Dog Brothers Public Forum

http://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2017/05/24/reversing_the_unkindest_cuts_of_knife_laws.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/11/09/use_rico_law_on_deadly_street_gangs_128671.html
Use RICO Law on Deadly Street Gangs

Kind of an obvious answer; hard to believe we aren't doing this already.  Great article IMO.

Congratulations Crafty, very impressive organization you have built.

In a world where there are cameras everywhere and in a part of this world, prisons, where people already have limited rights of liberty and privacy, how does an inmate knock up four young, female prison guards?  Doing it on your own time ought to involve waiting until he gets out.  Yes, the pay scale should be high enough that most wouldn't want to lose their job.

I would optimistically think that the publicizing of this story would cause reforms.  It is quite a large financial setback for a private firm to lose a contract like this.

I wonder if the problem is not the private management but the government sector rules placed on them that enables this.  My initial thought is to make cells smaller, bars thicker and punishments harsher until problems like this go away.

Here's the facts as I currently understand them to be:

Local merchants (all or most black?) went to the police station to complain about 6'3" 350 pound Garner (31 arrests to his credit) causing problems in front of their stores and driving away business.   The squad sent was led by a black female sergeant sent by a black precinct commander.

In the footage we have all seen repeatedly I am not seeing ANY "chokehold" at all.  I see a basic "over/under" as part of a team takedown.  

As far as the numerous times Garner says "I can't breathe" goes, a) people being arrested say excrement all the time (You're breaking my arm!  You're killing me! etc) b) if he can't breathe, he can't talk.  Bottom line, readily understandable that the cops blew this off.

Coroner's report shows he was seriously overweight, diabetic, and asmatic.

For me an easy call that the police acted correctly and that the racial pandering has begun.   AG Holder has announced an investigation and the President has already blathered about uneuqal justice.  Somehow this goes unnoticed

I like Crafty's take on this.  I was disturbed to see Charles Krauthammer call the Grand Jury verdict incomprehensible.  http://thehill.com/video/in-the-news/225948-krauthammer-staten-island-grand-jury-decision-totally-incomprehensible  I have not viewed the video.  Good point that if you can hear him on audio/video saying he can't breathe, then he is breathing.  The law against selling untaxed, loose cigarettes is a whole, other issue.  I have pointed out many times that no one knows how many laws a simple lemonade stand is breaking.  This takedown was because of resisting arrest.  They could have used mace, stun gun,or  taken him down in other ways that also could have resulted in death, if it was because of his condition,  A black captain ordered a black sergeant to arrest him.  Blacxk store owners too?  This isn't racial.  You simply don't resist arrest.  When a cop is wrong, we have a system for that.  When a law is wrong, we have a system for that.  In a libertarian state, if it was legal to sell an untaxed product, it still would not be legal to block public access to someone else's business to do that.  That was the complaint that started this, as I understand it.

I wonder what law enforcement people here think of the actions of the officer, as we know them, in this strange incident.

It is some kind of an ego or I dare you thing for pedestrians to intentionally compete with cars for space in a street, with sidewalks available on both sides and no doubt a law or two against blocking traffic.  For Brown, the obvious thing to do would have been to move over, at least when confronted by the police.  That isn't what happened here.  In this case, the officer spoke to them, perhaps with sarcasm.  Brown swore at him and walked on, according to this story.  Wilson called for back up and pulled out to block and confront them.

At the point where they walked on, we might all say in hindsight, the rest wasn't worth it.  But isn't that when an area becomes, what they call in other countries, a Police no-go zone?
http://dogbrothers.com/phpBB2/index.php?topic=977.msg84433#msg84433
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-ferguson-darren-wilson-testimony-20141124-story.html
http://documents.latimes.com/ferguson-grand-jury/

It started with a simple request — "will you just walk on the sidewalk?" Forty-five seconds later, Michael Brown lay sprawled on the street, shot dead by a police officer who had never before fired his gun in the line of duty.

And as he drove away from the 18-year-old's body, heading to the Ferguson police station to wash Brown's blood from his hands and surrender his gun, all Officer Darren Wilson could think was, "I'm just kind of in shock of what just happened. I really didn't believe it."

Those were the words he shared with a grand jury.  And late Monday, Wilson's explanation of that deadly day in early August became public for the first time, in a small part of an enormous trove of documents released by St. Louis County Prosecutor Robert McCulloch.

Thousands of pages of police interviews, autopsy reports and secret testimony — including Wilson's — were made public after McCulloch announced the grand jury's decision not to indict Wilson in Brown's death.

Until late Monday, Wilson's voice had remained silent, and the general story line went largely unchallenged: White police officer shoots unarmed young black man trying to surrender on a summer day in a St. Louis suburb.

But on Monday, Wilson's terror and panic were plain to see in 90 pages of his testimony before the grand jury on Sept. 16 and an 18-page interview with detectives that was recorded Aug. 10, the day after Brown's death.

Wilson was leaving an earlier call, having assisted the mother of a sick infant, when he saw Brown and another young man walking down the middle of the street, forcing traffic to slow and swerve around them. The police officer told the grand jury that he drove up, stopped his car and asked Wilson, "What's wrong with the sidewalk?"

In Wilson's account, it was all downhill from there. Brown swore at the officer, and the two men walked away. So Wilson called for backup, threw his police-issued Chevy Tahoe into reverse and cut the young men off.

As he opened the door, he testified, Brown slammed it shut on Wilson's leg. The officer told Brown to get back and opened the door again.

"He then grabs my door again and shuts my door," Wilson told the grand jury. "At that time is when I saw him coming into my vehicle.... I was hit right here in the side of the face with a fist."

The two men scuffled, Wilson said, and when he struggled to gain some control over the situation "and not be trapped in my car anymore," he grabbed Brown's arm. "The only way I can describe it is I felt like a 5-year-old holding on to Hulk Hogan."

Brown, he said, looked like a "demon."

I've never used my weapon before
- Ferguson Police Officer Darren Wilson on shooting of Michael Brown
When Wilson drew his gun from inside his car and told Brown to get back or he would shoot, the officer said, "he immediately grabs my gun and says, 'You are too much of a [coward] to shoot me.'"

Wilson said he pulled his gun because "I felt that another one of those punches in my face could knock me out or worse." Brown was bigger than the 6-foot-4 officer, and stronger, too. "I'd already taken two to the face, and I didn't think I would, the third one could be fatal if he hit me right."

Wilson ultimately got out of the car, and Brown began to run away. Then he stopped. And turned. And began to run back toward the officer. He made a fist with his left hand and reached under his shirt with his right. Wilson testified that he kept telling him to get on the ground. Brown didn't.

"I shoot a series of shots," Wilson said. "I don't know how many I shot, I just know I shot it."

Later, in front of the grand jury, Wilson was asked whether he had ever had to use excessive force in the line of duty before Aug. 9.

"I've never used my weapon before," he replied.

Thanks Spartan for the encouraging words!  We had a great tournament.  Did not leave with the title we wanted but won a first set off the team that gets to call themselves national champions.  I was hit by a car at 17.  Decades later, I get to compete with guys who played Division I college or pro tour back when I was working my way out of handicapped parking.  Now in 55 and over, everyone has physical limitations, though our opponents never seem to show it.  I couldn't be more lucky and grateful to still be at it.  We are fortunate to love a sport that can last a lifetime.

Rubin (Hurricane) Carter, Fearsome Boxer Wrongly Convicted of Murder, Dies at 76
Rubin (Hurricane) Carter, a star prizefighter whose career was cut short by a murder conviction in New Jersey and who became an international cause célèbre while imprisoned for 19 years before the charges against him were dismissed, died on Sunday morning at his home in Toronto, his friend and onetime co-defendant, John Artis, confirmed. He was 76.
The cause of death was prostate cancer, Mr. Artis said. Mr. Carter was being treated in Toronto, where he founded a nonprofit organization, Innocence International, to work to free prisoners it considered wrongly convicted.
READ MORE »
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/21/sports/hurricane-carter-fearsome-boxer-wrongly-convicted-of-murder-dies-at-76.html?emc=edit_na_20140420

One Youtube of Bob Dylan, the story of Hurricane: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvI3Y9Kuk5E
Lyics linked in the NY Times story:  http://www.bobdylan.com/us/songs/hurricane

If even partly true, this was a very sad episode in law enforcement and racial history.

OK.  Not arguing in what follows, just looking to explore where this leads.

Is it fair to say that we both know that as a practical matter an officer can make up a reason, before or after, for the stop?  Thus as a practical matter does the standard become the police can demand ID of anyone at any time.

What if a person does not have ID with him?  May he be searched for ID?  Fingerprinted?  Arrested?

When police 'make up a reason', I think we all can agree justice is undermined. 

Laws are different for operating a motor vehicle on a public street than for just existing, or being somewhere.  I sometimes don't have ID when driving, even though it is required.  When pulled over, they already know I match the photo and description of the person who owns the car, and they know my record, warrants, etc.  Police are also doing more and more with 'shooting' license plates without a driving infraction to look for legal or criminal issues with the vehicle, owner or driver.

I would not carry a wallet for just walking and maybe just a credit card or a bill if I was planning to buy something on the walk.  I wonder if facial recognition software will change the ID and fingerprint question of the innocent person looking suspicious to law enforcement.  I assume that if you are out in public they believe they have the right to shoot security footage.  Can't they run checks that way - soon if not now?  Less intrusive in one way, but far worse perhaps in the potential for abuse.

There will always be a contention between the right to be left alone and a need for law enforcement to try to prevent things like a terror attacks before they occur.  Crafty, how would you like to see that balance struck?

Happy Veterans Day to those who earned that distinction.

In my business, veterans can start at the front of the line - every day of the year.

GM, BD, anyone:
Please help me understand the idea of a DA being able to change the charges after testimony has been given.  Intuitively this seems unfair.
TIA, Marc

Mark Steyn today: "In real justice systems, the state decides what crime has been committed and charges somebody with it. In the Zimmerman trial, the state's "theory of the case" is that it has no theory of the case: Might be murder, might be manslaughter, might be aggravated assault, might be a zillion other things, but it's something. If you're a juror, feel free to convict George Zimmerman of whatever floats your boat."


Marc,  I cannot answer the question legally but agree with you it seems totally unfair to ask a jury to convict on a change not made by the police or prosecutor PRIOR to the trial.

Meanwhile the first half of 2013 shootings map in just one neighborhood of Chicago goes mostly unnoticed:

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/trayvon-martin-trial-quote-police-interview

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman committed 2nd degree murder?  I don't see it.  Others may be following this a lot closer than me, I look forward to comments and observations.

My thoughts:  Let's assume the deceased, Trayvon, was up to nothing sinister.  Even if he was scoping out homes for invasion, that doesn't warrant anyone shooting him.  Zimmerman I think is a self appointed neighborhood watch volunteer with a chip on his shoulder, a wannabe cop without the training or disposition for it, upset about what isn't being done to stop the problems, even though there was a recent arrest.

Zimmerman was sick of people like Trayvon before he met him.  By the time they were fighting, Trayvon no doubt was not liking Zimmerman either, or his attitude. I assume we don't get to know exactly how the fight started, but at some point it was Trayvon on top of Zimmerman pummeling him.  Zimmerman had plenty of injuries to corroborate that part, even if he was the one who provoked the fight.

Two guys are fighting and the one who is inflicting injuries at the end, ends up getting shot.  I see stupidity,  but I don't see murder.  2nd degree murder is the crime if Zimmerman had just shot him in the first place.  This was a fight with no proof of who struck first.  The injuries make self defense look plausible, even if he had foot in mouth, tough guy rhetoric in police interviews.  The legal question is whether Zimmerman waived his right of self defense when he chose to follow, and perhaps provoke a fight.  I would say he didn't.

If just shooting is what he was intending, why did he call the police?  If he intended to shoot, why would he have gotten engaged in a fist fight first while carrying a loaded gun?  Why get your nose broken if you are carrying a gun intending to kill.  Seems to me that by fighting, he was trying not to kill him with a gun, at least part way through the encounter. This was a stupid, avoidable fight that ended badly.  I don't take Zimmerman's side at all.  But I don't see this as murder beyond reasonable doubt.

What say others?

In February 2012, Connecticut Senate Bill 452 (SB452) was put forward to remedy the fact that Connecticut was one of less than ten states in the U.S. to lack an "assisted outpatient treatment" (AOT) law.  (also known as 'involuntary treatment')

AOT laws allow a state to institutionalize a mentally ill person for treatment if the state has reason to suspect such institutionalization will prevent the individual from doing harm to self or others.

The ACLU said [the bill] would "infringe on patients' privacy rights by expanding [the circle of] who can medicate individuals without their consent." They also said it infringed on patient rights by reducing the number of doctors' opinions necessary to commit someone to institutionalization.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2012/JUDdata/Tmy/2012SB-00452-R000329-David%20McGuire-%20ACLU-TMY.PDF

... What rights of kindergartners were infringed?

Shooting up a kindergarten is about as bad as it can get.

The Onion piece made as much sense as anything.

I watch news closely but turn away during the big disaster stories - if I can't do anything to help.

Exploitation for gun control began early: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/14/michael-bloomberg-gun-control-school-shooting_n_2303499.html  I don't get what any of his proposals would do to prevent this.  He favors more rules at gun shows, not construction of a giant magnet.  More likely to prevent someone from stopping a shooting like this.  They always seem to happen in gun free zones.

Pres. Obama said: “We're going to have to come together and take meaningful action to prevent more tragedies like this, regardless of the politics,”  - I'm all ears.  He's had 4 years.  What is the meaningful action - TSA everywhere people gather?

The only answer I see is to put a closer watch and curtail the liberties of a very large number of people who show symptoms of any of a number of mental disorders, people who haven't shot anyone.  I don't know how that would work and it isn't what Pres. Obama and Mayor Bloomberg are talking about anyway.

I would like to never see the shooter included in the victim count.  I don't want to be put in the situation of blaming the victim.

News coverage I saw bothered me beyond the tragedy.  Did we really need real time viewing of parents learning they lost their precious little son or daughter?  Is this reality TV? 

It seems to me there is some element of copycat to these events, maybe tied to coverage and national obsession to watch, maybe not avoidable.

I wish whoever saw him first was carrying, and quicker than him on the draw.

"He said the purpose of the motion had been to enforce the law that protects juveniles and their actions from disclosure."

Subject of a different discussion, but it is the offenders who are protected and future potential victims who are denied disclosure.  Something seems backwards there.  Justice prevailed because they didn't follow the law.

Very interesting post BD.

Woof,
 No mention of restoration of gunrights in most States and pro self defense laws being enacted.

         http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/11/12170947-fbi-violent-crime-rates-in-the-us-drop-approach-historic-lows?lite

                                                              P.C.

Excellemt point PC.  Imagine the story if it was higher crime associated with states running wild with concealed carry.

Correlated? Yes.  Provable? Probably.

"There was no allegation of crazed behavior due to marijuana use; only the allegation of use. For Michigan CPS authorities, that was enough to remove the child...."

In MN it is a temporary 72 hour hold with an emergency court hearing set right away.  The criteria I don't know exactly but basically the the LEO must believe, have some verification and sign that the 'child is need of protective services' (a CHiPS petition).  Assuming there is some truth and verification to what the LEO wrote, the judge takes control and starts ordering the social services investigations  and the county attorney's office prosecutes the case.  If found guilty or true, the parent files a re-unite plan and the speed of that depends on all the factors.  Like GM says, they would re-unite with almost anyone.  Terminating parental rights has a statute, but they don't go there.

I'm sure it is simplest if you are guilty.  They find the parent a program, they get clean, got tested a few times and the state is not going to want to keep spending money on the case.  Proving yourself innocent is a whole different matter.  You would have a trial or hearing similar to a criminal hearing plus a criminal trial - I would assume it would take a simultaneous criminal charge, child endangerment etc. for this to continue.  If you are accused but innocent in all that, think how long that process could take.  They can hold your kid for all that time until you are cleared, because you are presumed guilty.

Yes, that would be a stresser for them to come for your kid for the wrong reasons but not a good time to commit a higher crime, threaten the police for example. 

Just my 2 cents, I agree with Crafty, this is outrageous IF it started over a false and fairly minor accusation. My guess was the whiff of pot was on top of the domestic threat which could have been significant, and the threat to police added another incident plus credibility toi the domestic threat. 

The domestic threat is another presumed guilty situation in this state, depending on gender.

On the other side, it is amazing in what lousy circumstances for a kid that they will not take action to protect the children.  This jurisdiction is Michigan so the precedent of what circumstances they will act on includes the insides of some homes in the inner city of Detroit with some pretty bad conditions (my opinion from an inner city landlord perspective).  I am quite a bit skeptical that this began over a reported whiff of pot. 

How about a prayer for super skier Sarah Burke, ESPY award winner for best female action sports athlete, who is in a coma after a training accident  yesterday.  Her talent and charm on display in this ESPN interview a few days ago:

http://espn.go.com/action/freeskiing/story/_/id/7420109/sarah-burke-plans-winter-x-games-2012-aspen
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/sports/53278881-77/burke-hospital-condition-family.html.csp

Question for GM or others with law enforcement familiarity:

I am seeing police reports (in Minneapolis) that come just from officers performing a lookup on license plates.  It occurs to me that it is an automated process where they shoot a picture of the plate and the computer checks it for warrants, expired plates, current license, good or bad driving record etc. These are on the fly situations without any indication of any other lawbreaking.  Do you know if that is so?

Example: Received in my email today from police regarding a former tenant still claiming to live at our address:

"While doing directed patrol in the xth Pct, I observed listed vehicle, license xxxxx, being operated in the above area.  I did a routine check on the license plate, and this showed the registered owner was shown to have a suspended Mn driver's license.  Arrested Party: xxxx xxxxxx - 27/ Address: xxx xxxxx.

Thanks for those good replies and ideas. 

"If someone is trying to breach your door, I'm assuming that there is a degree of delay, allowing for a response, yes?" 

In this worst case scenario, no.  It was overwhelming force, door broken through, guns drawn, guns used - they shot the dog and held the gun to the woman, total surprise, no notice.

"Is it going to be enough time to allow law enforcement to respond? Probably not."

It was worse than that.  They didn't have a phone.  There wasn't going to be a call, much less a response, until going to a neighbor after the ordeal.  Very sad.
-----------
Offenses Recorded:  Burglary of Dwelling  -  Assault degree 2  -
Public Information:  Suspects kicked in the front door of the above address.  Suspects shot at V-1 and threatened V-2 with a gun.  Suspects are unknown.  Animal control responded.
Photos were taken and the memory card along with spent shell casings were property inventorie ...

In the case of the first incident, they were unarmed crack fiends taking copper pipes, more scared than my tenant when they were caught.  Shoot 'em?  In the second case it was the perps who were armed and took full advantage of the element of surprise at 6:30pm on a week night.  Would you really be sitting there armed, loaded and waiting as they barge in?  If not, it is the perps who would have likely found and taken the weapon and ammo after they shot the dog and dragged the girlfriend around the house demanding to know where the money was.  How does that help prevent it from happening again?

I suppose you could shoot 'em before they enter but today it was me coming up to the door so I don't think I will recommend that.

Anyone else?

"I was working with a veteran officer when the Kobe Bryant case first hit the news, that officer made a statement assuming Bryant was guilty..."

Not sure how it ties to the current discussion, but I read the police interview transcript of Kobe at the time.  Seemed pretty obvious that he was guilty of adultery not rape.  http://www.vaildaily.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040915/NEWS/40916001

Avoiding a complete shutdown is one of the advantages of the internet's decentralized design loaded with redundancies and endless, alternate paths - which our benevolent government would like to streamline for us.

"What happens if the internet itself goes off-line?"

That is something like the Y2K scenario; we were told that water and electricity would shutdown if computers went down.  We don't know exactly because it didn't happen then.  If all internet went down, the world we now know would stop for a moment and people would be forced to get up and walk out their front door to talk with other people.  
---
Excellent points by Tony.  The next generation raised with social media seem highly capable of staying organized. I'm still not clear on how you can broadcast all the right information to the right people without also informing the wrong people.

"...this point about cell phones and social media..."

I recall that the start of the Arab spring uprising in Tunisia was both triggered by crackdowns on social media and organized on them.
http://dogbrothers.com/phpBB2/index.php?topic=1210.msg45202#msg45202

"The way I read this statue, a neighborhood kid could come on to your property at night, steal your bicycle (theft during the nighttime)  and you could shoot him in the back as he pedaled (fleeing away) away to stop him from escaping with your property."

I don't know if the Texas law is being properly interpreted in the example but people reading that in other states should know you would face possible murder charges elsewhere in that situation.  The self defense laws of the 50 states were linked recently by Crafty.  Recovering the property by other means might include following him home in your car and call the police, if you had time to get your gun and shoot him. 

My view is that entering your premises day or night is more than a property crime.  An intruder with that kind of nerve can be presumed to be dangerous.

It is purely hypothetical anyway because if that it is the right of the homeowner to shoot the burglar, no one is likely to take the bike. 

The question posed is how to deal with property protection if guns/knives etc are not an option.  The hated camera surveillance after the fact seems to be one of the key tools.