By Bob Walsh
Kiyana Johnson was, according to all reports, a pleasant little girl and got along well with and was respectful of animals. Her mother had just purchased and taken delivery of a three-year old Doberman that day. After a 30-40 minute orientation the seller of the dog left. Five minutes later the little girl was dead and the mother was injured, apparently trying to protect the little girl.
The dog is being held by the Jonson County, Michigan, authorities as the investigation continues.
Wednesday, October 26, 2016
MANY CALIFORNIA COUNTIES CHARGE PARENTS HIGH FEES WHILE KIDS ARE LOCKED UP
By Sukey Lewis
KQED News
October 24, 2016
If your kid gets arrested and locked up, it turns out you (the parent) might end up footing the bill.
This might seem strange — after all, the state doesn’t charge adults for the cost of incarcerating them — but there is a little-known law that allows counties to collect money from parents for the cost of upkeep while their kids are in custody.
One such parent is M.C., an Antioch resident who didn’t want her full name used because she worries for her and her son’s safety. Her 16-year-old son was charged with homicide in 2013 and was locked up in Contra Costa County’s juvenile hall.
“I told the detective that my son didn’t commit that crime,” M.C. said in Spanish, through a translator. “But that if he was sure, then I’d trust the police to prove that my son was guilty. And if my son did do it, then he should be responsible and he should pay.”
On the day he turned 18, he was transferred to adult detention in Martinez, and M.C. was sent a bill for 313 days in juvenile custody.
Contra Costa, like many other counties, collects money from parents for the cost of upkeep while their kids are in custody.
But recent research shows that kids from low-income families are likelier than kids from wealthier families to end up in the justice system, and advocates say these fees are unfair and bad policy. On Tuesday, the county’s Board of Supervisors will vote on whether to place a moratorium on these fees, or ban them altogether.
In fact, Contra Costa has some of the highest fees in the state — up to $30 per day for juvenile hall detention and $17 per day for ankle monitoring. That means M.C. could have been billed more than $9,000 for the cost of holding her son.
She works as a house cleaner and was already struggling to make ends meet. M.C. told the probation department she couldn’t pay the full amount, and they reduced her bill to $939.
M.C. started paying it off when she could, about $50 a month, but she says the fees felt like an injustice. It made her “angry to see these letters arrive charging me money, and my son was locked up, and still they wanted to blame him for something he never did.”
After more than two years, all charges against her son were dropped, and he came home.
But M.C. still had to pay the probation department.
Under state law, the county had every right to do this. The California Welfare and Institutions Code holds parents financially responsible for their kids even while in custody. The logic goes that if M.C.’s son were at home she would have to pay for the cost of clothing him and feeding him, so she should have to reimburse the county for those same costs.
“The main idea is to kind of create a sense of shared responsibility between the parents and the probation department,” said John Keene, chair of the legislative committee for the Chief Probation Officers of California, and chief probation officer for San Mateo County. “Because when we step in, in most instances, we are stepping into that capacity as a parent when the kid become wards of the court.”
Candace Andersen, chair of Contra Costa County’s Board of Supervisors, said her hope was that the fees would encourage parents to do a better job keeping their kids out of trouble.
“But what I’m finding is the studies are not supporting that,” she added.
A group of students at the UC Berkeley School of Law have been studying these fees for the past three years. Their research, which will be presented to the county on Tuesday, includes an analysis of Contra Costa in particular.
“We don’t think there are many compelling arguments to support these fees,” said Tim Kline, one of the Berkeley law students studying the fines. “Counties don’t make money. They’re bad for families. They don’t help kids rehabilitate and get back on track.”
One of the more startling statistics Kline’s group found is the disproportionate racial aspect of these fees. For example, African-American kids are 23 times more likely than their white counterparts to be locked up.
Dan Macallair, executive director of the nonprofit Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, said disproportionate impacts are present statewide.
“Who ends up in the juvenile justice system?” he said. “It’s kids from poverty, who grew up in poverty, who grow up in the margins of society, who come from fractured families, often disproportionately African-American, or in California, Latino. So yes, it [juvenile fees] falls heavily on the kids whose families can least afford it.”
John Keene, of the Chief Probation Officers union, said the fees aren’t meant to target any particular group or be a burden on struggling families, and points out that counties do take into account a parent’s “ability to pay” when determining how much to charge them.
“We care about what happens to our young people. We care about what happens to the families,” he said. “We really work hard to try to engage the families in building and reconnecting the family.”
But while some argue these fees are meant to hold parents financially responsible for their kids’ behavior, Macallair added that these fees got their start back in the 1950s for a very different reason.
“It became kind of a practice for parents to, when they had an argument or heated disagreement with their kid, they could actually bring the child to the local detention center and tell the center, ‘I‘ve had enough!’ ” Macallair said.
The child would often spend the weekend in detention, and then parents would have a change of heart and come pick their kid up on Monday morning.
“So, administrative fees were originally instituted for the purpose of discouraging parents from misusing detention centers,” he said.
“A parent can’t just show up at our door and say, ‘he’s incorrigible, would you detain him?’ ” laughed Contra Costa Probation Chief Todd Billeci. Even legally, the state can lock up only kids who are suspected of criminal behavior.
But, Billeci said, it’s hard to advocate for a loss of revenue. If Contra Costa does do away with juvenile fees, his department stands to lose around $200,000 in net revenue. But an analysis of how much it costs to collect these fees shows that the cost is actually greater than the revenue they bring in. And the fees do little to offset the total cost of running the county’s juvenile hall, which is more than $19 million.
And that’s part of the problem statewide. The money that juvenile administrative fees bring in varies from county to county, and some counties don’t collect these fees at all. Macallair says county probation departments who are used to getting this revenue don’t want to see it go away, even if it is just a case of bureaucracy maintaining itself.
But Keene says counties need the flexibility to charge these fees, and that they are used to provide kids with recreation programs and educational opportunities.
Last year a bill sponsored by state Sen. Holly Mitchell (D-Los Angeles) would have banned counties from collecting these fees, but it stalled in the appropriations committee.
Now, some counties are moving forward with reform on their own.
After reviewing the practice, both Alameda and Santa Clara counties have repealed these fees. Los Angeles doesn’t charge juvenile fees and neither does San Francisco.
To Contra Costa County Supervisor John Gioia, the juvenile fees aren’t so much a fiscal issue as a moral one. He says the goal of the juvenile justice system is to keep youth out of the criminal justice system.
“These fees don’t achieve that goal,” he said. “The policy doesn’t make any rational sense.”
EDITOR’S MOTE: Personally, I think charging parents for the keep of their wayward kids is a great idea. Of course, their ability to pay must be taken into consideration, with reduced payments for those unable to pay the full cost of keeping their little asshole locked up.
My problem is that well-off parents hire lawyer to get their kids released from juvenile detention while kids from poor families stay locked up, sometimes for a long time.
KQED News
October 24, 2016
If your kid gets arrested and locked up, it turns out you (the parent) might end up footing the bill.
This might seem strange — after all, the state doesn’t charge adults for the cost of incarcerating them — but there is a little-known law that allows counties to collect money from parents for the cost of upkeep while their kids are in custody.
One such parent is M.C., an Antioch resident who didn’t want her full name used because she worries for her and her son’s safety. Her 16-year-old son was charged with homicide in 2013 and was locked up in Contra Costa County’s juvenile hall.
“I told the detective that my son didn’t commit that crime,” M.C. said in Spanish, through a translator. “But that if he was sure, then I’d trust the police to prove that my son was guilty. And if my son did do it, then he should be responsible and he should pay.”
On the day he turned 18, he was transferred to adult detention in Martinez, and M.C. was sent a bill for 313 days in juvenile custody.
Contra Costa, like many other counties, collects money from parents for the cost of upkeep while their kids are in custody.
But recent research shows that kids from low-income families are likelier than kids from wealthier families to end up in the justice system, and advocates say these fees are unfair and bad policy. On Tuesday, the county’s Board of Supervisors will vote on whether to place a moratorium on these fees, or ban them altogether.
In fact, Contra Costa has some of the highest fees in the state — up to $30 per day for juvenile hall detention and $17 per day for ankle monitoring. That means M.C. could have been billed more than $9,000 for the cost of holding her son.
She works as a house cleaner and was already struggling to make ends meet. M.C. told the probation department she couldn’t pay the full amount, and they reduced her bill to $939.
M.C. started paying it off when she could, about $50 a month, but she says the fees felt like an injustice. It made her “angry to see these letters arrive charging me money, and my son was locked up, and still they wanted to blame him for something he never did.”
After more than two years, all charges against her son were dropped, and he came home.
But M.C. still had to pay the probation department.
Under state law, the county had every right to do this. The California Welfare and Institutions Code holds parents financially responsible for their kids even while in custody. The logic goes that if M.C.’s son were at home she would have to pay for the cost of clothing him and feeding him, so she should have to reimburse the county for those same costs.
“The main idea is to kind of create a sense of shared responsibility between the parents and the probation department,” said John Keene, chair of the legislative committee for the Chief Probation Officers of California, and chief probation officer for San Mateo County. “Because when we step in, in most instances, we are stepping into that capacity as a parent when the kid become wards of the court.”
Candace Andersen, chair of Contra Costa County’s Board of Supervisors, said her hope was that the fees would encourage parents to do a better job keeping their kids out of trouble.
“But what I’m finding is the studies are not supporting that,” she added.
A group of students at the UC Berkeley School of Law have been studying these fees for the past three years. Their research, which will be presented to the county on Tuesday, includes an analysis of Contra Costa in particular.
“We don’t think there are many compelling arguments to support these fees,” said Tim Kline, one of the Berkeley law students studying the fines. “Counties don’t make money. They’re bad for families. They don’t help kids rehabilitate and get back on track.”
One of the more startling statistics Kline’s group found is the disproportionate racial aspect of these fees. For example, African-American kids are 23 times more likely than their white counterparts to be locked up.
Dan Macallair, executive director of the nonprofit Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, said disproportionate impacts are present statewide.
“Who ends up in the juvenile justice system?” he said. “It’s kids from poverty, who grew up in poverty, who grow up in the margins of society, who come from fractured families, often disproportionately African-American, or in California, Latino. So yes, it [juvenile fees] falls heavily on the kids whose families can least afford it.”
John Keene, of the Chief Probation Officers union, said the fees aren’t meant to target any particular group or be a burden on struggling families, and points out that counties do take into account a parent’s “ability to pay” when determining how much to charge them.
“We care about what happens to our young people. We care about what happens to the families,” he said. “We really work hard to try to engage the families in building and reconnecting the family.”
But while some argue these fees are meant to hold parents financially responsible for their kids’ behavior, Macallair added that these fees got their start back in the 1950s for a very different reason.
“It became kind of a practice for parents to, when they had an argument or heated disagreement with their kid, they could actually bring the child to the local detention center and tell the center, ‘I‘ve had enough!’ ” Macallair said.
The child would often spend the weekend in detention, and then parents would have a change of heart and come pick their kid up on Monday morning.
“So, administrative fees were originally instituted for the purpose of discouraging parents from misusing detention centers,” he said.
“A parent can’t just show up at our door and say, ‘he’s incorrigible, would you detain him?’ ” laughed Contra Costa Probation Chief Todd Billeci. Even legally, the state can lock up only kids who are suspected of criminal behavior.
But, Billeci said, it’s hard to advocate for a loss of revenue. If Contra Costa does do away with juvenile fees, his department stands to lose around $200,000 in net revenue. But an analysis of how much it costs to collect these fees shows that the cost is actually greater than the revenue they bring in. And the fees do little to offset the total cost of running the county’s juvenile hall, which is more than $19 million.
And that’s part of the problem statewide. The money that juvenile administrative fees bring in varies from county to county, and some counties don’t collect these fees at all. Macallair says county probation departments who are used to getting this revenue don’t want to see it go away, even if it is just a case of bureaucracy maintaining itself.
But Keene says counties need the flexibility to charge these fees, and that they are used to provide kids with recreation programs and educational opportunities.
Last year a bill sponsored by state Sen. Holly Mitchell (D-Los Angeles) would have banned counties from collecting these fees, but it stalled in the appropriations committee.
Now, some counties are moving forward with reform on their own.
After reviewing the practice, both Alameda and Santa Clara counties have repealed these fees. Los Angeles doesn’t charge juvenile fees and neither does San Francisco.
To Contra Costa County Supervisor John Gioia, the juvenile fees aren’t so much a fiscal issue as a moral one. He says the goal of the juvenile justice system is to keep youth out of the criminal justice system.
“These fees don’t achieve that goal,” he said. “The policy doesn’t make any rational sense.”
EDITOR’S MOTE: Personally, I think charging parents for the keep of their wayward kids is a great idea. Of course, their ability to pay must be taken into consideration, with reduced payments for those unable to pay the full cost of keeping their little asshole locked up.
My problem is that well-off parents hire lawyer to get their kids released from juvenile detention while kids from poor families stay locked up, sometimes for a long time.
HILLARY ‘FUCKING’ CLINTON CURSES THOSE WHO KEEP HER SAFE
Hillary routinely bullied her bodyguards — and with the worst language possible
By Deroy Murdock
National Review
October 22, 2016
Hillary Clinton’s “treatment of DS [Department of State] agents on her protective detail was so
contemptuous that many of them sought reassignment or employment elsewhere,”
according to a just-released summary of an FBI interview with a former State Department
official. “Prior to CLINTON’s tenure, being an agent on the Secretary of State’s protective
detail was seen as an honor and privilege reserved for senior agents. However, by the end
of CLINTON’s tenure, it was staffed largely with new agents because it was difficult to find
senior agents willing to work for her.”
Clinton’s State Department agents are hardly the first to complain about her bullying. “She
derives pleasure from lording over other people who cannot do anything about it and who
are less powerful than she is,” author Ronald Kessler told Newsmax TV’s J. D. Hayworth.
In fact, Clinton’s well-documented history of profane, unhinged outbursts against those
who work for her spans decades.
While Clinton’s vulgarity is presented here in relatively family-friendly form, fill in the
blanks and imagine the pain that this woman inflicted when she uttered these words. “I’m
not voting for Clinton,” Air Force Staff Sergeant Eric Bonner posted on Facebook in July.
“It’s because she actually talked to me once. Almost a sentence,” wrote the Air Force K-9
handler. “I got to do a few details involving Distinguished Visitors.” “One of my last details
was for Hillary when she was Secretary of State,” Bonner continued. “I helped with sweeps
of her DV quarters and staff vehicles. Her words to me?”
According to Bonner, Clinton told him, “Get that fucking dog away from me.” “Then she
turns to her security detail and berates them up and down about why that animal was in
her quarters,” Bonner added. “For the next 20 minutes, while I sit there waiting to be
released, she lays into her detail, slamming the door in their faces when she’s done. The
Detail lead walks over, apologizes, and releases me. I apologize to him for getting him in
trouble. His words, ‘Happens every day, Brother.’” “Hillary doesn’t care about anyone but
Hillary.”
“Stay the fuck back, stay the fuck away from me!” the then-–First Lady screamed at her
Secret Service agents. “Don’t come within ten yards of me, or else! Just fucking do as I say,
okay!!?” Clinton demanded, according to former FBI agent Gary Aldrich’s Unlimited
Access, page 139.
“If you want to remain on this detail, get your fucking ass over here and grab those bags!”
Hillary yelled at a Secret Service agent, as Joyce Milton reported in The First Partner, page
259. The officer explained in vain that he preferred to keep his hands free, in case a threat
arose.
“Good morning, ma’am,” a uniformed Secret Service officer once greeted Hillary Clinton.
“Fuck off!” she replied, as Ronald Kessler documented in First Family Detail, page 16.
“Put this back on the ground!” Hillary Clinton screamed at the pilot of presidential
helicopter Marine One. “I left my sunglasses in the limo. I need my sunglasses! We need to
go back!” Clinton so abused the chopper’s crew that they christened it Broomstick One.
Also in Dereliction of Duty, its author — Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Robert “Buzz”
Patterson (Ret.), who carried the “nuclear football” — recalled hearing “volleys of
expletives” erupting from Hillary’s mouth. He also lamented “the Nazi-like edge that
emerged when she was around.”
“Where is the goddam fucking flag? I want the goddam fucking flag up every fucking
morning at fucking sunrise,” Hillary snapped at state trooper Larry Patterson at the
Arkansas governor’s mansion on Labor Day 1991, according to Ronald Kessler’s Inside the
White House, page 246.
“Good morning,” an Arkansas state trooper said to Clinton, according to American Evita,
by Christopher Andersen, a former contributing editor with Time magazine.
“Fuck off!” Hillary told him and his fellow bodyguards. “It’s enough I have to see you shit-
kickers every day! I’m not going to talk to you, too! Just do your goddam job and keep your
mouth shut.”
If this is how Hillary Clinton handles those who have stood ready to take bullets for her,
how would she treat 325 million everyday Americans?
By Deroy Murdock
National Review
October 22, 2016
Hillary Clinton’s “treatment of DS [Department of State] agents on her protective detail was so
contemptuous that many of them sought reassignment or employment elsewhere,”
according to a just-released summary of an FBI interview with a former State Department
official. “Prior to CLINTON’s tenure, being an agent on the Secretary of State’s protective
detail was seen as an honor and privilege reserved for senior agents. However, by the end
of CLINTON’s tenure, it was staffed largely with new agents because it was difficult to find
senior agents willing to work for her.”
Clinton’s State Department agents are hardly the first to complain about her bullying. “She
derives pleasure from lording over other people who cannot do anything about it and who
are less powerful than she is,” author Ronald Kessler told Newsmax TV’s J. D. Hayworth.
In fact, Clinton’s well-documented history of profane, unhinged outbursts against those
who work for her spans decades.
While Clinton’s vulgarity is presented here in relatively family-friendly form, fill in the
blanks and imagine the pain that this woman inflicted when she uttered these words. “I’m
not voting for Clinton,” Air Force Staff Sergeant Eric Bonner posted on Facebook in July.
“It’s because she actually talked to me once. Almost a sentence,” wrote the Air Force K-9
handler. “I got to do a few details involving Distinguished Visitors.” “One of my last details
was for Hillary when she was Secretary of State,” Bonner continued. “I helped with sweeps
of her DV quarters and staff vehicles. Her words to me?”
According to Bonner, Clinton told him, “Get that fucking dog away from me.” “Then she
turns to her security detail and berates them up and down about why that animal was in
her quarters,” Bonner added. “For the next 20 minutes, while I sit there waiting to be
released, she lays into her detail, slamming the door in their faces when she’s done. The
Detail lead walks over, apologizes, and releases me. I apologize to him for getting him in
trouble. His words, ‘Happens every day, Brother.’” “Hillary doesn’t care about anyone but
Hillary.”
“Stay the fuck back, stay the fuck away from me!” the then-–First Lady screamed at her
Secret Service agents. “Don’t come within ten yards of me, or else! Just fucking do as I say,
okay!!?” Clinton demanded, according to former FBI agent Gary Aldrich’s Unlimited
Access, page 139.
“If you want to remain on this detail, get your fucking ass over here and grab those bags!”
Hillary yelled at a Secret Service agent, as Joyce Milton reported in The First Partner, page
259. The officer explained in vain that he preferred to keep his hands free, in case a threat
arose.
“Good morning, ma’am,” a uniformed Secret Service officer once greeted Hillary Clinton.
“Fuck off!” she replied, as Ronald Kessler documented in First Family Detail, page 16.
“Put this back on the ground!” Hillary Clinton screamed at the pilot of presidential
helicopter Marine One. “I left my sunglasses in the limo. I need my sunglasses! We need to
go back!” Clinton so abused the chopper’s crew that they christened it Broomstick One.
Also in Dereliction of Duty, its author — Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Robert “Buzz”
Patterson (Ret.), who carried the “nuclear football” — recalled hearing “volleys of
expletives” erupting from Hillary’s mouth. He also lamented “the Nazi-like edge that
emerged when she was around.”
“Where is the goddam fucking flag? I want the goddam fucking flag up every fucking
morning at fucking sunrise,” Hillary snapped at state trooper Larry Patterson at the
Arkansas governor’s mansion on Labor Day 1991, according to Ronald Kessler’s Inside the
White House, page 246.
“Good morning,” an Arkansas state trooper said to Clinton, according to American Evita,
by Christopher Andersen, a former contributing editor with Time magazine.
“Fuck off!” Hillary told him and his fellow bodyguards. “It’s enough I have to see you shit-
kickers every day! I’m not going to talk to you, too! Just do your goddam job and keep your
mouth shut.”
If this is how Hillary Clinton handles those who have stood ready to take bullets for her,
how would she treat 325 million everyday Americans?
Tuesday, October 25, 2016
HELMUT NORPOTH STILL CONFIDENT TRUMP WILL WIN
Professor Who Predicted Last Five Elections Says Trump Has 87% Chance of Winning despite polls showing Hillary ahead
By Paul Joseph Watson
INFOWARS
October 24, 2016
Political science professor Helmut Norpoth, who has accurately called the results of the last five presidential elections, still asserts that Donald Trump has an 87% chance of defeating Hillary Clinton despite Clinton being ahead in the polls.
Norpoth’s model has correctly predicted the outcome of the popular vote for every election since 1996, including the 2000 race where Al Gore won the popular vote but George W. Bush took the presidency.
“It usually turns out that the candidate who does better in his party’s primary beats the other guy who does less well,” said Norpoth, adding that Trump’s margin of victory in New Hampshire and South Carolina compared to Clinton (who lost in New Hampshire) was crucial to his model.
The other factor is the “swing of the pendulum,” which makes it far more likely for a change of government if one party has been in power for two terms.
Norpoth said he has gone “all in” on a Donald Trump victory and is sticking with his bet.
“There are also quite a few colleagues of mine who have a prediction that Trump is going to make it,” added the professor.
Many Trump supporters are now claiming that the media narrative that the election result is a foregone conclusion is a trick designed to convince potential Trump voters to stay home on November 8.
A confidential memo allegedly obtained from Correct The Record, a Democratic Super PAC, reveals a plan to “barrage” voters with high frequency polls that show Hillary ahead in order to “declare election over,” while avoiding any mention of the Brexit vote (which completely contradicted polls that said Brexit would fail).
Emails revealed by Wikileaks show how Democratic operatives planned to encourage “oversamples for polling” in order to “maximize what we get out of our media polling.” In other words, sample more Democrats than Republicans in order to make people believe that Hillary’s lead is far greater than the reality of a tight race.
Norpoth’s forecast of a Trump victory mirrors what’s taking place in the betting markets, with British bookmakers William Hill revealing last week that 65% of all bets on the market have backed Trump to win the election, a similar phenomenon to what happened before the Brexit vote, where the polls were proven completely wrong.
EDITOR’S NOTE: I hope Prof. Norpoth’s prediction will come to pass, but I’m afraid he may have been smoking some funny tobacco.
By Paul Joseph Watson
INFOWARS
October 24, 2016
Political science professor Helmut Norpoth, who has accurately called the results of the last five presidential elections, still asserts that Donald Trump has an 87% chance of defeating Hillary Clinton despite Clinton being ahead in the polls.
Norpoth’s model has correctly predicted the outcome of the popular vote for every election since 1996, including the 2000 race where Al Gore won the popular vote but George W. Bush took the presidency.
“It usually turns out that the candidate who does better in his party’s primary beats the other guy who does less well,” said Norpoth, adding that Trump’s margin of victory in New Hampshire and South Carolina compared to Clinton (who lost in New Hampshire) was crucial to his model.
The other factor is the “swing of the pendulum,” which makes it far more likely for a change of government if one party has been in power for two terms.
Norpoth said he has gone “all in” on a Donald Trump victory and is sticking with his bet.
“There are also quite a few colleagues of mine who have a prediction that Trump is going to make it,” added the professor.
Many Trump supporters are now claiming that the media narrative that the election result is a foregone conclusion is a trick designed to convince potential Trump voters to stay home on November 8.
A confidential memo allegedly obtained from Correct The Record, a Democratic Super PAC, reveals a plan to “barrage” voters with high frequency polls that show Hillary ahead in order to “declare election over,” while avoiding any mention of the Brexit vote (which completely contradicted polls that said Brexit would fail).
Emails revealed by Wikileaks show how Democratic operatives planned to encourage “oversamples for polling” in order to “maximize what we get out of our media polling.” In other words, sample more Democrats than Republicans in order to make people believe that Hillary’s lead is far greater than the reality of a tight race.
Norpoth’s forecast of a Trump victory mirrors what’s taking place in the betting markets, with British bookmakers William Hill revealing last week that 65% of all bets on the market have backed Trump to win the election, a similar phenomenon to what happened before the Brexit vote, where the polls were proven completely wrong.
EDITOR’S NOTE: I hope Prof. Norpoth’s prediction will come to pass, but I’m afraid he may have been smoking some funny tobacco.
FORMER PENNSYLVANIA AG SENTENCED
By Bob Walsh
Kathleen Kane, 50, used to be real hot stuff in the Democrat political arena and was the Attorney General for Pennsylvania. She is now a number on an orange jump suit.
Kane was sentenced to from 10-23 months as a guest of the people of the state with an additional eight years probation. The sentencing judge asserted that her revenge scheme was the result of her "all-consuming ego" and her inability to make the transition from politician to civil servant. She was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice as well as a buttload of assorted misdemeanors..
She is currently free on $75,000 pending appeal. Her 15-year old son sniveled to the judge for leniency. She argued that loss of her law license and career was adequate punishment. She did not testify at her trial.
She was convicted for having a political aide leak confidential information to a press source, then tried to frame a political rival as the leaker. She then lied under oath about the whole mess.
Kathleen Kane, 50, used to be real hot stuff in the Democrat political arena and was the Attorney General for Pennsylvania. She is now a number on an orange jump suit.
Kane was sentenced to from 10-23 months as a guest of the people of the state with an additional eight years probation. The sentencing judge asserted that her revenge scheme was the result of her "all-consuming ego" and her inability to make the transition from politician to civil servant. She was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice as well as a buttload of assorted misdemeanors..
She is currently free on $75,000 pending appeal. Her 15-year old son sniveled to the judge for leniency. She argued that loss of her law license and career was adequate punishment. She did not testify at her trial.
She was convicted for having a political aide leak confidential information to a press source, then tried to frame a political rival as the leaker. She then lied under oath about the whole mess.
AMERICA IS GREAT AGAIN
By Bob Walsh
For many years BUICK was considered to be an extremely reliable car. It was also known as the Doctor's Car. It was solid, upscale and reliable without being ostentatious. It's there again, at least according to Consumer Reports.
Yup, Buck has made it into the top five of the most reliable cars, a position that no American product has held since the 1980s. Right behind Lexus and Toyota. (Well, some Toyotas are made here too.)
For many years BUICK was considered to be an extremely reliable car. It was also known as the Doctor's Car. It was solid, upscale and reliable without being ostentatious. It's there again, at least according to Consumer Reports.
Yup, Buck has made it into the top five of the most reliable cars, a position that no American product has held since the 1980s. Right behind Lexus and Toyota. (Well, some Toyotas are made here too.)
TWO WEEKS UNTIL GOD KNOWS WHO
By Bob Walsh
God Knows Who (or maybe What). The polls are running anywhere from +1 for Trump to +11 for the Hildebeast. The "good" polls with an excellent track record and good procedures are running about 2-4% in favor of Hillary. There will, in my humble opinion, be a significant closet Trump vote. In addition most polls over-report on Democrats due to the way they are set-up and run. Further, at least according to the recent WickiLeaks dump, the Dems have a long track record of manipulating polling results and pressuring their allies in the media to over-report good results and ignore bad results in an effort to drive down Republican voters. After all, people like to vote for the winner and if they think the Hildebeast has it in the bag they may stay home. Or, if the Dems believe their own propaganda enough THEY might stay home. Such things have happened before.
I would be a lot happier if Trump could focus and quit distracting himself with crap like promising to sue the women who are allegedly slandering him. It's a personal problem. I don't care about it.
Hope clouds reason. I HOPE Trump can pull this off. Therefore I THINK he can pull it off. Maybe I am just whistling past the graveyard. Maybe not. Fortunately for me there are a few must-win Trump states in the east that will probably tell the story early. If Trump can carry Florida, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Ohio there is a real good chance he can pull this off. If he looses in all of them, he is toast.
I will no doubt sit around the television with my lady-friend (who is a Hildebeast supporter, or at least a Trump hater), eating pizza and may very well be cursing at the television. It may not be fun, but it will be interesting.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Enjoy your pizza by eating early on election eve, Bob – before the results start coming in. I’m afraid a better title would have been TWO WEEKS UNTIL DOOMSDAY.
God Knows Who (or maybe What). The polls are running anywhere from +1 for Trump to +11 for the Hildebeast. The "good" polls with an excellent track record and good procedures are running about 2-4% in favor of Hillary. There will, in my humble opinion, be a significant closet Trump vote. In addition most polls over-report on Democrats due to the way they are set-up and run. Further, at least according to the recent WickiLeaks dump, the Dems have a long track record of manipulating polling results and pressuring their allies in the media to over-report good results and ignore bad results in an effort to drive down Republican voters. After all, people like to vote for the winner and if they think the Hildebeast has it in the bag they may stay home. Or, if the Dems believe their own propaganda enough THEY might stay home. Such things have happened before.
I would be a lot happier if Trump could focus and quit distracting himself with crap like promising to sue the women who are allegedly slandering him. It's a personal problem. I don't care about it.
Hope clouds reason. I HOPE Trump can pull this off. Therefore I THINK he can pull it off. Maybe I am just whistling past the graveyard. Maybe not. Fortunately for me there are a few must-win Trump states in the east that will probably tell the story early. If Trump can carry Florida, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Ohio there is a real good chance he can pull this off. If he looses in all of them, he is toast.
I will no doubt sit around the television with my lady-friend (who is a Hildebeast supporter, or at least a Trump hater), eating pizza and may very well be cursing at the television. It may not be fun, but it will be interesting.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Enjoy your pizza by eating early on election eve, Bob – before the results start coming in. I’m afraid a better title would have been TWO WEEKS UNTIL DOOMSDAY.
LAPD OFFICER FATALLY SHOOTS TWO PEOPLE JUST DAYS APART
How quickly should officers who kill return to work?
By Kate Mather
Los Angeles Times
October 23, 2016
This summer, for the first time in his nearly five years as a Los Angeles police officer, Eden Medina shot someone.
Police say Medina opened fire July 28 as Omar Gonzalez fought with officers after a car chase ended in a Boyle Heights cul-de-sac. Police have released few details about the shooting, but said at least one witness saw the 36-year-old with a gun before Medina fatally shot him.
Twelve days later, the Hollenbeck Division gang officer fired his gun again, killing Jesse Romero two weeks shy of his 15th birthday. The Aug. 9 shooting prompted protests and criticism of the LAPD, amplified by the renewed national scrutiny over policing as well as conflicting accounts over whether Romero fired a gun at officers before he was shot.
The shootings offer a window into how the LAPD treats officers who fire their guns. While shootings by police have received much attention, they remain relatively rare events. In 2015, for example, the LAPD reported more than 1.5 million contacts between police and the public. Of those encounters, 21 ended with deadly gunfire from officers.
But it’s even more unusual for an officer to fatally shoot two people in such a short period of time.
The case raises questions about how much training and psychological help the LAPD provides officers who fire their weapons and whether they spend enough time away from the job after a deadly encounter.
LAPD spokesman Josh Rubenstein said Medina returned to the field six days after the first shooting. The officer was cleared by a department psychologist and the police chief, he said.
“We take every single instance very seriously,” he said. “Any officer-involved shooting is tragic for the community and for the officer. It’s very difficult.”
LAPD officers typically return to the field one to two weeks after a shooting and can do so even before they complete a training refresher course that usually lasts between 30 minutes and an hour, according to a recent report by the Police Commission’s inspector general.
It is unclear whether Medina finished that training before returning to work. Rubenstein declined to comment, saying it was part of the officer’s personnel file.
Police officers in Washington, D.C., and Dallas typically don’t return to their full duties for almost a month after a shooting, according to the inspector general’s report. Officers in Las Vegas spend as long as two or three months out of the field. Dallas and Las Vegas also send officers to a full day of individualized training before they’re back on the job.
Earlier this month, the civilian commission that oversees the LAPD directed the department to expand training for officers after they fire their guns and ensure they complete that training before returning to the field.
Matt Johnson, the commission’s president, told department brass he was concerned that LAPD officers generally spend less time off patrol after shootings than police at other agencies. Johnson also said he believed officers should be required to attend more than one session with a psychologist.
“These are traumatic events, and one mandatory session does not seem adequate to me,” he said. “Someone could have a great session and frankly, pull the wool over your eyes, and you don’t see the trauma that they’re going through.”
Rubenstein, the LAPD spokesman, said the department is willing to take another look at that approach as part of its broader review of how officers use force.
A lawyer representing Romero’s mother accused the LAPD of showing “complete gross negligence” by sending Medina back to the field within a week of the first shooting. Whether or not the officer was justified in firing his gun, attorney Humberto Guizar said, he should have spent more time away as a “cooling down” period.
“I have friends who are police officers — they worked for 35 years and they never shot a civilian,” Guizar said. “This is an officer who killed somebody 12 days before he killed our kid. How could that happen?”
Medina’s attorney insisted there was no connection between the two shootings, saying the officer reacted reasonably based on the circumstances of each situation. Both Gonzalez and Romero had a gun, attorney Larry Hanna noted. The timing, he added, was "just a coincidence.”
Hanna described Medina as a hard-working cop who, as a gang officer, worked a difficult assignment in a tough neighborhood.
“Being in one shooting was very hard on this officer. Being in two? It’s hard on them,” Hanna said. “They don’t want to be out there having to do this. They also don’t want people pointing guns at them.”
The LAPD puts officers through a “rigorous process” before returning them to work after a shooting, Hanna said. “This officer was ready,” he said.
Most law enforcement officers spend their entire careers without firing their guns in the line of duty. How departments treat officers who do, however, varies from agency to agency.
LAPD officers must meet with a psychologist within a week of firing their guns. Officers must be cleared by a psychologist before the chief decides whether they can return to work, though the psychologist may require officers to attend additional counseling sessions after they’re back on the job. Officers may request extra meetings.
Officers also receive what’s called a general training update — a refresher course that includes a review of the LAPD’s policy for using deadly force and time in a simulator where officers react to various real-life scenarios that could lead to using that deadly force.
Police in Dallas, however, must attend three mental health evaluations after a shooting — a week, three months and six months later. Las Vegas officers are required to attend at least two sessions and are then evaluated by a board of department officials before an undersheriff signs off on returning that officer to the field.
Los Angeles County sheriff’s deputies who are involved in shootings — whether they pulled the trigger or not — must check in with a psychologist within days, then again two weeks and four months later, sheriff’s officials said. They generally return to work between a week and 10 days after a shooting.
Lou Turriaga, a director for the union that represents the LAPD’s rank and file, said he believed the department offered strong support for officers after shootings. It’s rare for police to fire their guns in the line of duty, he noted — Turriaga said he hasn’t during his 28 years as an LAPD officer — and each officer who does reacts differently.
“I’ve been out to shootings and you can see it in their eyes. Some of them, it’s not a problem,” he said. “Others look like a deer in headlights.”
On-duty LAPD officers have fatally shot 16 people this year, according to a Times analysis. Five of those shootings happened in Boyle Heights, including one where an LAPD officer was shot in the arm.
Conflicting accounts have emerged about the events that led up to Medina’s second shooting. The LAPD has said a witness told investigations that Romero fired a revolver at police after they chased him down the street. An officer then saw Romero crouched on the sidewalk, his arm extended. Fearing Romero was going to shoot, police said, Medina fired.
A woman who said she saw the shooting, however, told The Times she saw Romero throw the gun toward a fence. She said she heard the weapon fire when it hit the ground.
Medina is currently working an investigative assignment, the LAPD said. He hasn’t returned to the field since the second shooting. The department spokesman declined to say why, citing the ongoing inquiry and laws protecting a police officer’s personnel record.
By Kate Mather
Los Angeles Times
October 23, 2016
This summer, for the first time in his nearly five years as a Los Angeles police officer, Eden Medina shot someone.
Police say Medina opened fire July 28 as Omar Gonzalez fought with officers after a car chase ended in a Boyle Heights cul-de-sac. Police have released few details about the shooting, but said at least one witness saw the 36-year-old with a gun before Medina fatally shot him.
Twelve days later, the Hollenbeck Division gang officer fired his gun again, killing Jesse Romero two weeks shy of his 15th birthday. The Aug. 9 shooting prompted protests and criticism of the LAPD, amplified by the renewed national scrutiny over policing as well as conflicting accounts over whether Romero fired a gun at officers before he was shot.
The shootings offer a window into how the LAPD treats officers who fire their guns. While shootings by police have received much attention, they remain relatively rare events. In 2015, for example, the LAPD reported more than 1.5 million contacts between police and the public. Of those encounters, 21 ended with deadly gunfire from officers.
But it’s even more unusual for an officer to fatally shoot two people in such a short period of time.
The case raises questions about how much training and psychological help the LAPD provides officers who fire their weapons and whether they spend enough time away from the job after a deadly encounter.
LAPD spokesman Josh Rubenstein said Medina returned to the field six days after the first shooting. The officer was cleared by a department psychologist and the police chief, he said.
“We take every single instance very seriously,” he said. “Any officer-involved shooting is tragic for the community and for the officer. It’s very difficult.”
LAPD officers typically return to the field one to two weeks after a shooting and can do so even before they complete a training refresher course that usually lasts between 30 minutes and an hour, according to a recent report by the Police Commission’s inspector general.
It is unclear whether Medina finished that training before returning to work. Rubenstein declined to comment, saying it was part of the officer’s personnel file.
Police officers in Washington, D.C., and Dallas typically don’t return to their full duties for almost a month after a shooting, according to the inspector general’s report. Officers in Las Vegas spend as long as two or three months out of the field. Dallas and Las Vegas also send officers to a full day of individualized training before they’re back on the job.
Earlier this month, the civilian commission that oversees the LAPD directed the department to expand training for officers after they fire their guns and ensure they complete that training before returning to the field.
Matt Johnson, the commission’s president, told department brass he was concerned that LAPD officers generally spend less time off patrol after shootings than police at other agencies. Johnson also said he believed officers should be required to attend more than one session with a psychologist.
“These are traumatic events, and one mandatory session does not seem adequate to me,” he said. “Someone could have a great session and frankly, pull the wool over your eyes, and you don’t see the trauma that they’re going through.”
Rubenstein, the LAPD spokesman, said the department is willing to take another look at that approach as part of its broader review of how officers use force.
A lawyer representing Romero’s mother accused the LAPD of showing “complete gross negligence” by sending Medina back to the field within a week of the first shooting. Whether or not the officer was justified in firing his gun, attorney Humberto Guizar said, he should have spent more time away as a “cooling down” period.
“I have friends who are police officers — they worked for 35 years and they never shot a civilian,” Guizar said. “This is an officer who killed somebody 12 days before he killed our kid. How could that happen?”
Medina’s attorney insisted there was no connection between the two shootings, saying the officer reacted reasonably based on the circumstances of each situation. Both Gonzalez and Romero had a gun, attorney Larry Hanna noted. The timing, he added, was "just a coincidence.”
Hanna described Medina as a hard-working cop who, as a gang officer, worked a difficult assignment in a tough neighborhood.
“Being in one shooting was very hard on this officer. Being in two? It’s hard on them,” Hanna said. “They don’t want to be out there having to do this. They also don’t want people pointing guns at them.”
The LAPD puts officers through a “rigorous process” before returning them to work after a shooting, Hanna said. “This officer was ready,” he said.
Most law enforcement officers spend their entire careers without firing their guns in the line of duty. How departments treat officers who do, however, varies from agency to agency.
LAPD officers must meet with a psychologist within a week of firing their guns. Officers must be cleared by a psychologist before the chief decides whether they can return to work, though the psychologist may require officers to attend additional counseling sessions after they’re back on the job. Officers may request extra meetings.
Officers also receive what’s called a general training update — a refresher course that includes a review of the LAPD’s policy for using deadly force and time in a simulator where officers react to various real-life scenarios that could lead to using that deadly force.
Police in Dallas, however, must attend three mental health evaluations after a shooting — a week, three months and six months later. Las Vegas officers are required to attend at least two sessions and are then evaluated by a board of department officials before an undersheriff signs off on returning that officer to the field.
Los Angeles County sheriff’s deputies who are involved in shootings — whether they pulled the trigger or not — must check in with a psychologist within days, then again two weeks and four months later, sheriff’s officials said. They generally return to work between a week and 10 days after a shooting.
Lou Turriaga, a director for the union that represents the LAPD’s rank and file, said he believed the department offered strong support for officers after shootings. It’s rare for police to fire their guns in the line of duty, he noted — Turriaga said he hasn’t during his 28 years as an LAPD officer — and each officer who does reacts differently.
“I’ve been out to shootings and you can see it in their eyes. Some of them, it’s not a problem,” he said. “Others look like a deer in headlights.”
On-duty LAPD officers have fatally shot 16 people this year, according to a Times analysis. Five of those shootings happened in Boyle Heights, including one where an LAPD officer was shot in the arm.
Conflicting accounts have emerged about the events that led up to Medina’s second shooting. The LAPD has said a witness told investigations that Romero fired a revolver at police after they chased him down the street. An officer then saw Romero crouched on the sidewalk, his arm extended. Fearing Romero was going to shoot, police said, Medina fired.
A woman who said she saw the shooting, however, told The Times she saw Romero throw the gun toward a fence. She said she heard the weapon fire when it hit the ground.
Medina is currently working an investigative assignment, the LAPD said. He hasn’t returned to the field since the second shooting. The department spokesman declined to say why, citing the ongoing inquiry and laws protecting a police officer’s personnel record.
MILWAUKEE OFFICER WHO SHOT SYLVILLE SMITH LAST AUGUST NOW ACCUSED OF SEXUAL ASSAULT
By Ray Sanchez
CNN
October 21, 2016
The Milwaukee cop who fatally shot Sylville Smith in August watched TV coverage of the violent street protests that followed at a bar with a man who later accused the officer of sexual assault, according to a criminal complaint.
The unidentified man told investigators that Officer Dominique Heaggan-Brown sexually assaulted him while off-duty two days after the August 13 shooting death of Smith, a 23-year-old black man who police said was armed during a lethal confrontation that started with a traffic stop.
Heaggan-Brown, 24, who has been suspended from the force, was being held on $100,000 bail Thursday. It's unclear whether he has an attorney.
The alleged sexual assault occurred in the early morning of August 15 after a night of heavy drinking at a bar where the two men "sat and watched television as coverage of the Sherman Park protests aired," the criminal complaint said.
After allegedly assaulting the man at the officer's home, Heaggan-Brown took the accuser to a hospital and told a nurse the man "began to act weird and unresponsive" at a bar, according to the complaint.
Heaggan-Brown told a hospital security officer that the man was "completely out, zonked out of his gourd" after drinking, the complaint said.
Later, after seeing Heaggan-Brown in the emergency room, the man told hospital workers, "He raped me. He raped me," according to the complaint.
That morning Heaggan-Brown later sent a text message to a sergeant who had mentored him, saying he was "not so good" after having "a separate situation," the complaint said.
"Need your help big time," the text said. "Fucked up big time ... But need to handle this the most secret and right way possible."
When the sergeant met with Heaggan-Brown, the officer described the sex as consensual and said his accuser "was drunk and had 'medical issues,'" according to the complaint.
The sergeant also is under investigation, police Chief Edward Flynn told reporters Thursday.
Flynn said the allegations against Heaggan-Brown were "altogether awful" and "extraordinarily disappointing," but the investigation into Smith's death should be based on the circumstances of the shooting, not the officer's possible character, he said.
Heaggan-Brown is charged with two counts of second-degree sexual assault, two counts of prostitution and one count of capturing an intimate representation without consent. He's accused of offering two other men money for sex at his home, the complaint said.
The complaint said Heaggan-Brown and his accuser, both musicians, had connected on Facebook. At the bar the night protests rocked Sherman Park, the officer had "bragged about being able to do whatever the defendant wanted without repercussions."
Police said Heaggan-Brown turned over his phone to investigators and let them search his home, but most of his belongings had been moved out.
The phone turned up evidence that the officer propositioned two others for sex, as well as video and photos of alleged sexual encounters, according to the complaint.
An investigation into the sexual assault allegation resulted in the Milwaukee County district attorney's office filing the criminal complaint Wednesday, police said.
In addition to a criminal investigation, the internal affairs division will review the case.
Mike Crivello, president of the 1,600-member Milwaukee Police Association, said in a statement: "In any large organization there may be a time that one, or a few discredit the overall; this is by no means reflective of the overwhelming majority of good officers. The MPA condemns all criminal behavior by any member of society, whether part of this organization or not -- in all situations it is imperative that fact(s) are allowed to dictate the outcome."
Milwaukee, a city long torn by racial tensions, exploded with protests in August after Smith was shot after running from police during a traffic stop. Heaggan-Brown also is African-American.
For two nights, protesters torched a half-dozen businesses, smashed cars and hurled rocks at police.
Heaggan-Brown rose from a police apprenticeship program to became a cop on the rough-and-tumble streets of the city's northwest side.
After the shooting, the officer's name and photo were widely circulated on social media, with angry comments from people threatening to have him killed.
Some online posters described encounters with what they said was an overzealous officer.
Heaggan-Brown has six years of service with the Milwaukee police -- three as an officer, officials said. He entered the department as part of an apprentice program that recruits high school students and requires they complete college credits.
He was assigned to District 7 on Milwaukee's northwest side.
Heaggan-Brown was placed on administrative duty during an investigation into the August shooting.
Mayor Tom Barrett said police body camera footage showed Smith holding a handgun during the encounter. That video has not been released.
Police said the officer shot Smith after he failed to comply with orders to put his gun down, which was loaded with 23 rounds -- more than the officer was carrying.
Smith -- described by family as a caring father, a loyal friend and popular dancer in Milwaukee's thriving hip-hop scene -- was known to Heaggan-Brown before the fatal encounter in August, Smith's relatives and friends said at the time.
EDITOR’S NOTE: How did Heaggan-Brown ever pass the MPD’s background investigation before he was hired?
CNN
October 21, 2016
The Milwaukee cop who fatally shot Sylville Smith in August watched TV coverage of the violent street protests that followed at a bar with a man who later accused the officer of sexual assault, according to a criminal complaint.
The unidentified man told investigators that Officer Dominique Heaggan-Brown sexually assaulted him while off-duty two days after the August 13 shooting death of Smith, a 23-year-old black man who police said was armed during a lethal confrontation that started with a traffic stop.
Heaggan-Brown, 24, who has been suspended from the force, was being held on $100,000 bail Thursday. It's unclear whether he has an attorney.
The alleged sexual assault occurred in the early morning of August 15 after a night of heavy drinking at a bar where the two men "sat and watched television as coverage of the Sherman Park protests aired," the criminal complaint said.
After allegedly assaulting the man at the officer's home, Heaggan-Brown took the accuser to a hospital and told a nurse the man "began to act weird and unresponsive" at a bar, according to the complaint.
Heaggan-Brown told a hospital security officer that the man was "completely out, zonked out of his gourd" after drinking, the complaint said.
Later, after seeing Heaggan-Brown in the emergency room, the man told hospital workers, "He raped me. He raped me," according to the complaint.
That morning Heaggan-Brown later sent a text message to a sergeant who had mentored him, saying he was "not so good" after having "a separate situation," the complaint said.
"Need your help big time," the text said. "Fucked up big time ... But need to handle this the most secret and right way possible."
When the sergeant met with Heaggan-Brown, the officer described the sex as consensual and said his accuser "was drunk and had 'medical issues,'" according to the complaint.
The sergeant also is under investigation, police Chief Edward Flynn told reporters Thursday.
Flynn said the allegations against Heaggan-Brown were "altogether awful" and "extraordinarily disappointing," but the investigation into Smith's death should be based on the circumstances of the shooting, not the officer's possible character, he said.
Heaggan-Brown is charged with two counts of second-degree sexual assault, two counts of prostitution and one count of capturing an intimate representation without consent. He's accused of offering two other men money for sex at his home, the complaint said.
The complaint said Heaggan-Brown and his accuser, both musicians, had connected on Facebook. At the bar the night protests rocked Sherman Park, the officer had "bragged about being able to do whatever the defendant wanted without repercussions."
Police said Heaggan-Brown turned over his phone to investigators and let them search his home, but most of his belongings had been moved out.
The phone turned up evidence that the officer propositioned two others for sex, as well as video and photos of alleged sexual encounters, according to the complaint.
An investigation into the sexual assault allegation resulted in the Milwaukee County district attorney's office filing the criminal complaint Wednesday, police said.
In addition to a criminal investigation, the internal affairs division will review the case.
Mike Crivello, president of the 1,600-member Milwaukee Police Association, said in a statement: "In any large organization there may be a time that one, or a few discredit the overall; this is by no means reflective of the overwhelming majority of good officers. The MPA condemns all criminal behavior by any member of society, whether part of this organization or not -- in all situations it is imperative that fact(s) are allowed to dictate the outcome."
Milwaukee, a city long torn by racial tensions, exploded with protests in August after Smith was shot after running from police during a traffic stop. Heaggan-Brown also is African-American.
For two nights, protesters torched a half-dozen businesses, smashed cars and hurled rocks at police.
Heaggan-Brown rose from a police apprenticeship program to became a cop on the rough-and-tumble streets of the city's northwest side.
After the shooting, the officer's name and photo were widely circulated on social media, with angry comments from people threatening to have him killed.
Some online posters described encounters with what they said was an overzealous officer.
Heaggan-Brown has six years of service with the Milwaukee police -- three as an officer, officials said. He entered the department as part of an apprentice program that recruits high school students and requires they complete college credits.
He was assigned to District 7 on Milwaukee's northwest side.
Heaggan-Brown was placed on administrative duty during an investigation into the August shooting.
Mayor Tom Barrett said police body camera footage showed Smith holding a handgun during the encounter. That video has not been released.
Police said the officer shot Smith after he failed to comply with orders to put his gun down, which was loaded with 23 rounds -- more than the officer was carrying.
Smith -- described by family as a caring father, a loyal friend and popular dancer in Milwaukee's thriving hip-hop scene -- was known to Heaggan-Brown before the fatal encounter in August, Smith's relatives and friends said at the time.
EDITOR’S NOTE: How did Heaggan-Brown ever pass the MPD’s background investigation before he was hired?
FEMALE WISCONSIN POLICE OFFICER CHARGED IN SHOOTING
By Gina Barton and Ashley Luthern
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
October 22, 2016
BROWN DEER, Wisconsin -- A Brown Deer police officer who shot an unarmed man after removing him from a county bus in March has been charged with aggravated battery with use of a dangerous weapon, a felony, according to a criminal complaint.
The man, Manuel L. Burnley Jr., 26, was face down on the ground when Officer Devon Kraemer shot him in the back, according to the complaint, which was issued Friday.
Charges in police shootings are extremely rare in Wisconsin.
In Milwaukee county, just two officers have been charged in fatal shootings in nearly 50 years, according to legislative research conducted in 2014. Only one of those shootings occurred while the officer was on duty. That research did not quantify charges in non-fatal shootings.
Charges are filed so infrequently in part because officers are authorized to use deadly force if they reasonably believe someone poses a threat to officers or to members of the public.
Kraemer told authorities she shot Burnley "because she feared for her safety and that of her partner," the complaint says.
But an expert retained by the prosecutor's office, Emanuel Kapelsohn, concluded that while Kraemer may have been afraid, that fear was not objectively reasonable.
"It was Kapelsohn's professional opinion that Kraemer's use of deadly force was not consistent with generally accepted standards for use of force in Wisconsin or nationwide," the complaint says.
According to the complaint:
The incident began when the bus driver flagged down the officers in the 8600 block of N. 60th St. because Burnley was arguing with her. Kraemer boarded the bus and told Burnley to get off, but he refused, using vulgar language and displaying a belligerent attitude. He did not threaten anyone on the bus or suggest he had a weapon.
Kraemer and her partner, Michael Leeman, removed Burnley from the bus. As they took him to the ground, they also fell. The two officers rolled Burnley onto his stomach; he struggled as they tried to handcuff him.
"Kraemer stated that she was unable to gain control of Burnley's left arm, and she drew her firearm, and pressed it against Burnley's back," the complaint says. "She then drew it back a short distance, to avoid a malfunction, and fired once, striking Burnley in the back, then immediately re-holstered her firearm."
After he was shot, Burnley asked what happened and heard Leeman respond by saying, "We just shot you" and using a racial slur, according to a document Burnley's attorney filed as a precursor to a civil lawsuit. Burnley is African-American; the two officers are white.
Burnley was hospitalized for 12 days and lost part of a lung as a result of the shooting. The bullet remains in his body and he is unable to work, according to his attorney, Jon Safran.
"Mr. Burnley is lucky to be alive and not paralyzed from being shot," Safran said Friday.
Kraemer has been placed on administrative leave with pay, according to a statement from Brown Deer Police Chief Michael Kass.
"As with any officer-involved shooting, the Brown Deer Police Department recognized that criminal charges were always a possibility," Kass said in a statement. "We fully understand and accept the need for this high level of scrutiny within the criminal justice system."
Milwaukee police conducted the investigation into the shooting at the request of Brown Deer police.
Brown Deer police had referred Burnley to the district attorney's office, requesting charges related to assaulting the two officers, but prosecutors did not charge him.
Kraemer has five years of experience with Brown Deer police and Leeman has two years of experience with the department.
If convicted, Kraemer faces a maximum possible penalty of 20 years in prison and $50,000 in fines. She would not be able to continue working in law enforcement since she would no longer be allowed to carry a gun under federal law.
Kraemer is the second police officer to be criminally charged by the Milwaukee County district attorney's office in as many days. On Thursday, Milwaukee Police Officer Dominique Heaggan-Brown, whose shooting of Sylville Smith prompted riots in the Sherman Park neighborhood, was charged with three felonies and two misdemeanors, including off-duty sexual assault. Smith's death remains under investigation.
The shooting of Burnley isn't the first time Brown Deer police training has been called into question in recent years.
In 2012, Brown Deer Police officials asked the state Department of Justice for training on how to handle domestic violence situations.
The request came amid sharp criticism in the wake of a shooting at Azana Salon and Spa that resulted in the deaths of three people and the suicide of the gunman. The shooter, Radcliffe Haughton, and his wife, who was among his victims, lived in Brown Deer. Less than two years before the spa shooting, officers saw Radcliffe Haughton point what appeared to be a rifle at his wife. Officers set up a tactical perimeter, told him he was under arrest and ordered him to surrender. He refused. A supervisor ordered officers to leave the scene 90 minutes into the standoff.
At the time, police experts told the Journal Sentinel that leaving without making an arrest was a breach of basic police protocol and created a risk to the public.
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
October 22, 2016
BROWN DEER, Wisconsin -- A Brown Deer police officer who shot an unarmed man after removing him from a county bus in March has been charged with aggravated battery with use of a dangerous weapon, a felony, according to a criminal complaint.
The man, Manuel L. Burnley Jr., 26, was face down on the ground when Officer Devon Kraemer shot him in the back, according to the complaint, which was issued Friday.
Charges in police shootings are extremely rare in Wisconsin.
In Milwaukee county, just two officers have been charged in fatal shootings in nearly 50 years, according to legislative research conducted in 2014. Only one of those shootings occurred while the officer was on duty. That research did not quantify charges in non-fatal shootings.
Charges are filed so infrequently in part because officers are authorized to use deadly force if they reasonably believe someone poses a threat to officers or to members of the public.
Kraemer told authorities she shot Burnley "because she feared for her safety and that of her partner," the complaint says.
But an expert retained by the prosecutor's office, Emanuel Kapelsohn, concluded that while Kraemer may have been afraid, that fear was not objectively reasonable.
"It was Kapelsohn's professional opinion that Kraemer's use of deadly force was not consistent with generally accepted standards for use of force in Wisconsin or nationwide," the complaint says.
According to the complaint:
The incident began when the bus driver flagged down the officers in the 8600 block of N. 60th St. because Burnley was arguing with her. Kraemer boarded the bus and told Burnley to get off, but he refused, using vulgar language and displaying a belligerent attitude. He did not threaten anyone on the bus or suggest he had a weapon.
Kraemer and her partner, Michael Leeman, removed Burnley from the bus. As they took him to the ground, they also fell. The two officers rolled Burnley onto his stomach; he struggled as they tried to handcuff him.
"Kraemer stated that she was unable to gain control of Burnley's left arm, and she drew her firearm, and pressed it against Burnley's back," the complaint says. "She then drew it back a short distance, to avoid a malfunction, and fired once, striking Burnley in the back, then immediately re-holstered her firearm."
After he was shot, Burnley asked what happened and heard Leeman respond by saying, "We just shot you" and using a racial slur, according to a document Burnley's attorney filed as a precursor to a civil lawsuit. Burnley is African-American; the two officers are white.
Burnley was hospitalized for 12 days and lost part of a lung as a result of the shooting. The bullet remains in his body and he is unable to work, according to his attorney, Jon Safran.
"Mr. Burnley is lucky to be alive and not paralyzed from being shot," Safran said Friday.
Kraemer has been placed on administrative leave with pay, according to a statement from Brown Deer Police Chief Michael Kass.
"As with any officer-involved shooting, the Brown Deer Police Department recognized that criminal charges were always a possibility," Kass said in a statement. "We fully understand and accept the need for this high level of scrutiny within the criminal justice system."
Milwaukee police conducted the investigation into the shooting at the request of Brown Deer police.
Brown Deer police had referred Burnley to the district attorney's office, requesting charges related to assaulting the two officers, but prosecutors did not charge him.
Kraemer has five years of experience with Brown Deer police and Leeman has two years of experience with the department.
If convicted, Kraemer faces a maximum possible penalty of 20 years in prison and $50,000 in fines. She would not be able to continue working in law enforcement since she would no longer be allowed to carry a gun under federal law.
Kraemer is the second police officer to be criminally charged by the Milwaukee County district attorney's office in as many days. On Thursday, Milwaukee Police Officer Dominique Heaggan-Brown, whose shooting of Sylville Smith prompted riots in the Sherman Park neighborhood, was charged with three felonies and two misdemeanors, including off-duty sexual assault. Smith's death remains under investigation.
The shooting of Burnley isn't the first time Brown Deer police training has been called into question in recent years.
In 2012, Brown Deer Police officials asked the state Department of Justice for training on how to handle domestic violence situations.
The request came amid sharp criticism in the wake of a shooting at Azana Salon and Spa that resulted in the deaths of three people and the suicide of the gunman. The shooter, Radcliffe Haughton, and his wife, who was among his victims, lived in Brown Deer. Less than two years before the spa shooting, officers saw Radcliffe Haughton point what appeared to be a rifle at his wife. Officers set up a tactical perimeter, told him he was under arrest and ordered him to surrender. He refused. A supervisor ordered officers to leave the scene 90 minutes into the standoff.
At the time, police experts told the Journal Sentinel that leaving without making an arrest was a breach of basic police protocol and created a risk to the public.
HOW POLICE REFORM IS FAILING IN SAN FRANCISCO
Bay Area hip-hop artist Paris accuses SFPD of routinely exhibiting racial bias as it metes out justice
By Paris
VICE News
October 18, 2016
"All niggers must fucking hang."
"White power."
"Niggers should be spayed. I saw one an hour ago with 4 kids."
These words weren't uttered by Klansmen in 1960s Mississippi. They weren't a chant overheard at some racist skinhead revival. They weren't even spoken by average citizens in a spate of Donald Trump-induced bigotry.
These sentiments were privately shared among cops in San Francisco within the past five years.
Twice now—once in March 2015 and again this April—troves of texts and other communications from San Francisco police officers have revealed unsettling racism and homophobia in the rank and file. Add to that 11 police-involved fatalities between May 2013 and May 2016—nine of which involved people of color—and it's easy to see why the San Francisco Police Department was subject to a scathing Department of Justice review last week for allegedly discriminating against people of color in a systematic way.
For those of us who've had encounters with cops in San Francisco—deserved or otherwise—this comes as no surprise. We've long known the department was lacking; now it's official. The true test will be what happens in the non-binding report's wake, and given that the feds have been reluctant to even call the department's actions straight-up racist (as they did in Baltimore this summer), it's hard to be optimistic.
Needless to say, the sentiments espoused in those text messages don't inspire confidence that the SFPD can turn things around. "It's highly unlikely [the] SFPD can reform itself," as San Francisco Public Defender Jeff Adachi said last week. Still, the DOJ review itself was conducted by its Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS Office) and initiated at the behest of Mayor Ed Lee and former Chief Greg Suhr after the police killing of Mario Woods. And the report details 94 findings and well over 200 non-binding recommendations intended to help the department rectify its shortcomings.
According to the feds, the department has a myriad of problems, including those relating to issues with transparency and bias, accountability, data collection, and internal oversight and hiring. (The report also chronicles apparent efforts by the San Francisco Police Officers Association to thwart the implementation of reforms.) Perhaps most glaringly, even though blacks comprise less than 6 percent of San Francisco's population at this point, the DOJ report found that 37 percent of the department's nearly 550 use-of-force incidents over the last three years—and nearly 15 percent of its traffic stops—involved African Americans.
It's worth noting that the SFPD is nearly equal parts white and minority, which lends credence to the idea that racial prejudice is an inherent characteristic of policing in America. Indeed, if a diverse department in a diverse city (San Francisco is nearly half Asian and Latino) routinely exhibits racial bias as it metes out justice, what hope is there for the remaining 16,000 or more agencies nationwide—many of which are mostly white—to be any better?
Nevertheless, Mayor Lee and interim Police Chief Toney Chaplin maintain that the SFPD is committed to implementing every recommendation in the report, and cite the rollout of body cameras, a new use-of-force policy, and implicit bias training and sanctity of life practices as evidence the department is moving in the right direction.
The problem, according to the Police Body Worn Cameras Scorecard and as evidenced by individual cases where body-camera-toting cops shot and killed unarmed people, is that the adoption of new technology in departments nationwide is sporadic, and any attendant accountability less than automatic.
The SFPD's General Order on Body Worn Cameras explicitly requires officers to "activate their BWC equipment to record" detentions and arrests, consensual encounters, traffic and pedestrian stops, vehicle and foot pursuits, uses of force, searches, arrest warrants and more. However, that same order outlines no definitive penalty for officers who opt to not active their cameras, effectively rendering the entire exercise moot when attempting to measure officer culpability in matters of potential misconduct. Why not include a criminal penalty for officers accused of brutality (or worse) who don't activate their cameras? Or mandatory firing, at least?
We've all seen just how little progress has been made, with the killings of Keith Lamont Scott, Philando Castile and others serving as a constant reminder that police reform still has a long way to go in America. Even the police department in Ferguson, Missouri, which has supposedly binding reforms detailed in legal settlements as a result of the DOJ's civil rights division review (unaffiliated with the COPS Office that conducted the SFPD report), remains mired in racial tension and is dangerously understaffed. And the governor's race in Missouri is basically a fight between two white dudes about who's tougher on crime and who's more supportive of cops.
One would expect an assumed bastion of progressive ideals like San Francisco to do better. Sadly, it hasn't.
The recorded killing of Woods, a 26-year-old black man shot by several cops on the street after brandishing a knife, remains a point of contention for many concerned with police malfeasance, and was a key impetus for the COPS Office review. Even if the officers involved are never charged, I see the Woods killing as akin to murder—if someone who wasn't a cop did this, it would almost certainly be treated like one—as evidenced by unedited video documentation. The case has come to exemplify for many of us in the Bay Area just how unjust the justice system can be. The fact that no one has been made to answer for this man's death, and that the police who ended his life quickly went back on the job, only serves to deepen the sting of this latest flimsy report.
Besides, the San Francisco Police Officers Association—the group whose official positions are often reflexively conservative and unsympathetic to concerns of those citizens the SFPD routinely targets—has shown zero interest in attempting to mend relations with the minority community. Leadership even went so far as to formally denounce San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick's protest of police misconduct.
There is at least a small ray of hope, though, as some officers nationwide seem to be waking up to the fact that past mistreatment by the police has helped fuel a deep mistrust of law enforcement within predominately black and Hispanic communities. The apology from the president of the International Association of Chiefs of Police's on Monday, who nodded to the "role that our profession has played in society's historical mistreatment of communities of color," is an encouraging sign, at least.
But for many of us in the San Francisco Bay Area, it's hard to shake off a deeply pessimistic outlook about prospects for police reform. After all, the DOJ's review of the SFPD is non-binding, comprised of only recommendations. Without regulatory teeth that bite, the question of "who polices the police?" remains more relevant here than ever.
By Paris
VICE News
October 18, 2016
"All niggers must fucking hang."
"White power."
"Niggers should be spayed. I saw one an hour ago with 4 kids."
These words weren't uttered by Klansmen in 1960s Mississippi. They weren't a chant overheard at some racist skinhead revival. They weren't even spoken by average citizens in a spate of Donald Trump-induced bigotry.
These sentiments were privately shared among cops in San Francisco within the past five years.
Twice now—once in March 2015 and again this April—troves of texts and other communications from San Francisco police officers have revealed unsettling racism and homophobia in the rank and file. Add to that 11 police-involved fatalities between May 2013 and May 2016—nine of which involved people of color—and it's easy to see why the San Francisco Police Department was subject to a scathing Department of Justice review last week for allegedly discriminating against people of color in a systematic way.
For those of us who've had encounters with cops in San Francisco—deserved or otherwise—this comes as no surprise. We've long known the department was lacking; now it's official. The true test will be what happens in the non-binding report's wake, and given that the feds have been reluctant to even call the department's actions straight-up racist (as they did in Baltimore this summer), it's hard to be optimistic.
Needless to say, the sentiments espoused in those text messages don't inspire confidence that the SFPD can turn things around. "It's highly unlikely [the] SFPD can reform itself," as San Francisco Public Defender Jeff Adachi said last week. Still, the DOJ review itself was conducted by its Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS Office) and initiated at the behest of Mayor Ed Lee and former Chief Greg Suhr after the police killing of Mario Woods. And the report details 94 findings and well over 200 non-binding recommendations intended to help the department rectify its shortcomings.
According to the feds, the department has a myriad of problems, including those relating to issues with transparency and bias, accountability, data collection, and internal oversight and hiring. (The report also chronicles apparent efforts by the San Francisco Police Officers Association to thwart the implementation of reforms.) Perhaps most glaringly, even though blacks comprise less than 6 percent of San Francisco's population at this point, the DOJ report found that 37 percent of the department's nearly 550 use-of-force incidents over the last three years—and nearly 15 percent of its traffic stops—involved African Americans.
It's worth noting that the SFPD is nearly equal parts white and minority, which lends credence to the idea that racial prejudice is an inherent characteristic of policing in America. Indeed, if a diverse department in a diverse city (San Francisco is nearly half Asian and Latino) routinely exhibits racial bias as it metes out justice, what hope is there for the remaining 16,000 or more agencies nationwide—many of which are mostly white—to be any better?
Nevertheless, Mayor Lee and interim Police Chief Toney Chaplin maintain that the SFPD is committed to implementing every recommendation in the report, and cite the rollout of body cameras, a new use-of-force policy, and implicit bias training and sanctity of life practices as evidence the department is moving in the right direction.
The problem, according to the Police Body Worn Cameras Scorecard and as evidenced by individual cases where body-camera-toting cops shot and killed unarmed people, is that the adoption of new technology in departments nationwide is sporadic, and any attendant accountability less than automatic.
The SFPD's General Order on Body Worn Cameras explicitly requires officers to "activate their BWC equipment to record" detentions and arrests, consensual encounters, traffic and pedestrian stops, vehicle and foot pursuits, uses of force, searches, arrest warrants and more. However, that same order outlines no definitive penalty for officers who opt to not active their cameras, effectively rendering the entire exercise moot when attempting to measure officer culpability in matters of potential misconduct. Why not include a criminal penalty for officers accused of brutality (or worse) who don't activate their cameras? Or mandatory firing, at least?
We've all seen just how little progress has been made, with the killings of Keith Lamont Scott, Philando Castile and others serving as a constant reminder that police reform still has a long way to go in America. Even the police department in Ferguson, Missouri, which has supposedly binding reforms detailed in legal settlements as a result of the DOJ's civil rights division review (unaffiliated with the COPS Office that conducted the SFPD report), remains mired in racial tension and is dangerously understaffed. And the governor's race in Missouri is basically a fight between two white dudes about who's tougher on crime and who's more supportive of cops.
One would expect an assumed bastion of progressive ideals like San Francisco to do better. Sadly, it hasn't.
The recorded killing of Woods, a 26-year-old black man shot by several cops on the street after brandishing a knife, remains a point of contention for many concerned with police malfeasance, and was a key impetus for the COPS Office review. Even if the officers involved are never charged, I see the Woods killing as akin to murder—if someone who wasn't a cop did this, it would almost certainly be treated like one—as evidenced by unedited video documentation. The case has come to exemplify for many of us in the Bay Area just how unjust the justice system can be. The fact that no one has been made to answer for this man's death, and that the police who ended his life quickly went back on the job, only serves to deepen the sting of this latest flimsy report.
Besides, the San Francisco Police Officers Association—the group whose official positions are often reflexively conservative and unsympathetic to concerns of those citizens the SFPD routinely targets—has shown zero interest in attempting to mend relations with the minority community. Leadership even went so far as to formally denounce San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick's protest of police misconduct.
There is at least a small ray of hope, though, as some officers nationwide seem to be waking up to the fact that past mistreatment by the police has helped fuel a deep mistrust of law enforcement within predominately black and Hispanic communities. The apology from the president of the International Association of Chiefs of Police's on Monday, who nodded to the "role that our profession has played in society's historical mistreatment of communities of color," is an encouraging sign, at least.
But for many of us in the San Francisco Bay Area, it's hard to shake off a deeply pessimistic outlook about prospects for police reform. After all, the DOJ's review of the SFPD is non-binding, comprised of only recommendations. Without regulatory teeth that bite, the question of "who polices the police?" remains more relevant here than ever.
Monday, October 24, 2016
16-YEAR-OLD FLORIDA SPINA BIFIDA VICTIM PUTS ASSHOLES LIKE COLIN KAERPERNICK TO SHAME
When the American flag passed by during a homecoming parade in Leesburg, wheelchair-bound Arek Trenholm used all the strength he had to stand up in honor of Old Glory
16-year-old Arek Trenholm of Leesburg, Florida is a spina bifida victim. He has been wheelchair-bound for the past 10 years.
Earlier this month Arek was sitting in his wheelchair watching Leesburg’s high school homecoming parade. As the American flag approached, Arek used all the strength in his arms to force himself to stand up in honor of Old Glory.
His mother says that despite his debilitating illness, he’s been standing for national anthems, pledges of allegiance and flags since he was very young. You can’t get much more patriotic than that.
Compare Arek’s patriotism to the disloyalty of assholes like Colin Kaepernick. Compare Arek’s pride in our flag to the disgraceful performance of the national anthem by Denasia Lawrence before an NBA game in Miami where she knelt as she sang and ripped open her jacket to display her Black Lives Matter t-shirt.
Arek puts to shame all those assholes that are kneeling during the playing or singing of the anthem. Furthermore he also puts to shame NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell and the coaches of high school, college and pro teams who support the kneeling of their players during the national anthem.
God bless Arek Trenholm!
16-year-old Arek Trenholm of Leesburg, Florida is a spina bifida victim. He has been wheelchair-bound for the past 10 years.
Earlier this month Arek was sitting in his wheelchair watching Leesburg’s high school homecoming parade. As the American flag approached, Arek used all the strength in his arms to force himself to stand up in honor of Old Glory.
His mother says that despite his debilitating illness, he’s been standing for national anthems, pledges of allegiance and flags since he was very young. You can’t get much more patriotic than that.
Compare Arek’s patriotism to the disloyalty of assholes like Colin Kaepernick. Compare Arek’s pride in our flag to the disgraceful performance of the national anthem by Denasia Lawrence before an NBA game in Miami where she knelt as she sang and ripped open her jacket to display her Black Lives Matter t-shirt.
Arek puts to shame all those assholes that are kneeling during the playing or singing of the anthem. Furthermore he also puts to shame NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell and the coaches of high school, college and pro teams who support the kneeling of their players during the national anthem.
God bless Arek Trenholm!
THE PERILS OF MIXING CHURCH AND STATE
by Bob Walsh
Colorado City, Arizona and Hildale, Utah are right across the border from each other. The small cities are mostly inhabited by fundamentalist Mormons who still practice polygamy in violation of law in both Utah and Arizona.
It has been alleged that, if you live there and you are not a member in good standing of the FLDS church AND currently in the good graces of the leadership of that church various city services, like police protection, are not available to you. A federal judge is about to have a say.
Judge H. Russel Holland will, on Monday, make a ruling that will almost certainly make some changes, and maybe HUGE changes, in how these cities operate their local government.
Four years ago a complaint was filed asserting that Short Creek (the collective name for these two towns) essentially takes its marching orders from the FLDS leadership.
About seven months ago a jury agreed with the assertion that if you were on the outs with the church bad things happened to you. Some of these bad things were denial of city services. One of the options that the judge is considering is disbanding the Marshal’s Office that provides police services, which would turn that duty back over to the county governments on their respective sides of the state line.
The state of Arizona is considering decertifying the Marshal’s office in Colorado City.
Colorado City, Arizona and Hildale, Utah are right across the border from each other. The small cities are mostly inhabited by fundamentalist Mormons who still practice polygamy in violation of law in both Utah and Arizona.
It has been alleged that, if you live there and you are not a member in good standing of the FLDS church AND currently in the good graces of the leadership of that church various city services, like police protection, are not available to you. A federal judge is about to have a say.
Judge H. Russel Holland will, on Monday, make a ruling that will almost certainly make some changes, and maybe HUGE changes, in how these cities operate their local government.
Four years ago a complaint was filed asserting that Short Creek (the collective name for these two towns) essentially takes its marching orders from the FLDS leadership.
About seven months ago a jury agreed with the assertion that if you were on the outs with the church bad things happened to you. Some of these bad things were denial of city services. One of the options that the judge is considering is disbanding the Marshal’s Office that provides police services, which would turn that duty back over to the county governments on their respective sides of the state line.
The state of Arizona is considering decertifying the Marshal’s office in Colorado City.
BULLETS BARELY MISS COP AND CIVILIAN RIDE-ALONG
Gunmen hit windshield of pursuing Madera, California police unit with civilian ride-along injured by flying glass
The Fresno Bee
October 23, 2016
Madera police are looking for the people who fired more than a dozen rounds at an officer as he tried to pull over their vehicle early Sunday morning.
The officer was unhurt, but a civilian who was doing a ride-along received minor cuts from glass from the patrol car’s windshield. Police found the vehicle, a Mazda SUV, a few blocks from where the officer last saw it. In a search of the area, police said they found an AR15-style pistol and other evidence.
The shooting happened about 4:30 a.m. as the officer tried to stop the Mazda on Howard Road at Schnoor Avenue. The Mazda failed to pull over and led the officer on a pursuit through neighborhoods in west Madera.
When the Mazda turned onto Lighthouse Drive from Mainberry Drive, the front passenger pointed a gun out the window and fired nine rounds at the officer’s patrol car. The officer continued pursuing and as the Mazda approached Shannon Avenue, the passenger fired four more rounds, three of them striking the patrol car. Two of the bullets hit the windshield, narrowly missing the officer and the civilian on a ride-along in the front passenger seat.
The patrol car was disabled, police said, putting an end to the pursuit.
The officer had just finished training and was on his second week as a solo officer, said the department, which praised his coolness under fire.
The investigation is continuing.
EDITOR’S NOTE: On the dash cam video, the female ride-along can be heard yelling “No, no, no … don’t follow him” as the gunmen in the fleeing SUV fire their first volley of shots at the cop car.
If the ride-along was a criminal justice student, I’ll bet there’s a good chance she will now change her major.
The Fresno Bee
October 23, 2016
Madera police are looking for the people who fired more than a dozen rounds at an officer as he tried to pull over their vehicle early Sunday morning.
The officer was unhurt, but a civilian who was doing a ride-along received minor cuts from glass from the patrol car’s windshield. Police found the vehicle, a Mazda SUV, a few blocks from where the officer last saw it. In a search of the area, police said they found an AR15-style pistol and other evidence.
The shooting happened about 4:30 a.m. as the officer tried to stop the Mazda on Howard Road at Schnoor Avenue. The Mazda failed to pull over and led the officer on a pursuit through neighborhoods in west Madera.
When the Mazda turned onto Lighthouse Drive from Mainberry Drive, the front passenger pointed a gun out the window and fired nine rounds at the officer’s patrol car. The officer continued pursuing and as the Mazda approached Shannon Avenue, the passenger fired four more rounds, three of them striking the patrol car. Two of the bullets hit the windshield, narrowly missing the officer and the civilian on a ride-along in the front passenger seat.
The patrol car was disabled, police said, putting an end to the pursuit.
The officer had just finished training and was on his second week as a solo officer, said the department, which praised his coolness under fire.
The investigation is continuing.
EDITOR’S NOTE: On the dash cam video, the female ride-along can be heard yelling “No, no, no … don’t follow him” as the gunmen in the fleeing SUV fire their first volley of shots at the cop car.
If the ride-along was a criminal justice student, I’ll bet there’s a good chance she will now change her major.
PENNSYLVANIA TEACHER BUSTED FOR LESBIAN RELATIONSHIPS WITH CATHOLIC SCHOOL STUDENTS
Catholic school teacher Randi Zurenko is charged with 232 child sex offences 'after sleeping with schoolgirls and filming their lesbian trysts'
By Jennifer Smith
Daily Mail
October 22, 2016
A female Catholic school teacher has been charged with more than 200 child sex offences after allegedly having sex with schoolgirls and filming their trysts.
Randi Zurenko from Millerstown, Pennsylvania, was arrested on Thursday.
Police believe the 33-year-old sexually abused two girls at Bishop McDevitt High School in Harrisburg hundreds of times between 2013 and 2016.
She is facing 13 counts of institutional sexual assault, 153 of sexual abuse of children, 33 of unlawful contact with minors, 20 of dissemination of obscene material to a minor and 13 counts of corruption of minors.
The woman first abused one of the girls at a park in 2013, Dauphin County's District Attorney's Office said.
She massaged her, undid her bra and plied her with alcohol on a number of occasions, police believe.
The girl, who has since graduated from the school, was underage at all times.
Zurenko allegedly went on to abuse the second girl from October 2015 until now, taking photographs of her half-nude and of them together while they had sex.
She sent her nude 'selfies' and was also admitted to taking photographs of the student on her phone.
They are alleged to have sex in a number of different locations including Zurenko's home. Their last encounter was on Friday.
Police interviewed the woman on Tuesday, just four days later.
'During the course of the interview Zurenko admitted to providing both victim 1 and victim 2 alcohol while they were students at Bishop McDevitt.
'She also admitted that, while employed as a teacher at Bishop McDevitt High School, she had a sexual relationship with victim 2, a current student at the school.
'Zurenko also admitted to taking nude photographs of victim 2,' a statement released by the District Attorney's Office said.
'Many of the charges relate to what we call sexual abuse of children or child pornography,' District Attorney Sean McCormack later told WGAL.
The school placed her on administrative leave in response to the investigation.
'It is with great sadness that we have learned that criminal charges have been filed against staff member Mrs Randi Zurenko,' officials said in a statement.
By Jennifer Smith
Daily Mail
October 22, 2016
A female Catholic school teacher has been charged with more than 200 child sex offences after allegedly having sex with schoolgirls and filming their trysts.
Randi Zurenko from Millerstown, Pennsylvania, was arrested on Thursday.
Police believe the 33-year-old sexually abused two girls at Bishop McDevitt High School in Harrisburg hundreds of times between 2013 and 2016.
She is facing 13 counts of institutional sexual assault, 153 of sexual abuse of children, 33 of unlawful contact with minors, 20 of dissemination of obscene material to a minor and 13 counts of corruption of minors.
The woman first abused one of the girls at a park in 2013, Dauphin County's District Attorney's Office said.
She massaged her, undid her bra and plied her with alcohol on a number of occasions, police believe.
The girl, who has since graduated from the school, was underage at all times.
Zurenko allegedly went on to abuse the second girl from October 2015 until now, taking photographs of her half-nude and of them together while they had sex.
She sent her nude 'selfies' and was also admitted to taking photographs of the student on her phone.
They are alleged to have sex in a number of different locations including Zurenko's home. Their last encounter was on Friday.
Police interviewed the woman on Tuesday, just four days later.
'During the course of the interview Zurenko admitted to providing both victim 1 and victim 2 alcohol while they were students at Bishop McDevitt.
'She also admitted that, while employed as a teacher at Bishop McDevitt High School, she had a sexual relationship with victim 2, a current student at the school.
'Zurenko also admitted to taking nude photographs of victim 2,' a statement released by the District Attorney's Office said.
'Many of the charges relate to what we call sexual abuse of children or child pornography,' District Attorney Sean McCormack later told WGAL.
The school placed her on administrative leave in response to the investigation.
'It is with great sadness that we have learned that criminal charges have been filed against staff member Mrs Randi Zurenko,' officials said in a statement.
SLEEPING, EATING AND SHOWERING WITH RATS
French prison inmate sharing his cell with dozens of rats sues jail as his lawyer complains he has to 'jump over them' when he visits
By Hannah al-Othman
Daily Mail
October 22, 2016
A French prisoner is suing the jail where he is being held after he was forced to sleep, eat, and shower surrounded by rats.
The unnamed inmate managed to film a video of his conditions inside the rat-infested prison, which shows dozens of the vermin gnawing at rubbish on the floor.
The footage was reportedly shot at Sequedin prison in Nord department in northern France, close to the city of Lille.
The situation has even prompted complaints from the prisoner's lawyer, who has said he has to jump over rats when he goes to visit clients in the jail.
Olivier Cardon slammed the 'deplorable conditions' his client was living in, as he also raised concerns about his own working conditions.
'My client eats with rats in his cell,' Mr Cardon said.
'He takes his shower with rats. The water in his shower stinks because there are rats in the pipes. Rats also scurry around the courtyard where my client walks.'
France's prisons have come under heavy scrutiny in recent weeks, with campaigners filing a complaint against the French government over living conditions on the inside.
The French-based International Prisons Observatory (OIP) backed its complaint with statements from inmates at Fresnes prison, who described overcrowding and filthy conditions in the jail near Paris.
'We are infested with bedbugs, bitten every night on the face, on the neck, the shoulders, the back, the legs and the arms,' one inmate said, while another described the stench of dead rats, and a third said he had to share his cell with up to 300 cockroaches.
The OIP has previously warned about overcrowding in French prisons, where the number of inmates soared this summer to 68,819 people for 58,507 places.
At the end of May, the authorities confirmed to the OIP two cases of leptospirosis in prisoners, an infection mainly transmitted by rats.
A justice ministry spokesman told AFP news agency that measures had been taken to tackle the rat infestation, but that the process would take time.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Shit, I don’t know why they are complaining. When I attended Oklahoma A&M (now Oklahoma State University), the fucking dorm was full of rats. Several times I woke up in the middle of the night with a rat crawling over me.
By Hannah al-Othman
Daily Mail
October 22, 2016
A French prisoner is suing the jail where he is being held after he was forced to sleep, eat, and shower surrounded by rats.
The unnamed inmate managed to film a video of his conditions inside the rat-infested prison, which shows dozens of the vermin gnawing at rubbish on the floor.
The footage was reportedly shot at Sequedin prison in Nord department in northern France, close to the city of Lille.
The situation has even prompted complaints from the prisoner's lawyer, who has said he has to jump over rats when he goes to visit clients in the jail.
Olivier Cardon slammed the 'deplorable conditions' his client was living in, as he also raised concerns about his own working conditions.
'My client eats with rats in his cell,' Mr Cardon said.
'He takes his shower with rats. The water in his shower stinks because there are rats in the pipes. Rats also scurry around the courtyard where my client walks.'
France's prisons have come under heavy scrutiny in recent weeks, with campaigners filing a complaint against the French government over living conditions on the inside.
The French-based International Prisons Observatory (OIP) backed its complaint with statements from inmates at Fresnes prison, who described overcrowding and filthy conditions in the jail near Paris.
'We are infested with bedbugs, bitten every night on the face, on the neck, the shoulders, the back, the legs and the arms,' one inmate said, while another described the stench of dead rats, and a third said he had to share his cell with up to 300 cockroaches.
The OIP has previously warned about overcrowding in French prisons, where the number of inmates soared this summer to 68,819 people for 58,507 places.
At the end of May, the authorities confirmed to the OIP two cases of leptospirosis in prisoners, an infection mainly transmitted by rats.
A justice ministry spokesman told AFP news agency that measures had been taken to tackle the rat infestation, but that the process would take time.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Shit, I don’t know why they are complaining. When I attended Oklahoma A&M (now Oklahoma State University), the fucking dorm was full of rats. Several times I woke up in the middle of the night with a rat crawling over me.
Sunday, October 23, 2016
BLAME IT ON BUSH ….. NO, BLAME IT ON THE RUSSIANS
The damaging emails released by Wikileaks should have torpedoed the Hillary campaign to the same extent the pussygate video and those groping allegations have torpedoed the Trump campaign. But those damaging emails have been overshadowed by claims that the hacking was done by the Russians on orders of that evil Putin.
The FBI, the CIA, NSA and Homeland Security all say there is evidence the hacking originated in the Kremlin. Oh! Those are all government agencies and each is headed by an Obama appointee.
We know how trustworthy the FBI is when Director James Comey found Hillary guilty only of carelessness in her private email server scandal. And we know how trustworthy the CIA is at intelligence gathering when it was so sure that Saddam Hussain had weapons of mass destruction, which he did not have. So why should we believe these agencies now, especially when Obama is fighting hard to keep Trump from getting elected?
Even if the Russians are behind the leaked emails … to quote Hillary … “What difference – at this point, what difference does it make?”
At this point, when Trump’s presidential campaign is barely treading water, those leaked emails could have been a lifeline. But by injecting the Russians into this controversy, the government, Hillary and the pro-Hillary media have very cleverly overshadowed those damaging emails and allowed the Hildebeast’s campaign to dodge a destructive torpedo.
The media onslaught against Trump continues with more sexual assault allegations, but what you hear mostly about Hillary’s emails is ‘the Russians did it.’
The FBI, the CIA, NSA and Homeland Security all say there is evidence the hacking originated in the Kremlin. Oh! Those are all government agencies and each is headed by an Obama appointee.
We know how trustworthy the FBI is when Director James Comey found Hillary guilty only of carelessness in her private email server scandal. And we know how trustworthy the CIA is at intelligence gathering when it was so sure that Saddam Hussain had weapons of mass destruction, which he did not have. So why should we believe these agencies now, especially when Obama is fighting hard to keep Trump from getting elected?
Even if the Russians are behind the leaked emails … to quote Hillary … “What difference – at this point, what difference does it make?”
At this point, when Trump’s presidential campaign is barely treading water, those leaked emails could have been a lifeline. But by injecting the Russians into this controversy, the government, Hillary and the pro-Hillary media have very cleverly overshadowed those damaging emails and allowed the Hildebeast’s campaign to dodge a destructive torpedo.
The media onslaught against Trump continues with more sexual assault allegations, but what you hear mostly about Hillary’s emails is ‘the Russians did it.’
EXPLANATION OF SHOOTING PEGS OUT THE STINK-O-METER
By Bob Walsh
There was an (alleged) drive-by shooting in a decent neighborhood in north Stockton, CA. a couple of days ago. The victim is an 11-year old boy who is in critical condition due to a gunshot wound to the head. His elder brother, 18, asserts the kid was the victim of a drive-by. The cops don't think so and I don't blame them.
The shooting went down on Thursday just after 5 p.m. When the cops arrived they found nobody (except the brother) that said anything that would lead them to believe the shooting was a drive-by. No shouting, no peeling-out of a getaway car. Just the one gun shot. And when the cops showed up they found a handgun that had recently been fired underneath the 11-year old.
The cops are pretty sure the gun they found under the kid was the gun that shot him. They are dong various forensic things that will tell them if that was the gun that injured the child and if the child had GSR on his hands or clothes. They don't know who owns the gun. In CA a person under 21 can not legally own a handgun so, at least legally, it didn't belong to the 18-year old brother.
The brother was questioned and released. So far.
The 11-year old s at U. C. Davis Hospital and is, according to unofficial information, unlikely to survive.
So, what really happened. Was the kid playing with the gun in the front yard and accidentally shoot himself? Did the brother shoot him? Was there somebody else there that we don't know about yet? The 18-year old was tested for GSR, the results of that test have yet to be released.
It is even possible the older brother heard a shot and was not present and actually believes that there was a drive-by. That, however, is not where I would put my money.
There was an (alleged) drive-by shooting in a decent neighborhood in north Stockton, CA. a couple of days ago. The victim is an 11-year old boy who is in critical condition due to a gunshot wound to the head. His elder brother, 18, asserts the kid was the victim of a drive-by. The cops don't think so and I don't blame them.
The shooting went down on Thursday just after 5 p.m. When the cops arrived they found nobody (except the brother) that said anything that would lead them to believe the shooting was a drive-by. No shouting, no peeling-out of a getaway car. Just the one gun shot. And when the cops showed up they found a handgun that had recently been fired underneath the 11-year old.
The cops are pretty sure the gun they found under the kid was the gun that shot him. They are dong various forensic things that will tell them if that was the gun that injured the child and if the child had GSR on his hands or clothes. They don't know who owns the gun. In CA a person under 21 can not legally own a handgun so, at least legally, it didn't belong to the 18-year old brother.
The brother was questioned and released. So far.
The 11-year old s at U. C. Davis Hospital and is, according to unofficial information, unlikely to survive.
So, what really happened. Was the kid playing with the gun in the front yard and accidentally shoot himself? Did the brother shoot him? Was there somebody else there that we don't know about yet? The 18-year old was tested for GSR, the results of that test have yet to be released.
It is even possible the older brother heard a shot and was not present and actually believes that there was a drive-by. That, however, is not where I would put my money.
FORMER RED SOX PITCHER ASKS A GOOD QUESTION
How can “people of Jewish faith back the Democratic party which over the last 50 years has been so clearly anti-Israel, so clearly anti-Jewish Israel?”
Former Red Sox Pitcher Curt Schilling is seriously considering challenging Elizabeth Warren in 2018 for her seat in the U.S. Senate.
During a recent interview with CNN’s Jake Tapper, the former pitcher and presumptive senate candidate asked:
I would like to ask you something as a person who is practicing the Jewish faith and has since you were young.
I don't understand - and maybe this is the amateur non-politician in me - I don't understand how people of Jewish faith can back the Democratic party which over the last 50 years has been so clearly anti-Israel, so clearly anti-Jewish Israel.
I don't know what else would need to be done, said or happen for people to understand that they don't… the Democratic is only aligned with Israel because we have agreements in place that make them have to be.
Curt asked a good question, one for which I’m sure he will be accused of anti-Semitism by liberal Jews.
Schilling had been a longtime ESPN baseball analyst, but earlier this year he got fired for making comments on Facebook opposing the right of transgenders to use the restrooms of their choice.
There’s nothing anti-Semitic about Curt’s question. I myself cannot understand why America’s Jews continuously vote overwhelmingly Democratic. The only reason I can think of is because, having been persecuted throughout history, Jews feel obligated to support the party that purports to protect and support minorities.
Former Red Sox Pitcher Curt Schilling is seriously considering challenging Elizabeth Warren in 2018 for her seat in the U.S. Senate.
During a recent interview with CNN’s Jake Tapper, the former pitcher and presumptive senate candidate asked:
I would like to ask you something as a person who is practicing the Jewish faith and has since you were young.
I don't understand - and maybe this is the amateur non-politician in me - I don't understand how people of Jewish faith can back the Democratic party which over the last 50 years has been so clearly anti-Israel, so clearly anti-Jewish Israel.
I don't know what else would need to be done, said or happen for people to understand that they don't… the Democratic is only aligned with Israel because we have agreements in place that make them have to be.
Curt asked a good question, one for which I’m sure he will be accused of anti-Semitism by liberal Jews.
Schilling had been a longtime ESPN baseball analyst, but earlier this year he got fired for making comments on Facebook opposing the right of transgenders to use the restrooms of their choice.
There’s nothing anti-Semitic about Curt’s question. I myself cannot understand why America’s Jews continuously vote overwhelmingly Democratic. The only reason I can think of is because, having been persecuted throughout history, Jews feel obligated to support the party that purports to protect and support minorities.
EXTERMINATE THE APACHES
Arizona settlers and U.S. soldiers set out to kill all Apaches, women and children included, similar to how the Poles and their Nazi conquers set out to exterminate Poland’s Jews
As a refugee from Nazi Germany who came to this glorious country in 1936, I have been a strong supporter of Israel, the last refuge for Jewish people who are persecuted and not wanted in other countries of the world.
I do not believe Israel should return the West Bank and East Jerusalem to the Palestinians, lands that they captured after repelling an attack on the Jewish state by the combined armies of Arab countries.
The Arabs, the Europeans and the United States are demanding that Israel relinquish the captured territories. Whoa there! After WW2, Poland kept about 25 percent of pre-war Germany. Nobody is hollering for Poland to return that territory back to Germany. But not so with Israel. Fuck the damn Jews!
If you ask me, Poland did not deserve to get one square inch of Germany. Once Hitler’s army conquered Poland, the Poles eagerly helped the Nazis find and round up Polish Jews for shipment to the extermination camps, all of which were built in Poland. The Poles were happy to have the hated Jews gassed and cremated, thereby finally getting rid of them.
And the U.S. should be the last nation to demand that Israel give up territory it captured from invading armies. What about the land stolen from America’s Indians? Almost every bit of American land was taken from the Indians who were treated horribly by the government and settlers. Nobody is hollering for us to give the Indians their land back. But not so with Israel. Fuck the damn Jews!
Our treatment of the Indians was deplorable. Here is an example of how the members of just one tribe, the Apaches, were treated:
From the book “Shadows at Dawn” by Karl Jacoby
After the U.S. acquired the territory that is now Arizona through the Gadsden Purchase and the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, U.S. soldiers and settlers began to populate those lands. The Apaches had roamed those lands for centuries and at first greeted these new arrivals peacefully. But as more came and threatened their sustenance, they reacted with savagery. The Americans responded with equal and astonishing savagery, including the killing of infants:
"By the 1860s, the majority of settlers in the territory had adopted a policy of killing all Apaches they encountered: '[I]t was the rigid rule all over the country to shoot these savages upon sight.' In the minds of many Arizonians, the elusive character of the Apache justified such actions. ... On [one] occasion, after several Anglo miners ambushed a party of Indians, one of the participants cut the heads off five of the Apaches slain in the encounter and used their brains to tan a deerhide -- behavior that unnerved some Anglo onlookers and brought peals of laughter from others.
"A similar blending of Apache killing and spectacle was engaged in by King Woolsey, an Arizona rancher who would receive a 'resolution of thanks' from the territory's Legislative Assembly in 1865 for leading several scouts of 'civilian volunteers' against the Apache, including the one Allyn recorded in which the raiders slew thirty or so Apaches during a parley. In 1861, Woolsey killed the leader of an Apache band with a shotgun blast. '[D]etermined to make a conspicuous mark of the dead chief,' he dragged the man's body to a nearby mesquite tree and hung the corpse by the neck. The body dangled in this spot for several years for all to see. 'One of the feet and both hands had been cut off or torn away by the coyotes,' reported a visitor. 'The head was thrown back, and the eye-sockets glared in the sun.' ...
"The shared code of violence between civilians and the military emerged even more clearly when Conner and his compatriots met with the Apache leader 'Mangus' under a flag of truce. During their parley, Conner's party seized Mangus, whom they then turned over to a U.S. Army unit. That evening, Conner saw the sol¬diers guarding Mangus heat their bayonets in a campfire and apply the red-hot blades to the chiefs legs and feet. When Mangus told the sentinels in Spanish chat he was 'no child to be playing with,' the soldiers shot and killed him on the excuse that he was trying to escape. One of the guards, borrowing a knife from the unit's cook, then scalped Mangus. A few days later, soldiers dug up his body and mutilated it further, decapitating the Apache leader and boiling his head. ...
"In ... campaigns [against the Apache], parties of Americans, typically led by a Pima, Papago, or Mexican scout, tried to surprise the Apache in their rancherias [settlements], ideally striking just before daybreak when the Indians were least prepared. Such a strategy inevitably meant that the attackers not only encoun¬tered potential raiders -- healthy young Apache men -- but women, children, and the elderly. For some Americans, such distinctions mattered little: they killed all the Indians they could, often justifying the dispatching of women with the claim that they were especially ruthless in torturing prisoners. The civilian scout leader Woolsey, for example, [wrote] ... 'It sir is next to impossible to prevent killing squaws in jumping a rancheria even were we disposed to save them. For my part I am frank to say that I fight on the broad platform of extermination.' ...
"On those occasions when children were seized, they were often treated more like orphans than prisoners of war. ... In contrast, the conscious targeting of children generated far more unease, as revealed in a series of incidents involving a settler known as 'Sugarfoot Jack.' In the course of yet another campaign against the Apache, a band of American civilians, having found a rancheria, proceeded to burn the wick¬iups and other supplies to prevent any surviving Apaches from reclaiming them. In his search of the camp, Sugarfoot Jack happened upon an Apache infant, whom he tossed into one of the fires and watched burn alive. Revolted at Sugarfoot's behavior, several other Americans attempted to reclaim 'the little, black, crisped body' from the flames. But 'the skin peeling off every time it was touched made the "boys" sick,' and they left the dead child in the still-smoldering ashes. Meanwhile, Sugarfoot Jack located yet another Apache infant. Soon he could be seen to 'dance it upon his knee and tickle it under the chin and handle the babe in the manner of a playful mother.' When he tired of this game, Sugarfoot drew his pistol, a heavy dragoon revolver. Plac¬ing his weapon against the child's head, he pulled the trigger, 'bespatter[ing] his clothes and face with infant brains.' "
As a refugee from Nazi Germany who came to this glorious country in 1936, I have been a strong supporter of Israel, the last refuge for Jewish people who are persecuted and not wanted in other countries of the world.
I do not believe Israel should return the West Bank and East Jerusalem to the Palestinians, lands that they captured after repelling an attack on the Jewish state by the combined armies of Arab countries.
The Arabs, the Europeans and the United States are demanding that Israel relinquish the captured territories. Whoa there! After WW2, Poland kept about 25 percent of pre-war Germany. Nobody is hollering for Poland to return that territory back to Germany. But not so with Israel. Fuck the damn Jews!
If you ask me, Poland did not deserve to get one square inch of Germany. Once Hitler’s army conquered Poland, the Poles eagerly helped the Nazis find and round up Polish Jews for shipment to the extermination camps, all of which were built in Poland. The Poles were happy to have the hated Jews gassed and cremated, thereby finally getting rid of them.
And the U.S. should be the last nation to demand that Israel give up territory it captured from invading armies. What about the land stolen from America’s Indians? Almost every bit of American land was taken from the Indians who were treated horribly by the government and settlers. Nobody is hollering for us to give the Indians their land back. But not so with Israel. Fuck the damn Jews!
Our treatment of the Indians was deplorable. Here is an example of how the members of just one tribe, the Apaches, were treated:
From the book “Shadows at Dawn” by Karl Jacoby
After the U.S. acquired the territory that is now Arizona through the Gadsden Purchase and the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, U.S. soldiers and settlers began to populate those lands. The Apaches had roamed those lands for centuries and at first greeted these new arrivals peacefully. But as more came and threatened their sustenance, they reacted with savagery. The Americans responded with equal and astonishing savagery, including the killing of infants:
"By the 1860s, the majority of settlers in the territory had adopted a policy of killing all Apaches they encountered: '[I]t was the rigid rule all over the country to shoot these savages upon sight.' In the minds of many Arizonians, the elusive character of the Apache justified such actions. ... On [one] occasion, after several Anglo miners ambushed a party of Indians, one of the participants cut the heads off five of the Apaches slain in the encounter and used their brains to tan a deerhide -- behavior that unnerved some Anglo onlookers and brought peals of laughter from others.
"A similar blending of Apache killing and spectacle was engaged in by King Woolsey, an Arizona rancher who would receive a 'resolution of thanks' from the territory's Legislative Assembly in 1865 for leading several scouts of 'civilian volunteers' against the Apache, including the one Allyn recorded in which the raiders slew thirty or so Apaches during a parley. In 1861, Woolsey killed the leader of an Apache band with a shotgun blast. '[D]etermined to make a conspicuous mark of the dead chief,' he dragged the man's body to a nearby mesquite tree and hung the corpse by the neck. The body dangled in this spot for several years for all to see. 'One of the feet and both hands had been cut off or torn away by the coyotes,' reported a visitor. 'The head was thrown back, and the eye-sockets glared in the sun.' ...
"The shared code of violence between civilians and the military emerged even more clearly when Conner and his compatriots met with the Apache leader 'Mangus' under a flag of truce. During their parley, Conner's party seized Mangus, whom they then turned over to a U.S. Army unit. That evening, Conner saw the sol¬diers guarding Mangus heat their bayonets in a campfire and apply the red-hot blades to the chiefs legs and feet. When Mangus told the sentinels in Spanish chat he was 'no child to be playing with,' the soldiers shot and killed him on the excuse that he was trying to escape. One of the guards, borrowing a knife from the unit's cook, then scalped Mangus. A few days later, soldiers dug up his body and mutilated it further, decapitating the Apache leader and boiling his head. ...
"In ... campaigns [against the Apache], parties of Americans, typically led by a Pima, Papago, or Mexican scout, tried to surprise the Apache in their rancherias [settlements], ideally striking just before daybreak when the Indians were least prepared. Such a strategy inevitably meant that the attackers not only encoun¬tered potential raiders -- healthy young Apache men -- but women, children, and the elderly. For some Americans, such distinctions mattered little: they killed all the Indians they could, often justifying the dispatching of women with the claim that they were especially ruthless in torturing prisoners. The civilian scout leader Woolsey, for example, [wrote] ... 'It sir is next to impossible to prevent killing squaws in jumping a rancheria even were we disposed to save them. For my part I am frank to say that I fight on the broad platform of extermination.' ...
"On those occasions when children were seized, they were often treated more like orphans than prisoners of war. ... In contrast, the conscious targeting of children generated far more unease, as revealed in a series of incidents involving a settler known as 'Sugarfoot Jack.' In the course of yet another campaign against the Apache, a band of American civilians, having found a rancheria, proceeded to burn the wick¬iups and other supplies to prevent any surviving Apaches from reclaiming them. In his search of the camp, Sugarfoot Jack happened upon an Apache infant, whom he tossed into one of the fires and watched burn alive. Revolted at Sugarfoot's behavior, several other Americans attempted to reclaim 'the little, black, crisped body' from the flames. But 'the skin peeling off every time it was touched made the "boys" sick,' and they left the dead child in the still-smoldering ashes. Meanwhile, Sugarfoot Jack located yet another Apache infant. Soon he could be seen to 'dance it upon his knee and tickle it under the chin and handle the babe in the manner of a playful mother.' When he tired of this game, Sugarfoot drew his pistol, a heavy dragoon revolver. Plac¬ing his weapon against the child's head, he pulled the trigger, 'bespatter[ing] his clothes and face with infant brains.' "
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)