F*CK THE POLICE!!!

Harrekin said:

You mean burn down your own community to protest the police not protecting people and their property...?

Yeah, good call.

Click to expand...

there were more citizens guarding their own community while the police sat by and did nothing than there were rioters.

but keep pushing that stormfront narrative, you might just be lucky enough to get alike from uncle ben again.

2015 and The Myth of The War On Cops
by Asa Jay

2015 saw several high-profile killings of officers around the county, leading police supporters and pundits the nation over to rail against a perceived “war on cops.” But what was the truth of the matter?

According to data collected by the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, which tracks police deaths, there is no upward trend in the killing of officers. In fact, the data shows the exact opposite. The number of police officers killed by citizens is actually decreasing relative to the last couple of decades.

Fifty-two police officers were killed as the result of criminal acts in the United States in 2015, with another 72 dying because of non-criminal circumstances. This brings the total number of officers who died in the line of duty last year to 124.



Most officers died in traffic-related incidents however: 35 from vehicle crashes, 11 who were struck and killed outside their vehicles, and six who were killed in motorcycle crashes. Only 42 officers died from gunshots, down from 49 in 2014.

2015’s total death count is higher than in 2013, when 107 officers died, and 2014, when 119 officers died – but the data marks one of the five lowest officer death tolls in the last 20 years.

Additionally, when looking at long term trends, cop deaths have decreased dramatically over the last several decades. According to the Memorial Fund’s data, fatalities among law enforcement officers have took a noticeable decline since the 1970s.

During the 70s, an average of 127 officers were killed with guns annually. That dropped to an average of 87 officers a year in the 1980s, 68 in the 1990s, and 57 in the 2000s. So far in the 2010s, that number averages out at around just 53.



By contrast, according to data compiled by the Guardian, at least 222 unarmed individuals were killed by police in 2015 with at least 1134 people killed in all – though obviously many of the killings can be deemed “justified.”

With last years narrative of the fake “war on cops” waning, officers actually took to shooting themselves and blaming it on “suspects,” which led to manhunts, fomented outrage toward police accountability advocates, and further advanced the narrative that cops were being gunned down left and right.

In other words, the perpetuation of the “war on cops” was simply a propaganda lie that sought to placate the reality that there is really a police and surveillance state war on you.

As of 2014, 8,000 local law enforcement agencies participate in the Pentagon’s controversial 1033 program. The program has transferred over $5.1 billion in military hardware including armored personnel carriers built specifically to resist roadside bombs, amphibious tanks, and drones from the Department of Defense to local American law enforcement agencies since 1997.

According to the U.S. Government’s Defense Logistics Agency Disposition Services “Law Enforcement Support Office,” material worth $449 million was transferred in 2013 alone.

A study released last year, by the American Civil Liberties Union, confirmed that with the help of equipment and strategies imported directly from the United States military, police have become dangerously and unnecessarily federally militarized.

The report, entitled War Comes Home, looked at 818 SWAT incidents from July 2010 to October 2013, that were carried out by more than 20 law enforcement agencies in 11 states. Seven cases were found where civilians died in connection with the deployment of the SWAT teams, two of which appeared to be suicides. An additional 46 civilians were injured as a result of officer force.

The study found that not only are people dying and being injured by police teams deploying war-time tactics; there are also many accompanying lesser transgressions. For example, the growing use of battering rams to smash down doors, which routinely causes property damage to homes.

SWAT teams, a 1960s invention, were initially utilized by officers to help react to perilous situations like riots and hostage takings. In recent years however, they have developed into something entirely different.

The study found that the majority (62 percent) of SWAT team deployments were for drug searches. Likewise, 79 percent involved raids on private residences. In fact, only about 7 percent were used for incidences the technique was originally developed for.

“Law enforcement agencies are increasingly using paramilitary squads to search people’s homes for drugs,” the study reads. “Neighborhoods are not war zones and our police officers should not be treating us like wartime enemies.”

Undercover Cop Disgracefully Tricks Autistic Student Into Selling Weed -- Court Denies Family Justice
By Justin Gardner

Riverside County, CA — Simply put, the War on Drugs is a war on people. One of the more despicable ways in which it manifests is the manipulation of vulnerable school kids by undercover cops. These "drug stings," better known as entrapment, typically prey on special needs students who have a hard time making friends.

The case of Jesse Snodgrass, a student at Chaparral High School with autism, bipolar disorder and social problems, recently gained attention again when a Riverside County Superior Court Judge dismissed a lawsuit filed by Jesse's family against the school district.
"The suit alleged that the Temecula Valley Unified School District had breached its mandatory duties by allowing a deputy from the Riverside County Sheriff's Department to manipulate Snodgrass -- a friendless student who had bipolar disorder, trouble keeping up with conversations and a history of being bullied -- as part of an undercover drug sting."The undercover cop, named "Dan," introduced himself to Jesse on the first day of school and befriended him during graphics art class. After committing this first act of deceit--which itself would violate the moral code of most people--"Dan" gave Jesse $20 and badgered him repeatedly to find a bit of weed.

Having never come in contact with marijuana before, Jessie had no idea where to find the illegal plant. He was forced to dangerously seek it out on the streets from a homeless man – just so he could appease his 'friend,' who would later turn on him and ruin his life.

Weeks later, after Jesse risked his life for his new friend, a swarm of officers arrested him and 21 other students at three high schools, charging them with felonies for possession and sale of a controlled substance.

It's bad enough that cops would stoop to such lowly means to manufacture arrests in the drug war, but when schools are complicit in this entrapment of its students, the stench of immorality becomes unbearable.An administrative law judge overturned Jesse's expulsion from school because the district had left Jesse "to fend for himself, anxious and alone, against an undercover police officer." The judge also ruled that Jesse "has overwhelmingly demonstrated that his actions were a manifestation of his disability."

Despite this finding of a fellow judge, the County Superior Judge did not see anything wrong with the school district watching as an undercover cop took advantage of an autistic, bipolar kid, turning him into a felon.

Judge Raquel Marquez said Temecula Valley Unified School District was immune from liability "because they were cooperating with police and because California Government Code 820.2 protects public employees who are making routine policy decisions."

This shielding of officials sounds an awful lot like the Blue Privilege granted to cops in cases of brutality and murder.

Fortunately, in this case, the power of public outcry was able to overcome the lack of government accountability. With the help of groups such as the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA) and Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP), the tale of Jesse Snodgrass was able to elicit change in the system.
"The Snodgrass lawsuit provided a rare look at the workings of an undercover high school drug sting and launched a barrage of negative publicity about Operation Glasshouse, including a 2014 Rolling Stone magazine piece titled "The Entrapment of Jesse Snodgrass," and a video by the Vice Media group titled "The War on Kids."

In March 2014, the Drug Policy Alliance, a nonprofit advocacy group, sent a letter to all school districts in Riverside County alerting officials to recent school drug stings, the alleged targeting of special needs students and a California Department of Education investigation into Temecula Valley Unified School District's process for expelling students in special education."As a result of these campaigns, Riverside and San Bernardino counties have stopped school drug stings for the past two years. They follow the Los Angeles Unified School District, which stopped undercover drug stings in 2005 after they were similarly exposed for entrapping defenseless, special needs kids instead of catching actual drug dealers.

While the judge's ruling against Jesse Snodgrass is unfortunate, there is redemption in the fact that drug stings have stopped at schools in these counties. The campaign of protest, the embarrassment of having their depraved scheme exposed, is more powerful than the myth of so-called government accountability.

The hope is that the Superior Judge's ruling does not embolden these school districts to take up their war on kids again.

Bearkat:

desert dude said:

Bearkat:

Click to expand...

I definitely applaud the sentiment.

desert dude said:

Bearkat:

Click to expand...

Kinda funny that the SS tattoo is backwards...

Harrekin said:

Kinda funny that the SS tattoo is backwards...

Click to expand...

He probably tattoo the bolts on while looking at a mirror, what a dipshit!

B4L

Judge Helps Ensure That The More Ignorant Law Enforcement Officers Are, The More They'll Be Able To Get Away With
by Tim Cushing

So much for the Fourth Amendment. Even though a field test for marijuana returned false results twice and a SWAT team raid of Robert and Addie Harte's house turned up no drugs or paraphernalia, the cops involved have been let off the hook by a federal judge. Radley Balko runs down the details of the decision in his post entitled "Federal judge: Drinking tea, shopping at a gardening store is probable cause for a SWAT raid on your home."The family was held at gunpoint for more than two hours while the police searched their home. Though they claimed to be looking for evidence of a major marijuana growing operation, they later stated that they knew within about 20 minutes that they wouldn’t find any such operation. So they switched to search for evidence of “personal use.” They found no evidence of any criminal activity.

The investigation leading to the raid began at least seven months earlier, when Robert Harte and his son went to a gardening store to purchase supplies to grow hydroponic tomatoes for a school project. A state trooper had been positioned in the store parking lot to collect the license plate numbers of customers, compile them into a spreadsheet, then send the spreadsheets to local sheriff’s departments for further investigation.

[...]

On several occasions, the Sheriff’s Department sent deputies out to sort through the family’s garbage. (The police don’t need a warrant to sift through your trash.) The deputies repeatedly found “saturated plant material” that they thought could possibly be marijuana. On two occasions, a drug testing field kit inexplicably indicated the presence of THC, the active drug in marijuana. It was on the basis of those tests and Harte’s patronage of a gardening store that the police obtained the warrant for the SWAT raid.The incriminating leaves were nothing more than loose-leaf tea. The Hartes were not drug dealers, nor were they using marijuana. Nonetheless, the federal judge decided the whole thing -- from cops camping out in the parking lot of a gardening store to the two bogus field tests to the fruitless raid of the Harte's residence all complied with the Fourth Amendment.[Judge John W. Lungstrum] found that the police had probable cause for the search, and that the way the search was conducted did not constitute excessive force. He found that the Hartes had not been defamed by the raid or by the publicity surrounding it. He also ruled that the police were under no obligation to know that drug testing field kits are inaccurate, nor were they obligated to wait for the more accurate lab tests before conducting the SWAT raid.The Hartes' lawsuit is still alive… barely. The judge granted a motion for summary judgment in favor of the defendant law enforcement agency, but the case has not been dismissed.

Orin Kerr, writing for the Volokh Conspiracy, took issue with Balko's "provocative" headline, claiming Lungstrum's ruling said nothing of the sort.Yes, there was a legal decision, but it had nothing to do with visiting gardening stores or the culpability of drinking tea. Instead, the issue in the case was when the police can rely on positive field tests for THC, the active ingredient in marijuana. The judge ruled that officers cannot be held personally liable for searching a home with a warrant based on two positive field tests for marijuana, a week apart, from plant materials found in the suspect’s discarded trash, at least when the officers did not know about the risks that the field tests results were false positivesThis basically says the same thing Balko's paragraph on the ruling does, only Kerr maintains that it does notshow drinking tea and visiting gardening supply stores could lead to a SWAT team raid. The problem is that this is exactly what happened. So, while the judge's decision doesn't explicitly state officers are fully justified in using dubious field tests and inefficient garden store parking lot stakeouts as probable cause for search warrants, it absolutely does affirm that these elements are insufficient to show a Fourth Amendment violation.

part 2

Why? Because probable cause is whatever a cop says it is. This is an ongoing issue in states where marijuana has been partially legalized. In California, medical marijuana is legal. The cops can't seem to deal with this new reality. So, they find bogus reasons to raid houses, relying on multiple law enforcement-friendlyexceptions to the Fourth Amendment to keep their busts intact… or at least minimize the number of times judges will find them culpable for violations. Cops say "upon information and belief" and magistrate judges nod in approval.

Here's attorney Rick Horowitz on the subject.In my area of the world, I get a lot of what defense attorneys call “medical marijuana cases,” and prosecutors – enrobed, or not – call drug-manufacturing, or drug-dealing, cases. Because the voters of the State of California voted to decriminalize marijuana use for people who obtained recommendations from medical doctors for the use of marijuana, and because doctors give out (really bad) legal advice along with the recommendations, and because the cops don’t want to try to go after doctors who recommend marijuana to anyone with $150 bucks (or whatever the current going rate is), because they have the money to fight back, we have a lot of folks growing marijuana in the highly-conservative right-wing center of California (the San Joaquin Valley) where it is most definitely not wanted by those in power. And so a cop will talk to a judge about a house he’s heard about with a bunch of marijuana plants, and say, “Based on my training, and experience, no one grows this many plants unless they are actually marijuana dealers hiding behind the medical marijuana laws stupidly passed by the electorate.”

Boom! There’s your probable cause. The law be damned.In this case, the probable cause was exceedingly thin. The Hartes went to a store where hydroponic gardening supplies could be purchased -- items that are used for legal gardening all the time. This simple fact was all that was needed for law enforcement to perform trash pulls. Items from the trash were tested and "found" to be marijuana, even though they weren't.

The only response offered by the sheriff's department for its field test failures is a shrug of indifference. If a cop tells a magistrate judge the tests are reliable, more often than not, a warrant will be issued, despite loads of evidence showing field tests to be notoriously unreliable. The officers simply say, "Huh. I've never heard of a failed test," and a federal judge forgives them for their ignorance and ineptitude.

Hilariously, the sheriff claimed these two failures on the same case are the only two times the department's field tests have been wrong, dating back to 1978.

The decision makes it clear the best thing cops can do to make bogus searches stick is to be wilfully ignorant of failure rates. They should do no research on the subject and should never question a positive test result. (They will likely remain skeptical of every negative result and re-test until the results confirm their biases.) Any information they might have that undermines probable cause should be discarded and wiped from memory. After all, the judicial branch has stated they're under no obligation to ensure statements made in warrant affidavits actually have any merit. Ignorance is bliss… or at the very least, good faith.

While Kerr is technically correct that a judge didn't say cops could go after anyone whose trash contains leaves if they also shop at gardening supply stores, the end result is basically the same thing. Kerr's view of the decision is summed up best by this comment on his post. (And credit where due, Kerr did point out that he enjoyed this comment.)This is one more example of a case where the vast majority of people of good will review the facts and conclude there was an obvious and gross violation of justice while a pedant who is an expert in the 4th amendment assures us that "No, no, this is all very interesting, but..."If you want a technical view of the ruling, Kerr lays it out best. But the decision runs contrary to many people's view of the Fourth Amendment: that they should be free from unreasonable searches. The problem is, what's "unreasonable" to the public is very much considered to be "reasonable" to law enforcement and far too many judges. That explains the outrage at the outcome. The law can't protect innocent people from law enforcers. The remedies are too limited, and far too often, removed completely by judicial deference to law enforcement's definition of "reasonable." Scott Greenfield explains.That the judge who signed off on the warrant accepted the results of the test as being sufficient to show probable cause, that the test produced sufficient positive results, even if totally false, to support the issuance of the warrant, made Lungstrum’s ruling perfectly legally reasonable. The Fourth Amendment says get a warrant, and they did. It requires probable cause, and they had it based on the field tests. The police enjoy qualified immunity unless they knew their application to contain material omissions about the test, and they shrug and say, “science.”

Except the Hartes did nothing more than some veggie gardening and drink tea. All the twists of the law upon which summary judgment was granted against them not only failed to protect the sanctity of the home of two innocent people from a SWAT raid, and all that accompanies it, but provided no remedy after the accusations fell apart.At the end of it, we're supposed to take comfort in the fact that at least a warrant was obtained. This piece of paper, no matter how ignorantly or deceptively obtained, will shield law enforcement from much of the potential damage. But everything about this decision says cops are better off stupid and idealistic, rather than cognizant of the deficiencies of their tactics and methods. Judges don't expect law enforcement officers to know the laws they enforce and this only further encourages them to remain ignorant on other subjects as well.

Here's Proof That Cops Can Actually Get Fired -- All They Have to Do Is Be The Good Guy
By Claire Bernish

Athens, GA -- On the off chance further evidence was needed that Orwell's dystopian portent has become reality, the stunning case of Officer Jay Park proves it, hands down.

In September, a University of Georgia student, concerned his underage friend had imbibed far too much alcohol and might need medical attention, contacted campus police for help. When Park arrived at the scene, his supervisor, Sgt. Gene Rankin, ordered the campus officer to arrest the drunken student.

Park balked, saying he could not arrest an "obviously unwell youth"who appeared to be suffering alcohol poisoning, because -- as he rightly cited to his superiors -- Georgia's 2014 Medical Amnesty Law clearly states, "any person who, in good faith, seeks medical assistance for someone who is experiencing an alcohol-related overdose shall not be arrested, charged, or prosecuted" for a violation of law "if the evidence [for such an arrest, etc.] resulted from seeking such medical assistance."

That amnesty applies to the person suffering the overdose, as well: "Any person who is experiencing an alcohol-related overdose and, in good faith, seeks medical assistance for himself or herself or is the subject of such a request shall not be arrested, charged, or prosecuted if the evidence [for such an arrest, etc.] resulted from seeking such medical assistance."

Park's refusal to arrest the underage drinker earned him an appointment with department captain, Wes Huff, the following day; but, before that scheduled meeting, Park was summoned to another emergency situation. This time, two people "in desperate need of urgent medical assistance due to a possible alcohol overdose" were the subject of the call. Again, Park felt the law prevented him from effecting the arrests, and contacted Huff to apprise him of the circumstances; but Rankin arrived at the scene and ordered Park to leave -- and arrested the students anyway.

Huff told Park in the meeting later that day that he was "misinterpreting" the amnesty law and, in "direct contravention" of that law. He ordered Park to obtain search and arrest warrants for one of the individuals who had requested medical aid.

Then, on the following Monday, as Park arrived for work, UGA Police Chief Jimmy Williamson terminated him on the spot for insubordination -- with "no warnings, no instruction, no disciplining leading to his termination." Even more absurdly, an infuriated Williamson told the law-abiding officer,

"I'm going to try to make sure you're not a police officer anymore in the state of Georgia."

Park, apparently, lost his job not for any gross failure of duty, but because his superiors didn't find it necessary to follow a law they didn't like -- one established to protect the public's health. In Williamson's astonishing termination letter, he explained the officer was fired in order to avoid "potential embarrassment that the department would suffer as a result of Officer Park's suggestion that the department was violating the law."

Likely anticipating a nasty outcome, Park captured footage of his termination on video, which he proceeded to upload to YouTube and distribute to several local TV outlets. UGA students immediately jumped to the now-hero cop's defense, and initiated a petition on change.org for his reinstatement.

Park twice lost appeals to return to his job but ultimately prevailed, at least in part -- the UGA police department agreed to a settlement, and taxpayers were held accountable to the tune of $325,000.

What was lost, however, was the last of the public's hope that good officers -- those whose probity and moral integrity means more to them than membership in the Thin Blue Line -- aren't a dying breed.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think cops should have glasses which impair their vision of color completely. Like night vision, something similar. And also be given auto tune type hearing receivers. Maybe than blacks would have a more fair chance at avoiding police discrimination. Im half filipino and get mistaken to be hispanic often. NOT ALL cops have bad racially discriminatory intentions, but certainly their is more evil racially motivate white cops than there ever will be black cops. Not just because black cops there are less of, but because I believe instilled in the black communities is much stronger faith and unification, as well as do many blacks accept the responsibility of their actions far more so than the excusable white folks. Disillusionment is only if you can not realize with real eyes that there is disproportionately more unexplained instances of black deaths cost by white cops.just because black crime is disproportionately represented by statistics should not mean it is alright for a cop to enforce with deadly force. There are RULES OF ENGAGEMENT. yes cops may die, their life is on the line when the work no matter what the circumstance most times. Excercise caution and sensible response to the rules of engagement and maintain constant awareness of life, liberty and justice as well as being compassionately and sympathetically aware and valuing of human life. Follow this and more ad police brutality and tragedy will become an act that regresses in the positive way.

one love

CaptainOtwayBurns said:

I think cops should have glasses which impair their vision of color completely. Like night vision, something similar. And also be given auto tune type hearing receivers. Maybe than blacks would have a more fair chance at avoiding police discrimination. Im half filipino and get mistaken to be hispanic often. NOT ALL cops have bad racially discriminatory intentions, but certainly their is more evil racially motivate white cops than there ever will be black cops. Not just because black cops there are less of, but because I believe instilled in the black communities is much stronger faith and unification, as well as do many blacks accept the responsibility of their actions far more so than the excusable white folks. Disillusionment is only if you can not realize with real eyes that there is disproportionately more unexplained instances of black deaths cost by white cops.just because black crime is disproportionately represented by statistics should not mean it is alright for a cop to enforce with deadly force. There are RULES OF ENGAGEMENT. yes cops may die, their life is on the line when the work no matter what the circumstance most times. Excercise caution and sensible response to the rules of engagement and maintain constant awareness of life, liberty and justice as well as being compassionately and sympathetically aware and valuing of human life. Follow this and more ad police brutality and tragedy will become an act that regresses in the positive way.

one love

Click to expand...

Maybe Blacks should stop being gansta`s,...prolly be quicker.

If green people with pink stripes attack , kill and eat red people with white dots, don`t send the cops after the blue people with yellow stripes.

People will be robbed, people will be shot, people will be raped and people will be thieves, and blacks too, will be involved.

Nah because original gangstas where italian mobsters which I am half italian. Now can we recall a time when italian OG mobsters were gun downed cold blooded because of their "gangsta" lifestyle, particularly by a disillusioned cop? Id respect a cop who is corrupt and takes bribes more-so than oe who cowardly takes another humans life unwarranted and unreasonably. So their goes your simple minded theory out the window. I have deep respect for the great responsibility that comes with the territory of being a law enforcement agent. Its the cowardly oh its a black person in a lowincome city I better have my gun drawn and ready attitude. All or nothing I say. Therefore drawing guns should be equally acted upon in the suburbs where I live as it should be in the city. As the city of springfield for example. I am educated enough by experience that the persona you portray of yourself in a "dangerous" city will or will not cause "gangstas" to act foolish. Your mindset seems distant from reality. So I will not debate further with you unless yu respond with an intelligent statement.

Whites fly under the radar when raping, robbing, stealing and killing. Fact. They are less scrutinized. OJ only got aquitted because the government was scared that a civil war may break ot over some case that happened prior which aquitted a guilty white cop I believe his profession was, and the white cop was aquitted of murder I believe. When all evidence supported he was guilty. OJ gets a free ride when he was certainly guilty because of the guilt trip the white powers induced by allowig the white cop free when he committed wrongful murder in the 1st. Granted jury has much to do if not all to do with the verdict. Though im sure these people on the jury felt the staleness in the air and decided they would even the score some by letting oj free. Two wrongs certainly dont make a right, but this is the harsh reality and the facts of civilized america. Wow civilized,what a crock of a term.

Be safe everyone.
Past this life, wrong action will surely meet its equal predecessor in spades..

Equal will only be the sequel if not achieved in this life. Imagine a world where tantalizing, deep-rooted thought towards the negative was not a possibility. How peacefully productive society could be. That is what I pray of todays realities.

Explain disproportion of jailed minority non violent offenders please. And dont respond with well thats their lifestyle, they were in wrong place wrong time. None of those excuses are of any worth. Simple an excuse. FACT: Whites commit as many if not more VIOLENT crimes than minorities. Yet are punished disporportionately for a variet of reasons that of which includes racial stereotyping, financial well-being and less of police monitoring in non low income suburbs just to list a few reasons supporting this fact.