrote another note to the girl, he would be charged with sexual harassment.
His mother was infuriated. She told ABC Action News, “He’s 9. What little kid doesn't write love notes? My 9-year-old doesn't even know what sexual harassment means."
School authorities deny that they threatened to file sexual harassment charges against the boy. However, they said that since he wrote more than one note to the girl and those notes were unwanted, what he did bordered on harassment.
Dr. Valerie McClain, a licensed psychologist in Tampa, doesn't think this is sexual harassment. "It may be something he thought was very sweet and innocent," she told ABC Action News
According to ABC Action News, “Hillsborough schools said the problem was not the note itself, but the teasing and disruptions that followed. Spokesperson Tanya Arja said teachers discourage kids from passing notes because it can cause classroom disruptions like this one.”
I don’t blame the mother for being pissed off. And despite their denials, I believe the school authorities did threaten the fourth grader with sexual harassment charges.
With all the disruptions that go on in schools, one would think that the Hillsborough County school authorities could have found a more serious disruption to concentrate on.
The mother of a 9-year-old boy is highly pissed off at Hillsborough County, Florida school authorities for threatening to file sexual harassment charges against the fourth grader.
Her son has a crush on a girl in his class. He did what any red-blooded fourth grader would do if he had the trots for a girl. He wrote her love notes telling her she was “pretty and cute.” He drew a heart, inside of which he wrote, “I like you.” He also wrote, "I like your hair because it is not sloppy. I like your eyes because they sparkle like diamonds." Sweet, but the notes were unwanted.
To make matters worse, much worse, other boys in the school saw the notes and began teasing the love smitten youngster, saying that he wanted to see the girl naked, even though there was nothing whatsoever in the notes of a sexual nature.
That did it. All of a sudden he’s Public School Enemy Number 1. The 9-year-old sexual predator was sent to the principal’s office and told that if he wrote another note to the girl, he would be charged with sexual harassment.
His mother was infuriated. She told ABC Action News, “He’s 9. What little kid doesn't write love notes? My 9-year-old doesn't even know what sexual harassment means."
School authorities deny that they threatened to file sexual harassment charges against the boy. However, they said that since he wrote more than one note to the girl and those notes were unwanted, what he did bordered on harassment.
Dr. Valerie McClain, a licensed psychologist in Tampa, doesn't think this is sexual harassment. "It may be something he thought was very sweet and innocent," she told ABC Action News
According to ABC Action News, “Hillsborough schools said the problem was not the note itself, but the teasing and disruptions that followed. Spokesperson Tanya Arja said teachers discourage kids from passing notes because it can cause classroom disruptions like this one.”
I don’t blame the mother for being pissed off. And despite their denials, I believe the school authorities did threaten the fourth grader with sexual harassment charges.
With all the disruptions that go on in schools, one would think that the Hillsborough County school authorities could have found a more serious disruption to concentrate on.
AFTER PARIS, FRANCE CONTEMPLATES A RECKONING
The Paris attacks will improve the popularity of anti-immigration parties in many European countries
STRATFOR Global Intelligence
November 14, 2015
Summary
Details are still emerging as to precisely who was responsible for the Nov. 13 Paris attacks. Sorting through the jumble of misinformation and disinformation will be challenging for French authorities, and for outside observers such as Stratfor.
While the Islamic State has claimed credit for the attack, it is still uncertain to what degree the Islamic State core organization was responsible for planning, funding or directing it. It is not clear whether the attackers were grassroots operatives encouraged by the organization like Paris Kosher Deli gunman Ahmed Coulibaly, if the operatives were professional terrorist cadres dispatched by the core group or if the attack was some combination of the two.
Analysis
French President Francois Hollande publicly placed responsibility for the Nov. 13 attack on the Islamic State, declaring it an act of war. This French response to the Paris attacks is markedly different from that of the Spanish Government following the March 2004 Madrid train bombings. Instead of pulling back from the global coalition working against jihadism, it appears that the French will renew and perhaps expand their efforts to pursue revenge for the most recent assault. The precise nature of this response will be determined by who is ultimately found to be the author of the Nov. 13 attack.
To date, there has been something akin to a division of labor in the anti-jihadist effort, with the French heavily focused on the Sahel region of Africa. The French have also supported coalition efforts in Iraq and Syria, stationing six Dassault Rafale jets in the United Arab Emirates and six Mirage jets in Jordan. On Nov. 4, Paris announced it was sending the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle to enhance ongoing airstrikes against the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq. To date, French aircraft have flown more than 1,285 missions against Islamic State targets in Iraq, and only two sorties in Syria.
France has numerous options for retaliation at its disposal, but its response will be conditioned by who was ultimately responsible. If it is found that the Islamic State core group was indeed behind the Nov. 13 attack, France will likely ramp up its Syrian air operations. The skies over Syria, however, are already congested with coalition and Russian aircraft. With this in mind, the French may choose to retaliate by focusing instead on the Islamic State in Iraq, or perhaps even other Islamic State provinces in places such as Libya. Another option would be to increase French programs to train and support anti-Islamic State forces in Iraq and Syria, or even to conduct commando strikes against key leadership nodes. France also has the option of deploying an expeditionary force like it did in the Sahel, although that would probably require outside airlift capacity from NATO allies, especially the United States.
European Ramifications
The Paris attacks occurred during a Europe-wide political crisis over migrant flows from the Middle East, Asia and Africa. A Syrian passport was found near the body of one of the Paris attackers, prompting a Greek official to say Nov. 14 that the name on the document belonged to a person who passed though Greece in October. This news means that a number of politicians critical of the European Union's response to the immigrant crisis will amplify their disapproval. In particular, advocates who want to end the Schengen agreement, which eliminated border controls in Europe, will use Paris to support their cause.
This has already begun. Poland became the first country to link the Paris attacks to the uptick in immigration. On Nov. 14, Polish Minister for European Affairs-designate Konrad Szymanski said the Paris attacks make impossible the implementation of an EU plan to distribute asylum seekers across the Continental bloc. As expected, France's National Front party also demanded the end of the Schengen agreement. In a televised speech, party leader Marine Le Pen said France has to "recapture control of its borders."
In Germany, Bavarian Prime Minister Horst Seehofer said the Paris attack demonstrates that border controls are more necessary than ever. Seehofer has been very critical of the German government's handling of the refugee crisis, demanding permanent border controls as well as faster repatriation of asylum seekers. The Paris attack will likely strengthen his position and further weaken the government of Chancellor Angela Merkel, which was already facing internal dissent because of the migration crisis. In recent weeks Germany has seen an increase in anti-immigrant violence, including arson attacks against refugee shelters. The Nov. 13 attacks may encourage more extremist groups across Europe to attack asylum seekers.
The anti-Schengen camp will feel vindicated by a parallel event that took place in southern Germany last week, when a Montenegrin citizen was arrested while allegedly driving to Paris with several weapons. While German police have not established a direct connection between this incident and the Nov. 13 attacks, they have said that a link cannot be ruled out. The fact that this man was from Montenegro — a country in the Western Balkans — and made it to Germany in his car will strengthen the demands for stricter border controls along the so-called Balkan route of migration, which connects Greece to Northern Europe.
The Paris attacks will therefore improve the popularity of anti-immigration parties in many European countries, and continue to weaken popular support for the Schengen agreement. Several countries, including Germany, Sweden, Slovenia and Hungary had already re-established border controls because of the immigration crisis. Hungary and Slovenia have gone as far as building fences along their borders. After the Nov. 13 attacks, most EU governments will find it hard to justify a policy of open borders.
STRATFOR Global Intelligence
November 14, 2015
Summary
Details are still emerging as to precisely who was responsible for the Nov. 13 Paris attacks. Sorting through the jumble of misinformation and disinformation will be challenging for French authorities, and for outside observers such as Stratfor.
While the Islamic State has claimed credit for the attack, it is still uncertain to what degree the Islamic State core organization was responsible for planning, funding or directing it. It is not clear whether the attackers were grassroots operatives encouraged by the organization like Paris Kosher Deli gunman Ahmed Coulibaly, if the operatives were professional terrorist cadres dispatched by the core group or if the attack was some combination of the two.
Analysis
French President Francois Hollande publicly placed responsibility for the Nov. 13 attack on the Islamic State, declaring it an act of war. This French response to the Paris attacks is markedly different from that of the Spanish Government following the March 2004 Madrid train bombings. Instead of pulling back from the global coalition working against jihadism, it appears that the French will renew and perhaps expand their efforts to pursue revenge for the most recent assault. The precise nature of this response will be determined by who is ultimately found to be the author of the Nov. 13 attack.
To date, there has been something akin to a division of labor in the anti-jihadist effort, with the French heavily focused on the Sahel region of Africa. The French have also supported coalition efforts in Iraq and Syria, stationing six Dassault Rafale jets in the United Arab Emirates and six Mirage jets in Jordan. On Nov. 4, Paris announced it was sending the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle to enhance ongoing airstrikes against the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq. To date, French aircraft have flown more than 1,285 missions against Islamic State targets in Iraq, and only two sorties in Syria.
France has numerous options for retaliation at its disposal, but its response will be conditioned by who was ultimately responsible. If it is found that the Islamic State core group was indeed behind the Nov. 13 attack, France will likely ramp up its Syrian air operations. The skies over Syria, however, are already congested with coalition and Russian aircraft. With this in mind, the French may choose to retaliate by focusing instead on the Islamic State in Iraq, or perhaps even other Islamic State provinces in places such as Libya. Another option would be to increase French programs to train and support anti-Islamic State forces in Iraq and Syria, or even to conduct commando strikes against key leadership nodes. France also has the option of deploying an expeditionary force like it did in the Sahel, although that would probably require outside airlift capacity from NATO allies, especially the United States.
European Ramifications
The Paris attacks occurred during a Europe-wide political crisis over migrant flows from the Middle East, Asia and Africa. A Syrian passport was found near the body of one of the Paris attackers, prompting a Greek official to say Nov. 14 that the name on the document belonged to a person who passed though Greece in October. This news means that a number of politicians critical of the European Union's response to the immigrant crisis will amplify their disapproval. In particular, advocates who want to end the Schengen agreement, which eliminated border controls in Europe, will use Paris to support their cause.
This has already begun. Poland became the first country to link the Paris attacks to the uptick in immigration. On Nov. 14, Polish Minister for European Affairs-designate Konrad Szymanski said the Paris attacks make impossible the implementation of an EU plan to distribute asylum seekers across the Continental bloc. As expected, France's National Front party also demanded the end of the Schengen agreement. In a televised speech, party leader Marine Le Pen said France has to "recapture control of its borders."
In Germany, Bavarian Prime Minister Horst Seehofer said the Paris attack demonstrates that border controls are more necessary than ever. Seehofer has been very critical of the German government's handling of the refugee crisis, demanding permanent border controls as well as faster repatriation of asylum seekers. The Paris attack will likely strengthen his position and further weaken the government of Chancellor Angela Merkel, which was already facing internal dissent because of the migration crisis. In recent weeks Germany has seen an increase in anti-immigrant violence, including arson attacks against refugee shelters. The Nov. 13 attacks may encourage more extremist groups across Europe to attack asylum seekers.
The anti-Schengen camp will feel vindicated by a parallel event that took place in southern Germany last week, when a Montenegrin citizen was arrested while allegedly driving to Paris with several weapons. While German police have not established a direct connection between this incident and the Nov. 13 attacks, they have said that a link cannot be ruled out. The fact that this man was from Montenegro — a country in the Western Balkans — and made it to Germany in his car will strengthen the demands for stricter border controls along the so-called Balkan route of migration, which connects Greece to Northern Europe.
The Paris attacks will therefore improve the popularity of anti-immigration parties in many European countries, and continue to weaken popular support for the Schengen agreement. Several countries, including Germany, Sweden, Slovenia and Hungary had already re-established border controls because of the immigration crisis. Hungary and Slovenia have gone as far as building fences along their borders. After the Nov. 13 attacks, most EU governments will find it hard to justify a policy of open borders.
Saturday, November 14, 2015
WAS A LOVE TRIANGLE BEHIND THE SHOOTING OF CHRISTOPHER FEW AND HIS AUTISTIC SON?
The Daily Mail has uncovered that officer Norris Greenhouse Jr. and Christopher Few had clashed several times because both were having simultaneous affairs with the same woman
Following a short car chase in Marksville, Louisiana on the night of November 3, officers Norris Greenhouse Jr. and Derrick Stafford shot dead 6-year-old Jeremy Mardis and critically wounded his father Christopher Few. Stafford was a lieutenant with the Marksville PD and Greenhouse was an Alexandria city marshal, but that night both were moonlighting for the Marksville city marshal’s office.
During and after the chase, the two officers fired at least 18 rounds at Christopher Few’s SUV. Few was hospitalized in critical condition with multiple gunshot wounds and Jeremy Mardis, his 6-year-old autistic son, died when he was shot five times in the head and chest. The cops claimed that Few was trying to run over them, but a video reportedly showed otherwise and even showed Few with his hands up.
Before the chase, Few had an argument with girlfriend Megan Dixon outside TJ’s Lounge. Few left to get Jeremy and soon after picking up the autistic first-grader, the two marshals tried to stop his SUV.
Three days after the shooting, Greenhouse and Stafford were busted by the Louisiana State Police and each was charged with second-degree murder and attempted second-degree murder.
Dixon, who recently tested positive for opiates and meth, has an extensive arrest record. She claims to be Few’s fiancée. However, the Daily Mail has dug up information that for months Dixon was also shacking up with Greenhouse.
According to the Daily Mail, friends of Dixon said that while she was living with Few, she was also carrying on an affair with Greenhouse and that this had been going on for months. During that time, the two men had several confrontations during one of which Few threatened Greenhouse.
What once appeared to be only a bad shooting now looks like a deliberate love triangle murder.
Unfortunately, that love triangle took the life of an innocent 6-year-old autistic boy, a crime deserving of a first-degree murder charge which carries the possibility of the death penalty.
Following a short car chase in Marksville, Louisiana on the night of November 3, officers Norris Greenhouse Jr. and Derrick Stafford shot dead 6-year-old Jeremy Mardis and critically wounded his father Christopher Few. Stafford was a lieutenant with the Marksville PD and Greenhouse was an Alexandria city marshal, but that night both were moonlighting for the Marksville city marshal’s office.
During and after the chase, the two officers fired at least 18 rounds at Christopher Few’s SUV. Few was hospitalized in critical condition with multiple gunshot wounds and Jeremy Mardis, his 6-year-old autistic son, died when he was shot five times in the head and chest. The cops claimed that Few was trying to run over them, but a video reportedly showed otherwise and even showed Few with his hands up.
Before the chase, Few had an argument with girlfriend Megan Dixon outside TJ’s Lounge. Few left to get Jeremy and soon after picking up the autistic first-grader, the two marshals tried to stop his SUV.
Three days after the shooting, Greenhouse and Stafford were busted by the Louisiana State Police and each was charged with second-degree murder and attempted second-degree murder.
Dixon, who recently tested positive for opiates and meth, has an extensive arrest record. She claims to be Few’s fiancée. However, the Daily Mail has dug up information that for months Dixon was also shacking up with Greenhouse.
According to the Daily Mail, friends of Dixon said that while she was living with Few, she was also carrying on an affair with Greenhouse and that this had been going on for months. During that time, the two men had several confrontations during one of which Few threatened Greenhouse.
What once appeared to be only a bad shooting now looks like a deliberate love triangle murder.
Unfortunately, that love triangle took the life of an innocent 6-year-old autistic boy, a crime deserving of a first-degree murder charge which carries the possibility of the death penalty.
ATTORNEY-CLIENT PHONE CALL RECORDINGS LEAKED BY PRISON PHONE SERVICE
A prison phone service leaked at least 14,000 recordings of conversations between attorneys and their clients at prisons and jails throughout the country
It turns out that a Dallas based prison phone service has been recording attorney-client conversations at prisons and jails throughout the country, at least 14,000 of which have been leaked.
Here is the Houston Press report on this matter:
ATTORNEY-CLIENT PHONE CALLS PART OF MASSIVE PRISON PHONE SYSTEM HACK
By Craig Malisow
Houston Press
November 13, 2015
At least 14,000 recordings of attorney-client phone calls from jails and prisons across the country were leaked from a Dallas-based phone service provider, a year after a group of Austin lawyers sued the company for illegally recording privileged conversations.
The Intercept's November 11 report on the massive data breach is both excellent and scary: the outlet says it obtained "over 70 million records of phone calls" from a hacker who believes that Securus Technologies "is violating the constitutional rights of inmates."
Securus is a major player in what the story calls the $1.2 billion a year business of "prison and jail communications;" its website claims the company "serves more than 2,600 public safety, law enforcement, and corrections agencies" and over a million inmates across the continent. (The Texas Department of Criminal Justice's offender phone system is subcontracted to Securus, according to a TDCJ spokesman).
In response to the Intercept story, Securus issued a statement pledging its cooperation with law enforcement, and suggesting that the breach was an inside job. The company also claimed that "We have found absolutely no evidence of attorney-client calls that were recorded without the knowledge and consent of those parties."
Two organizations say otherwise: a group of defense attorneys called the Austin Lawyers Guild, along with a prisoner advocacy group called Prison Justice League, sued Securus in federal court in 2014, claiming that the company not only records attorney-client conversations, but turns them over to Travis County authorities, including prosecutors. The suit claims that prosecutors have disclosed the recordings to defense attorneys during discovery, and that other prosecutors have used information from the calls "to their tactical advantage."
The suit alleges that Travis county authorities and Securus management have known about the recording practices since early 2013, "but they did nothing to fix it."
Travis County officials denied "knowingly or intentionally" recording privileged calls, as well as "using such recordings for any improper purpose." Securus has sought dismissal of the suit on procedural grounds, while simultaneously arguing that not all attorney-client conversations are privileged, and that even if privileged calls were recorded, there's been no evidence that these recordings have harmed inmates' cases.
The company also claimed, in its November 11 statement, that its system contains safeguards to prevent the recording of privileged conversations, including an option for attorneys to "register their numbers to exempt them from the recording that is standard for other inmate calls."
According to The Intercept, the data breach includes calls placed between December 2011 and spring 2014 and proves the company has failed to measure up to its own promises on security. The report goes on to say:
The more than 70 million phone call records given to The Intercept include phone calls placed to nearly 1.3 million unique phone numbers by more than 63,000 inmates. The original data was contained in a 37-gigabyte file and scattered across hundreds of tables, similar to spreadsheets, which The Intercept merged into a single table containing 144 million records. A search for duplicates reduced this figure to more than 70 million records of individual phone calls.
Further number-crunching allegedly revealed that "Securus recorded more than 14,000 phone calls to at least 800 numbers that clearly belonged to attorneys." (The story suggests that the figure is "likely an underestimate").
As you might guess, the ACLU found the whole thing troubling. David Fathi, director of the group's National Prison Project, told The Intercept, "This may be the most massive breach of the attorney-client privilege in modern U.S. history."
More to chew on, from the story:
The blanket recording of detainee phone calls is a fairly recent phenomenon, the official purpose of which is to protect individuals both inside and outside the nation’s prisons and jails. The Securus hack offers a rare look at this little-considered form of mass surveillance of people behind bars — and of their loved ones on the outside — raising questions about its scope and practicality, as well as its dangers.
Frankly, this mashup of porous security and allegedly overreaching surveillance seems shocking enough to make the NSA blush. We highly recommend you read the Intercept story.
It turns out that a Dallas based prison phone service has been recording attorney-client conversations at prisons and jails throughout the country, at least 14,000 of which have been leaked.
Here is the Houston Press report on this matter:
ATTORNEY-CLIENT PHONE CALLS PART OF MASSIVE PRISON PHONE SYSTEM HACK
By Craig Malisow
Houston Press
November 13, 2015
At least 14,000 recordings of attorney-client phone calls from jails and prisons across the country were leaked from a Dallas-based phone service provider, a year after a group of Austin lawyers sued the company for illegally recording privileged conversations.
The Intercept's November 11 report on the massive data breach is both excellent and scary: the outlet says it obtained "over 70 million records of phone calls" from a hacker who believes that Securus Technologies "is violating the constitutional rights of inmates."
Securus is a major player in what the story calls the $1.2 billion a year business of "prison and jail communications;" its website claims the company "serves more than 2,600 public safety, law enforcement, and corrections agencies" and over a million inmates across the continent. (The Texas Department of Criminal Justice's offender phone system is subcontracted to Securus, according to a TDCJ spokesman).
In response to the Intercept story, Securus issued a statement pledging its cooperation with law enforcement, and suggesting that the breach was an inside job. The company also claimed that "We have found absolutely no evidence of attorney-client calls that were recorded without the knowledge and consent of those parties."
Two organizations say otherwise: a group of defense attorneys called the Austin Lawyers Guild, along with a prisoner advocacy group called Prison Justice League, sued Securus in federal court in 2014, claiming that the company not only records attorney-client conversations, but turns them over to Travis County authorities, including prosecutors. The suit claims that prosecutors have disclosed the recordings to defense attorneys during discovery, and that other prosecutors have used information from the calls "to their tactical advantage."
The suit alleges that Travis county authorities and Securus management have known about the recording practices since early 2013, "but they did nothing to fix it."
Travis County officials denied "knowingly or intentionally" recording privileged calls, as well as "using such recordings for any improper purpose." Securus has sought dismissal of the suit on procedural grounds, while simultaneously arguing that not all attorney-client conversations are privileged, and that even if privileged calls were recorded, there's been no evidence that these recordings have harmed inmates' cases.
The company also claimed, in its November 11 statement, that its system contains safeguards to prevent the recording of privileged conversations, including an option for attorneys to "register their numbers to exempt them from the recording that is standard for other inmate calls."
According to The Intercept, the data breach includes calls placed between December 2011 and spring 2014 and proves the company has failed to measure up to its own promises on security. The report goes on to say:
The more than 70 million phone call records given to The Intercept include phone calls placed to nearly 1.3 million unique phone numbers by more than 63,000 inmates. The original data was contained in a 37-gigabyte file and scattered across hundreds of tables, similar to spreadsheets, which The Intercept merged into a single table containing 144 million records. A search for duplicates reduced this figure to more than 70 million records of individual phone calls.
Further number-crunching allegedly revealed that "Securus recorded more than 14,000 phone calls to at least 800 numbers that clearly belonged to attorneys." (The story suggests that the figure is "likely an underestimate").
As you might guess, the ACLU found the whole thing troubling. David Fathi, director of the group's National Prison Project, told The Intercept, "This may be the most massive breach of the attorney-client privilege in modern U.S. history."
More to chew on, from the story:
The blanket recording of detainee phone calls is a fairly recent phenomenon, the official purpose of which is to protect individuals both inside and outside the nation’s prisons and jails. The Securus hack offers a rare look at this little-considered form of mass surveillance of people behind bars — and of their loved ones on the outside — raising questions about its scope and practicality, as well as its dangers.
Frankly, this mashup of porous security and allegedly overreaching surveillance seems shocking enough to make the NSA blush. We highly recommend you read the Intercept story.
Friday, November 13, 2015
WOMAN COP DOES MOST OF THE TASING IN FATAL ARREST OF VIRGINIA MAN
Linwood Lambert, who died in the back of a South Boston, Virginia police car, was allegedly tased by three cops some 20 times while shackled and one of the officers showed that women cops, just like women guards at Nazi death camps, can be even more brutal than their male counterparts
Here we have a case of probable police brutality that occurred back in May 2013, but videos of which have just now hit the internet. The case concerns Linwood Lambert, a black man, who was tased by three white South Boston, Virginia cops some 20 times while shackled. He died in the back of a police car. A woman cop, Cpl. Tiffany Bratton, did most of the tasing.
Although he was bleeding “profusely” and most of the tasing took place at the entrance to a hospital emergency room, the cops refused to take him inside for treatment.
Lambert’s sister is suing for $26 million. Her attorneys recently obtained the videos from the police department and the hospital.
While the South Boston Police Department insists its officers did nothing wrong, the shocking videos seem to show otherwise.
The medical examiner’s report states that Lambert died from cocaine intoxication. However, one would have to conclude that being jolted with 50,000 volts multiple times was a contributing factor in Lambert’s death.
And this case shows that women cops, just like women guards at Nazi death camps, can be even more brutal than their male counterparts.
What bothers me even more than the brutality of the officers is that the attorneys for Lambert’s sister apparently leaked the videos to the media and the internet. It may have been done to discredit any cops that will be testifying at trial and likely to influence the potential jury pool.
What the release of the videos has done though, is to bolster the accusations of Black Lives Matter and white liberals that white cops deliberately murder black men.
MSNBC was the first to obtain the videos and here is their very extensive report on the circumstances surrounding Lambert’s death:
DRIVEN TO HOSPITAL, VIRGINIA MAN TASED, SHACKLED AND DIES IN POLICE CUSTODY
By Ari Melber
MSNBC
November 12, 2015
When three Virginia police officers put Linwood Lambert in a squad car around 5 a.m. on May 4, 2013, they said they were taking him to the ER for medical attention because he was speaking delusionally. Just over an hour later, Lambert died in police custody.
He was never given medical care, though the officers of South Boston, Va. did drive him to the hospital. He was not initially put under arrest, though the officers ultimately arrested him, shackled his hands and legs, and tased him repeatedly. While in custody he was agitated and ran from the officers. Ambulance workers say police later claimed he fought them at a time when videos show he was actually unconscious. Police dispute that account and deny allegations of excessive force.
Over two years later, there have been no charges and no full public accounting of what happened. But a new investigation, including police videos obtained exclusively by MSNBC, shows the deadly trip for the first time.
A RIDE TO THE HOSPITAL
Linwood “Ray” Lambert, a 46-year-old man who worked in construction, was staying at a Super 8 motel in South Boston, a town of about 8,000 people in Southern Virginia. In the middle of the night of May 4, 2013, police received calls about noise complaints at the hotel. When three officers came to Lambert’s door just before 5 a.m., they say he was acting paranoid, hallucinating and telling them there were bodies buried in the ceiling.
Since Lambert was unarmed and not suspected of any crime, the officers did not arrest him. They thought he needed medical care, so they told him to come on the short trip to Sentara Halifax Regional Hospital.
The officers cuffed Lambert’s hands for the ride, but assured him, “we’re not locking you up, we’re going to the ER”
The three officers, Cpl. Tiffany Bratton, Officer Clifton Mann and Officer Travis Clay, departed the hotel in three police cars. Video from one shows an officer calling the hospital, asking for the mental health care worker on duty.
On the ride, Lambert looks increasingly agitated. The video shows him asking about a light in the backseat, and then about a squad car trailing them. An officer tells him, “you good, trust me.”
A few minutes later, though, everything changed.
“BLEEDING LIKE A HOG”
As the officers pulled up to the hospital, Lambert kicked out the squad car window.
Video from inside the car shows officers yelling at him to stop. When they cracked the passenger door, Lambert jumped out, sprinting roughly 20 feet towards the ER entrance and crashing into the building’s glass doors.
The officers ran after him and began tasing him. In response, Lambert’s body goes stiff and, with his hands cuffed, his arms could not break the fall when he hit the cement. The three officers surrounded him on the ground.
One ordered him to “stay down;” another, Officer Bratton, told him, “Every time you get up, I’m going to pop you.”
Lambert told them, “I didn’t do nothing,” and can be heard moaning in the recording. The officers tell Lambert to lie down, stay down, get on his belly, and roll over – while warning they will taser him again.
“I’m going to light you up again – roll over, roll over, turn over!” Bratton says.
Lambert remained on the ground, saying OK, but the officers tased him again. They restrained his legs with shackles.
Then, as Lambert appears subdued on the video, the officers warned Lambert they would taser him again. “I’m going to hit you again,” Bratton tells him.
Then Lambert says, “I just did cocaine.”
For the first time that night, officers tell Lambert he is under arrest, calling it in for disorderly conduct and destruction of property.
Lambert pleads to the officers, “Why are you trying to kill me, man?,” and asks them to stop the tasing, saying, “don’t do it, please don’t do it, please officers.”
As videos from the hospital and police cars show, the entire scene plays out right in the doorway to the ER, with nurses and hospital staff watching. But then the officers make a fateful decision – to take Lambert away without getting him medical care, the original reason they took him into custody.
Instead, they hauled him back into the squad car and began a new round of tasing.
Police video shows Lambert shackled and subdued in the car, apparently restrained, as officers warn him again and tell him to sit up.
“Act like you got some sense,” says one officer. Another warns, “sit up or I’m going to tase you again.” Reaching into the car with two Tasers, the officers tase Lambert as he slumps down in the seat.
At one point, Officer Clay made contact with Lambert’s neck inside the car, and the officers discuss whether Lambert was trying to bite him. The video does not appear to show a direct bite occurring. Clay went to the ER later that morning, at 7:35 a.m., to get treatment “for a possible bite,” according to police records. In his incident report, he writes that Lambert “was biting at me.”
In addition to the video, nurses on the scene say they saw “three officers” tasing Lambert “at one time,” according to hospital records obtained by MSNBC.
A single, 5-second Taser discharge carries 50,000 volts and generally incapacitates a person, because it temporarily turns the human body into an electricity conductor. Law enforcement experts caution against repeat tasings.
Yet the three officers discharged their Tasers a total of 20 times over roughly half an hour. (The figures are from company device reports issued by Taser International, obtained by MSNBC.)
Those discharges amount to roughly 87 total seconds of potential tasing – a level capable of inflicting serious injury or death, according to federal guidelines. While the videos clearly show multiple tasings connecting with Lambert, not every recorded discharge necessarily makes human contact.
Most of those discharges were from Officer Bratton, who used her Taser 15 times, including 10 times in a two-minute span.
When the final tasing inside the car ended, Officer Clay drove Lambert back to the jail, and Officer Bratton drove back separately.
Officer Mann remained briefly at the hospital, where he was recorded talking to a hospital worker, who asked if the police were going to bring Lambert inside.
“We were,” the officer said, chuckling, “now he’s going to jail.”
“He’s bleeding like a hog,” he said, “we thought he was crazy, and then he finally told us he was on cocaine.”
As the officers make the short drive to jail, the squad car video shows Lambert unconscious. The officers notice his state when arriving at the jail, where they checked Lambert’s pulse, attempted CPR and called for help.
Then an ambulance came and took Lambert back to Sentara Halifax Regional Hospital – the same ER the officers had originally brought Lambert to for treatment.
Hospital records show Lambert was flatlined on arrival at 6:06 a.m. – just over an hour after his trip with police began. He was pronounced dead at 6:23 a.m.
“A NIGHTMARE”
Lambert’s sister, Gwendolyn Smalls, learned of his death when police called her that Sunday morning.
“We got the phone call that he had died, while in police custody,” she told MSNBC. “We were all shocked.”
She says police refused to provide basic information about what happened that night. She kept calling the police and hospital, asking for details, but says she was only told that her brother was repeatedly combative, and then he died at the hospital. Police did not provide her the videos, or information from them.
Smalls ultimately filed a civil suit against the police this summer, alleging excessive force, wrongful death, denial of medical care and other claims, which the police categorically deny. That $25 million suit led to a court order forcing police to give Smalls the videos from that night.
She watched them for the first time last month, at her father’s house. “It was horrible,” she said, “a nightmare.”
Lambert’s father, Linwood Lambert Sr., 66, told MSNBC he doesn’t have the words to describe what he saw.
“I can’t say what I was thinking, it was awful,” he recalled. “You wouldn’t do any human or any species like that. I don’t think anyone could hate someone that bad to inflict pain such as what they did,” Lambert said. “I don’t see anything that he did in that tape,” Lambert added, “that would provoke them to do what they did.”
Gwendolyn Smalls’ lawyer, Tom Sweeney, argues the police broke the law because they used excessive force for the situation.
“The mere breaking of a door,” he said, “does not warrant the use of hundreds of thousands of volts being shocked into a person’s system on multiple occasions by multiple parties.”
Sweeney also stresses it is illegal to taser someone who is restrained and in custody.
“When someone is restrained,” he said, “you’re not allowed to taser them.”
The South Boston Police Department’s own rules state Taser use “is no longer justified once the subject has been restrained.”
When a tasered suspect needs medical help, those rules state officers may “take the suspect to the emergency room at the Halifax Regional Hospital,” and should do so “before” taking the suspect to jail. (The rule is General Order Number 211, effective since May 2007.)
Federal guidelines also strictly limit Taser use.
The Justice Department states that police should limit tasings to people showing “active aggression” – not passive individuals, or those “fleeing” without posing a separate danger. The guidelines discourage repeat tasering, noting that exposure lasting over 15 seconds can “increase the risk of serious injury or death and should be avoided.”
In fact, a 2011 federal review of “in-custody deaths” related to Tasers found “many are associated with continuous or repeated shocks.”
Taser International notes that most lab testing of Tasers hasn’t “exceeded 15 seconds,” and cautions police to “use the shortest duration” of tasing that is “objectively reasonable for lawful objectives.”
Jim Cavanaugh, a former ATF agent and NBC law enforcement analyst, reviewed extensive videos of the tasing incident. He concluded the officers deployed “improper use of force in every regard.”
“It’s excessive force through excessive use of a Taser,” he said, “on a prisoner who is in a dire medical condition, and is restrained already, and that’s very disturbing.”
Cavanaugh added, “it just hurts me to watch officers do that to the guy.”
“HE NEEDED A BAND-AID”
South Boston police declined to comment to MSNBC about the incident. Their lawyer, Jim Daniel, said “cases in litigation ought to be decided in the court system,” not through public comments.
In court filings in response to that civil case, the police deny all allegations that Lambert was mistreated. They say the use of force and repeat tasings were “appropriate and necessary,” because Lambert damaged property and posed a danger.
As for the most severe charge, wrongful death, police point to Lambert’s autopsy, which lists “acute cocaine intoxication” as his cause of death.
Lambert admitted to cocaine use that night, and the autopsy found he had “less than 0.01 mg/L” of cocaine in his blood – a relatively low level that could still account for an overdose.
“Having a level of 5 mg/L or higher would be more consistent with death due to cocaine intoxication,” said Dr. Lewis Nelson, a medical toxologist and emergency medicine specialist at NYU. “Low levels don’t rule out cocaine as a cause of death,” Nelson told MSNBC, noting that a .01 level is “consistent with recreational use but could also be consistent with overdose.”
The autopsy also found Lambert had three wounds suggestive of tasering on his body, and cited police accounts that he was “tased at distant and contact range.”
Sweeney argues, however, that the autopsy was conducted without complete information about how many times Lambert was tased.
“There’s a reference in the coroner’s report to tasing,” he said. “There’s no reference to the fact that Mr. Lambert was tasered multiple times, by multiple police officers at the same time while he was in the back of a police car, and subsequently died shortly after that,” he said.
Sweeney wants to present independent medical testimony on how the repeated tasings may have contributed to Lambert’s death.
The case is in the discovery stage, with a hearing scheduled for Thursday. If it goes to a trial, a judge would tell jurors to weigh all legitimate evidence regarding potential causes of death. (Sentara Halifax Regional Hospital declined to comment on the incident, when contacted by MSNBC in person and via email, citing open litigation against the police department.)
Sweeney also argues a jury will be skeptical of how the entire police interaction evolved, since Lambert was taken into custody for medical help, not as a criminal suspect.
Lambert did have a lengthy criminal record, including drug felonies and driving felonies, though Sweeney says that history is legally irrelevant in a case alleging excessive force.
“The police didn’t know that when they were tasing him,” Sweeney said, “you can’t use the fact that he had interactions with the law before to justify unlawful use of force – you don’t lose your constitutional rights because you’ve been involved with the law before.”
In filings to date, the police do not mention Lambert’s previous criminal record.
In legal filings and statements, South Boston police have focused more on Lambert’s conditionon the night in question. The officers not only maintain the tasings were legally justified – a question of force – but also that the tasings did not seriously injure Lambert that night – a question of medical fact.
In depositions taken in early October, officers said Lambert’s injuries were either minor or not urgent. Officer Clay said Lambert could have any injuries treated at the jail, a more suitable place “if he needed more medical attention.”
Officer Bratton was asked how she decided Lambert did not need immediate medical attention, based on his condition when officers left the hospital. She said he looked like “he needed a Band-Aid.”
Sweeney has a different view of the night’s events, arguing the tasing was especially objectionable because it was so evident Lambert needed medical help.
“The video is a horrifying thing to watch,” Sweeney said, because Lambert is clearly “in trouble, in noticeable respiratory distress,” and yet police still taser him repeatedly and deny him medical care.
Smalls is even more emphatic.
“Taser is what killed my brother,” she says, “the continuous hold of fifty thousand volts of electricity going into his body.”
“HE AGAIN WAS COMBATIVE”
While the legal case turns most on the conduct that night – did officers use excessive force, did Lambert repeatedly provoke them? – MSNBC’s investigation also found medical records indicating police made statements after Lambert’s death that appear to be contradicted by their own videos – and by later accounts of the night.
In the hospital’s official rescue incident report, ambulance workers state police told them Lambert was “combative” at two instances when the video appears to show otherwise.
First, it states police said Lambert was “very combative” when they encountered him at the hotel, although ultimately “were able to detain [him] with assistance from other officers.”
But the video shows Lambert walking out the hotel with the officers voluntarily.
In addition, the officers neither asserted Lambert was under arrest at the time, nor do their later statements allege a physical altercation at the hotel.
Second, the hospital report states that after leaving the hospital, police say they took Lambert “to the jail where he again was combative. After they finally got him to the ground he was in the prone position and he calmed down. Then they realized that the patient was not breathing and they started CPR.”
That claim of another combative, physical altercation also appears to be false – the video shows Lambert was unconscious on arrival at the jail, and officers can be seen dragging his limp body out of the car.
“The story in the ambulance record is markedly different than what actually happened,” Sweeney told MSNBC, citing the ambulance workers’ account of police statements. “I’m not saying they lied,” Sweeney said of the officers, “but that he is combative and alive at the jail is demonstrably untrue.”
However the misinformation made it into the hospital report, it was some of the only information Lambert’s family received about that night.
When they first filed their lawsuit, Sweeney notes, he “only had those medical records” for an account of what happened at the jail, (not the video or extensive police statements).
It is important to note the officers also filed incident reports within days of Lambert’s death, obtained by MSNBC, which depict the jailhouse events consistent with the videos. The reports accurately note Lambert was “quiet on the ride to the jail” and “not breathing” on arrival. In addition, police briefs filed this year do not allege an altercation at the jail.
Smalls, Lambert’s sister, believes the police sought to make Lambert sound more combative than he actually was.
Ultimately, she says real justice won’t come from her civil suit. She wants to see the officers held accountable in jail.
Virginia State Police conducted an investigation of the incident. A State Police spokesperson, Corrine Geller, told MSNBC State Police “initiated the investigation at the request” of South Boston Police Chief James Binner, and it “turned its findings over” to two prosecutors “for final review and adjudication.”
The original prosecutor, Halifax County attorney Tracy Quackenbush Martin, has been investigating the case since 2013.
“The investigation remains open,” she told MSNBC this week.
She said a second prosecutor, Michael Herring, was appointed this year to work for her on the case, in order to enhance “public confidence” in the process, given his experience with similar matters in the past.
According to police records from March 2015, obtained by MSNBC, a South Boston police officer said Ms. Martin told him she thought the officers were not at “criminal fault” for Lambert’s death.
The officer, Lt. D. W. Barker, wrote that Martin met with him and another police official about the investigation, and “advised that she had looked into the matter and felt that the officers had no criminal fault in the investigation,” but she also wanted another prosecutor “assigned to the case to review everything behind her.”
Ms. Martin did not dispute Lt. Barker’s statement in an interview with MSNBC this week, but said “it would be premature to comment on a preliminary opinion when the investigation is still pending. I will withhold a final judgment until my investigation is complete.”
Over two years after the State Police investigation and Martin’s investigation, there have been no charges in the case.
All three officers have been promoted.
Here we have a case of probable police brutality that occurred back in May 2013, but videos of which have just now hit the internet. The case concerns Linwood Lambert, a black man, who was tased by three white South Boston, Virginia cops some 20 times while shackled. He died in the back of a police car. A woman cop, Cpl. Tiffany Bratton, did most of the tasing.
Although he was bleeding “profusely” and most of the tasing took place at the entrance to a hospital emergency room, the cops refused to take him inside for treatment.
Lambert’s sister is suing for $26 million. Her attorneys recently obtained the videos from the police department and the hospital.
While the South Boston Police Department insists its officers did nothing wrong, the shocking videos seem to show otherwise.
The medical examiner’s report states that Lambert died from cocaine intoxication. However, one would have to conclude that being jolted with 50,000 volts multiple times was a contributing factor in Lambert’s death.
And this case shows that women cops, just like women guards at Nazi death camps, can be even more brutal than their male counterparts.
What bothers me even more than the brutality of the officers is that the attorneys for Lambert’s sister apparently leaked the videos to the media and the internet. It may have been done to discredit any cops that will be testifying at trial and likely to influence the potential jury pool.
What the release of the videos has done though, is to bolster the accusations of Black Lives Matter and white liberals that white cops deliberately murder black men.
MSNBC was the first to obtain the videos and here is their very extensive report on the circumstances surrounding Lambert’s death:
DRIVEN TO HOSPITAL, VIRGINIA MAN TASED, SHACKLED AND DIES IN POLICE CUSTODY
By Ari Melber
MSNBC
November 12, 2015
When three Virginia police officers put Linwood Lambert in a squad car around 5 a.m. on May 4, 2013, they said they were taking him to the ER for medical attention because he was speaking delusionally. Just over an hour later, Lambert died in police custody.
He was never given medical care, though the officers of South Boston, Va. did drive him to the hospital. He was not initially put under arrest, though the officers ultimately arrested him, shackled his hands and legs, and tased him repeatedly. While in custody he was agitated and ran from the officers. Ambulance workers say police later claimed he fought them at a time when videos show he was actually unconscious. Police dispute that account and deny allegations of excessive force.
Over two years later, there have been no charges and no full public accounting of what happened. But a new investigation, including police videos obtained exclusively by MSNBC, shows the deadly trip for the first time.
A RIDE TO THE HOSPITAL
Linwood “Ray” Lambert, a 46-year-old man who worked in construction, was staying at a Super 8 motel in South Boston, a town of about 8,000 people in Southern Virginia. In the middle of the night of May 4, 2013, police received calls about noise complaints at the hotel. When three officers came to Lambert’s door just before 5 a.m., they say he was acting paranoid, hallucinating and telling them there were bodies buried in the ceiling.
Since Lambert was unarmed and not suspected of any crime, the officers did not arrest him. They thought he needed medical care, so they told him to come on the short trip to Sentara Halifax Regional Hospital.
The officers cuffed Lambert’s hands for the ride, but assured him, “we’re not locking you up, we’re going to the ER”
The three officers, Cpl. Tiffany Bratton, Officer Clifton Mann and Officer Travis Clay, departed the hotel in three police cars. Video from one shows an officer calling the hospital, asking for the mental health care worker on duty.
On the ride, Lambert looks increasingly agitated. The video shows him asking about a light in the backseat, and then about a squad car trailing them. An officer tells him, “you good, trust me.”
A few minutes later, though, everything changed.
“BLEEDING LIKE A HOG”
As the officers pulled up to the hospital, Lambert kicked out the squad car window.
Video from inside the car shows officers yelling at him to stop. When they cracked the passenger door, Lambert jumped out, sprinting roughly 20 feet towards the ER entrance and crashing into the building’s glass doors.
The officers ran after him and began tasing him. In response, Lambert’s body goes stiff and, with his hands cuffed, his arms could not break the fall when he hit the cement. The three officers surrounded him on the ground.
One ordered him to “stay down;” another, Officer Bratton, told him, “Every time you get up, I’m going to pop you.”
Lambert told them, “I didn’t do nothing,” and can be heard moaning in the recording. The officers tell Lambert to lie down, stay down, get on his belly, and roll over – while warning they will taser him again.
“I’m going to light you up again – roll over, roll over, turn over!” Bratton says.
Lambert remained on the ground, saying OK, but the officers tased him again. They restrained his legs with shackles.
Then, as Lambert appears subdued on the video, the officers warned Lambert they would taser him again. “I’m going to hit you again,” Bratton tells him.
Then Lambert says, “I just did cocaine.”
For the first time that night, officers tell Lambert he is under arrest, calling it in for disorderly conduct and destruction of property.
Lambert pleads to the officers, “Why are you trying to kill me, man?,” and asks them to stop the tasing, saying, “don’t do it, please don’t do it, please officers.”
As videos from the hospital and police cars show, the entire scene plays out right in the doorway to the ER, with nurses and hospital staff watching. But then the officers make a fateful decision – to take Lambert away without getting him medical care, the original reason they took him into custody.
Instead, they hauled him back into the squad car and began a new round of tasing.
Police video shows Lambert shackled and subdued in the car, apparently restrained, as officers warn him again and tell him to sit up.
“Act like you got some sense,” says one officer. Another warns, “sit up or I’m going to tase you again.” Reaching into the car with two Tasers, the officers tase Lambert as he slumps down in the seat.
At one point, Officer Clay made contact with Lambert’s neck inside the car, and the officers discuss whether Lambert was trying to bite him. The video does not appear to show a direct bite occurring. Clay went to the ER later that morning, at 7:35 a.m., to get treatment “for a possible bite,” according to police records. In his incident report, he writes that Lambert “was biting at me.”
In addition to the video, nurses on the scene say they saw “three officers” tasing Lambert “at one time,” according to hospital records obtained by MSNBC.
A single, 5-second Taser discharge carries 50,000 volts and generally incapacitates a person, because it temporarily turns the human body into an electricity conductor. Law enforcement experts caution against repeat tasings.
Yet the three officers discharged their Tasers a total of 20 times over roughly half an hour. (The figures are from company device reports issued by Taser International, obtained by MSNBC.)
Those discharges amount to roughly 87 total seconds of potential tasing – a level capable of inflicting serious injury or death, according to federal guidelines. While the videos clearly show multiple tasings connecting with Lambert, not every recorded discharge necessarily makes human contact.
Most of those discharges were from Officer Bratton, who used her Taser 15 times, including 10 times in a two-minute span.
When the final tasing inside the car ended, Officer Clay drove Lambert back to the jail, and Officer Bratton drove back separately.
Officer Mann remained briefly at the hospital, where he was recorded talking to a hospital worker, who asked if the police were going to bring Lambert inside.
“We were,” the officer said, chuckling, “now he’s going to jail.”
“He’s bleeding like a hog,” he said, “we thought he was crazy, and then he finally told us he was on cocaine.”
As the officers make the short drive to jail, the squad car video shows Lambert unconscious. The officers notice his state when arriving at the jail, where they checked Lambert’s pulse, attempted CPR and called for help.
Then an ambulance came and took Lambert back to Sentara Halifax Regional Hospital – the same ER the officers had originally brought Lambert to for treatment.
Hospital records show Lambert was flatlined on arrival at 6:06 a.m. – just over an hour after his trip with police began. He was pronounced dead at 6:23 a.m.
“A NIGHTMARE”
Lambert’s sister, Gwendolyn Smalls, learned of his death when police called her that Sunday morning.
“We got the phone call that he had died, while in police custody,” she told MSNBC. “We were all shocked.”
She says police refused to provide basic information about what happened that night. She kept calling the police and hospital, asking for details, but says she was only told that her brother was repeatedly combative, and then he died at the hospital. Police did not provide her the videos, or information from them.
Smalls ultimately filed a civil suit against the police this summer, alleging excessive force, wrongful death, denial of medical care and other claims, which the police categorically deny. That $25 million suit led to a court order forcing police to give Smalls the videos from that night.
She watched them for the first time last month, at her father’s house. “It was horrible,” she said, “a nightmare.”
Lambert’s father, Linwood Lambert Sr., 66, told MSNBC he doesn’t have the words to describe what he saw.
“I can’t say what I was thinking, it was awful,” he recalled. “You wouldn’t do any human or any species like that. I don’t think anyone could hate someone that bad to inflict pain such as what they did,” Lambert said. “I don’t see anything that he did in that tape,” Lambert added, “that would provoke them to do what they did.”
Gwendolyn Smalls’ lawyer, Tom Sweeney, argues the police broke the law because they used excessive force for the situation.
“The mere breaking of a door,” he said, “does not warrant the use of hundreds of thousands of volts being shocked into a person’s system on multiple occasions by multiple parties.”
Sweeney also stresses it is illegal to taser someone who is restrained and in custody.
“When someone is restrained,” he said, “you’re not allowed to taser them.”
The South Boston Police Department’s own rules state Taser use “is no longer justified once the subject has been restrained.”
When a tasered suspect needs medical help, those rules state officers may “take the suspect to the emergency room at the Halifax Regional Hospital,” and should do so “before” taking the suspect to jail. (The rule is General Order Number 211, effective since May 2007.)
Federal guidelines also strictly limit Taser use.
The Justice Department states that police should limit tasings to people showing “active aggression” – not passive individuals, or those “fleeing” without posing a separate danger. The guidelines discourage repeat tasering, noting that exposure lasting over 15 seconds can “increase the risk of serious injury or death and should be avoided.”
In fact, a 2011 federal review of “in-custody deaths” related to Tasers found “many are associated with continuous or repeated shocks.”
Taser International notes that most lab testing of Tasers hasn’t “exceeded 15 seconds,” and cautions police to “use the shortest duration” of tasing that is “objectively reasonable for lawful objectives.”
Jim Cavanaugh, a former ATF agent and NBC law enforcement analyst, reviewed extensive videos of the tasing incident. He concluded the officers deployed “improper use of force in every regard.”
“It’s excessive force through excessive use of a Taser,” he said, “on a prisoner who is in a dire medical condition, and is restrained already, and that’s very disturbing.”
Cavanaugh added, “it just hurts me to watch officers do that to the guy.”
“HE NEEDED A BAND-AID”
South Boston police declined to comment to MSNBC about the incident. Their lawyer, Jim Daniel, said “cases in litigation ought to be decided in the court system,” not through public comments.
In court filings in response to that civil case, the police deny all allegations that Lambert was mistreated. They say the use of force and repeat tasings were “appropriate and necessary,” because Lambert damaged property and posed a danger.
As for the most severe charge, wrongful death, police point to Lambert’s autopsy, which lists “acute cocaine intoxication” as his cause of death.
Lambert admitted to cocaine use that night, and the autopsy found he had “less than 0.01 mg/L” of cocaine in his blood – a relatively low level that could still account for an overdose.
“Having a level of 5 mg/L or higher would be more consistent with death due to cocaine intoxication,” said Dr. Lewis Nelson, a medical toxologist and emergency medicine specialist at NYU. “Low levels don’t rule out cocaine as a cause of death,” Nelson told MSNBC, noting that a .01 level is “consistent with recreational use but could also be consistent with overdose.”
The autopsy also found Lambert had three wounds suggestive of tasering on his body, and cited police accounts that he was “tased at distant and contact range.”
Sweeney argues, however, that the autopsy was conducted without complete information about how many times Lambert was tased.
“There’s a reference in the coroner’s report to tasing,” he said. “There’s no reference to the fact that Mr. Lambert was tasered multiple times, by multiple police officers at the same time while he was in the back of a police car, and subsequently died shortly after that,” he said.
Sweeney wants to present independent medical testimony on how the repeated tasings may have contributed to Lambert’s death.
The case is in the discovery stage, with a hearing scheduled for Thursday. If it goes to a trial, a judge would tell jurors to weigh all legitimate evidence regarding potential causes of death. (Sentara Halifax Regional Hospital declined to comment on the incident, when contacted by MSNBC in person and via email, citing open litigation against the police department.)
Sweeney also argues a jury will be skeptical of how the entire police interaction evolved, since Lambert was taken into custody for medical help, not as a criminal suspect.
Lambert did have a lengthy criminal record, including drug felonies and driving felonies, though Sweeney says that history is legally irrelevant in a case alleging excessive force.
“The police didn’t know that when they were tasing him,” Sweeney said, “you can’t use the fact that he had interactions with the law before to justify unlawful use of force – you don’t lose your constitutional rights because you’ve been involved with the law before.”
In filings to date, the police do not mention Lambert’s previous criminal record.
In legal filings and statements, South Boston police have focused more on Lambert’s conditionon the night in question. The officers not only maintain the tasings were legally justified – a question of force – but also that the tasings did not seriously injure Lambert that night – a question of medical fact.
In depositions taken in early October, officers said Lambert’s injuries were either minor or not urgent. Officer Clay said Lambert could have any injuries treated at the jail, a more suitable place “if he needed more medical attention.”
Officer Bratton was asked how she decided Lambert did not need immediate medical attention, based on his condition when officers left the hospital. She said he looked like “he needed a Band-Aid.”
Sweeney has a different view of the night’s events, arguing the tasing was especially objectionable because it was so evident Lambert needed medical help.
“The video is a horrifying thing to watch,” Sweeney said, because Lambert is clearly “in trouble, in noticeable respiratory distress,” and yet police still taser him repeatedly and deny him medical care.
Smalls is even more emphatic.
“Taser is what killed my brother,” she says, “the continuous hold of fifty thousand volts of electricity going into his body.”
“HE AGAIN WAS COMBATIVE”
While the legal case turns most on the conduct that night – did officers use excessive force, did Lambert repeatedly provoke them? – MSNBC’s investigation also found medical records indicating police made statements after Lambert’s death that appear to be contradicted by their own videos – and by later accounts of the night.
In the hospital’s official rescue incident report, ambulance workers state police told them Lambert was “combative” at two instances when the video appears to show otherwise.
First, it states police said Lambert was “very combative” when they encountered him at the hotel, although ultimately “were able to detain [him] with assistance from other officers.”
But the video shows Lambert walking out the hotel with the officers voluntarily.
In addition, the officers neither asserted Lambert was under arrest at the time, nor do their later statements allege a physical altercation at the hotel.
Second, the hospital report states that after leaving the hospital, police say they took Lambert “to the jail where he again was combative. After they finally got him to the ground he was in the prone position and he calmed down. Then they realized that the patient was not breathing and they started CPR.”
That claim of another combative, physical altercation also appears to be false – the video shows Lambert was unconscious on arrival at the jail, and officers can be seen dragging his limp body out of the car.
“The story in the ambulance record is markedly different than what actually happened,” Sweeney told MSNBC, citing the ambulance workers’ account of police statements. “I’m not saying they lied,” Sweeney said of the officers, “but that he is combative and alive at the jail is demonstrably untrue.”
However the misinformation made it into the hospital report, it was some of the only information Lambert’s family received about that night.
When they first filed their lawsuit, Sweeney notes, he “only had those medical records” for an account of what happened at the jail, (not the video or extensive police statements).
It is important to note the officers also filed incident reports within days of Lambert’s death, obtained by MSNBC, which depict the jailhouse events consistent with the videos. The reports accurately note Lambert was “quiet on the ride to the jail” and “not breathing” on arrival. In addition, police briefs filed this year do not allege an altercation at the jail.
Smalls, Lambert’s sister, believes the police sought to make Lambert sound more combative than he actually was.
Ultimately, she says real justice won’t come from her civil suit. She wants to see the officers held accountable in jail.
Virginia State Police conducted an investigation of the incident. A State Police spokesperson, Corrine Geller, told MSNBC State Police “initiated the investigation at the request” of South Boston Police Chief James Binner, and it “turned its findings over” to two prosecutors “for final review and adjudication.”
The original prosecutor, Halifax County attorney Tracy Quackenbush Martin, has been investigating the case since 2013.
“The investigation remains open,” she told MSNBC this week.
She said a second prosecutor, Michael Herring, was appointed this year to work for her on the case, in order to enhance “public confidence” in the process, given his experience with similar matters in the past.
According to police records from March 2015, obtained by MSNBC, a South Boston police officer said Ms. Martin told him she thought the officers were not at “criminal fault” for Lambert’s death.
The officer, Lt. D. W. Barker, wrote that Martin met with him and another police official about the investigation, and “advised that she had looked into the matter and felt that the officers had no criminal fault in the investigation,” but she also wanted another prosecutor “assigned to the case to review everything behind her.”
Ms. Martin did not dispute Lt. Barker’s statement in an interview with MSNBC this week, but said “it would be premature to comment on a preliminary opinion when the investigation is still pending. I will withhold a final judgment until my investigation is complete.”
Over two years after the State Police investigation and Martin’s investigation, there have been no charges in the case.
All three officers have been promoted.
TWO REPORTS FROM THE GUARDIAN ON HOW RAPE VICTIMS GET SCREWED
Rape victims are screwed twice, first by the rapist and then by the criminal justice system
Here are two reports by The Guardian on how rape victims get screwed. The first deals with how rape kits fail to get tested. The other report deals with how victims are treated if they report being raped.
VICTIMS’ HOPE FOR JUSTICE FADE AS RAPE KITS ARE ROUTINELY IGNORED OR DESTROYED
Tens of thousands of boxes have collected in ‘rape kit backlog’ as some states lack rules on how long evidence should be kept while some police departments destroy kits after a year
By Jessica Glenza | November 10, 2015
Susan Kendrick Shuenemann was on the phone with her sister blocks from her new home in Savannah, Georgia, when a man interrupted and asked for directions. She didn’t know the area, and told him so.
She was watching him walk away when he turned, snapped his fingers and marched back. She turned away from him. Moments later she heard a pistol cock next to her head.
She said he forced her to the backyard of an abandoned house, made her undress, and shot her in the gut. He dragged her under the vacant building and raped her in a filthy crawlspace, she said. Then, he walked away.
She made her way to an ambulance hours later after performing a grim mental calculus: if she died right here, would her family find her?
“Just help me to survive it,” she thought when she passed out in the back of the ambulance. “Now, that would change over the course of time, because you become aware that it would have been easier to not have survived it.”
Shuenemann was just 19 years old then, a beauty school student in Savannah in 1985. She passed out for most of her ambulance ride and some time at the hospital, as doctors worked to remove a bullet that pierced her liver and colon, fragmented and lodged a quarter-inch from her spine.
She wouldn’t find out for nearly 20 years, working on another rape victim’s case at the Barrow County district attorney’s office, that doctors collected evidence in a rape kit that night, and that it made it all the way to the Georgia bureau of investigations. It would be almost two years more before she discovered it was destroyed, discarded by police in 1988. She said she reported her assault to police at the time, but her case was closed less than a year later. Savannah-Chaitham police did not comment on Schuenemann’s allegations, despite multiple requests.
“There was always the question, and there’s still the question honestly, could it still exist somewhere? But I do believe that Savannah [police] and the GBI as well as the DA’s office have looked thoroughly,” she said. “I drove myself crazy for a couple years about it, because it was so hard to fathom. To find out it once existed, and to find out it was gone – it was devastating.”
Her case is not uncommon.
For decades, tens of thousands of boxes of DNA evidence that nurses meticulously gathered from the bodies and clothing of sex assault victims sat stacked in storage rooms, ignored. Later, this mountain of untested evidence would be known as the “rape kit backlog”.
As scrutiny of disregarded rape kits mounted, a portrait of a more difficult to tally sort emerged – rape kits police destroyed. As with the rape kit backlog, there is no national tally of the kits police destroyed. But increasingly, local media have published reports of police destroying rape kits in states as disparate as Utah, Kentucky and Colorado.
In some cases, police destroyed kits because they deemed allegations unfounded, alleged that victims didn’t cooperate or arrested suspects without the benefit of DNA. In others, victims never filed a police report and relinquished DNA to a group of anonymous rape kits known as non-reporting or “Jane Doe” evidence, collected in case they one day decide they can report.
In 2013, in Aurora, Colorado, police department workers derailed a prosecution when they destroyed a rape kit from a 2009 assault. The error was discovered when a detective got a hit on an offender DNA profile, went to pick up the rape kit and was told it no longer existed. Shortly thereafter, police stopped all evidence destruction while they investigated, and found workers destroyed evidence in 48 rape cases between 2011 and 2013.
In Salt Lake City, 222 of the 942 kits collected between 2004 and 2014 were destroyed. Of those, just 59 were tested and went to court.
In Hamilton County, Tennessee, sheriff’s employees destroyed rape kits with marijuana and cocaine from drug busts, angering the local prosecutor who said he wasn’t consulted.
In Kentucky, the state auditor discovered some police departments routinely destroyed rape kits after a year, even though the state had no statute of limitations for rape. The perpetrators could have been prosecuted as long as they were alive. He wouldn’t hazard a guess at how many kits had been destroyed by police.
“You may have a hit against the national DNA database, and when law enforcement or prosecutors are notified, [they] find out evidence has been destroyed,” said Kentucky state auditor Adam Edelen. “That’s a scandal – it’s a tragedy.”
The destruction of rape kits comes as lawmakers take a keen interest in adding arrestee DNA to CODIS (short for the Combined DNA Index System). That national database was designed to serve as a bank of DNA from both suspects and from crime scenes. Advocates, however, contend that the destruction of rape kits represents the nation’s prioritization of offender DNA over crime scene DNA.
“[What] we are seeing is very retarded movement in the testing of crime scene evidence. In other words, you can collect all the offender evidence you want; if you have nothing to compare it to – in other words, crime scene evidence – you’re going to solve very few crimes,” said Rebecca Brown, policy director at the Innocence Project. Studying evidence retention policies was one of her first projects when she started at the agency in 2005, she said.
Most state lawmakers, she said, fail to provide guidance on when to test and retain crime scene evidence, which in the case of a sexual assault is a rape kit.
Alabama, for example, collects DNA from everyone arrested for any felony, and from people arrested for some misdemeanor sex crimes. But the state has no statute governing how long police should keep DNA evidence collected from crime scenes, such as rape kits, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures and the National Center for Victims of Crime (both in 2013).
“We are seeing huge changes in policy around the collection of evidence from offenders: in other words, a huge increase in the collection of swabs of people,” she said.
Experts said about half of states have laws to tell police how long to preserve evidence, everything from DNA to handguns involved in serious crimes, but even those tend to focus on keeping evidence after conviction. That leaves unsolved crimes in legal limbo.
Contrast Alabama’s lack of a statute with Mississippi: there, evidence must be preserved for the length of time a crime is unsolved or until a convicted person is released from custody, the National Center for Victims of Crime reported. This kind of statute, advocates say, provides greater protection not just for victims of crimes but for the wrongfully convicted.
States lacking evidence retention laws are not split between liberal or conservative, nor are they geographically grouped. They span from Vermont to Tennessee and from Pennsylvania to Utah.
“There is no rhyme or reason,” said Brown. “We can’t even divine a pattern to share with you. We’ve seen good laws in states like Texas … My home state [of New York] has no [evidence] preservation law, so there’s just an incredible mix.”
One kind of kit in particular, called a “non-reporting” or “Jane Doe” kit, is particularly vulnerable to destruction. Beginning in 2009, the Violence Against Women Act required states accepting grant money to provide a way for women to undergo a rape exam without reporting a crime to police. VAWA also allowed states to determine how long to keep those kits, who offers them and where they are kept.
The provision, meant to encourage rape victims to preserve evidence, even if they weren’t ready to report, means that thousands of anonymous kits sit untested in rape crisis centers, hospitals and police departments for as little as a month or indefinitely.
For example, in Florida, policies for how long to keep anonymous rape kits varied widely between crisis centers where they were collected. As of 2009, kits at a Tampa Bay Area clinic were kept for as little as 30 days, but kits from victims in Escambia and Santa Rosa counties will be held for up to four years by the sheriff’s department, according to data collected by the Florida Council Against Sexual Violence.
Shuenemann said her case was closed within nine months of the incident, after she couldn’t identify her perpetrator from dozens of mugshots. A former police chief, Michael Berkow, told the Denver Post in 2007 that the loss of her evidence was a failure.
“Think about all of the cases, not just rape but any form of sexual assault, murder, all the cases where evidence has not been adequately kept track of, and possibly destroyed,” Shuenemann said.
“I wish there was a way to know how many of those cases existed … Just how many victims have been denied answers, and they don’t even know it?” she asked. “I ponder that often.”
THE ENTIRE RAPE REPORTING SYSTEM IS RIGGED TO LET PREDATORS GO FREE
No matter what a rape victim does after being attacked, the end result is not likely to fall in her favor
By Jessica Valenti | November 11, 2015
Rape statistics are notoriously depressing, and the general takeaway is always the same: too many women attacked, too little done about it. How, for example, is it possible that 98% of rapists will never go to jail? What is the broken part of our process that allows a number like that to exist?
As it turns out, everything is broken. Because no matter what a rape victim does after being attacked – whether she (rape victims are 90% female) reports or decides against it, whether she pursues charges or drops them – the end result is not likely to fall in her favor.
If a victim forgoes going to a hospital to get examined, for example, she won’t have some of the evidence necessary for catching the attacker – and she might be looked upon skeptically, to boot. If she does undergo an invasive rape kit, however, there’s a pretty decent chance it just ends up sitting on a shelf, untested.
If a woman chooses not to report her attack to the police – a choice that most victims make for all sorts of reasons – she might be less likely to be believed. A common refrain among apologists for Bill Cosby’s alleged actions, for example, is that if the alleged victims’ stories were true they would have come forward sooner.
But when victims do report to the police, many suffer horrendous treatment by officers who are either untrained in how to handle sexual assault cases or outright blame the victim. After Columbia University student Emma Sulkowicz filed a police report about being raped, she says a police officer told a friend who had accompanied her that “Of all these cases, 90% are bullshit, so I don’t believe your friend for a second.”
After 19-year-old Lara McLeod reported her rape, she was arrested because an officer didn’t believe her. And when Michele Beaulieux reported a rape that had happened years earlier, she later found the report contained multiple errors – including the spelling of her name and where she was raped.
There’s a similar catch-22 when it comes to bringing criminal charges or testifying against an attacker. If women choose not to testify or don’t want to participate in a case, they’re accused of having lied to begin with. It’s a common misconception that rape victims who pull charges made “false accusations”; often they just don’t want to put themselves through the horror of a trial.
Because when they do go forward through the courts, what often happens is that the victim’s reputation is trashed or the rapist is treated with kid gloves. A few years ago in Nebraska, a judge banned the word ‘rape’... from a rape trial. When the victim in Steubenville went forward with her case, the school rallied behind the two attackers – who were eventually found guilty – while the young victim was called a whore by peers and insinuated to be one by defense attorneys.
And even if victims do all the “right” things – seek medical treatment, file a police report, bring the case to court – there’s a very decent chance that their attacker won’t be punished because of the social bias and stigma against sexual assault victims.
Last month, a police officer in Florida was found not guilty of raping a 20-year-old woman who did everything she was supposed to – she got help and reported the crime immediately – after Stephen Maiorino allegedly threatened to arrest her for underage drinking if she did not perform oral sex and then raped her vaginally at gunpoint.
The defense used a picture the woman took in high school mock-posing bent over a police car with her hands behind her back to argue that the woman clearly had a fantasy about being with a cop. As the not-guilty verdict was read, the woman started to wail, “No, no!” and “Why?”
The truth is that there are no correct choices for a rape victim, no one line of action that makes her more likely to get justice. Rape victims largely know this is true. Even worse: so do rapists.
Here are two reports by The Guardian on how rape victims get screwed. The first deals with how rape kits fail to get tested. The other report deals with how victims are treated if they report being raped.
VICTIMS’ HOPE FOR JUSTICE FADE AS RAPE KITS ARE ROUTINELY IGNORED OR DESTROYED
Tens of thousands of boxes have collected in ‘rape kit backlog’ as some states lack rules on how long evidence should be kept while some police departments destroy kits after a year
By Jessica Glenza | November 10, 2015
Susan Kendrick Shuenemann was on the phone with her sister blocks from her new home in Savannah, Georgia, when a man interrupted and asked for directions. She didn’t know the area, and told him so.
She was watching him walk away when he turned, snapped his fingers and marched back. She turned away from him. Moments later she heard a pistol cock next to her head.
She said he forced her to the backyard of an abandoned house, made her undress, and shot her in the gut. He dragged her under the vacant building and raped her in a filthy crawlspace, she said. Then, he walked away.
She made her way to an ambulance hours later after performing a grim mental calculus: if she died right here, would her family find her?
“Just help me to survive it,” she thought when she passed out in the back of the ambulance. “Now, that would change over the course of time, because you become aware that it would have been easier to not have survived it.”
Shuenemann was just 19 years old then, a beauty school student in Savannah in 1985. She passed out for most of her ambulance ride and some time at the hospital, as doctors worked to remove a bullet that pierced her liver and colon, fragmented and lodged a quarter-inch from her spine.
She wouldn’t find out for nearly 20 years, working on another rape victim’s case at the Barrow County district attorney’s office, that doctors collected evidence in a rape kit that night, and that it made it all the way to the Georgia bureau of investigations. It would be almost two years more before she discovered it was destroyed, discarded by police in 1988. She said she reported her assault to police at the time, but her case was closed less than a year later. Savannah-Chaitham police did not comment on Schuenemann’s allegations, despite multiple requests.
“There was always the question, and there’s still the question honestly, could it still exist somewhere? But I do believe that Savannah [police] and the GBI as well as the DA’s office have looked thoroughly,” she said. “I drove myself crazy for a couple years about it, because it was so hard to fathom. To find out it once existed, and to find out it was gone – it was devastating.”
Her case is not uncommon.
For decades, tens of thousands of boxes of DNA evidence that nurses meticulously gathered from the bodies and clothing of sex assault victims sat stacked in storage rooms, ignored. Later, this mountain of untested evidence would be known as the “rape kit backlog”.
As scrutiny of disregarded rape kits mounted, a portrait of a more difficult to tally sort emerged – rape kits police destroyed. As with the rape kit backlog, there is no national tally of the kits police destroyed. But increasingly, local media have published reports of police destroying rape kits in states as disparate as Utah, Kentucky and Colorado.
In some cases, police destroyed kits because they deemed allegations unfounded, alleged that victims didn’t cooperate or arrested suspects without the benefit of DNA. In others, victims never filed a police report and relinquished DNA to a group of anonymous rape kits known as non-reporting or “Jane Doe” evidence, collected in case they one day decide they can report.
In 2013, in Aurora, Colorado, police department workers derailed a prosecution when they destroyed a rape kit from a 2009 assault. The error was discovered when a detective got a hit on an offender DNA profile, went to pick up the rape kit and was told it no longer existed. Shortly thereafter, police stopped all evidence destruction while they investigated, and found workers destroyed evidence in 48 rape cases between 2011 and 2013.
In Salt Lake City, 222 of the 942 kits collected between 2004 and 2014 were destroyed. Of those, just 59 were tested and went to court.
In Hamilton County, Tennessee, sheriff’s employees destroyed rape kits with marijuana and cocaine from drug busts, angering the local prosecutor who said he wasn’t consulted.
In Kentucky, the state auditor discovered some police departments routinely destroyed rape kits after a year, even though the state had no statute of limitations for rape. The perpetrators could have been prosecuted as long as they were alive. He wouldn’t hazard a guess at how many kits had been destroyed by police.
“You may have a hit against the national DNA database, and when law enforcement or prosecutors are notified, [they] find out evidence has been destroyed,” said Kentucky state auditor Adam Edelen. “That’s a scandal – it’s a tragedy.”
The destruction of rape kits comes as lawmakers take a keen interest in adding arrestee DNA to CODIS (short for the Combined DNA Index System). That national database was designed to serve as a bank of DNA from both suspects and from crime scenes. Advocates, however, contend that the destruction of rape kits represents the nation’s prioritization of offender DNA over crime scene DNA.
“[What] we are seeing is very retarded movement in the testing of crime scene evidence. In other words, you can collect all the offender evidence you want; if you have nothing to compare it to – in other words, crime scene evidence – you’re going to solve very few crimes,” said Rebecca Brown, policy director at the Innocence Project. Studying evidence retention policies was one of her first projects when she started at the agency in 2005, she said.
Most state lawmakers, she said, fail to provide guidance on when to test and retain crime scene evidence, which in the case of a sexual assault is a rape kit.
Alabama, for example, collects DNA from everyone arrested for any felony, and from people arrested for some misdemeanor sex crimes. But the state has no statute governing how long police should keep DNA evidence collected from crime scenes, such as rape kits, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures and the National Center for Victims of Crime (both in 2013).
“We are seeing huge changes in policy around the collection of evidence from offenders: in other words, a huge increase in the collection of swabs of people,” she said.
Experts said about half of states have laws to tell police how long to preserve evidence, everything from DNA to handguns involved in serious crimes, but even those tend to focus on keeping evidence after conviction. That leaves unsolved crimes in legal limbo.
Contrast Alabama’s lack of a statute with Mississippi: there, evidence must be preserved for the length of time a crime is unsolved or until a convicted person is released from custody, the National Center for Victims of Crime reported. This kind of statute, advocates say, provides greater protection not just for victims of crimes but for the wrongfully convicted.
States lacking evidence retention laws are not split between liberal or conservative, nor are they geographically grouped. They span from Vermont to Tennessee and from Pennsylvania to Utah.
“There is no rhyme or reason,” said Brown. “We can’t even divine a pattern to share with you. We’ve seen good laws in states like Texas … My home state [of New York] has no [evidence] preservation law, so there’s just an incredible mix.”
One kind of kit in particular, called a “non-reporting” or “Jane Doe” kit, is particularly vulnerable to destruction. Beginning in 2009, the Violence Against Women Act required states accepting grant money to provide a way for women to undergo a rape exam without reporting a crime to police. VAWA also allowed states to determine how long to keep those kits, who offers them and where they are kept.
The provision, meant to encourage rape victims to preserve evidence, even if they weren’t ready to report, means that thousands of anonymous kits sit untested in rape crisis centers, hospitals and police departments for as little as a month or indefinitely.
For example, in Florida, policies for how long to keep anonymous rape kits varied widely between crisis centers where they were collected. As of 2009, kits at a Tampa Bay Area clinic were kept for as little as 30 days, but kits from victims in Escambia and Santa Rosa counties will be held for up to four years by the sheriff’s department, according to data collected by the Florida Council Against Sexual Violence.
Shuenemann said her case was closed within nine months of the incident, after she couldn’t identify her perpetrator from dozens of mugshots. A former police chief, Michael Berkow, told the Denver Post in 2007 that the loss of her evidence was a failure.
“Think about all of the cases, not just rape but any form of sexual assault, murder, all the cases where evidence has not been adequately kept track of, and possibly destroyed,” Shuenemann said.
“I wish there was a way to know how many of those cases existed … Just how many victims have been denied answers, and they don’t even know it?” she asked. “I ponder that often.”
THE ENTIRE RAPE REPORTING SYSTEM IS RIGGED TO LET PREDATORS GO FREE
No matter what a rape victim does after being attacked, the end result is not likely to fall in her favor
By Jessica Valenti | November 11, 2015
Rape statistics are notoriously depressing, and the general takeaway is always the same: too many women attacked, too little done about it. How, for example, is it possible that 98% of rapists will never go to jail? What is the broken part of our process that allows a number like that to exist?
As it turns out, everything is broken. Because no matter what a rape victim does after being attacked – whether she (rape victims are 90% female) reports or decides against it, whether she pursues charges or drops them – the end result is not likely to fall in her favor.
If a victim forgoes going to a hospital to get examined, for example, she won’t have some of the evidence necessary for catching the attacker – and she might be looked upon skeptically, to boot. If she does undergo an invasive rape kit, however, there’s a pretty decent chance it just ends up sitting on a shelf, untested.
If a woman chooses not to report her attack to the police – a choice that most victims make for all sorts of reasons – she might be less likely to be believed. A common refrain among apologists for Bill Cosby’s alleged actions, for example, is that if the alleged victims’ stories were true they would have come forward sooner.
But when victims do report to the police, many suffer horrendous treatment by officers who are either untrained in how to handle sexual assault cases or outright blame the victim. After Columbia University student Emma Sulkowicz filed a police report about being raped, she says a police officer told a friend who had accompanied her that “Of all these cases, 90% are bullshit, so I don’t believe your friend for a second.”
After 19-year-old Lara McLeod reported her rape, she was arrested because an officer didn’t believe her. And when Michele Beaulieux reported a rape that had happened years earlier, she later found the report contained multiple errors – including the spelling of her name and where she was raped.
There’s a similar catch-22 when it comes to bringing criminal charges or testifying against an attacker. If women choose not to testify or don’t want to participate in a case, they’re accused of having lied to begin with. It’s a common misconception that rape victims who pull charges made “false accusations”; often they just don’t want to put themselves through the horror of a trial.
Because when they do go forward through the courts, what often happens is that the victim’s reputation is trashed or the rapist is treated with kid gloves. A few years ago in Nebraska, a judge banned the word ‘rape’... from a rape trial. When the victim in Steubenville went forward with her case, the school rallied behind the two attackers – who were eventually found guilty – while the young victim was called a whore by peers and insinuated to be one by defense attorneys.
And even if victims do all the “right” things – seek medical treatment, file a police report, bring the case to court – there’s a very decent chance that their attacker won’t be punished because of the social bias and stigma against sexual assault victims.
Last month, a police officer in Florida was found not guilty of raping a 20-year-old woman who did everything she was supposed to – she got help and reported the crime immediately – after Stephen Maiorino allegedly threatened to arrest her for underage drinking if she did not perform oral sex and then raped her vaginally at gunpoint.
The defense used a picture the woman took in high school mock-posing bent over a police car with her hands behind her back to argue that the woman clearly had a fantasy about being with a cop. As the not-guilty verdict was read, the woman started to wail, “No, no!” and “Why?”
The truth is that there are no correct choices for a rape victim, no one line of action that makes her more likely to get justice. Rape victims largely know this is true. Even worse: so do rapists.
Thursday, November 12, 2015
8-YEAR-OLD ALABAMA BOY KNEW HOW TO STOP A BABY FROM CRYING
When one-year-old Kelci Lewis wouldn’t stop crying, an 8-year-old boy beat her to death
About 11 p.m. on October 10. Katerra Lewis, 26, and her roommate, a mother of five, left their Birmingham, Alabama home to go nightclubbing. Lewis left Kelci Lewis, her one-year old daughter, in the care of her roommate’s children who were between the ages of 2 and 8. Those children were far too young to care for each other.
While they were gone, Kelci began to cry. When the toddler wouldn’t stop crying, an 8-year old boy knew how to stop her. He savagely beat her to death.
When the two women returned home about 2 a.m., they did not bother to check on the children. In the morning, Lewis found Kelci unresponsive in her crib.
Birmingham police report that Kelci suffered severe head trauma and "major internal organ damage." Had the women bothered to check on the children when they returned home, paramedics might possibly have saved the baby’s life.
Lewis was arrested and charged with manslaughter. She was released from jail on a $15,000 bond. The 8-year-old boy is charged with murder and is in the custody of the state Department of Human Resources. The prosecutor has not said whether the other woman will face any charges.
I hope Katerra Lewis had herself a ball at that nightclub because I think that, in the near future, she will be spending many nights in the slammer.
About 11 p.m. on October 10. Katerra Lewis, 26, and her roommate, a mother of five, left their Birmingham, Alabama home to go nightclubbing. Lewis left Kelci Lewis, her one-year old daughter, in the care of her roommate’s children who were between the ages of 2 and 8. Those children were far too young to care for each other.
While they were gone, Kelci began to cry. When the toddler wouldn’t stop crying, an 8-year old boy knew how to stop her. He savagely beat her to death.
When the two women returned home about 2 a.m., they did not bother to check on the children. In the morning, Lewis found Kelci unresponsive in her crib.
Birmingham police report that Kelci suffered severe head trauma and "major internal organ damage." Had the women bothered to check on the children when they returned home, paramedics might possibly have saved the baby’s life.
Lewis was arrested and charged with manslaughter. She was released from jail on a $15,000 bond. The 8-year-old boy is charged with murder and is in the custody of the state Department of Human Resources. The prosecutor has not said whether the other woman will face any charges.
I hope Katerra Lewis had herself a ball at that nightclub because I think that, in the near future, she will be spending many nights in the slammer.
13-YEAR-OLD SOUTH CAROLINA BOY SHOOTS BURGLAR DEAD
Home alone, a 13-year-old boy gets in a shootout with two burglars, leaving one burglar dead
A 13-year old Ladson, South Carolina boy was home alone Tuesday afternoon when he spotted two men trying to break in at the back door. The boy who was studying an online course feared for his life and grabbed his mother’s gun. He fired at the burglars through the door and they fired back. The two men fled in a car with the boy running after them and continuing to shoot.
By the time their car arrived at Trident Hospital it was peppered with bullet holes. 31-year-old Lamar Brown of Summerville died at the hospital from three gunshot wounds. 28-year-old Ira J. Bennett of North Charleston was taken into custody and charged with first-degree burglary and possession of a firearm during the commission of a violent crime.
The boy’s mother, who was at work during the shootout, kept the gun for protection and had taught the boy how to protect himself.
Investigating officers from the Charleston County Sheriff's Office found a Colt .45 pistol near where the boy said the burglars were trying to break in.
That boy should be the leading candidate for Ladson’s Citizen of the Year award.
A 13-year old Ladson, South Carolina boy was home alone Tuesday afternoon when he spotted two men trying to break in at the back door. The boy who was studying an online course feared for his life and grabbed his mother’s gun. He fired at the burglars through the door and they fired back. The two men fled in a car with the boy running after them and continuing to shoot.
By the time their car arrived at Trident Hospital it was peppered with bullet holes. 31-year-old Lamar Brown of Summerville died at the hospital from three gunshot wounds. 28-year-old Ira J. Bennett of North Charleston was taken into custody and charged with first-degree burglary and possession of a firearm during the commission of a violent crime.
The boy’s mother, who was at work during the shootout, kept the gun for protection and had taught the boy how to protect himself.
Investigating officers from the Charleston County Sheriff's Office found a Colt .45 pistol near where the boy said the burglars were trying to break in.
That boy should be the leading candidate for Ladson’s Citizen of the Year award.
SCOTUS GIVES POLICE IMMUNITY IN USE OF DEADLY FORCE AGAINST FLEEING SUSPECTS
In Mullenix vs. Luna, the Supreme Court ruled 8-1 that a Texas state trooper was justified when he shot Israel Leija Jr. with a rifle from a highway overpass in an attempt to end a police car chase
In March 2010, Israel Leija Jr. fled from police in Tulia, Texas when an officer tried to arrest him for violating probation. The 25-mile chase reached speeds between 85-110 mph and lasted about 18 minutes. During the chase, Leija called the Tulia PD dispatcher and said he had a gun and would shoot at the cops if they continued to chase him. The pursuit took place at night on I-27 in a rural area when there was little traffic on that highway.
While other officers laid down three tire spike strips, Texas state trooper Chadrin Mullenix got on a freeway overpass with his .223 caliber M–4 rifle. He intended to disable the fleeing car by hitting its engine block. Mullenix fired six rounds but failed to hit the car’s radiator and engine block. He did however hit Leija once in the neck and three times in the upper body. End of chase.
Mullenix had been radioed by his sergeant to stand by and see if the spikes would stop the car, but the trooper claims he did not hear the order because he was outside his patrol car. After the shooting, Mullinex told his sergeant, “How's that for proactive?” While that may seem as a callous and smartass remark, it should be noted that earlier during the shift, the sergeant had chewed out Mullenix for not being proactive enough.
The family of Leija filed a civil rights lawsuit against the DPS, the DPS Director, Mullinex, his sergeant and another state trooper, claiming that he subjected Leija to an unconstitutional use of excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment. All but Mullenix were dismissed from the suit. Mullenix asserted the defense of qualified immunity and moved for a summary judgment. The District Court denied his motion and the denial was upheld 9-6 by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.
On Monday however, the Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the District Court and 5th Circuit by an 8-1 vote. SCOTUS ruled that officers are immune from lawsuits unless it is “beyond debate” that a shooting was unjustified and clearly unreasonable. The court said:
“By the time Mullenix fired, Leija had led police on a 25-mile chase at extremely high speeds, was reportedly intoxicated, had twice threatened to shoot officers and was racing towards an officer’s location. Ultimately, whatever can be said of the wisdom of Mullenix’s choice, this court’s precedents do not place the conclusion that he acted unreasonably in these circumstances beyond debate.”
The lone dissenter was uber-liberal Obama appointee Sonia Sotomayor. Justice Sotomayor chided her fellow justices for “rendering the protections of the 4th Amendment hollow” and referred to Mullenix’s action as “rogue conduct.” She wrote:
“When Mullenix confronted his superior officer after the shooting, his first words were, ‘How's that for proactive? The glib comment … seems to me revealing of the culture this court’s decision supports when it calls it reasonable — or even reasonably reasonable — to use deadly force for no discernible gain and over a supervisor’s express order to ‘stand by.’”
Sotomayor made a big deal out of Mullenix’s “How's that for proactive?” remark, obviously ignoring the fact that earlier during the shift, his sergeant had chewed out Mullenix for not being proactive enough.
Monday’s ruling will make it hard for survivors of a fleeing suspect to sue the officer(s) for a civil rights violation. However, the ruling does not prevent prosecutors from filing criminal charges against the officer(s) involved in a deadly chase.
Personally I believe that Leija got his just deserves for fleeing from officers at speeds between 85-110 mph even though there was little traffic on the highway. While Leija may not have endangered the lives of other motorists, he certainly put the lives of the pursuing officers at risk.
Mullinex, however, is a dumbass if he believes he can disable a car by firing at the engine block. One of my fellow officers once fired six rounds at a car’s engine block without damaging the engine. He fired his .45 standing aside a fleeing car from about three feet away. He hit the engine block all six times, but while the rounds left big holes in the hood, they left only small indentions on the block. I doubt that with today’s thinner hoods and cast aluminum engine blocks the results would be any different.
Thanks to eight justices, cops now have some protection for doing their jobs.
In March 2010, Israel Leija Jr. fled from police in Tulia, Texas when an officer tried to arrest him for violating probation. The 25-mile chase reached speeds between 85-110 mph and lasted about 18 minutes. During the chase, Leija called the Tulia PD dispatcher and said he had a gun and would shoot at the cops if they continued to chase him. The pursuit took place at night on I-27 in a rural area when there was little traffic on that highway.
While other officers laid down three tire spike strips, Texas state trooper Chadrin Mullenix got on a freeway overpass with his .223 caliber M–4 rifle. He intended to disable the fleeing car by hitting its engine block. Mullenix fired six rounds but failed to hit the car’s radiator and engine block. He did however hit Leija once in the neck and three times in the upper body. End of chase.
Mullenix had been radioed by his sergeant to stand by and see if the spikes would stop the car, but the trooper claims he did not hear the order because he was outside his patrol car. After the shooting, Mullinex told his sergeant, “How's that for proactive?” While that may seem as a callous and smartass remark, it should be noted that earlier during the shift, the sergeant had chewed out Mullenix for not being proactive enough.
The family of Leija filed a civil rights lawsuit against the DPS, the DPS Director, Mullinex, his sergeant and another state trooper, claiming that he subjected Leija to an unconstitutional use of excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment. All but Mullenix were dismissed from the suit. Mullenix asserted the defense of qualified immunity and moved for a summary judgment. The District Court denied his motion and the denial was upheld 9-6 by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.
On Monday however, the Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the District Court and 5th Circuit by an 8-1 vote. SCOTUS ruled that officers are immune from lawsuits unless it is “beyond debate” that a shooting was unjustified and clearly unreasonable. The court said:
“By the time Mullenix fired, Leija had led police on a 25-mile chase at extremely high speeds, was reportedly intoxicated, had twice threatened to shoot officers and was racing towards an officer’s location. Ultimately, whatever can be said of the wisdom of Mullenix’s choice, this court’s precedents do not place the conclusion that he acted unreasonably in these circumstances beyond debate.”
The lone dissenter was uber-liberal Obama appointee Sonia Sotomayor. Justice Sotomayor chided her fellow justices for “rendering the protections of the 4th Amendment hollow” and referred to Mullenix’s action as “rogue conduct.” She wrote:
“When Mullenix confronted his superior officer after the shooting, his first words were, ‘How's that for proactive? The glib comment … seems to me revealing of the culture this court’s decision supports when it calls it reasonable — or even reasonably reasonable — to use deadly force for no discernible gain and over a supervisor’s express order to ‘stand by.’”
Sotomayor made a big deal out of Mullenix’s “How's that for proactive?” remark, obviously ignoring the fact that earlier during the shift, his sergeant had chewed out Mullenix for not being proactive enough.
Monday’s ruling will make it hard for survivors of a fleeing suspect to sue the officer(s) for a civil rights violation. However, the ruling does not prevent prosecutors from filing criminal charges against the officer(s) involved in a deadly chase.
Personally I believe that Leija got his just deserves for fleeing from officers at speeds between 85-110 mph even though there was little traffic on the highway. While Leija may not have endangered the lives of other motorists, he certainly put the lives of the pursuing officers at risk.
Mullinex, however, is a dumbass if he believes he can disable a car by firing at the engine block. One of my fellow officers once fired six rounds at a car’s engine block without damaging the engine. He fired his .45 standing aside a fleeing car from about three feet away. He hit the engine block all six times, but while the rounds left big holes in the hood, they left only small indentions on the block. I doubt that with today’s thinner hoods and cast aluminum engine blocks the results would be any different.
Thanks to eight justices, cops now have some protection for doing their jobs.
Wednesday, November 11, 2015
WHY I AM IN ISRAEL -- AND WHY YOU SHOULD BE
By Dennis Prager
TownHall.com
November 10, 2015
JERUSALEM -- I want to explain why I am in Israel.
I am in here with 450 American (and a German and a Canadian) listeners to my radio show. About 400 are non-Jews.
We are here on a "Stand with Israel" tour organized by the syndicator of my radio show, the Salem Radio Network, and I am accompanied by my wife, my producer Allen Estrin and his wife, and my radio colleague Mike Gallagher.
People frustrated with the direction of America and the direction of the world regularly ask: "What can I do to make any difference?"
Here is one of the best answers I know: Visit Israel. And do so especially when there are terror attacks.
If every time there were a spate of attacks on Israel, few people canceled their trips to Israel. Or, if I may imagine a much better world than we live in, tourism to Israel actually increased, three huge things would be achieved.
First, Palestinians would get the message that there are many people outside of Israel who find the stabbings of Israeli Jews morally repulsive.
Second, Palestinians would have to weigh their emotional high from murdering Israelis against the economic benefit Israel would receive in increased tourism.
Third, Israelis would know they are not alone. When I came to Israel to broadcast my show during the worst of the suicide bombings of the Intifada in 2000, Israeli after Israeli would say to me, "Thank you for coming." (You can watch the documentary I made then.)
Israel, it ought to be recalled, is the only country in the world targeted for annihilation. That has been true from the day it was proclaimed as a state in 1948 until today. It was true before Israel was forced to conquer East Jerusalem, Gaza and the West Bank, where the Palestinians (outside of Jordan) live. It was true before there was a single Jewish settlement on the West Bank. It was true after three Israeli prime ministers -- Yitzhak Rabin, Ehud Barak, and Ehud Olmert -- agreed to give up virtually all of Gaza and the West Bank to Palestinians to set up a Palestinian state. It was true after Israel gave every inch of Gaza to the Palestinians.
All of which proves that when Palestinian spokesmen say they want peace, they do not mean peace with Israel. They mean peace without Israel.
Israel's Western opponents who say they "support" or even "love" Israel but hate its prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, are lying to themselves, lying to the rest of us or both. Nothing would be different if the Israeli left had won the last election. For example, the chief opponent to Netanyahu, Isaac Herzog of the Labor Party, opposed the treaty with Iran as virulently as did Netanyahu.
On Earth, at this time in its history, there is not a more clear battle between the decent and the indecent than Israel's battle for survival against its enemies. In his speech before the United Nations General Assembly in September, Israel's prime minister concluded his speech (which, it should be sadly noted, was not even attended by the American ambassador to the United Nations under orders from the White House) with this truism:
"Israel is civilization's front line in the battle against barbarism."
Those who refuse to acknowledge that have chosen to be morally blind.
But if you do acknowledge that Israel is civilization's front line in the battle against barbarism, it behooves you to come to Israel now. You will do more good than you can do with almost any other single act -- while also having the time of your life.
You should also send your college-age son or daughter to Israel. Nothing can inoculate a young person against the morally distorted ideas he or she will be subjected to at virtually every American college as does a prolonged visit to Israel. Young people will not only come to realize how broken the university's moral compass is vis a vis Israel and the Middle East, but how broken it is in general, especially vis a vis America.
The truth is that a visit to Israel, even when there are terrorist attacks, is extraordinarily safe. A visitor's chances of getting hurt are minuscule. But to the extent there is the slightest danger -- well, we all have to decide how we want to live our lives in the few years we are granted.
And when it comes to fighting for good and against evil, we can either play it safe or we can we do good. Very rarely can we do both.
TownHall.com
November 10, 2015
JERUSALEM -- I want to explain why I am in Israel.
I am in here with 450 American (and a German and a Canadian) listeners to my radio show. About 400 are non-Jews.
We are here on a "Stand with Israel" tour organized by the syndicator of my radio show, the Salem Radio Network, and I am accompanied by my wife, my producer Allen Estrin and his wife, and my radio colleague Mike Gallagher.
People frustrated with the direction of America and the direction of the world regularly ask: "What can I do to make any difference?"
Here is one of the best answers I know: Visit Israel. And do so especially when there are terror attacks.
If every time there were a spate of attacks on Israel, few people canceled their trips to Israel. Or, if I may imagine a much better world than we live in, tourism to Israel actually increased, three huge things would be achieved.
First, Palestinians would get the message that there are many people outside of Israel who find the stabbings of Israeli Jews morally repulsive.
Second, Palestinians would have to weigh their emotional high from murdering Israelis against the economic benefit Israel would receive in increased tourism.
Third, Israelis would know they are not alone. When I came to Israel to broadcast my show during the worst of the suicide bombings of the Intifada in 2000, Israeli after Israeli would say to me, "Thank you for coming." (You can watch the documentary I made then.)
Israel, it ought to be recalled, is the only country in the world targeted for annihilation. That has been true from the day it was proclaimed as a state in 1948 until today. It was true before Israel was forced to conquer East Jerusalem, Gaza and the West Bank, where the Palestinians (outside of Jordan) live. It was true before there was a single Jewish settlement on the West Bank. It was true after three Israeli prime ministers -- Yitzhak Rabin, Ehud Barak, and Ehud Olmert -- agreed to give up virtually all of Gaza and the West Bank to Palestinians to set up a Palestinian state. It was true after Israel gave every inch of Gaza to the Palestinians.
All of which proves that when Palestinian spokesmen say they want peace, they do not mean peace with Israel. They mean peace without Israel.
Israel's Western opponents who say they "support" or even "love" Israel but hate its prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, are lying to themselves, lying to the rest of us or both. Nothing would be different if the Israeli left had won the last election. For example, the chief opponent to Netanyahu, Isaac Herzog of the Labor Party, opposed the treaty with Iran as virulently as did Netanyahu.
On Earth, at this time in its history, there is not a more clear battle between the decent and the indecent than Israel's battle for survival against its enemies. In his speech before the United Nations General Assembly in September, Israel's prime minister concluded his speech (which, it should be sadly noted, was not even attended by the American ambassador to the United Nations under orders from the White House) with this truism:
"Israel is civilization's front line in the battle against barbarism."
Those who refuse to acknowledge that have chosen to be morally blind.
But if you do acknowledge that Israel is civilization's front line in the battle against barbarism, it behooves you to come to Israel now. You will do more good than you can do with almost any other single act -- while also having the time of your life.
You should also send your college-age son or daughter to Israel. Nothing can inoculate a young person against the morally distorted ideas he or she will be subjected to at virtually every American college as does a prolonged visit to Israel. Young people will not only come to realize how broken the university's moral compass is vis a vis Israel and the Middle East, but how broken it is in general, especially vis a vis America.
The truth is that a visit to Israel, even when there are terrorist attacks, is extraordinarily safe. A visitor's chances of getting hurt are minuscule. But to the extent there is the slightest danger -- well, we all have to decide how we want to live our lives in the few years we are granted.
And when it comes to fighting for good and against evil, we can either play it safe or we can we do good. Very rarely can we do both.
SOB SOB, I CAN’T GET OVER IT, SOB SOB, HE WAS ONLY SELLING LOOSE CIGARETTES
In an obvious ploy for black votes, Hillary Clinton laments the July 2014 death of Eric Garner at the hands of NYPD
“I still can’t get over that Eric Garner, in Staten Island in New York, he died from a chokehold. He was selling loose cigarettes. Was it illegal? Sure. Did he need to die? No.”
Thus spoke Hillary Clinton during Friday’s MSNBC Democratic candidates forum. Earlier in April, Hillary gave a speech during which she said:
“We have to come to terms with some hard truths about race and justice in America. There is something profoundly wrong when African-American men are far more likely to be stopped by the police, charged with crimes and sentenced to longer prison terms than are meted out to their white counterparts.”
What a supreme crock of shit. What a phony bitch! Sixteen months after the death of Eric garner Hillary gets out her crying towel. Sure, Garner did not need to die. And he would not have died if the 300-pounder hadn’t been selling untaxed cigarettes and resisted arrest when the cops responded to complaints by store owners.
And what about those poor blacks that get busted by the cops more often than whites and then get longer prison terms than whites? Another supreme crock of shit.
To begin with there are more whites in prison than blacks, although blacks do make up a disproportionate number of inmates. Why is that? The answer is simple. Blacks commit a disproportionate number of crimes.
And what about those blacks who receive longer sentences than whites? That answer is simple too. In those cases where blacks receive a longer sentence than their white counterparts, they did not receive those longer sentences because they were black. In cases where blacks received longer sentences, it was because pre-sentence investigation reports showed a longer or more serious criminal history than that of their white counterparts.
Hillary Clinton will say anything to get the black vote in next year’s presidential election. Like all politicians she is a liar. But she’s an uber-phony as well. “I still can’t get over that Eric Garner.” Sixteen months later she can’t get over the death of a lawbreaking stranger? Come on, give me a break!
“I still can’t get over that Eric Garner, in Staten Island in New York, he died from a chokehold. He was selling loose cigarettes. Was it illegal? Sure. Did he need to die? No.”
Thus spoke Hillary Clinton during Friday’s MSNBC Democratic candidates forum. Earlier in April, Hillary gave a speech during which she said:
“We have to come to terms with some hard truths about race and justice in America. There is something profoundly wrong when African-American men are far more likely to be stopped by the police, charged with crimes and sentenced to longer prison terms than are meted out to their white counterparts.”
What a supreme crock of shit. What a phony bitch! Sixteen months after the death of Eric garner Hillary gets out her crying towel. Sure, Garner did not need to die. And he would not have died if the 300-pounder hadn’t been selling untaxed cigarettes and resisted arrest when the cops responded to complaints by store owners.
And what about those poor blacks that get busted by the cops more often than whites and then get longer prison terms than whites? Another supreme crock of shit.
To begin with there are more whites in prison than blacks, although blacks do make up a disproportionate number of inmates. Why is that? The answer is simple. Blacks commit a disproportionate number of crimes.
And what about those blacks who receive longer sentences than whites? That answer is simple too. In those cases where blacks receive a longer sentence than their white counterparts, they did not receive those longer sentences because they were black. In cases where blacks received longer sentences, it was because pre-sentence investigation reports showed a longer or more serious criminal history than that of their white counterparts.
Hillary Clinton will say anything to get the black vote in next year’s presidential election. Like all politicians she is a liar. But she’s an uber-phony as well. “I still can’t get over that Eric Garner.” Sixteen months later she can’t get over the death of a lawbreaking stranger? Come on, give me a break!
A NOTEWORTHY STORY FOR VETERANS DAY
A white Korean War Medal of Honor recipient tried to retrieve the remains of his black wingman from North Korea
On this Veterans Day there are many war stories that can be told, but here is one that is most noteworthy. It involves two Navy pilots during the Korean War, one a white Medal of Honor recipient and the other the Navy’s first black pilot.
Here is the Daily Mail report by the Associated Press of this remarkable story:
REMARKABLE FRIENDSHIP BETWEEN THE NAVY’S FIRST BLACK PILOT AND THE PRIVILEGED MEDAL OF HONOR WINNER WHO CRASH LANDED TO SAVE HIM IN NORTH KOREA
Tom Hudner downed his own plane to save Jesse Brown in 1950, but when he couldn't pry him from the wreckage, he promised he would return
Associated Press
November 8, 2015
A Korean War pilot who crash landed his own plane to save the life of his dying comrade has revealed the unlikely friendship in a stunning new book.
Devotion tells the story of Navy airman and Medal of Honor winner Tom Hudner and Jesse Brown, who fought alongside each other in the dark days of the 1950s - when the U.S was locked in battle with Korea and communist China.
Brown, the first black pilot in the Navy, went down near the Chosin Reservoir in North Korea during a mission.
To rescue him, Hutner risked his own life and crash landed nearby, but Brown was stuck in the tangled wreckage.
A rescue helicopter eventually arrived to help the pair out, but Hutner was forced to make the agonizing decision to leave him there.
Before he left, he gave Brown a promise that he would return and get him.
Sixty years on, he kept that promise.
The now-91-year-old made it back to North Korea in 2013, in a bid to retrieve his remains.
But couldn't get to the crash site because of poor weather.
Both men were in their early 20s but lived a world apart.
The men were from vastly different backgrounds. Hudner grew up white and privileged in Massachusetts.
He shunned his family tradition of going to Havard University and instead signed up for the Naval academy in Annapolis, Maryland.
Hudner told the Albany Times-Union: 'The friendship with Jesse took me out of that bubble and taught me that not everyone grew up like me.
Author Adam Makos says it's a story that had to be told.
He added: 'It's an inspirational story. Jesse Brown didn't get a fair shake from history.'
Hutner reveals not a day goes by where he doesn't think of Jesse. However, to him, Veterans Day stands out.
'It's a time of reflection for me more than anything,' he said. 'Especially about those who never came back.'
In an interview with CNN in 2013, Hudner said: 'The Marine pilot pulled me aside and said dusk was approaching and he couldn't fly the helicopter in the dark and the mountainous terrain, so he had to leave.'
The pair were well behind enemy lines and even if Hudner had managed to escape the clutches of the Chinese, it is unlikely he would have been able to survive the harsh winter.
'I told Jesse that we had to get some more equipment because we couldn't get him out with what we had. I don't know if he even heard me, I'm afraid by this time he had passed.'
The Korean War broke out in June 1950 when communist North Korea attacked its southern neighbour.
United Nations forces, made up primarily of US troops, fought on the side of South Korea. China fought with North Korea.
Choisin Reservoir was the scene of a harrowing battle waged during the brutal Korean winter, with frostbite a common injury. Arms and medical supplies also froze in subzero temperatures.
Of the 15,000 US troops involved, more than 3,000 died during the 17-day struggle.
But the Chinese forces paid a much greater price trying to force the allied troops from their positions -- some 60,000 replacements were required to replace men lost to firepower and cold.
An estimated 35,000 Chinese troops lost their lives during the conflict. Some 8,000 US soldiers are still missing in action.
Now, in a rare show of cooperation with a country it often calls the imperialistic enemy, North Korea has given permission for Hudner to return to Chosin Reservoir.
Hudner told CNN he did not think the trip would ever happen.
'We're very grateful to him (leader Kim Jong Un) and to the North Korean government that after all these years we've been given permission to look for Jesse's airplane,' he said.
He puts the chances of finding Brown's remains or his aircraft at 50-50, but said it was important.
And he believed severely strained US-North Korean relations could even get a boost.
(Reproduced in accordance with the copyright law of the U.S. Code, Title 17, Section 107)
On this Veterans Day there are many war stories that can be told, but here is one that is most noteworthy. It involves two Navy pilots during the Korean War, one a white Medal of Honor recipient and the other the Navy’s first black pilot.
Here is the Daily Mail report by the Associated Press of this remarkable story:
REMARKABLE FRIENDSHIP BETWEEN THE NAVY’S FIRST BLACK PILOT AND THE PRIVILEGED MEDAL OF HONOR WINNER WHO CRASH LANDED TO SAVE HIM IN NORTH KOREA
Tom Hudner downed his own plane to save Jesse Brown in 1950, but when he couldn't pry him from the wreckage, he promised he would return
Associated Press
November 8, 2015
A Korean War pilot who crash landed his own plane to save the life of his dying comrade has revealed the unlikely friendship in a stunning new book.
Devotion tells the story of Navy airman and Medal of Honor winner Tom Hudner and Jesse Brown, who fought alongside each other in the dark days of the 1950s - when the U.S was locked in battle with Korea and communist China.
Brown, the first black pilot in the Navy, went down near the Chosin Reservoir in North Korea during a mission.
To rescue him, Hutner risked his own life and crash landed nearby, but Brown was stuck in the tangled wreckage.
A rescue helicopter eventually arrived to help the pair out, but Hutner was forced to make the agonizing decision to leave him there.
Before he left, he gave Brown a promise that he would return and get him.
Sixty years on, he kept that promise.
The now-91-year-old made it back to North Korea in 2013, in a bid to retrieve his remains.
But couldn't get to the crash site because of poor weather.
Both men were in their early 20s but lived a world apart.
The men were from vastly different backgrounds. Hudner grew up white and privileged in Massachusetts.
He shunned his family tradition of going to Havard University and instead signed up for the Naval academy in Annapolis, Maryland.
Hudner told the Albany Times-Union: 'The friendship with Jesse took me out of that bubble and taught me that not everyone grew up like me.
Author Adam Makos says it's a story that had to be told.
He added: 'It's an inspirational story. Jesse Brown didn't get a fair shake from history.'
Hutner reveals not a day goes by where he doesn't think of Jesse. However, to him, Veterans Day stands out.
'It's a time of reflection for me more than anything,' he said. 'Especially about those who never came back.'
In an interview with CNN in 2013, Hudner said: 'The Marine pilot pulled me aside and said dusk was approaching and he couldn't fly the helicopter in the dark and the mountainous terrain, so he had to leave.'
The pair were well behind enemy lines and even if Hudner had managed to escape the clutches of the Chinese, it is unlikely he would have been able to survive the harsh winter.
'I told Jesse that we had to get some more equipment because we couldn't get him out with what we had. I don't know if he even heard me, I'm afraid by this time he had passed.'
The Korean War broke out in June 1950 when communist North Korea attacked its southern neighbour.
United Nations forces, made up primarily of US troops, fought on the side of South Korea. China fought with North Korea.
Choisin Reservoir was the scene of a harrowing battle waged during the brutal Korean winter, with frostbite a common injury. Arms and medical supplies also froze in subzero temperatures.
Of the 15,000 US troops involved, more than 3,000 died during the 17-day struggle.
But the Chinese forces paid a much greater price trying to force the allied troops from their positions -- some 60,000 replacements were required to replace men lost to firepower and cold.
An estimated 35,000 Chinese troops lost their lives during the conflict. Some 8,000 US soldiers are still missing in action.
Now, in a rare show of cooperation with a country it often calls the imperialistic enemy, North Korea has given permission for Hudner to return to Chosin Reservoir.
Hudner told CNN he did not think the trip would ever happen.
'We're very grateful to him (leader Kim Jong Un) and to the North Korean government that after all these years we've been given permission to look for Jesse's airplane,' he said.
He puts the chances of finding Brown's remains or his aircraft at 50-50, but said it was important.
And he believed severely strained US-North Korean relations could even get a boost.
(Reproduced in accordance with the copyright law of the U.S. Code, Title 17, Section 107)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)