Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - G M

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 22
301
Martial Arts Topics / An offer I can strongly endorse!
« on: July 15, 2013, 11:57:46 AM »

George Zimmerman was acquitted of all charges.
 
I was pleased with the verdict. I believe the jury made the right decision, the only decision any juror could rationally make when presented with all the evidence and testimony.

We are innocent in this country until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

From the moment police arrived at the scene and the investigation began, Zimmerman was considered innocent. He was found by those investigating the case that he justifiably used deadly force to defend himself against serious bodily injury.

The detective who investigated the shooting, the Chief of Police and the District Attorney, after viewing the evidence believed Zimmerman was innocent of any wrong doing or they would have arrested him and prosecuted the case. They did not arrest or prosecute.

Zimmerman's problems should have ended there, but people who should know better, people who are educated and know the law, but don't respect the law, just wouldn't leave an innocent man alone.

Shame on President Obama, Eric Holder, Florida Governor Rick Scott, State Attorney Angela Corey, Al Sharpton, the NAACP, the media, and all the other irresponsible people who played the race card where there was none and politically pressured the justice system into prosecuting an innocent man.
 
Those who are still calling for "justice" need to take a course in the Judicious Use of Deadly Force so they too will understand what the detective investigating the Zimmerman shooting, the Chief of Police, and the District Attorney all understood when they chose not to arrest or prosecute Zimmerman for justifiably using deadly force to defend himself against serious bodily injury.

We teach Judicious Use of Deadly Force at Front Sight, right along with our lectures on Criminal and Civil Liability Following the Use of Deadly Force.
 
For 17 years, we have prepared our students to properly handle a Zimmerman type scenario and many more situations like it.
 
Our students are trained to carry guns to protect themselves, their families, and those around them from unavoidable and immediate danger of serious bodily injury or death.

Our students are trained to know that the best gun fight is the one you avoid.

I'm sure that George Zimmerman, knowing what he knows now, even though he did not break any laws and was found innocent of all charges, wishes he had avoided that gun fight.
 
George Zimmerman's lesson is a good lesson for all gun owners.

If you can avoid a lethal confrontation, do so.

But please do not lose sight of the fact that it is ALWAYS better to have a gun and not need it, than to need a gun and not have it.

Get a gun and GET TRAINING. Training is the key to making proper and responsible decisions in the use of deadly force and training is the key to expertly defending yourself in an unavoidable lethal encounter.

Go here http://www.frontsight.com/patriot/ to grab a 5 Day Front Sight Course, plus 30 State Concealed Weapons Permit, and our entire set of 7 Front Sight Training Manuals for only $200.

This is $2,500 in training, PLUS a full set of training manuals for only $200 as my way of helping every responsible American citizen become expertly trained in the use of a handgun for self- defense. Get trained NOW http://www.frontsight.com/patriot/

Sincerely,

Dr. Ignatius Piazza
 Founder and Director
 Front Sight Firearms Training Institute
 7975 Cameron Drive, #900
 Windsor, CA 95492
http://www.frontsight.com
info@frontsight.com
 1.800.987.7719

303
**Di Maio wrote the textbook that is the top reference on the forensic examination of GSW.**


http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57592866-504083/george-zimmerman-trial-trayvon-martin-was-on-top-of-zimmerman-when-teen-was-shot-gunshot-wound-expert-testifies/

July 9, 2013 1:00 PM
George Zimmerman trial: Trayvon Martin was on top of Zimmerman when teen was shot, gunshot wound expert testifies

By Erin Donaghue

 George Zimmerman listens to testimony in the courtroom for the 21st day of his trial in Seminole circuit court, July 9, 2013 in Sanford, Florida.
/ Photo by Joe Burbank-Pool/Getty Images

(CBS/AP) SANFORD, Fla. -- A nationally renowned gunshot wound expert testified Tuesday that Trayvon Martin's gunshot wound was consistent with accused murderer George Zimmerman's story that the teen was on top of him and leaning over when he was shot.

George Zimmerman, a former neighborhood watch captain standing trial in the teen's shooting death, has said Martin attacked him and was on top of him just before the fatal gunshot. Prosecutors have argued Zimmerman profiled the teen and started the confrontation.


Taking the stand for the defense, Dr. Vincent Di Maio, a forensic pathologist, said that Martin's gunshot wound was consistent with the gun's muzzle being against his clothing, which would have been two to four inches away from his body when he was shot.

"If you lean over someone, you notice the clothing tends to fall away from the chest," Di Maio said. "If instead you're lying on your back and someone shoots you, the clothing is going to be against your chest."

Trayvon Martin's mother, Sybrina Fulton, left the courtroom as Di Maio testified. The jury saw graphic photos of Trayvon Martin's gunshot wounds in court.

Who was the aggressor in the Feb. 26, 2012 altercation in the Sanford, Fla., gated community has been a key issue in Zimmerman's second-degree murder trial, which is in its eleventh day of testimony.

Di Maio said that Trayvon Martin would have been alive for about one to three minutes following the gunshot wound, but would have been able to move and speak for at least ten to fifteen seconds.

The testimony was a contrast to the remarks of a medical examiner who conducted Martin's autopsy, who said that the teen could have been alive for up to ten minutes after the gunshot. Dr. Shiping Bao also said he didn't believe Martin would have been able to move after receiving the shot.

Prosecutors have said that George Zimmerman told investigators he moved Martin's arms away from his body after the gunshot, although Martin was found with his arms tucked beneath his chest. Answering a question from defense attorney Don West, Di Maio said that someone may be able to move their arms after receiving a similar gunshot.

Zimmerman's injuries indicate "you've had severe force, it's not just like you bumped your head or something like that," Di Maio said.

Zimmerman's injuries were consistent with having his head hit against concrete more than once, Di Maio said. The former neighborhood watch captain said the teen smashed his head into a sidewalk several times before he claimed he acted in self-defense.

The testimony was a contrast to another medical examiner, Dr. Valerie Rao, who testified for prosecutors that Zimmerman had "insignificant" injuries that didn't appear to result from multiple impacts against concrete.

Pointing to photos of Zimmerman's injures, Di Maio also said Zimmerman's nose may have been fractured, an injury he said was consistent with being punched in the nose, as Zimmerman said Martin did.

Di Maio also said it's possible to receive trauma without visible wounds. "You can get severe trauma to the head without external injuries, actually," Di Maio said.




Di Maio also explained that if clothes taken into evidence are wet and packaged in plastic bags, and not paper bags, it can ruin the samples since "bacteria multiplies and you get mold and it stinks to high heaven." Defense attorneys believe DNA evidence found on Martin's hooded sweatshirt and undershirt was degraded since the clothing wasn't packaged properly.




Di Maio was still on the stand early Tuesday afternoon after court recessed for lunch.

304

"Obviously, there is one man who could go a long way toward defusing this entire scenario should he choose to do so. President Barack Obama could rise above the fray and explain to every American that our system of justice means nothing if the threat of violence can corrupt the verdict of a murder trial. The President could make it clear that violent outbursts of any kind are absolutely unacceptable and attempt to defuse an already tense environment. He won’t, however, because race riots are good for the Democratic Party. They fire up the base. It’s what the whole show was for."

Exactly.

307
Martial Arts Topics / On Pit Bulls
« on: July 01, 2013, 05:50:31 PM »
http://www.dogsbite.org/dangerous-dogs-pit-bull-faq.php

Pit bull FAQ :: Download PDF file

Learn the names of the different dog breeds that comprise a "pit bull," the selective breeding history of the pit bull (dogfighting) and answers to other frequently asked questions.



American pit bull terrier, American Staffordshire terrier, Staffordshire bull terrier and American bulldog.


Q: What is a pit bull?

The legal definition of a pit bull is a class of dogs that includes the following breeds: American pit bull terrier, American Staffordshire terrier, Staffordshire bull terrier, American bulldog1 and any other pure bred or mixed breed dog that is a combination of these dogs. Weight and shape can vary significantly amongst pit bulls, from 35 to 100 plus pounds. (Please see Disguise Breed Name to learn more about the deliberate renaming and mislabeling of pit bulls through history.)

Q: What is the history of the pit bull?

The blood sport of "bull baiting" began over 1,000 years ago in England (various sources dispute this date). What is undisputed is that by 1500, bull baiting had progressed to Britain's national pastime. Bulldogs were reportedly first mentioned by name in 1631, referring to their function rather than a distinct dog breed. By 1800, and through further selective breeding, the bulldog developed into a compact muscular dog characterized by tremendous jaw strength.2

Due to public outrage, bull baiting was banned in England in 1835. Bulldog breeders and owners then moved to the sport of "ratting," where a number of rats were placed into a pit and wagers were made on how many rats the dog could kill in a certain time period. To increase agility, quickness and prey-drive in the bulldog, ratters crossed the breed with terriers. Essentially, it was the sport of ratting that combined the bulldog and terrier into the modern day pit bull terrier.

On the heels of ratting, dogfighting developed. Pit bulls and dogfighting were exported to America as settlers made their way to the New World. In 1884, the American Kennel Club was formed but rejected pit bulls due to their use in dogfighting. In response, Chauncey Z. Bennett formed the United Kennel Club in 1898 to bring formal recognition to the pit bull breed. At that time, Bennett also drew up rules and regulations for dogfighting to bring "organization" to the blood sport.3

Q: What is dogfighting and what does it have to do with pit bulls?

Pit bulls are the dog of choice amongst dogmen, individuals who fight their pit bulls against other pit bulls. Dogmen consider pit bull terriers, who they commonly call "100% bulldogs," to be the ultimate canine gladiator. Pit bulls were selectively bred for "gameness," the ability to finish a fight. A truly gamedog will continue fighting "on stumps," two or more broken legs, and far worse.4 (Please see excerpts from The Complete Gamedog, by Ed and Chris Faron to learn more).

The blood sport of dogfighting involves a contest between two dogs, primarily pit bulls, fighting each other in front of spectators for entertainment and gambling purposes. Other felonious activities, such as illegal drugs, often accompany dogfight matches. A single dogfight averages about an hour in length but can last two or more.5 A dogfight begins when a referee says, "Face your dogs," then says, "Let go." The fight ends when one of the dogs will not or cannot continue.

The arrest and conviction of Michael Vick shows that dogfighting still proliferates in the U.S. Law enforcement education, however, is on the rise. In July 2009, authorities unleashed an 8-state simultaneous dogfighting sting and seized over 450 dogs.6 In December 2008, Edward Faron of Wildside Kennels, known as the "godfather" of dogfighting, was arrested and charged. Authorities seized 127 pit bulls from his property. Faron pleaded guilty to 14 counts of felony dogfighting.7

Q: Why do I always read about pit bulls in the news?

When a pit bull attacks, the injury inflicted may be catastrophic. First responders, such as police officers and firefighters, understand this as do members of the media, who are quick to report these attacks. Ongoing social tension also keeps pit bulls in the news. The pit bull problem is nearly 30-years old.8 In this time, most lawmakers have been "too afraid" to take breed-specific action to correct the problem. Due to this failure, horrific maulings continue to make headlines.

About half of all media reports regarding pit bulls involve police officers shooting dangerous pit bulls in the line of duty.9 Since the late 1970's pit bulls have been used extensively in criminal operations for drug dealers, gang members and other violent offenders. The pit bull terrier is the breed of choice for criminals. This choice is directly linked to the pit bull's selectively bred traits of robust jaw strength, a deadly bite style, tenacity (gameness) and a high tolerance to pain.10


Q: Why do people say that pit bulls "don't let go?"

Through selective breeding, pit bulls have developed enormous jaw strength, as well as a ruinous "hold and shake" bite style, designed to inflict the maximum damage possible on their victims. This bite trait delivered winning results in the fighting pit. When the Colorado Supreme Court upheld the Denver pit bull ban in 2005, the high court set aside characteristics that pit bulls displayed when they attack that differ from all other dog breeds. One of these characteristics was their lethal bite:

"[pit bulls] inflict more serious wounds than other breeds. They tend to attack the deep muscles, to hold on, to shake, and to cause ripping of tissues. Pit bull attacks were compared to shark attacks."11
 Leading pit bull education websites, such as Pit Bull Rescue Central, encourage pit bull owners to be responsible and to always carry a "break stick" -- a tool used to pry open a pit bull's jaws -- in case their dog "accidentally" gets into a fight. These same websites also warn that using a break stick on any other dog breed may cause serious injury to the person.12 This is true because no other dog breed possesses the pit bull's tenacity combined with a "hold and shake" bite style.

One of the most powerful examples of a pit bull "not letting go" occurred in an Ohio courtroom. During the Toledo v. Tellings trial (Tellings was convicted of violating the City of Toledo's pit bull ordinance), Lucas County Dog Warden Tom Skeldon showed a videotape of a tranquilized pit bull hanging from a steel cable. The dog is essentially unconscious and still does not release its grip. At the time of the taping, the pit bull was being housed at the Lucas County Animal Shelter.13

Q: Do pit bulls bite more than other dogs?

Depending upon the community in which you live and the ratio of pit bulls within it, yes and no. But whether a pit bull bites more or less than another dog breed is not the point. The issue is the acute damage a pit bull inflicts when it does choose to bite. The pit bull's "hold and shake" bite style causes severe bone and muscle damage, often inflicting permanent and disfiguring injury. Moreover, once a pit bull starts an attack, firearm intervention may be the only way to stop it.

When analyzing dog bite statistics, it is important to understand what constitutes a bite. A single bite -- recorded and used in dog bite statistics -- is a bite that "breaks the skin." One bite by a poodle that leaves two puncture wounds is recorded the same way as a pit bull mauling, which can constitute hundreds of puncture wounds and extensive soft tissue loss. Despite the "quagmire" of dog bite statistics, pit bulls are leading bite counts across U.S. cities and counties.14

Q: How come pit bull owners say, "My dog might lick you to death."

To understand the experience of owning a negatively perceived dog, Tufts Center for Animals and Public Policy did a study on pit bull owners. Researchers found that owners of out-law dog breeds directly feel the stigma targeted at their breed and resort to various tactics to lessen it. One of the tactics included attempts to counterbalance the pit bull's menacing appearance and physical power with overwhelming "affectionate" behavior, such as: "My dog might lick you to death."15

Q: Why does my friend say, "Pit bulls are dog-aggressive not human-aggressive?"

Due to selective breeding for the purposes of dogfighting, pit bulls are highly dog-aggressive. This aggression is not limited to dogs; pit bulls frequently kill other companion pets and domesticated animals. Leading pit bull education websites warn pit bull owners to, "Never trust your pit bull not to fight." These same websites also state that pit bulls should never be left alone with another dog or animal.16 The practical question is: Why is "pit bull dog aggression" tolerated at all?

Pit bull dog aggression is unacceptable for two reasons. In many instances it leads to human aggression. A common scenario is the following: A loose pit bull attacks a leashed dog being walked by its owner. The owner gets seriously injured trying to stop the attack. In 2009, two human beings suffered death due to pit bull dog aggression: Rosie Humphreys, who had been walking her two poodles, and Carter Delaney, who had tried to protect a smaller dog in his home.

Secondly, far too many beloved companion pets and domesticated animals suffer a violent death by the powerful jaws of pit bull terriers each year. In some instances, these attacks involve pit bulls charging through screen doors of private homes -- in a home invasion attack -- to kill the pet living inside.17 Owners of the pet are then forced to watch as their pet is disemboweled by the pit bull and pray that the dog does not turn its attention on an innocent family member next.

Q: What is the best thing we can do for communities and pit bulls?

The best thing we can do for communities and pit bulls is to regulate pit bull ownership and pit bull breeding. Lowering the pit bull population will reduce the number of serious maulings, as well as pit bull euthanizations. In the July/August 2009 issue of Animal People, the group estimated that of the 1,663,167 shelter dogs projected to be euthanized in 2009, pit bulls accounted for 58%. This is true despite the fact that pit bulls only make up 5% of the total U.S. dog population.18

Over 600 U.S. cities and nearly all privatized military housing -- the U.S. Army and U.S. Marine Corps now have uniform pet policies -- have adopted breed-specific laws to correct the pit bull problem. Such measures include: mandatory sterilization, liability insurance and strict containment rules. The most progressive legislation bans the future breeding of pit bulls (a pit bull ban). In just a few years, these communities see a significant drop in pit bull bites and euthanizations.

Learn how communities are legislating dogs »

1.Progressive pit bull legislation includes the American bulldog in its definition of a pit bull.
2.The History of Bull Baiting, by Amy Fernandez, DogChannel.com.
3.American Pit Bull Terrier Handbook, by Joe Stahlkuppe, Barron's Educational Series, Inc., 2000.
4.The Complete Gamedog: A Guide to Breeding & Raising the American pit bull terrier, by Ed and Chris Faron, Walsworth Pub. Co., 1995.
5.Dogfighting Fact Sheet, The Humane Society of the United States.
6.Eight-State Dogfighting Raid Largest in U.S. History, by Wayne Pacelle, The Humane Society of the United States, July 9, 2009.
7.Dog-fighting 'godfather' given prison, by Monte Mitchell, Winston-Salem Journal, February 13, 2009.
8.Pit Bulls -- Family Pets and Fierce Fighters, by Tom Greely, Los Angeles Times, July 25, 1982.
9.Combined data from: Mid Year Results: U.S. Pit Bull Attacks 2009 and Mid Year Results: U.S. Police and Citizen Shootings of Pit Bulls 2009, by DogsBite.org, August 2009.
10.One City's Experience, by Kory A. Nelson, Senior City Attorney for the City of Denver, Municipal Lawyer, July/August 2005.
11.Pit Bull Case Report and Literature Review, by Steven F. Vegas, MD, Jason H. Calhoun, MD, M. Eng., John Mader, MD, Texas Medicine Vol. 84, November 1988.
12.Breaking Up a Fight, Pit Bull Rescue Central.
13.Information provided by the Lucas County, Ohio Dog Warden.
14.Pit Bulls Lead "Bite" Counts Across U.S. Cities and Counties, by DogsBite.org (continuously updated).
15.Managing the Stigma of Outlaw Breeds: A Case Study of Pit Bull Owners, by Hillary Twining, Arnold Arluke, Gary Patronek, Tufts Center for Animals and Public Policy, Society & Animals Journal of Human-Animal Studies, Vol. 8 Number 1, 2000.
16.10 Easy to Remember Tips for Responsible Pit Bull Owners, PitBullLovers.com.
17.Pit bull put down after attack, by Kieran Nicholson, The Denver Post, March 3, 2009.
18.Decade of Adoption Focus Fails to Reduce Shelter Killing, by Merritt Clifton, Animal People, July/August 2009.

308
There you go, being logical again.  :lol:

That said, the simple fact is that, not without examples to back it up, many people, particularly black Americans, believe that police departments, especially white officers, are racists against black people.

At least now, just as in the Duke lacrosse alleged rape of a stripper case, the Truth will win out and silence the "nattering nabobs of negativity" , , , until the next time.

This was never about "justice", it was about churning up hatred to feed to the racial industrial complex/Obama vote. Imagine how disappointed they were to find out Zimmerman wasn't Jewish and was a hispanic Obama supporter. The NY Times had to mint "white hispanic" just for this case.

309
Martial Arts Topics / Zimmerman Prosecution Predictably Collapsing
« on: July 01, 2013, 02:05:31 PM »
http://pjmedia.com/andrewmccarthy/2013/06/30/zimmerman-prosecution-predictably-collapsing/?singlepage=true

Zimmerman Prosecution Predictably Collapsing

June 30th, 2013 - 10:13 am


The state of Florida’s politically driven decision to charge George Zimmerman with murder has resulted, as some of us predicted it would, in a pathetically weak case. It has taken only a few days of trial to collapse of its own weightlessness – undone, in fact, by the direct testimony of a prosecution witness, as Bryan Preston relates at the Tatler and Ed Morrissey details at Hot Air.
 
Over a year ago, I explained why this would happen:

 



When Trayvon Martin was first shot to death nearly two months ago [on February 26, 2012], state authorities sensibly opted not to charge George Zimmerman with murder. It wasn’t that they were looking to excuse wrongdoing. It was that the evidence was insufficient to prove murder beyond a reasonable doubt.
 
Plainly, there was a lack of criminal intent: There was obviously no premeditation; and, alternatively, the facts do not remotely suggest that Zimmerman acted with a “depraved mind regardless of human life” (e.g., the savage indifference of a man who fires into a crowd, heedless of the consequences). To the contrary, the known facts indicate (a) Zimmerman’s concern that Martin was acting suspiciously (the depraved do not call the police, as Zimmerman did, before shooting), and (b) a struggle in which Zimmerman may well have been severely beaten and, in any event, would have a strong basis to persuade a jury that he shot in self-defense.
 
In advancing that argument, Zimmerman would be aided by Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law, which gives the law-abiding latitude to use guns for protection….
 
The “Stand Your Ground” point was gravy as far as the baseless murder charge was concerned. If a prosecutor cannot prove the statutorily required intent element (mens rea) for murder, then the accused’s conduct cannot amount to murder, period. The accused only needs to rely on a legal defense of his conduct (such as self-defense) if the prosecution’s proof is sufficient to establish the offense (here, murder) in the first place. But “Stand Your Ground” would have been very relevant had Zimmerman been formally accused of an offense less serious than murder. Regarding that, as I observed when Zimmerman was initially charged:
 

Florida law makes causing the death of a person under the age of 18 manslaughter, provided there has been “culpable negligence.” It also criminalizes as manslaughter the “unnecessary killing” of a person in order to resist or prevent that person’s violation of law (e.g., the use of lethal force to repel a clearly non-lethal threat). Neither of these charges would [be] a slam-dunk; indeed, they’d be losers if Zimmerman shot because he was justifiably in fear of his life.
 
Despite the palpable lack of evidence that Zimmerman had the required intent to commit murder, the state bowed to pressure from the racial grievance industry (led by Huckster-in-Chief Al Sharpton), shamefully aided and abetted by the most politicized, race-obsessed Justice Department in American history. Lest we forget, it was Attorney General Eric Holder’s collaboration with Sharpton and threat to trump up a federal civil rights prosecution that induced state officials in Florida to reconsider the initial decision not to charge Zimmerman.
 
It’s easy for a corrupt process to produce criminal charges. It is quite something else to prove them. To try to fill the gaping intent hole in its case, the Zimmerman prosecution has transferred the hobgoblin of racism from the headlines into the courtroom. Indeed, it did not even wait for the trial to do that; the prosecutor injected racism directly into the charging documents.
 
As I noted at the time, the affidavit in “support” of the murder charge employed the explosive term “profiling” to describe Zimmerman’s suspicion of Martin. That word has no place in a charging instrument: It was transparent code to imply, in the absence of any evidence, that Zimmerman is a bigot who assumed Martin was up to no good just because he was black.
 
“Profiling” is an ambiguous term. Generally speaking, it is a perfectly appropriate, commonsense practice – a marshaling of various characteristics and behaviors typically found in kinds of criminal conduct. It is routinely used by police to avoid hassling innocent people. Like all sound police practices, it can be abused – a bad cop can invidiously home in on one characteristic (like race, religious belief, political stance) and groundlessly associate it with criminality. The latter is rare, but it is unfortunately what the racial grievance industry, echoed by the media, has conditioned the public to think of when the term “profiling” is used. It is this slanderous connotation of “profiling” that the prosecution wants people (especially juror-people) to associate with Zimmerman. Rather than as a legal term, the charging documents use “profiling” as an atmospheric – since prosecutors had neither the evidence to prove racism nor the courage to be forthright about what they were doing.
 
It would be bad enough to do this in a case where attitudes about race were pertinent – say, a prosecution for violating someone’s civil rights. But it is even more shameful to do it in a case where attitudes about race are legally irrelevant. However much the media may be fascinated by racial dynamics, racism or the lack of it should have no bearing on a prosecution for what the law calls “depraved indifference” murder (second-degree murder in Florida).
 
Apropos of that, Powerline’s John Hinderaker has had an interesting exchange with Legal Insurrection’s Andrew Branca. Putting aside the lack of evidence that Zimmerman is a racist, John forcefully argues that, in the context of this homicide prosecution, his purported racism is “utterly beside the point.” The crux of the case, instead, is a simple matter of whether Zimmerman’s admitted shooting of Martin was in legitimate self-defense. Mr. Branca counters that the prosecution is using racism (or at least the specter of racism) to substitute for its dearth of evidence on the required mental element – namely, that Zimmerman acted with a “depraved mind.”
 
Mr. Branca is quite right that this is what the prosecution is trying to pull. He goes off the rails, though, in suggesting that this is a viable theory. With due respect, I think his explanation of the statutory term “depraved mind” is wrong. In part, he is conflating two separate mens rea concepts that arise in murder cases: depravity and premeditation.
 
After correctly observing that “Murder involves premeditation to kill or, in Florida, a ‘depraved mind’,” Mr. Branca elaborates (italics are mine):
 

In order to prove the second degree murder charge the State brought against Zimmerman they must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he acted with a depraved mind. To get to a depraved mind they need to show some kind of hatred or ill-will. In most murder 2 cases the people know each other and have a long history of animus, which is the source of the “depraved mind”. Here Martin and Zimmerman did not know each other, so the State is forced to pursue some more generalized hatred – such as racism.
 
I disagree. Generalized hatred has nothing to do with “depraved mind” murder. In such cases, we are not talking about intent driven by an attitude specifically related to the victim, triggered by long-held animus. We are talking, instead, about something almost diametrically opposite: a perverse lack of regard for human life – not the victim’s human life but all human life.
 
Explaining this concept (with reference to New York state law) in the 2012 case of Gutierrez v. Smith, the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals instructs (my italics):
 

The archetypal depraved indifference murder … would resemble “shooting into a crowd, placing a time bomb in a public place, or opening the door of the lions’ cage in the zoo.”  By contrast, … a one-on-one shooting or knifing (or similar killing) can almost never qualify as depraved indifference murder.”
 
Zimmerman’s killing of Martin is a one-on-one shooting. Now, to be sure, the court did not say that one-on-one killings can never qualify as “depraved indifference” murders. But it is exceedingly rare. When it does occur, the focus is not on the subjective intent of the killer but the objective recklessness of the killing – e.g., a mother who beats her infant to death (uncommon brutality combined with a particularly vulnerable victim), or perhaps a game of Russian Roulette (or “Polish roulette” as it was called in a 1989 New York case – People v. Roe – in which the accused loaded a gun with both real and dummy bullets, pointed the gun at the victim, and callously fired).
 
With due respect to Mr. Branca, when the murderer knows his victim and there is a long history of animus, we are usually talking about premeditated murder. The animus tends to prove that the decision to kill was made before the act that caused death. In Florida, that is first-degree murder, which is not charged in the Zimmerman case.
 
Depraved mind murder, to the contrary, involves a state of mind evincing no regard for human life. Far from a feeling of hatred or ill-will toward the victim, what makes the killing depraved is the perverse lack of feeling for the victim (i.e., there is no recognition of the victim’s humanity). Having a motive is indicative of acting with deliberation, not recklessness or indifference. In a depraved mind case, motive is superfluous because what establishes the mens rea is the objective barbarity of the act itself, not some fuzzy “generalized hatred” that may have been crawling around the killer’s brain.
 
It is virtually inconceivable that a situation involving self-defense on the killer’s part will fit a “depraved mind” charge. And I am not limiting myself to situations when the self-defense claim is legally convincing. I am saying that in any one-on-one scenario where self-defense is worth raising, it is nigh inconceivable that a “depraved mind” murder has occurred. To be more concrete, let’s say we are in a self-defense situation where the claim is legally insufficient: for example, the use of lethal force was not a proportionate response to the threat; or perhaps the killer provoked the altercation that eventually led to his use of lethal force. In such circumstances, we can reject the self-defense claim but still recognize that the killing was not “depraved.” The degree of inhumanity required to make a killing “depraved” is not going to be found in circumstances where a person is defending himself, even if that defense is – as a matter of law – excessive.
 
There is thus a chain of abuses that makes the Zimmerman prosecution a disgrace. There is no evidence that Zimmerman is a racist. Racism cannot be inferred from invocations of “profiling” – which tell us more about the prosecutors than about Zimmerman. The imagined “profiling” cannot be inflated into a “generalized hatred.” Even if there were a generalized hatred, it cannot substitute for proof of the required mental element of depraved indifference to human life – racism is a noxious attitude, but there are people who are mildly racist; no one is mildly depraved.
 
It is abundantly clear that the murder of Trayvon Martin is not a case of second-degree murder, a charge that carries a possible life sentence and a minimum of 25 years’ imprisonment (because a firearm was used). Yet, the special prosecutor brought the charge anyway. Plainly, she hoped Zimmerman would be either railroaded in a trial that substituted incitement for proof, or intimidated into pleading guilty to a lesser charge.
 
This case does not belong in a criminal court. That it has gotten this far is a sad triumph of demagoguery over due process.

310
Martial Arts Topics / Re: CA LE considers being particularly stupid
« on: June 25, 2013, 02:43:51 PM »


Heinlein foresaw all of this.

quote author=Crafty_Dog link=topic=1447.msg73298#msg73298 date=1372194121]
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/06/24/man-shoots-kills-drunk-intruder-who-broke-into-his-home-and-attacked-his-son-so-why-are-police-investigating-case-as-a-homicide/
[/quote]

Why are you still living in such a crazy state?

311

http://pjmedia.com/blog/the-backwards-trial-a-george-zimmerman-prosecution-primer/?singlepage=true

The Backwards Trial: A George Zimmerman Prosecution Primer

The bizarre trial, in which the prosecution must impeach the police investigation, begins.


by
Mike McDaniel



With an all-female jury seated (five white, one Hispanic) and opening arguments occurring today, understand that not only should the charge against George Zimmerman never have been filed, but that the case is remarkably backwards. The shooting of Trayvon Martin on February 26, 2012, in Sanford, Florida, was an unremarkable event — similar self-defense related shootings occur regularly. In virtually all of those cases, the local police do their work, local prosecutors review it, charges are filed or declined, and only local communities are aware of or care about it. Whereas the Trayvon Martin case is an anomaly that reverses all of the conventions and behaviors normally present in the criminal justice system.
 
With that in mind, a primer about what to expect may be useful.

 


The “Scheme Team”: Attorneys Benjamin Crump, Natalie Jackson, and Daryl Parks are not only closely aligned with the prosecution, but they have already negotiated one civil settlement with the insurance company representing the Retreat at Twin Lakes, the neighborhood where George Zimmerman lived and served as Neighborhood Watch captain. Crump has been instrumental in engaging the full might of prominent racial-grievance figures, and arguably caused Florida Governor Rick Scott and Attorney General Pam Bondi to appoint Special Prosecutor Angela Corey to charge Zimmerman with second-degree murder. Crump was also pivotal in encouraging the FBI to investigate Zimmerman for hate crime or civil rights violations.
 
It was Crump who apparently discovered Witness Eight, “Dee Dee,” Trayvon Martin’s girlfriend who was supposedly on the phone with Martin before he was shot. Crump conducted an interview with her with ABC’s Matt Gutman present, and claimed that her testimony would obliterate Zimmerman’s self-defense claim. His claim would influence the prosecution to charge Zimmerman. He eventually arranged an interview with Dee Dee with deputy prosecutor Bernard0 de la Rionda. Not only was the “Scheme Team” present at that interview, but Martin’s mother was seated next to Dee Dee, an almost unimaginable violation of interview protocol.
 
The Scheme Team represents Trayvon Martin’s parents, ”those sweet parents” as Corey called them at her press conference in the style of a political victory rally announcing Zimmerman’s arrest. For the time being, they have contented themselves with conducting daily press conferences in the courtroom, but if the trial should not go their way, expect them to further inflame racial tensions.
 
The Prosecution: Without conducting any new investigation, Corey’s office produced an affidavit that not only failed to produce any probable cause that Zimmerman violated any of the three essential elements of the offense. It was also factually incorrect and withheld vital information of Zimmerman’s innocence. Any attorney or police officer filing an affidavit promises to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. This one, filed by special prosecutor investigators T.C. O’Steen and Dale Gilbreath at the direction of de la Rionda and on behalf of Corey, fell far short of the most minimal requirements of the law. Former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy, Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz, attorney and commentator Mark Levin, attorney John Hinderaker of Powerline, and other notables took it to task in the harshest terms.
 
In response, an enraged Corey called the dean of Harvard Law School and, speaking with a representative of the Office of Communications, ranted about Dershowitz for 40 minutes and threatened to sue him and Harvard. Harvard was apparently unimpressed; Dershowitz still teaches there.
 
Bernie de la Rionda has taken the lead in handling the case. De la Rionda learned no later than August 2, 2012, that Dee Dee committed perjury but, despite multiple requests from the defense over many months, withheld that information until the evening of March 4, 2013, only hours before the matter would be heard in court and he would be forced to divulge the information.
 
Defense attorney Mark O’Mara filed a motion for sanctions against de la Rionda for improperly withholding important evidence, and de la Rionda filed a petulant, angry, and unprofessional response that is a model of improper legal writing. He eventually admitted in court to withholding the evidence, with an excuse of: “I forgot about it.” Despite multiple defense requests, he forgot — for seven months — that his most important witness was a perjurer. Judge Nelson has yet to rule on O’Mara’s motion for sanctions despite de la Rionda’s admission.
 
Another example of de la Rionda’s malfeasance is his withholding — for many months — of digital color photographs of Zimmerman’s injuries taken immediately after Zimmerman was assaulted by Martin. It’s easy to see why de la Rionda would not want the defense to have those photos — they clearly depict Zimmerman’s badly broken and bleeding nose, and his bruised, lacerated, and bloody face, as well as multiple bloody cuts on the back of his head.
 
Recently, the IT director for the special prosecutor’s office blew the whistle on de la Rionda’s hiding of evidence from Martin’s cell phone, including photos of stolen jewelry, an image of Martin blowing what appears to be marijuana smoke, and an image of what appears to be Martin holding a handgun.  Discovered in early January 2013, much of that and other evidence was not turned over to the defense until June.
 
The Defense: Mark O’Mara and Donald West are experienced attorneys who have demonstrated professionalism up until this point in the trial. Normally, it is the defense that tries its case in the court of public opinion, yet in this case it has been the prosecution relying on public opinion and political support to sustain their case.
 
The Media: The media wasted no time in working with the Scheme Team — their narrative was quickly born and disseminated: Trayvon Martin, 17, was actually a small, slight, innocent scholar with a bright future. On February 26, he was temporarily living with his father in Sanford and walked to a nearby 7-Eleven, where he bought iced tea and Skittles for his little brother. On the way home, he was spotted by Zimmerman, a huge, hulking “white-Hispanic” many times his size who “profiled” Martin and ruthlessly ran him down as Martin fled in fright, desperately trying to reach the safety of his temporary residence.  Zimmerman pursued Martin because he was black and wearing a hoodie, and brutally murdered him without provocation.
 
For the media, the Zimmerman case fit well with their preferred narrative lines, and they embraced it fully as a too-good-to-check case. However, their bias and lack of professional skepticism quickly blew back at them.
 
NBC was caught doctoring the call Zimmerman made to the Sanford Police to make Zimmerman appear to be a racist (a civil suit against NBC is on temporary hold during the criminal trial). CNN’s attempt to brand Zimmerman a racist by claiming he called Martin a “coon” during the same phone call also fell flat, and CNN had to retract their story (Zimmerman said that it was “cold”). ABC’s Matt Gutman, who worked closely with Crump, filed a variety of stories, including a story about Zimmerman walking in the halls of the Sanford Police Department without handcuffs. Gutman failed to inform readers that, at the time, Zimmerman was fully cooperating with the Sanford Police and was not under arrest, and like any citizen could enter and walk in the public access halls of any government building.
 
ABC also provided grainy police surveillance photos purporting to show that Zimmerman suffered no injuries. Clear and unmistakable photos of Zimmerman’s injuries forced them to retract that story as well.
 
Dee Dee: The young woman known as Dee Dee was represented by Crump and de la Rionda to the court to be a juvenile — a ploy to keep her identity hidden under juvenile privacy laws. However, it was eventually revealed that she was 18 when interviewed by de la Rionda on April 12, 2012. That interview revealed that Dee Dee did not have information that contradicted Zimmerman’s self-defense account, and that she would be a terrible witness. De la Rionda’s questioning of her was inept and appeared to indicate that he had tampered with her testimony, which in many respects made no sense. Dee Dee, by her own admission, knew Martin for many years and would know his habits, his social media posts, and have intimate knowledge of his criminal activities. These are absolutely not things the prosecution would want a jury to hear, yet putting her on the stand would open the door to that, as well as to her perjury regarding her age and her lie that she was so distraught by Martin’s death that she was hospitalized and could not attend his funeral.
 
The Facts: Normally, the prosecution is the natural ally of the police. Using their investigation — the facts — prosecutors are able to establish all of the elements of the offense and win a conviction. In the Zimmerman case, the prosecution must ignore, try to explain away, or try to construct reasonable doubt about the case of the police — a bizarre state of affairs.
 
The Sanford Police Department conducted an unbiased and competent investigation, and the local prosecutor, Norm Wolfinger, declined to press charges because all of the evidence supported Zimmerman’s self-defense claim under Florida law, and none contradicted it. Prosecutor investigator Dale Gilbreath admitted this on April 20, 2012.
 
However, that investigation and its results did not fit the narrative, and so Corey was tasked not with doing justice, but with charging and convicting Zimmerman regardless of the evidence. Corey’s office has never produced the slightest evidence proving that the Sanford Police failed in their duty or exhibited racial bias.
 
That being the case, what are the grounds for charging Zimmerman with any crime?
 
The facts of the case are simple. On a cold, rainy evening, George Zimmerman was leaving his neighborhood to shop for groceries when he spotted Trayvon Martin in the gated neighborhood, a neighborhood that had recently been plagued by thefts and burglaries, most committed by young black men. He did not recognize him as a resident. Because Martin was wearing a hoodie, Zimmerman only became aware of his race later when Martin approached his vehicle, and only mentioned his race in response to a dispatcher’s question.
 
Martin appeared to be under the influence of drugs to Zimmerman, and rather than walking with purpose to get out of the rain, Martin appeared to be casing the area. Zimmerman didn’t know it at the time, but Martin was under the influence of marijuana — it would be found in his blood.  Zimmerman called the police and asked for officers to speak with Martin to see who he was and what he was doing, and the dispatcher asked Zimmerman to keep telling him what Martin was doing.
 
After approaching Zimmerman and circling his vehicle menacingly, Martin ran off between two long rows of homes. Zimmerman told the dispatcher Martin was running, and tried to get to a position where he could see Martin to direct the police he believed to be on the way and due to arrive at any minute. By the time he was able to leave his vehicle, Martin was long gone, and Zimmerman told the dispatcher he had lost him and was returning to his vehicle to meet the officers.
 
Zimmerman hung up, and within seconds was approached by Martin, who punched Zimmerman in the nose and took him to the ground. Martin repeatedly pounded his head into the concrete sidewalk while Zimmerman screamed for help. This was seen and heard by multiple witnesses, and recorded – poorly — by the police as a witness called 911.
 
Stunned, helpless, and afraid for his life, Zimmerman drew his 9mm handgun and fired one round into Martin’s torso at near-muzzle contact range. Martin sat up and Zimmerman was able to get away from him.
 
The police arrived within seconds and Zimmerman cooperated fully with them. Their photographs, observations, and collected evidence — recorded in their reports — fully supported Zimmerman’s account.  Zimmerman continued to fully cooperate with the police, including taking and passing two-voice stress tests (a sort of lie detector), and participating in a videotaped walkthrough of the events of that night with them.
 
There is no question that if Martin wanted to be in his temporary home, out of the rain and out of sight of Zimmerman, he had more than enough time. However, he chose to hide and lay in wait for Zimmerman, a man who thought he had lost track of Martin. Martin was not a slight child, but a lean and muscular 5’11” and 158 pounds — substantially taller than Zimmerman.
 
But why would a young man like Martin attack Zimmerman? Martin was a teenager on a fast track to trouble. His social media presence shows a young man immersed in thug culture. He tried to obtain guns, and often wrote about drug use, which explains the narrative’s constant repetition that Martin was carrying tea and skittles when shot. He was not. He was carrying a watermelon-flavored drink and Skittles, two of the three ingredients, along with Robitussin cough syrup, of a drug concoction know as “Lean” or “Purple Drank.”  Martin often wrote about using that concoction, and about smoking “blunts,” hollowed-out cheap cigars filled with marijuana. There is evidence that Martin bought a blunt at the 7-Eleven he visited about 45 minutes before his attack on Zimmerman. Martin was caught at school with stolen property — women’s jewelry — and had been suspended from school multiple times. The most recent suspension of ten days put Martin with his father in Sanford.
 
As for Zimmerman’s racism, the FBI’s investigation not only found no evidence of racism, but quite the opposite. When a relative of a Sanford Police officer beat a black homeless man, his tireless advocate was none other than George Zimmerman.
 
Judge Nelson: Judge Debra Nelson replaced the earlier judge, removed for obvious bias against Zimmerman. Judge Nelson would quickly prove herself no slouch at anti-Zimmerman bias. Her rulings have unmistakably favored the prosecution. Among the most egregious example of that bias has been her treatment of Crump.
 
Nelson initially allowed O’Mara to depose Crump, but before the deposition could be done, Crump submitted an affidavit instead, and Nelson accepted it over O’Mara’s objections and canceled the deposition. O’Mara was soon able to provide evidence that Crump was untruthful in the affidavit, but Nelson would not allow a deposition. O’Mara filed a motion with a higher court that overturned Nelson’s decision. Unfortunately, this occurred so late in the process that Crump has not yet been deposed and likely will not be before the trial begins.
 
Nelson has refused to rule on the multiple motions for sanctions against de la Rionda, saying only that she’ll handle them after the trial. This of course gives the prosecution the ability to continue to withhold discovery.
 
Nelson’s rulings, on balance, have hampered the defense and assisted the prosecution, and she shows no tendency toward balance as the case goes to trial.
 
What To Expect: As the trial begins, the defense will rely on the police and their investigation — on the facts — and the law. Expect them to move for dismissal at the beginning of the trial, and multiple times during the trial. In an unbiased court, this case would never have been filed. No rational judge would have issued an arrest warrant based on such a badly flawed and inadequate affidavit, and no professional judge would have allowed it to continue.
 
Zimmerman’s self-defense argument is supported by all the evidence and is not contradicted by any competent evidence. The prosecutor will be put in the unenviable position of arguing against the police, the evidence, and the law. Their case is the narrative, a provably false tale of race and hatred grounded only in a desire to inflame racial passions.
 
Do not expect Zimmerman to testify. The facts, including his videotaped reenactment of the events, will speak for him. Also expect the defense to produce highly qualified, impressive, and believable scientific witnesses. Expect the prosecution to produce poorly qualified, confusing, and easily impeachable scientific witnesses (particularly expect Judge Nelson to allow such incompetents to testify for the prosecution).
 
Expect the defense to be calm, steady, professional and trustworthy. Expect the prosecution to be angry, arrogant, and — if their pre-trial demeanor is any guide — to take considerable liberty with the facts and the truth. Expect them to defend the narrative with all their might; it is their case.
 
The narrative remains. Several prospective jurors expressed fear that a “not guilty” verdict would result in riots, or put their families and themselves in danger. Despite evidence of growing public boredom with the case, this is not an unreasonable fear.
 
Should Zimmerman be convicted, expect the case to be overturned on appeal due to prosecutorial misconduct, and to multiple and egregious instances of reversible error by Judge Nelson. There is reason to believe that the appeals court is carefully watching this case. Even so, expect Judge Nelson to do all she can to assist the prosecution and to hamper the defense, and to help the Scheme Team.
 
Regardless of the outcome, there will be no winners at the conclusion.

313
Martial Arts Topics / Poor pit bulls...
« on: June 17, 2013, 10:10:39 AM »
March 12, 2009 (CHICAGO) (WLS) -- A pit bull was shot and killed after attacking a pregnant woman and her boyfriend.

A Chicago police officer opened fire on the pit bull after it attacked the couple on the city's South Side.

It happened Wednesday night near 59th and Racine. Witnesses say the dog attacked the pregnant woman and her boyfriend as they were leaving a home.

A police officer arrived on the scene moments after the attack. He shot and killed the dog after the victims managed to break free and get to safety.
 
""They shot the dog once and he kept trying to attack the officer. So they opened fire again, nine, 10 more times. It took that many shots to put that dog down," said witness Marlo Weathers.

Police are trying to find the owner of the pit bull.

The female victim is hospitalized in fair condition. The man was treated for a bite to his leg.

314
Martial Arts Topics / Re: Citizen-Police interactions
« on: June 17, 2013, 10:01:18 AM »


Chicago Police Department

Special Order S03-02-02
 


Other Weapon Discharge Incidents
 








Issue Date:

14 June 2012

Effective Date:

14 June 2012
 


Rescinds:

01 October 2002 Version; G02-09-02
 


Index Category:

Field Operations
 






I.

Purpose
 



This directive outlines Department investigative and reporting procedures in which a member has:
 



A.

discharged a chemical agent.
 






B.

discharged a Taser.
 






C.

discharged a firearm to destroy an animal.
 







II.

Scope
 


Under normal circumstance, the provisions of this directive will not apply to:
 




A.

chemical agent use in a Department authorized training program.
 






B.

the discharge of a Taser in a Department authorized training program.
 







III.

Dishcarge of Chemical Agent
 






A.

A chemical agent includes the personal Oleoresin Capsicum (OC) devices carried by sworn members and Department-owned special weapons which dispense larger volumes of chemical agents.
 






B.

Member Responsibilities
 



When a member discharges a chemical agent, the member will:
 



1.

notify the Office of Emergency Management and Communications (OEMC), his or her supervisor, and the station supervisor in the district of occurrence.
 






2.

complete a Tactical Response Report (TRR) (CPD-11.377), the appropriate case report, and/or other required reports.
 






3.

submit all reports to his or her supervisor for review and approval.
 







C.

Station Supervisor Responsibilities




The station supervisor of the district of occurrence will:
 



1.

notify the Independent Police Review Authority when a personal OC device has been discharged.
 






2.

investigate the incident and document the investigation in the “Watch Commander / ADS Review” section of the Tactical Response Report. The station supervisor will indicate that the findings of the investigation of the member’s use of force revealed that the conduct conformed to Department policy and guidelines or that further investigation is required. If the station supervisor determines that further investigation is required or that the member’s conduct other than the use of force failed to conform to Department guidelines, the station supervisor will initiate that investigation consistent with the Department directive entitled “Complaint and Disciplinary Procedures.”
 






3.

attach the original of the Tactical Response Report to the case report and forward through normal channels.
 






4.

forward packets containing photocopies of the TRR and appropriate reports, as indicated on the TRR in the box entitled “Distribution.”







5.

receive the discharged personal OC device from the sworn member, provide a replacement device to the member, and notify the individual designated by the district commander that a replacement device has been issued. When needed, additional OC devices may be requested from the Taser Repair Center, located at the Education and Training Division, through normal requisition procedures.
 




NOTE:

 
Station supervisors will ensure that a copy of the TRR is presented to the Taser Repair Center for replacement OC devices.
 






D.

Whenever possible, the ranking officer on the scene of an incident will notify the Chicago Fire Department prior to the anticipated use of a device that dispenses a chemical agent through use of pyrotechnics.







E.

In instances where a member discharges a chemical agent outside the City of Chicago, the member will:
 






1.

notify:
 






a.

the law enforcement agency having jurisdiction;
 






b.

OEMC and the Crime Prevention and Information Center (CPIC).
 







2.

complete a TRR and submit it to a supervisor for review and approval.









IV.

Discharge of a Taser
 






A.

Member Responsibilities
 






1.

A member who is about to discharge a Taser device will, when possible:







a.

inform all other Department members on the scene of the imminent deployment of the device.







b.

give verbal commands to the subject prior to, during, and after deployment of the Taser.
 






c.

for back shots, aim for the subject's back below the neck area; for frontal shots, aim for lower center mass.
 




NOTE:

 
It is recommended that Department members deploy the Taser to the subject's back whenever possible.
 





d.

after deployment of the initial Taser five-second cycle, members will:
 






(1)

give the subject an opportunity to comply with his or her demands.
 






(2)

assess the situation and, if the subject is still not under control, consider the following options:
 






(a)

drive stun,
 




NOTE:

 
A drive stun is utilized when a Taser, with or without a cartridge attached, is held against the subject and energy is applied.
 





(b)

give additional five-second cycles,
 






(c)

reload and redeploy another cartridge, or
 






(d)

use another use of force option.
 




NOTE:

 
It is advisable to minimize the stress to the subject as much as possible. Multiple five-second cycles, cycles continuing longer than five seconds, and discharges by multiple Tasers will increase stress on the subject.
 








2.

A member who deploys or anticipates the deployment of a Taser will request that a supervisor respond to the scene.





NOTE:

 
For all field deployments of a Taser, the station supervisor assigned to the district of occurrence will ensure that a supervisor at least one rank higher than the deploying member responds to the scene of the Taser deployment.
 





3.

The member who field-deployed the Taser will:
 






a.

immediately, upon gaining control and restraining the subject:
 






(1)

request that OEMC assign emergency medical personnel when:
 






(a)

the Taser probes were discharged and penetrated a subject's skin.
 






(b)

an electrical current from the Taser was applied to the subject's body.
 






(c)

the subject appears to be in any sort of physical distress.
 







(2)

notify OEMC.
 






(3)

notify their supervisor, the station supervisor assigned to the district of occurrence, and CPIC
 






(4)

if emergency medical personnel determine that the subject requires treatment at a medical facility, follow procedures listed in the directive entitled:
 






(a)

"Field Arrest Procedures" for secured transportation and processing of injured arrestees.
 






(b)

"Assisting Chicago Fire Department Paramedics" for non-arrestees.





NOTE:

 
Subjects will be transported to a medical facility via a Chicago Fire Department vehicle.
 







b.

prepare a Tactical Response Report (TRR).









B.

Responding Supervisor Responsibilities




Responding supervisors will:




1.

ensure that the scene of the Taser deployment is protected and processed in accordance with the Department directive entitled "Crime Scene Protection and Processing," as necessary.







a.

If the Taser deployment occurred in a residence, an evidence technician will be requested to process the scene.







b.

If the Taser deployment occurred in an area other than a residence, whether indoors or outdoors, determine if an evidence technician is required.







c.

Request the assignment of an evidence technician to photograph the locations where the probes penetrated the subject's skin and/or any other injuries incurred as a result of the TASER deployment.








2.

inventory all evidence from the scene of the Taser deployment consistent with the Department directive entitled "eTrack System For Property Taken Into Custody." The discharged probes and used cartridge(s) will be inventoried in the following manner:
 






a.

the probes will be detached from the wires and inserted, pointed ends first, back into the cartridge.
 






b.

the cartridge will be wrapped with tape to secure the probes inside the cartridge.
 







3.

take control of the Taser device and deliver it to the station supervisor.
 






4.

request the station supervisor and/or the appropriate area deputy chief, Bureau of Patrol / On-Call Incident Commander respond to all Taser deployments that result in serious injury or death. When the appropriate area deputy chief, Bureau of Patrol / On-Call Incident Commander responds to the scene of a Taser deployment, they will be responsible for completing the watch commander / ADS review section of the TRR.
 






5.

if a death has occurred, ensure the Mobile Crime Lab and Bureau of Detectives personnel are requested.
 






6.

review the deploying member's TRR and sign it to indicate that the TRR has been completed properly.
 







C.

Station Supervisor's Responsibilities
 






1.

The station supervisor assigned to the district of occurrence will ensure that IPRA is notified and a log number is obtained. During the hours when IPRA is not available, CPIC will be notified to obtain a log number.
 






2.

The station supervisor will download the deployment data consistent with the equipment and software procedures and print a copy of the deployment information. In districts which do not have the necessary equipment to perform the download of deployment data, the station supervisor will follow the alternate procedures outlined in Item III-C-4 of this directive.
 






a.

When printing a Taser deployment data sheet, only the date range containing the actual deployment information need be printed. If the station supervisor does not manually select the specific date range, all 2000 lines of possible deployment data will be printed.
 






b.

The data sheet will be reviewed for time discrepancies. A full download of the device is required if a 254 or a 257 discharge is indicated or the clock is off by several hours, days, months, or years. For additional information, refer to the Department's eLearning website and search keywords "X26 Taser Download."
 







3.

The station supervisor will prepare the "Watch Commander/ADS Review" section of the TRR for those cases which do not require the presence of an area deputy chief, Bureau of Patrol / On-Call Incident Commander consistent with the directive entitled "Incidents Requiring the Completion of a Tactical Response Report," and ensure that:
 






a.

the Taser deployment data sheet and a copy of the TRR are attached to a copy of the original case report and forwarded to IPRA.







b.

the expended cartridge is replaced from the district/unit supply. When needed, additional cartridges may be requested from the Taser Repair Center, located at the Education and Training Division, through normal requisition procedures.
 




NOTE:

 
Station supervisors will ensure that a copy of the TRR is presented to the Taser Repair Center for replacement cartridges.
 






4.

If the station supervisor in the district of a Taser deployment is unable to download the Taser deployment data (required equipment is inoperable or not installed), the station supervisor will:







a.

designate a Department member, preferably a supervisor, to report to an adjacent district or CPIC with the involved Taser device for the purpose of downloading and printing the Taser deployment data sheet. The designated Department member will:







(1)

transport the involved Taser device as directed and ensure that the device is not tampered with during transport.
 






(2)

turn over the Taser device to the appropriate personnel and await the return of the device once the appropriate personnel download the Taser deployment data.
 






(3)

upon return of the Taser device and receipt of the deployment data, immediately transport the Taser device and data sheet to the investigating station supervisor.
 




NOTE:

 
If alternate locations are unable to download the Taser deployment data, the station supervisor investigating the incident will ensure that 2nd watch personnel hand-carry the Taser device to the Taser Repair Center.







b.

not approve the involved member's TRR until the Taser device deployment data sheet has been received and reviewed.







c.

ensure a copy of the Taser deployment data sheet is included in the TRR packet and forwarded as indicated in box 79 of the TRR entitled "Distribution."









D.

CPIC Responsibilities
 



Upon receiving a Taser device, the assigned CPIC personnel will:
 



1.

take control of the Taser device.
 






2.

download the Taser deployment data consistent with the established equipment and software procedures.
 






3.

print out the Taser device data sheet and distribute the original and copies of the data sheet as follows:
 






a.

the original data sheet to the member designated by the station supervisor to transport the device to CPIC.
 






b.

one copy of the data sheet will be retained at CPIC.







c.

one copy of the data sheet will be sent by facsimile message to the investigating station supervisor.









E.

Area Deputy Chief / On-Call Incident Commander Responsibilities
 



In all cases in which a subject has been seriously injured or a death has occurred in conjunction with a Taser deployment, the appropriate area deputy chief, Bureau of Patrol / On-Call Incident Commander will:
 



1.

proceed to the scene, assume command of the scene, and ensure that a complete and thorough investigation is conducted of the incident.
 






2.

ensure that all tasks delineated for subordinate personnel are performed.
 






3.

personally conduct an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the incident and make a preliminary determination as to whether the conduct of the member conformed to Department guidelines.







4.

prepare the "Watch Commanders / ADS Review" section of the TRR and return the completed TRR to the station supervisor conducting the investigation.







5.

determine if a Round Table Panel Session will aid in the investigation.









V.

Discharge of a Firearm to Destroy an Animal
 






A.

Member Responsibilities
 



When a member discharges a firearm to destroy an animal, the member will:
 



1.

notify OEMC, his or her supervisor, and the station supervisor in the district of occurrence.
 






2.

complete a TRR and a Miscellaneous Incident Exception Report (CPD-11.419), Animal Bite Information report, or other appropriate report.
 






3.

submit all reports to their supervisor for review and approval.
 






4.

comply with all applicable provisions of the Department directive entitled "Incidents Involving Animals."
 







B.

The OEMC will assign a supervisor from the district of occurrence to the scene of the incident and notify CPIC.
 






C.

The assigned supervisor will:
 






1.

determine if there is any related personal injury or property damage other than the destruction of the animal and, if necessary, ensure that the required report is completed.
 






2.

review the TRR and sign it to indicate approval.
 







D.

The station supervisor in the district of occurrence:
 






1.

will complete the "Watch Commander/ADS Review" section of the TRR as indicated in the Department directive entitled "Use of Force Guidelines."
 






2.

may waive firearm inventory and ballistic examination and may authorize the member to retain his or her firearm in instances in which there is no likelihood of death or injury to a person or identifiable property damage other than the destruction of the animal.
 




Authenticated by: JKH
 
Garry F. McCarthy
Superintendent of Police
 

10-072 JAB

315
Martial Arts Topics / Re: Citizen-Police interactions
« on: June 17, 2013, 09:58:40 AM »


Chicago Police Department

General Order G03-02-06
 


Weapon Discharge Incidents Involving Sworn Members
 








Issue Date:

25 September 2002

Effective Date:

01 October 2002
 


Rescinds:

G02-09
 


Index Category:

Field Operations
 






I.

Purpose
 


This directive outlines Department investigative and reporting procedures in weapon discharge incidents.
 




II.

Scope
 



Under normal circumstances, the provisions of this directive will not apply to:
 



A.

the discharge of a firearm during:
 






1.

Department-sponsored firearms training or practice;
 






2.

firearms practice at a recognized range facility.
 






3.

Department authorized ballistic examination or testing.
 






4.

a licensed hunting activity.
 







B.

the discharge of a Taser in a Department authorized training program.
 






C.

chemical agent use in a Department authorized training program.
 







III.

Firearms Discharge Incident Notifications
 



In addition to other notifications outlined in this directive, for ANY firearms discharge incidents, including unintentional discharges and those involving the destruction of an animal:



A.

the watch commander in the district of occurrence will ensure Operations Command is notified.
 






B.

Operations Command will notify the Internal Affairs Division (IAD) call-out supervisor of any firearms discharge incident notification.
 







IV.

Mandatory Alcohol and Drug Testing
 






A.

Any sworn Department member, involved in a firearms discharge incident, whether on or off duty, is required to submit to the mandatory alcohol and drug testing, in compliance with this directive and any applicable collective bargaining agreement.
 




NOTE:

 
This requirement does not apply to the circumstances delineated in Item II-A of this directive.
 





B.

The IAD call-out supervisor will:
 






1.

contact the On-Call Incident Commander (OCIC) or watch commander, as appropriate, and respond to the designated location to conduct the alcohol and drug testing.
 






2.

complete and submit a "Notice of Alcohol and Drug Testing Following a Firearms Discharge Incident" (CPD-44.252).
 







C.

The IAD call-out supervisor will ensure:
 






1.

the involved member submits to the alcohol breath test and will conduct the test according to Department policy.
 






2.

the alcohol breath test result is provided to the OCIC or watch commander, as appropriate.
 






3.

the involved member submits to the drug test and ensure the urine specimen is:
 






a.

collected in a manner that will preserve the dignity of the involved member and ensure the integrity of the sample.
 






b.

collected in the presence of a supervisor of the same sex as the involved member.







c.

retained by the IAD call-out supervisor who will assume the responsibility for ensuring that the urine specimen is properly secured in accordance with established division-level standard operation procedures, pending processing by a medical laboratory.
 







4.

the alcohol and drug testing occurs as soon as practicable after the firearms discharge incident given the overall demands of the investigation.
 




NOTE:

 
The member with overall command responsibility, (e.g., OCIC or watch commander), will ensure testing is initiated no later than six hours following the firearms discharge incident.
 





5.

that copies of any associated reports, including the testing and results documentation, are forwarded to the Chief Administrator, Independent Police Review Authority (IPRA) once the testing is completed.
 







D.

If the involved member refuses to provide a breath test or urine specimen pursuant to this process, it is a violation of the Department Rules and Regulations, (e.g., disobedience of an order or directive whether written or oral), and will result in administrative charges against the member, which may include discipline up to and including separation.
 






E.

No discipline shall occur based solely on the results of the alcohol test when the member's actions are consistent with the Department's Use of Force guidelines and the member discharged their weapon off-duty.
 



Terry G. Hillard
Superintendent of Police
 

00-148 LMT, MWK

316
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-05-15/news/chi-sergeant-shoots-pit-bull-as-it-attacks-teen-in-englewood-20130515_1_pit-bull-sergeant-dog


Sergeant kills pit bull attacking teen: 'That dog would have killed me'


May 15, 2013|By Liam Ford | Tribune reporter


Tyrell Henry, 16, was bitten by a pit bull on his way to school at Urban Prep Academy in Chicago. The teen suffered puncture wounds to his right leg and foot and received 19 stitches. The dog was killed by a Chicago police officer. (Abel Uribe / Chicago Tribune)


Tyrell Henry just got off the bus and was walking to school when he got a quick glimpse of a pit bull seconds before it jumped him.

"When it first bit me, when I was on the ground, I started kicking it," said Tyrell, a 16-year-old sophomore at Urban Prep Academy. "Then I hit it with my book bag."

The dog was still coming after the boy when a Chicago police sergeant showed up and shouted at it, then fired a shot. The pit bull ran toward the sergeant, who fired again, killing the dog.

"Thank God for that officer," Tyrell told police later. "That dog would have killed me."

The teenager suffered puncture wounds to his right leg and foot and received 19 stitches at St. Bernard Hospital and Health Care Center, just around the corner from where the attack occurred in the 5900 block of South Stewart Avenue in the Englewood neighborhood.

Police discovered that a 63-year-old man had also been attacked and badly bitten by the dog in an alley at 59th Street and Eggleston Avenue. He was taken to Advocate Christ Medical Center in Oak Lawn, where he was expected to receive stitches for his injuries, Officer John Mirabelli said.

The sergeant had been dispatched to the area shortly before 8 a.m. after police got a call of someone attacked by a pit bull, Mirabelli said.

Neighbors flagged down the sergeant and pointed him toward the dog, which had just charged the boy. The sergeant jumped out of his car and after the dog was separated from the teen, started firing, Mirabelli said.

The sergeant was attacked by another dog and bitten in the leg while responding to a call last week, a police source said.

"I'm just glad he was there," said Tyrell's mother, Helen Henry, 64, after returning from St. Bernard with her son. "What the sergeant did, that was really great. God was there for him."

lford@tribune.com

318
Martial Arts Topics / Re: Citizen-Police interactions
« on: June 04, 2013, 05:18:44 AM »
GM:

Please, it was four months old and was not attacking.  With malice aforethought this guy blew it away and his buddies are backing his pla

Time to call bad apples bad apples.


Facts not in evidence.

319
Martial Arts Topics / Re: Citizen-Police interactions
« on: June 03, 2013, 12:31:12 PM »
How do you know he did something wrong ? These media reports? How many pounds per square inch can a 35 lbs pit bull exert on a bite?

320
Martial Arts Topics / Re: Citizen-Police interactions
« on: June 03, 2013, 12:07:01 PM »
The article says 35 lbs.

Didn't Chicago have 8 humans shot in one day the other day?

321
Martial Arts Topics / Re: Citizen-Police interactions
« on: June 03, 2013, 05:29:44 AM »
Any discharge of a weapon by an officer should have generated a lot of paper, if the investigation is completed, it should be public information. If the dog owner asserts the officer lied about the shooting, she can file a internal affairs/professional standards complaint.

Where was the dog located when it was shot? The trajectory of the GSW would indicate the distance and orientation when the shots were fired. I'd expect a door to door canvas was done and and an attempt to locate and document all shots fired and the weapon
was taken and entered into evidence.

322
Martial Arts Topics / Common mistakes in self-defense shootings
« on: May 31, 2013, 01:56:17 PM »
http://www.theoutdoorwire.com/specials/2013concealed_story.html?id=227425

Common mistakes in self-defense shootings

Seen here, pointing a gun at someone, absent the justification to do so, is the crime of aggravated assault. Do you know when it is justified to point a gun at someone? If not, you need to do your homework.
One of my favorite sayings is "he snatched defeat from the jaws of victory." It happens all the time in the real world of self-defense, where an otherwise legitimate act of self defense is clouded by mistakes the defender made either before, during, or after the act of self defense. Sometimes the error can be corrected at trial, but many times it can't. In studying and working on self-defense cases over the years, I have seen a few common themes which can turn a justified shooting into a crime, at least in the minds of the jury.


Chemicals

The very first way to get you arrested and prosecuted for what would be an otherwise legitimate use of force is to use a gun while intoxicated, or even after a couple of drinks. Being under the influence opens a wide door for the prosecution, wide enough to convict you. Juries do not like drunks. They really do not like drunks who are handling guns. And they really, really do not like drunks who use deadly force, then claim self-defense.

I have worked on several cases where the armed citizen had been drinking, and in all cases, the drinking played a major part of the prosecution's theory of the case. Even when the level of intoxication was minor, below the legal limit, the issue is brought up by the prosecution. Sometimes it is the only negative issue in the case, so instead of attempting to defeat the self-defense claim, the prosecution claims he was intoxicated (even if he wasn't). Of course, they likely cannot link the intoxication to any wrongdoing regarding use of deadly force, but they use it to smear the good name and reputation of the armed citizen. Juries will likely see through that, but why take that risk?


Training

Secondly, can you document your training? You do have training in use of deadly force in self-defense don't you? Society demands (through court cases involving police use of force) that officers must receive competent, relevant and up to date training in the use of deadly force in order to avoid a negative outcome in a "failure to train" lawsuit. You see, people can and do make mistakes. But, society and the courts will often times forgive a mistake made in good faith, but will likely punish the individual if the mistake was made through lack of training and/or education.


Much less aggressive, but still the crime of brandishing unless you have the right to display the gun in your hand in public.
I believe it will only be a matter of time before this same philosophy becomes a standard in the world of the armed citizen. Take it from a guy who has trained over 15,000 people in the use of deadly force in self defense. You want that training under your belt and you want it documented. Having deadly force training can be brought up on your behalf at trial, if it can be reasonably shown that you had the training, and relied upon the training in your decision making process. Opening that door at trial means that you can likely bring in your instructor or instructors to discuss the training you received, which by extension means you get to educate the jury as to what you knew at the time of the incident. Failure to have this training and failure to document it means you go it alone at trial. Because I teach firearms for a living, I have an extensive training resume, and I know that I can call upon any of my instructors to come to court for me and discuss the material they taught. It's like walking around with the "A-team" of firearms instructors in my pocket for back-up, only they shoot better!


Gunpoint

Another common theme in self-defense prosecutions is when a person commits an aggravated assault (pointing a gun at another person but not being justified to do so).

There is a distinction between drawing a gun as a warning to people who might be getting ready to attack, and drawing a gun as a warning to people who might be getting ready to attack and pointing it at them. The distinction is often up to 10 years in prison for the latter, if convicted of aggravated assault, (a felony) compared to a year in jail for the misdemeanor crime of brandishing. Additionally, if the armed citizen has a clean record, he can often plea bargain the brandishing charge to a deferred prosecution, (resulting in no criminal conviction and restoration of his gun rights). If an aggravated assault is plea bargained, it is often times to a lessor felony conviction, and loss of gun rights.


Hand on gun, in bladed position will likely not get you arrested but this position, coupled with the command to "stay back," will likely communicate the message effectively. And you are just a moment away from drawing if necessary.
But, why does a person get into this trouble in the first place? Likely it is a combination of failure to know the law regarding when you can display a gun as a warning, combined with lack of confidence in your skill to use a gun for self-defense. Both these conditions can be addressed with professional training. And, compounding the problem is often times the armed citizen doesn't think the incident was important enough to call the cops, and when police do show up to investigate the "man with a gun" call, the armed citizen is hard-pressed to convince the police that HE was the victim, not the individual or individuals who claim you pointed a gun at them and threatened to shoot them.

My advice is to avoid drawing the gun unless you absolutely need to do so, avoid pointing the gun at anyone unless you absolutely need to do so, and then call the police to report the criminal activity which caused you to draw the gun. If you cannot articulate criminal activity on the part of the aggressive parties, don't draw the gun.

An alternative to drawing the gun at all is simply to take a bladed stance, with gun side away from the potential attacker or attackers, and place your hand on the gun underneath your concealment garment, with a warning to back off. Your resolve to use deadly force if necessary is communicated, but there is no exposure of the gun.

We are also seeing more and more incidents of persons chasing after others who were burglarizing their house, or perhaps trying to steal your car or other property, and then shooting the individuals while they're attempting to get away, seem to be increasing. Typically, when the incident is dissected, the armed citizen had the right to threaten deadly force to stop the crime, but when the individual turns to run (or drives away in your SUV) you are going to be hard pressed to justify shooting. But it happens anyway. Society has no problem with armed citizens who use deadly force to protect life, but juries typically have a tough time justifying killing someone to stop a property crime.



Post Shooting Procedures

Lastly, the way a person who has used deadly force in self-defense interacts with the police after the incident can also land him or her in jail. This is one of the most commonly discussed issues in the world of self-defense. Do you talk to the police after a shooting incident, or to you demand to talk to an attorney before answering the cop's questions? There are pros and cons to each side of the argument.

Let me explain. Those people who believe that the armed citizen should say nothing to the police primarily come from the defense attorney side of the argument. Most criminal defense attorneys spend a great deal of their professional time trying to mitigate statements their clients made to the police. If I were a criminal defense attorney who spent all his working time trying to explain to juries why his client told police an incriminating story, I would likely feel the same way. But remember, the vast majority of criminal defendants are actually guilty of criminal conduct. So whatever they would tell the police is either confessional in nature or false. In either case, the statements do not help the defendant.

One thing to understand is that if you clam up and refuse to talk to the police, you very likely will be arrested. You see you purposely killed someone and absent evidence of justification, you have committed the crime of murder.

The other side of the argument comes from the professional firearms instructor cadre, with people like Massad Ayoob, John Farnam and others explaining that you, the victim of a criminal assault, need to let the police know what was happening that caused you to fear for your life. 1) You were the person attacked. 2) You will sign the complaint against the individual, or be a witness at trial (depending on the jurisdiction you are in). 3) There were witnesses to the incident, and telling the police who those witnesses are. 4) There is evidence of that criminal attack, and pointing that out to the officers. And lastly, 5) you recognize the seriousness of this incident, and would like legal representation before you give a formal statement to the police.

Taking this approach will not guarantee protection from criminal prosecution but at least you got your side of the story out to the police first. Assuming you tell the truth, that story will likely be given at trial too and your consistent statements will absolutely help your defense. And, by pointing out the evidence of the crime being committed against you, the police have an alternative crime to investigate.

Let's look at legal representation. What you say or don't say will both be used by the police to make a judgment call regarding whether not they will arrest you for a crime. The few critical minutes after an incident is not the time for you to start thinking about how you are going to handle this critical part of your self-defense incident.

Thumbing through the yellow pages to look for a self-defense attorney while sitting in police lock-up is a pretty poor legal defense plan. People spend hours and hours trying to decide what type of gun to carry or what bullets to use but ignore this important part of their response to criminal attack. Having an attorney to call after a self-defense incident is vitally important to your overall self-defense plan.

 
-- Photos and text by Marty Hayes, J.D.

Marty Hayes is the President and founder of the Armed Citizens' Legal Defense Network Inc. , and, in his capacity as an expert witness, has worked on dozens of murder and assault cases over the years.

323
You are a thoughtful man GM, especially with regard to this sort of issue.  Care to flesh that out?

If you ever press a trigger outside of a shooting range, it had better be because "I had no other choice at that moment".

In a gunfight, time and ammo are precious, especially time. If you have time to fire a "warning shot", you have time to move to cover, you have time to communicate, you have time to plan.

You are legally and morally responsible for every bullet that leaves a firearm in your possession. Bullets ricochet and still have plenty of mass and energy to maim or kill.

Outside of prisons, law enforcement ended the practice of "warning shots" decades ago for the above reasons.

325
Martial Arts Topics / The Monsters that Walk Among Us
« on: May 14, 2013, 05:13:39 PM »
http://pjmedia.com/blog/the-monsters-that-walk-among-us/?singlepage=true

The Monsters that Walk Among Us

If you sat next to Ariel Castro in a movie theater, you would never guess how evil he was.



by
Jack Dunphy


I remember the first person I arrested for murder.  I had been out of the LAPD academy only a month or two, and my training officer and I were assigned a radio call known as a “welfare check.” These calls most often arise when someone is unable to contact an elderly relative or friend.  We went to the house in question, the home of an elderly widow, and found no evidence of a forced entry or any other outward sign of trouble.  But given the woman’s age and the accumulation of mail and newspapers at her front door, and as none of her neighbors had seen her in some time, my partner made the decision that we should break in.  We did so, expecting to find the woman dead of a heart attack, a stroke, or any of the other natural causes that claim people her age.
 
Yes, she was dead all right, but there was nothing natural about what had killed her.

 


When the homicide detectives arrived and assessed the scene, they told us it appeared that the woman had been raped and then stabbed to death with a kitchen knife.  The killer, having worked up an appetite, cooked and ate a meal as the woman lay dying in the next room.  To this day I am haunted by the thought of the terror she must have felt in those final moments of her life.  Who could have done such a thing, I wondered.
 
Later, with the detectives still sifting the crime scene for evidence, there was little for my partner and me to do but stand near the yellow crime-scene tape and keep the curious at bay.  A young man of about 20 approached and asked us what was going on, and in the most perfunctory of terms we told him that the woman in the house had died.  A detective in the house contacted us by radio and told us to step out of earshot from the man, and when we had done so the detective informed us we had been talking with the likely killer.
 
As an eager rookie, my inclination was to slap the handcuffs on him as quickly as I could.  My partner, with his greater experience and accompanying wisdom, played it differently.  He continued to engage the man in small talk, cleverly eliciting some admissions that would later prove valuable in the murder case against him.  We would come to learn that the woman had befriended the killer — a neighbor — some years before and often hired him to perform odd jobs around the house.  He had completed one such job before raping and killing her.
 
While the man struck me as a bit odd, to my then-untutored eye there was nothing in his demeanor that suggested he was capable of the horrible crime he had just committed.  In speaking with other neighbors later, I didn’t find one who wasn’t completely shocked by what the man had done.
 
Which brings us to the unfathomable, decade-long ordeal of Amanda Berry, Gina DeJesus, and Michelle Knight, the three women recently freed from their kidnapper in Cleveland.  How, we wonder, could one man kidnap and hold in captivity even one person for so long without being discovered?  How twisted must a man be to carry out such a crime not just once but three times?  And how can so twisted a person move among us without our detecting the depth of his malevolence?
 
We want to comfort ourselves with the delusion that we can spot the dangerous people in our midst.  We look at the man accused in the Cleveland case, Ariel Castro, and we tell ourselves we would have known something was amiss behind the walls of his ordinary looking clapboard home.  Never in my neighborhood, we say.
 
But the truth is that most of us haven’t a clue about what goes on inside our neighbors’ homes, even in those neighborhoods described, like Ariel Castro’s, as “tight-knit.”  As anyone who reads the papers knows, this term is most often a press euphemism for “poor” or “crime-plagued,” and indeed the Cleveland Police Department’s crime map reveals that officers in Castro’s neighborhood are kept busy.  Zoom in on the map to the area just south and west of the I-90/I-71 interchange, expand the date range from the last seven days to the last 30, 60 and 90, and watch the dots on the map multiply like so many poisonous spores in a Petri dish.
 
I’ve spent most of my police career in Los Angeles working in similar neighborhoods, and even in those that genuinely are “tight-knit” there are always those few individuals who, like Ariel Castro, are themselves at varying stages of coming unraveled.  I’ve arrested murderers who had been living right under the noses of people who couldn’t bring themselves to believe that their friend, neighbor, or even family member had shot, stabbed, or bludgeoned someone to death.  Once he washes the blood off his hands, your typical murderer looks much the same as anyone else.
 
Did the police make mistakes in their handling of the three women’s disappearances?   Perhaps.  Michelle Knight’s name was dropped from an FBI database of missing persons only 15 months after her disappearance, but there is little cause to believe her continued presence in the database would have led to her recovery.  After all, Amada Berry’s and Gina DeJesus’s names were in the same database the entire time they were held, to no effect at all.  And as for those who say the police should have done more to find the women, one must ask: What more could they have done?  In all three abductions the police had no witnesses to describe a suspect and no crime scene from which to pluck forensic evidence.  And there was nothing about Ariel Castro that would have offered police cause to suspect him in the cases or to search his home.
 
No, it isn’t easy to spot the evil person next door.  Witness the various characterizations of the Tsarnaev brothers, the Boston Marathon bombers, whom most acquaintances described as ordinary young men incapable of such a horrific crime.  And now we know that the brothers have been implicated in a 2011 triple murder in Waltham, Mass., not far from the Watertown neighborhood where the elder brother was killed in a shootout with police and the younger one was captured.  How many of their friends suspected they were such cold-hearted killers?  How many of the strangers they encountered every day saw even a hint of the darkness in their souls?  None of them, I’m sure.
 
So it is with Ariel Castro.  Yes, now that he’s been identified as the proprietor of the Seymour Avenue Dungeon, his neighbors are making claims that they suspected him of bad things all along.  There was a naked woman chained up in the backyard, went one report, but the police failed to investigate.  All of these tales were concocted after the rescue, police say; there was nothing about Ariel Castro or his house that would have offered the slightest hint at what he was doing behind his closed door.
 
Ariel Castro is accused of unspeakably evil acts, but like the Tsarnaev brothers, like that murderer I arrested years ago, like all those killers on the loose in Chicago and most other cities you could name, he went unrecognized until the evidence of his crimes leapt out and grabbed someone’s attention.
 
Not every criminal — or even every murderer — sinks to the level of depravity occupied by the likes of the Tsarnaev brothers and Ariel Castro.  But consider: The Boston Globe reported that police solved 43 percent of the city’s murders in 2012, leaving 57 percent of the killers out and about and free to kill again.  In Ariel Castro’s Cleveland the police do a better job of things, with a 2012 murder clearance rate of 69 percent, but that still leaves 31 percent of its killers on the loose.  And in Chicago, a mere 132 of the city’s 507 murders that occurred in 2012 were solved, for a clearance rate of just 26 percent.  That’s a lot of killers running around out there going to restaurants and the movies and partaking in all the other pleasures the less homicidally inclined enjoy, maybe even sitting in the theater right next to . . . you.
 
Enjoy the show.

326
Martial Arts Topics / Re: Crime and Punishment
« on: April 29, 2013, 03:40:49 PM »

Rising lead levels in the U.S. from 1950 through the 1970s neatly track increases in violence 20 years later, from the '70s through the '90s. (Violence peaks when individuals are in their late teens and early 20s.) As lead in the environment fell in the '70s and '80s—thanks in large part to the regulation of gasoline—violence fell correspondingly. No other single factor can account for both the inexplicable rise in violence in the U.S. until 1993 and the precipitous drop since then.

Or, as the baby boomers aged, they stopped committing so many crimes, as crime is generally a young male thing.

Genetics and environment may work together to encourage violent behavior. One pioneering study in 2002 by Avshalom Caspi and Terrie Moffitt of Duke University genotyped over 1,000 individuals in a community in New Zealand and assessed their levels of antisocial behavior in adulthood. They found that a genotype conferring low levels of the enzyme monoamine oxidase A (MAOA), when combined with early child abuse, predisposed the individual to later antisocial behavior. Low MAOA has been linked to reduced volume in the amygdala—the emotional center of the brain—while physical child abuse can damage the frontal part of the brain, resulting in a double hit.

Or, being abused tends to make one prone to acting out of rage, and having had antisocial behavior modeled by one's parents, an abused child might then follow those behavior patterns of the parent when they become adults.

So what explains coldblooded psychopathic behavior? About 1% of us are psychopaths—fearless antisocials who lack a conscience. In 2009, Yaling Yang, Robert Schug and I conducted structural brain scans on 27 psychopaths whom we had found in temporary-employment agencies in Los Angeles. All got high scores on the Psychopathy Checklist, the "gold standard" in the field, which assesses traits like lack of remorse, callousness and grandiosity. We found that, compared with 32 normal people in a control group, psychopaths had an 18% smaller amygdala, which is critical for emotions like fear and is part of the neural circuitry underlying moral decision-making. In subsequent research, Andrea Glenn and I found this same brain region to be significantly less active in psychopathic individuals when they contemplate moral issues. Psychopaths know at a cognitive level what is right and what is wrong, but they don't feel it.

Would a brain scan show that the author of this piece is prone to seeing 27 as a meaningful number for an alleged scientic study of neurology and criminal behavior?  :roll:

328
This clip has a lot of interesting facets to it, both from the DLO POV and the legal issues presented:

http://www.rightthisminute.com/video/criminal-controversy-and-accidental-abetting

I'd love to get our GM's take on shooting and killing the BG as he runs away from his attempt to kill the officer.

http://www.laaw.com/uodfs.htm

What's Your Use-of-Deadly-Force Standard?

by Michael A. Brave, Esq., M.S., C.P.S., C.S.T.
and John G. Peters, M.S., M.S.
(© Copyright 1992, by Michael A. Brave. All rights reserved.)

"Dispatch - all units, armed robbery in progress - Ajax Liquor, Fourth and Main."
"Dispatch - all units, suicidal adult female with - handgun - 1435 Sycamore."
"456 - dispatch, shots fired, officer down, need immediate assistance!"

These incident examples are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving. And, the responding officers when faced with deadly force may only have seconds to choose a deadly-force option that could impact the rest of their lives. If the officers make a poor decision they could face administrative discipline/termination, criminal prosecu- tion, civil litigation, community hatred, and media chastisement. Conversely, if the officers hesitate in their use of reasonable-deadly-force because their agency has failed to provide them with adequate guidance and training, or because of their fear of litigation, discipline, etc. the officers could lose their lives or could be the catalyst that results in others losing their lives.

Every time officers are forced to make deadly-force decisions they are putting their futures (life/death, financial, career, family, societal) on the line. The time of the incident is not the time when your officers should be forced to decide whether they can or cannot use deadly force. Long before the incident occurs the law enforcement agency executives must decide under what circumstances they will allow their officers to use deadly force. Executives need to identify potential problems and need to reasonably limit officer discretion through policy development and that is why every agency needs to develop a competent use-of-force policy.

An agency's first step in providing competent guidance, direction, and training to its officers in the use of deadly force is to provide a sound, unambiguous written deadly-force policy (of course an agency must also provide a non-deadly force policy as well). The policy must set out in clear and unambiguous terms when officers can use deadly force. The balance of this article is not going to examine all of the factors that should be considered in drafting a use-of-force policy. Rather, this article is specifically limited to discussing the major use-of-deadly-force standards which have been adopted by various agencies and jurisdictions.

Before examining the use-of-deadly-force standards, we must first look at a few definitions. While definitions vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction we can find some common ground. One of the most misunderstood use-of-force terms is "deadly force." There are many different definitions and interpretations of "deadly force." However, a good working definition of "deadly force" for decision making might be: "[D]eadly force is force which the actor uses with the purpose of causing, or which he knows to create, a substantial risk of causing death or serious bodily harm."(1) "Serious bodily harm" is "[A] bodily injury that: (1) creates a substantial risk of death; (2) causes serious, (3) permanent disfigurement; or (4) results in long-term loss or impairment of the functioning of any bodily member or organ."(2) It is also worth noting that most deadly-force definitions find that the term "serious bodily harm" is synonymous with "great bodily harm."(3) Obviously, "deadly force" does not equate to "lethal" or "fatal" force. "Lethal" or "fatal" force is force which is likely to cause death and not merely serious bodily harm.

Objective Reasonableness Test:

Before we look at the different use-of-deadly-force standards we must look to the overriding standard of Graham v. Conner(4). In Graham, the United States Supreme Court stated that the proper measure to determine whether a law enforcement officer's use of force is excessive, is the "objective reasonableness" test under the Fourth Amendment. The Court stated that the Graham analysis applies to all alleged law enforcement excessive force claims - deadly or not - in the course of an arrest, investigatory stop, or other "seizure" of a free citizen. Therefore, regardless of which use-of-deadly-force standard an agency adopts, the use of force must meet the Graham Fourth Amendment "objective reasonableness" requirement of seizures.

Now let's look at six major use-of-deadly-force standards. The lowest, least restrictive, use-of-deadly-force standard is the standard enumerated by the United States Supreme Court in Tennessee v. Garner. The Garner standard, which is also referred to as the "fleeing felon standard," allows for the limited use of deadly force against fleeing felons under three restrictive criteria. Under the Garner "fleeing felon standard," a law enforcement officer can use deadly force against a fleeing felon if: (1) the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the felon's escape, (2) the fleeing felon has threatened the officer with a weapon or the officer has probable cause to believe that the felon has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, AND (3) the officer gives the felon some warning of the imminent use of deadly force - if feasible.

Some jurisdictions which do allow the use of deadly force under the Garner standard do not include all three Garner requirements in their use-of-deadly-force statute. Remember, since a law enforcement officer's use of force is subject to the requirements of the United States Constitution, and because of the Constitution's Supremacy Clause, a state, or lower government subdivision, cannot create a use-of-force standard that is less restrictive than the standard defined by U.S. Supreme Court and federal case law as it pertains to individual jurisdictions. A law enforcement agency which adopts the "fleeing felon" standard (assuming the agency is in a jurisdiction that allows the use of deadly force under the "fleeing felon standard") must be sure to include Garner's three requirements - even if these requirements are not enumerated in the state statutes. Therefore, if an agency is in a jurisdiction which allows the use of deadly force under the "fleeing felon standard", the lowest standard that could be adopted must meet the Garner and Graham requirements. It is important to note that some jurisdictions (such as Alaska) do not allow the use of deadly force against a "fleeing felon" as defined by Garner.

An interesting question that arises is whether today, or in the foreseeable future, the United States Supreme Court would uphold the "fleeing felon" standard as an "objectively reasonable" seizure under Graham? If Graham is the test for ALL law enforcement use of force (deadly or non- deadly), then today would the U.S. Supreme Court uphold the use of deadly force (against a fleeing felon) under Garner "objectively reasonable" under Graham?

If the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies (CALEA), many law enforcement agencies, and many law enforcement experts are stating that deadly force can only be "reasonably" used in deadly force confrontations, in defense of life or under the deadly-force-defense standard, then the use of deadly force (against a fleeing felon)) under Garner may be held to be unreasonable by future appellate courts. Additionally, with some law enforcement agencies and certain individual experts promulgating the "preservation of life" standard as the only reasonable standard, then the use of deadly force against a fleeing felon under Garner is definitely not a "reasonable" use of force.

A slightly higher standard (than the Garner "fleeing felon standard") is the Model Penal Code Standard(6). The Model Penal Code Standard provides, in relevant part, that a law enforcement officer may use deadly force against an individual, in the course of an arrest, if the officer believes that: (1) the arrest is for a felony; (2) the person effecting the arrest is authorized to act as a peace officer or is assisting a person whom he believes to be authorized as a peace officer; (3) the officer believes that the force employed creates no substantial risk of injury to innocent persons; AND (4) the crime for which the arrest is made involved conduct including the use or threatened use of deadly force, or there is a substantial risk that the person to be arrested will cause death or serious bodily injury if his apprehension is delayed.

The next, gradually becoming more restrictive, standard is the "Deadly-Force- Defense Standard." Under the "Deadly-Force-Defense Standard" a law enforcement officer may intentionally use deadly force against an individual only if the officer objectively reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the individual from inflicting imminent death or great bodily harm on the officer or others. The "deadly-force-defense standard" is the standard that most closely approximates most self-defense statutes.

Moving up the restrictiveness ladder, the next standard is the "defense of life standard." Often called the "CALEA(7) defense of life standard," the standard requires that, "an officer may use deadly force only when the officer reasonably believes that the action is in defense of human life, including the officer's own life, or in defense of any person in immediate danger of serious physical injury."(8) CALEA expressly prohibits the use of deadly force under the Garner "fleeing felon standard" and the Model Penal Code Standard.(9)

The CALEA "defense of life standard" contains a glaring ambiguity. The standard states that, "an officer may use deadly force only when the officer reasonably believes that the action is in defense of human life, including the officer's own life," and then the standard goes on to say that an officer can also use deadly force "in defense of any person in immediate danger of serious physical injury." The ambiguity arises in that the standard could be construed to mean that an officer can only use deadly force if the officer's life is in jeopardy and not if the officer is in immediate danger of serious physical harm. However, the officer can use deadly force in defense of "any person" in immediate danger of serious physical harm. So the question becomes, is the officer included in the term "any person" under the language of the standard? If the officer is included under "any person" then why is the officer delineated earlier in the standard, where the standard says "including the officer's own life?" If the officer is included in the term "any person" then this standard is identical to the "deadly force defense standard."

The most restrictive (intentionally used) deadly-force standard is the "preservation of life standard" as adopted by the Dallas (Texas) Police Department (among others). The "preservation of life standard" states that, "[r]egardless of the nature of the crime or the justification for firing at a suspect, officers must remember that their basic responsibility is to protect life. Officers shall not fire under conditions that would unnecessarily subject bystanders or hostages to death or possible injury, except to preserve life or to prevent serious bodily injury. Deadly force is an act of last resort and will be used only when other reasonable alternatives are impracticable or fail.(10)" [Emphasis added.] Further, the "preservation of life standard" requires that, "
  • fficers will plan ahead and consider alternatives which will reduce the possibility of needing to use deadly force(11)." [Emphasis added.]


While the "preservation of life standard" is the most restrictive policy that is (usually) intentionally promulgated, there are many policies that place even more restrictive use-of-deadly-force standards on officers. Some agencies, such as the Los Angeles Police Department, state that officers should use only the "minimum force that is necessary."(12) Other policies state that officers will exhaust all alternatives before resorting to deadly force. Many officers might think that these more restrictive use-of-deadly-force standards may not come back to haunt them after a use-of-force incident. However, if you watched the trial of the Los Angeles Police Officers who were accused of using excessive force on Rodney King, you may have noticed that the prosecutor accused Officer Powell of violating departmental policy because even if Officer Powell's use of force was "reasonable", it was still in violation of departmental policy because it was not the "minimum force that [was] necessary."

So the question becomes, what use-of-deadly-force policy should you adopt? That decision is yours and should only be made after very careful consideration. The most important point is to adopt ONLY ONE standard. Many policies improperly adopt more than one standard, and then expect the officers to be able to decipher which standard they will be held accountable to for a given incident. Remember: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A PERFECT POLICY. Having said this, lets look at some potentially problematic and confusing areas which we found in the use-of-deadly-force sections of the 1991 Los Angeles Police Department Policy. The following is for discussion purposes only and should not be interpreted as a criticism of the LAPD.

LAPD: Several Standards:

The LAPD Policy Manual Contains the Following Use-of-Deadly Force- Standards:

Deadly Force Defense Standard - "An officer is equipped with a firearm to protect himself or others against the immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury ..."(13)
Model Penal Code Standard - "An officer is equipped with a firearm ... to apprehend a fleeing felon who has committed a violent crime and whose escape presents a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury to others."(14)
Model Penal Code Standard - "An officer is authorized the use of deadly force when it reasonably appears necessary ... To apprehend a fleeing felon for a crime involving serious bodily injury or the use of deadly force where there is a substantial risk that the person whose arrest is sought will cause death or serious bodily injury to others if apprehension is delayed.(15)
The Crystal Ball Approach (using deadly force to PREVENT a crime) - "An officer is authorized the use of deadly force when it reasonably appears necessary ... To prevent a crime where the suspect's actions place persons in jeopardy of death or serious bodily injury ..."(16)
The ANY DOUBT Standard - "... Nor should an officer fire at a `fleeing felon' if the officer has any doubt whether the person fired at is in fact the person against whom the use of deadly force is permitted under the policy."(17)
Unconstitutional Standard (does not specify "imminent" bodily harm - unless officers are supposed to read "imminent" into "reasonable and necessary") - "... Officers are permitted to use whatever force that is reasonable and necessary to protect others or themselves from bodily harm."(18)
The NOT LIKELY Standard - "Officers shall not use deadly force to protect themselves from assaults which are not likely to have serious results."(19)
The Exhaust Other Reasonable Alternatives Standard - "... [F]orce may not be resorted to unless other reasonable alternatives have been exhausted or would clearly be ineffective under the particular circumstances..."(20)
The Minimum Force Necessary Standard - "... n keeping with the philosophy that the minimum force that is necessary should be used ..."(21)
The Extreme Caution Standard - "This Department has always utilized extreme caution with respect to the use of deadly force against youthful offenders. Nothing in this policy is intended to reduce the degree of care required in such cases."(22)
Using these use-of-deadly-force "standards", answer the following hypothetical. You are dispatched to an armed robbery in progress of a liquor store. Upon your arrival you see the suspect (a young looking minority male) shoot into the store in the direction of some people, you hear screams from inside the liquor store, the suspect then turns and runs in the general direction of a couple of on-lookers. You are faced with a tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving deadly-force confrontation. Governed by the LAPD Policy, make a quick, competent decision within policy? Remember, you may be able to use "reasonable force" in shooting the "fleeing felon", if the fleeing felon's "escape presents a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury to others," as long as you "exhaust all reasonable alternatives", while you use "the minimum amount of force necessary", as long as you "utilize extreme caution" in dealing with the possible juvenile. As you can see your decision will be difficult to say the least.

Now let's add one more quotation from the LAPD Policy Manual: "This policy is not intended to create doubt in the mind of an officer at a moment when action is critical and there is little time for meditation or reflection. It provides basic guidelines governing the use of firearms so that officers can be confident in exercising judgment as to the use of deadly force."(23) While only using the LAPD policy for an example as you can see what management appears to be saying in policy seems to be inconsistent with practice.

Summary:

When drafting and adopting a deadly-force policy make sure only one standard is used, and that it is consistent in its application. Policies must guide officers, reasonably limit their discretion in the field, and provide a basis for fair and consistent discipline. But don't stop with the mere writing of a policy and then issuing it to officers.

Be sure to give your officers the guidance, training, and supervision they need to allow them to make that decision under the harsh realities of the deadly-force confrontation. After all, making deadly-force decisions is a core task of the officer's duties.(24)


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

See generally: Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, 85 L.Ed.2d 1, 105 S.Ct. 1694, (1985); Pruitt v. Montgomery, 771 F.2d 1475, 1479 n. 10 (11th Cir. 1985); Model Penal Code § 3.11(2) (1962); Mattis v. Schuarr, 547 F.2d 1007, 1009 n. 2 (8th Cir. 1976)(en banc). Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, page 359. Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, page 580 - under heading "force." Restatement of Torts Second, 䅻(d). 
CALEA Standards, Chapter 1, Glossary, page 1-4, March 1991, revision. See also: Restatement of Torts Second, Section § 63(b); United States v. Johnson, 637 F.2d 1224, 1246 (9th Cir. 1980). 
See: Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, page 631. Wisconsin Statute § 939.22. Words and phrases defined, number (14). Klein v. Ryan, 847 F.2d 368 (7th Cir. 1988) - (Illinois). 
Graham v. Conner, 490 U.S. 386, 104 L.Ed.2d 443, 109 S.Ct. 1865 (1989). 
Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, 85 L.Ed.2d 1, 105 S.Ct. 1694 (1985). 
Model Penal Code Section 3.07. Use of Force in Law Enforcement. 
Commission on Accreditation of Law Enforcement Agencies. 
CALEA Standard 1.3.2 
CALEA Standard 1.3.3 A written directive specifies that use of deadly force against a "fleeing felon" must meet the conditions required by standard 1.3.2. 
Dallas P.D. Policy § 302.00 Use of Deadly Force, Section (A)(1). 
Dallas P.D. Policy § 302.00 Use of Deadly Force, Section (A)(2). 
1991 Manual of the Los Angeles Police Department, Section 556.35, page 108. 
1991 Manual of the Los Angeles Police Department, Section 556.25 Reason for the Use of Deadly Force, page 108. 
1991 Manual of the Los Angeles Police Department, Section 556.25 Reason for the Use of Deadly Force, page 108. 
1991 Manual of the Los Angeles Police Department, Section 556.40, The Use of Deadly Force, page 108. 
1991 Manual of the Los Angeles Police Department, Section 556.40, The Use of Deadly Force, page 108. 
1991 Manual of the Los Angeles Police Department, Section 556.55, Suspected Felony Offenders, page 108. 
1991 Manual of the Los Angeles Police Department, Section 240.10 Use of Force, page 98; also in Section 556.40, The Use of Deadly Force, page 108. 
1991 Manual of the Los Angeles Police Department, Section 556.40, The Use of Deadly Force, page 108. 
1991 Manual of the Los Angeles Police Department, Section 240.10 Use of Force, page 98; Section 556.40, The Use of Deadly Force, page 108. 
1991 Manual of the Los Angeles Police Department, Section 556.35, Minimizing the Risk of Death, page 108. 
1991 Manual of the Los Angeles Police Department, Section 556.60, Youthful Felony Suspects, page 108. 
1991 Manual of the Los Angeles Police Department, Section 556.10, Pream ble to the Policy on the Use of Firearms, page 108. 
City of Canton, Ohio v. Harris, et al, 489 U.S. 378, 109 S.Ct. 1197, 103 L.Ed.2d 412 (1989).

329
Martial Arts Topics / Re: Citizens defend themselves/others.
« on: March 09, 2013, 07:21:45 PM »
Well, I have put rounds on steel IPSC type targets  at 100 yards in a class. I was prone and had no time pressure though.

331
Martial Arts Topics / Radley Balko unavailable for comment
« on: March 06, 2013, 08:31:45 AM »
OMG! Militarized police use armored vehicle to......take an armed subject into custody without injury.

http://durangoherald.com/article/20130305/NEWS01/130309833/Standoff-concludes-peacefully-at-Vallecito-Reservoir-dam



Standoff concludes peacefully at Vallecito Reservoir dam


 By Dale Rodebaugh , Shane Benjamin Herald staff writers

Article Last Updated: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 10:18pm
 
 





A three-hour standoff ended peacefully Tuesday after law enforcement removed a La Plata County woman from her car near the dam at Vallecito Reservoir.


Suzanne Alsum, 41, faces charges of theft, prohibited use of a weapon and vehicular eluding, said Dan Bender, spokesman for the La Plata County Sheriff’s Office.


The incident began shortly before 9:40 a.m., when someone reported Alsum had stolen a rifle. A deputy who was responding found Alsum’s vehicle headed southbound in the Vallecito area.


The deputy followed the vehicle, and pulled Alsum over near the dam, Bender said.


She was uncooperative and refused to get out of the vehicle, he said. She called her daughter during the traffic stop and threatened to kill herself or have deputies kill her, Bender said.


The Sheriff’s Office SWAT team and the Bayfield Marshal’s Office responded. They placed spike strips in front of and behind her car, and an armored vehicle was brought in.


At some point, Alsum threw a revolver from the car, but deputies were unsure if she had other weapons.


Negotiators counseled the woman through a public-address system because cellphone service at the reservoir is not good, said Undersheriff David Griggs.


“Everything ended peacefully, although we had to break out a couple of windows of her vehicle,” he said.


Deputies eventually reached through the windows, grabbed her hands and took her into custody, Bender said.


The standoff came to an end about 12:30 p.m.


Traffic on County Road 501 was stopped during the standoff.


The woman is suspected of being under the influence of alcohol and medication, Bender said. She was taken to Mercy Regional Medical Center, where she was in critical condition Tuesday night as a result of a possible overdose, Bender said.




daler@durangoherald.com

332
http://www.jammiewf.com/2013/virginia-man-arrested-after-following-bidens-advice/

Virginia Man Arrested After Following Biden’s Advice


Posted by Jammie on Mar 01, 2013 at 7:58 am





We recommend this man call the idiot Biden as a defense witness.
 

Vice President Joe Biden told Field & Stream magazine in an interview published Monday, “[if] you want to keep someone away from your house, just fire the shotgun through the door.”
 
Coincidentally, a 22-year-old man in Virginia Beach, Va., was charged Monday with reckless handling of a firearm after doing just that a couple days earlier.
 
Local TV station WAVY 10 reports that the man observed two masked men leaning into his bedroom window. The men allegedly had weapons and told him to close his bedroom door. He stepped outside of his bedroom and did as instructed, then fired his shotgun through the closed door and then several more times at the window.
 
According to the news report there were no injuries and the suspects were not apprehended by police.
 
Biden’s comments to Field & Stream came as he summarized a hypothetical question in which someone from California pondered “when the end days come” or if there’s an earthquake.
 
Earlier this month, Biden told an interviewer that he had advised his wife, Jill, “if there’s ever a problem, just walk out on the balcony here, walk out and put that double-barrel shotgun and fire two blasts outside the house.”
 
According to Delaware attorneys contacted by U.S. News, in Biden’s home state it is only legal to use deadly force if there is reason to fear imminent loss of life. Shooting a gun in the air could result in felony reckless endangering and aggravated menacing charges, in addition to misdemeanor charges, the lawyers said.

333
Martial Arts Topics / Heartbeat away from the presidency
« on: February 27, 2013, 06:21:27 PM »
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/02/27/more-self-defense-advice-from-joe-biden-just-fire-the-shotgun-through-the-door/

More self-defense advice from Joe Biden: “Just fire the shotgun through the door”


posted at 8:41 pm on February 27, 2013 by Erika Johnsen






Because the advice he offered last week to simply “fire two blasts” outside the house wasn’t recklessly bogus enough, here’s the vice president expounding even further on his recommendations for in-home self-defense in an in-depth interview with Field & Stream on Monday (h/t Washington Examiner):
 

F&S: What about the other uses, for self-defense and target practice?
 
V.P. BIDEN: Well, the way in which we measure it is—I think most scholars would say—is that as long as you have a weapon sufficient to be able to provide your self-defense. I did one of these town-hall meetings on the Internet and one guy said, “Well, what happens when the end days come? What happens when there’s the earthquake? I live in California, and I have to protect myself.”
 
I said, “Well, you know, my shotgun will do better for you than your AR-15, because you want to keep someone away from your house, just fire the shotgun through the door.” Most people can handle a shotgun a hell of a lot better than they can a semiautomatic weapon in terms of both their aim and in terms of their ability to deter people coming. We can argue whether that’s true or not, but it is no argument that, for example, a shotgun could do the same job of protecting you. Now, granted, you can come back and say, “Well, a machine gun could do a better job of protecting me.” No one’s arguing we should make machine guns legal.
 
Honesty, did no one bother to inform the vice president, after his first round of similarly awful advice, that just blasting away on the back porch will 1) reveal your position, 2) leave you effectively disarmed, and 3) possibly get you into some legal trouble?
 
Personal anecdote, as a young woman of the sort at which the vice president heartily chuckled last week: I’m fairly handy with a twelve gauge, if I do say so myself — I’ve been using them for years on family shooting expeditions, so I’ve had plenty of practice time to get comfortable with them. Just this past Christmas, however, I had my first opportunity to try out an AR-15, and not knowing what to expect, I firmly nestled the ‘assault weapon’ into my shoulder, braced for impact, and… there was virtually no kick. Effortlessly accurate at both short and long distances, and easy to operate, too.
 
I would never argue that a shotgun is a good option for home defense and deterrence (especially those singularly musical sounds of a ready-to-go pump-action) in the case that a single intruder is bearing down on you, since it doesn’t take much precision at close range… but you better not miss. Tradeoffs, people.
 
And just firing the shotgun out the door when you think people might be looking to enter your home? …So much for “gun safety” advocacy.


G M: The myth that "you can't miss with a shotgun" is very common and very wrong. There are many factors involved in the patterning of individual shotguns, including ammo selection, chokes and bore size. As a less than perfect rule, you can expect that shot will spread one inch in diameter for every yard it travels from the muzzle of the shotgun. So, at 9 feet, the shot will have roughly expanded three inches in diameter. Can that miss an assailant? You better believe it!

334
Martial Arts Topics / Re: Knife Law
« on: February 26, 2013, 08:59:21 AM »
I were in Cali, I'd explain that any knife was part of my earthquake 72 hour kit. A knife w/ a glass breaker and seatbelt cutter would tend to support that as well, although the Rajah II is cool.  8-)

335
Martial Arts Topics / Re: thoughts?
« on: February 21, 2013, 05:51:08 PM »
http://reason.com/blog/2013/02/19/is-your-local-police-department-using-pi
Yawn.

Is it the position of Reason that children, or pregnant women can't be deadly force threats? I once arrested an elderly gentleman who's criminal history was about 7 feet long when it was printed out on an old dot matrix printer. Look at the pictures of some of your school shooters....

336
Martial Arts Topics / Re: VP Biden advises wife to break DE law
« on: February 21, 2013, 11:10:11 AM »

337
Martial Arts Topics / Re: Evil in Connecticut and elsewhere
« on: February 11, 2013, 12:41:20 PM »
In Mexico, Dorner would be a typical officer, yes?


Despite millions in U.S. aid, police corruption plagues Mexico

Mexico’s plague of police corruption
Despite millions in U.S. aid, forces continue to be outgunned, overwhelmed — and often purchased outright — by gangsters

DUDLEY ALTHAUS
, HOUSTON CHRONICLE | October 18, 2010

Federal police officers stand in formation in June while drug-dealing suspects are presented to the media in Mexico City. The officers' faces are covered to protect their identities. Photo: Eduardo Verdugo, Associated Press

MEXICO CITY — City cops killing their own mayors; state jailers helping inmates escape; federal agents mutinying against corrupt commanders; outgunned officers cut down in ambushes or assassinated because they work for gangster rivals.

Always precariously frayed, Mexico's thin blue line seems ready to snap.

Six prison guards were killed Wednesday as they left their night shift in Chihuahua City, 200 miles south of El Paso. On Tuesday, the head of a police commander supposedly investigating the death of an American on the Texas border was packed into a suitcase and sent to a local army base.

Mexicans justifiably have long considered their police suspect. But today many of those wearing the badge are even more brazenly bad: either unwilling or unable to squelch the lawless terror that's claimed nearly 30,000 lives in less than four years.

State and local forces, which employ 90 percent of Mexico's 430,000 officers, find themselves outgunned, overwhelmed and often purchased outright by gangsters.

Despite some dramatic improvements — aided by U.S. dollars and training under the $1.6 billion Merida Initiative — Mexico's 32,000 federal police remain spread thin and hobbled by graft. And many in Mexico consider the American investment little help so far against the bloody tide wrought by drug gangs.


Grasping for a cure, President Felipe Calderon and other officials are pushing to unify Mexico's nearly 2,000 municipal police under 32 state agencies that they insist can better withstand the criminals' volleys of bullets and cash.

"The tentacles of organized crime have touched everyone," said Ignacio Manjarrez, who oversees public security issues for a powerful business association in Chihuahua, the state bordering West Texas that has become Mexico's most violent. "There are some who are loyal to their uniform and others who will take money from anyone and everyone.

"We let it into our society. Now we are paying the consequences."

Many actions, few results

Across Mexico, local, state and federal police forces have been purged, then purged again. Veteran officers and recruits alike undergo polygraphs, drug tests and background checks. A national database has been set up to ensure that those flushed from one force don't resurface in another.

Still the plague persists.

One of the surest signals that rivals are going to war over a community or smuggling routes are the dumped corpses of cops who start turning up dead. Many, if not most, of the officers are targeted because they work for one gang or the other.

Scores of federal officers rebelled this summer, accusing their commanders of extortion in Ciudad Juarez, the murderous border city that Calderon pledged to pacify. As a result, Mexican officials fired a tenth of the federal police force.

The warden and some guards at a Durango state prison were arrested in July after a policeman confessed in a taped gangland interrogation that they aided an imprisoned crime boss's nightly release so he could kill his enemies.

Another prison warden and scores of guards were detained in August following the breakout of 85 gangsters in Reynosa, on the Rio Grande near McAllen.

On Friday, the governor of Tamaulipas state, which borders South Texas, ordered the purging of the police force in the important port city of Tampico. Gov. Eugenio Hernandez said he took the action following officers' apparent participation in this week's brief abduction of five university students in the city.

$100 million a month

Mexico's top federal policeman, Genaro Garcia Luna, has estimated gangsters pass out some $100 million each month to local and state cops on the take.

"There really is no internal capacity or appetite to try to get their arms around corruption," said a former U.S. official with intimate knowledge of Mexico's security forces. "Anyone who sticks their head up, wanting to make a change, is eliminated."

Edelmiro Cavazos, mayor of Santiago, a picturesque Monterrey suburb, had vowed after taking office to clean up its police force, which many believe is controlled by the gangster band known as the Zetas.

He barely got the chance to try.

Killers came for him in August, arriving at his home on five trucks, a surveillance tape showing their headlights slicing the night like knives as his own police bodyguard waved them in.

A workman found Cavazos' blindfolded and bound body a few days later, tortured, shot three times and dumped like rubbish along a highway outside Santiago.

The bodyguard and six other officers from Santiago's police force are among those accused in the killing.

"They considered him an obstacle," the Nuevo Leon state attorney general said.

Following Cavazos' slaying and that of 600 others in the Monterrey area this year, Nuevo Leon Gov. Rodrigo Medina proposed bringing municipal police forces under unified state command.

"We have to act as a common front," Medina told reporters. "If we are divided in isolated forces and we have a united organized crime against us and society, we aren't going to be able to articulate the forceful response we need."

New command structure

The tiny western state of Aguascalientes created a unified police command this week. And Calderon won support for the plan Tuesday from 10 newly elected governors.

"Having institutions that enjoy the full confidence of the public can't be put off," Calderon told the new governors. "The single police command is a crucial element in achieving the peace and tranquility that Mexicans deserve."

Although small training programs for state and local forces exist, American dollars by way of the $1.6 billion Merida Initiative until now have been aimed mostly at Mexico's federal police.

Intelligence gathering and sharing has been enhanced and computer systems upgraded. U.S. and other foreign experts have given extensive training to a third of the federal force, officials say, with another 10,000 Mexican officers attending workshops.

"Beyond the money, the Merida plan put information and technology at the disposal of the Mexican government," said Manlio Fabio Beltrones, president of Mexico's senate, whose Institutional Revolutionary Party is widely favored to reclaim the presidency in 2012.

Its critics argue that the U.S. aid has failed to curtail the violence, leaving communities and local police forces at the mercy of gangsters.

Javier Aguayo y Camargo, a retired army general who was replaced as Chihuahua City's police chief this month, said no one has "figured out how to make the reforms work."

"The resources of Merida remain at the federal level," Aguayo y Carmargo said. "We haven't felt any of it. They need to support the states and municipalities."

Gangs reverse gains

Chihuahua City, capital of the state bordering West Texas, underscores just how quickly the drug wars have overpowered even the best attempts to strengthen local police.

Under a succession of mayors since the late 1990s, the city's police steadily improved. Hiring standards were raised, record keeping improved, arrest and booking processes overhauled. A citizen's oversight committee was set up with significant influence within the department.

Three years ago, the 1,100-officer force became the first in Mexico to be accredited by CALEA, a U.S.-based law enforcement association that rigorously evaluates police administrative standards. Only a handful of other Mexican cities have since won accreditation.

Then Mexico's gangland wars arrived in 2008.

The city of 800,000 has been racked this year by an average of four killings daily, according to a recent study by El Heraldo, the leading local newspaper, about 30 times more than a few years ago. It now ranks as Mexico's third most murderous city, behind Ciudad Juarez and Culiacan, capital of the gangster-infested state of Sinaloa, federal officials say.

Scores of city police officers have been fired for suspected corruption. More than two dozen others have been killed, either gunned down in street battles or assassinated by gangsters.

"If with all this equipment and training they are overwhelmed by the criminals, what happens in other places?" said Manjarrez, the businessman who monitors public security matters in Chihuahua. "As prepared as we were, we never saw this tsunami coming."

dudley.althaus@chron.com

338
Martial Arts Topics / Re: Evil in Connecticut and elsewhere
« on: February 11, 2013, 12:33:07 PM »
So Crafty says:

"I dunno if attempted murder is the correct charge, but based upon current reports, these two officers showed extraordinarily poor judgment and lack of composure."
To which I reply:

"Yes. See Graham v. Connor."
Now the last time I checked, "yes" would mean agreement. Yes or no?

339
Martial Arts Topics / Re: Evil in Connecticut and elsewhere
« on: February 10, 2013, 12:36:27 PM »
In that most of the mass shootings have been done by raving loons, this seems relevant here:

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/editorials/ny_les_miserables_GEWsHcFSiFbeh2eHhw685H

The goal of the left is to turn all of America into a low grade mental ward, with them playing the role of Nurse Rached. 

340
Martial Arts Topics / Re: Evil in Connecticut and elsewhere
« on: February 10, 2013, 07:59:45 AM »
Yes. See Graham v. Connor.

341
Martial Arts Topics / Re: Evil in Connecticut and elsewhere
« on: February 10, 2013, 07:45:20 AM »
It's  my understanding that Mexican law enforcement Shoots unarmed people all the time, usually while in the employ of the cartels, yes?

342
Martial Arts Topics / Re: Evil in Connecticut and elsewhere
« on: February 09, 2013, 09:40:06 PM »
Well, not everyone can measure up to the high standards of Mexican law enforcement.

343
Martial Arts Topics / Re: Citizens defend themselves/others.
« on: February 08, 2013, 05:37:12 PM »
Only in California would the stoner with the bloody axe be the sanest person involved in an incident.

345
Martial Arts Topics / Re: Steven Seagal
« on: February 08, 2013, 05:27:59 AM »
Rooms that contain a buffet, right?

346
Martial Arts Topics / Duct tape
« on: February 01, 2013, 03:39:24 PM »
http://www.click2houston.com/news/Home-invasion-suspect-arrested-after-woman-opens-fire/-/1735978/18331728/-/format/rss_2.0/-/s329rz/-/index.html

Home invasion suspect arrested after woman opens fire

Suspect arrested at hospital

 Author: Camille Williams, Reporter, cwilliams@kprc.com

Published On: Jan 29 2013 10:18:36 PM CST Updated On: Jan 30 2013 08:27:52 AM CST

Mother distracts, shoots home invader

MAGNOLIA, Texas -
A home invasion suspect was arrested at a hospital after a mother shot him during the crime at a Montgomery County home, deputies said Wednesday.

Erin, who asked to be identified only by her first name, told Local 2 she was putting her 6-year-old son to bed when she heard a loud noise coming from her bedroom on Mink Lake Drive Friday night.

"I threw the cover over my son and I took off running, screaming to the living room to let my dogs out," she said.



Quick Clicks
Deputies: Mom surprises home invaders with gun

Erin said she turned around and saw three masked men, pointing a gun right at her.

"When I saw three of them, I knew I was in a lot of trouble. I said, 'The TV is the most expensive thing I own. You could take that through the front door and go with it,' and they said, 'No, the money, the money,'" said Erin.

Erin said she had to think fast as the men headed towards her son's room. The mom said she distracted the men as she rushed to get her gun.

"Somehow the way it happened, as they were going down the hallway, I told them sometimes I keep money under the mattress, which is not true. But I needed to get to where my gun was," she said.

The men followed her to her bedroom.

"I was pretending to move the mattress. It's really heavy, so I was trying to move their attention to the mattress because they wouldn't take their eyes off of me. I needed a split second for them to take their eyes off of me. I said, 'It might be under here.' They started talking to each other in Spanish and then a roll of duct tape came out," said Erin.

At this point, Erin said she prayed for something to distract them so she could grab her gun. She said her prayers were answered when her dogs ran in and started barking.

"They all turned around and looked. I grabbed my gun, cocked it, I turned and shot him right in the stomach," said Erin.

Two of the men escaped. Erin said she pointed a gun at a third suspect, but he went after her before she could shoot.

"We wrestled around in my bedroom and he came after me. I had my gun like this. He kneed me in the face. He just jerked the gun right out of my hand and took off," she said.

Next, Erin rushed to her son's room.

"I looked and saw Kaden and he had the covers up to his eyes," said Erin.

She grabbed her son, got another gun and called 911. The mother said her story would have ended much differently if she didn't have her pistol.

"Protecting yourself goes into our Second Amendment, the right to bear arms. And thousands of people died to give me the right that saved my life," said Erin.

The Montgomery County Sheriff's Office said Adrian Granados-Yepez, 27, of Tomball, was arrested at Memorial Hermann Hospital Monday night, where he was being treated for a gunshot wound.

Anyone with information on the other suspects is asked to call Montgomery County Crime Stoppers at 800-392-STOP.

Probably some poor undocumented Americans just wanting to help her with home repairs.

347
Martial Arts Topics / Anyone expect the MSM to pick this up?
« on: January 19, 2013, 02:26:12 PM »
http://www.kten.com/story/19848350/12-year-old-shoots-home-intruder

12 Year Old Shoots Home Intruder
Posted: Oct 17, 2012 5:29 PM MDT
By Alex Belser, Reporter

 BRYAN COUNTY, OK--A day off for fall break was anything but relaxing for a 12-year old Bryan County girl, when an intruder broke into her home on Michael Avenue.

Deputies say, the girl was home alone when a man she'd never seen before, rang the front doorbell. They say when no one answered the door, the man went around to the back of the house and kicked a door open. That's when authorities say, the girl grabbed a gun and hid in a bathroom closet.

"He had worked his way all the way through the house and into the bathroom. And from what we understand, he was turning the doorknob when she fired through the door." Says Bryan County Under sheriff, Ken Golden.

After the man was shot, The 12- year old ran out of the closet and called for help.
Authorities say she kept her cool despite the potential danger. "She was very brave, she stayed on the phone with the dispatcher the whole time - talked all the way through it and was still on the phone with dispatch when we got into the house." Says Golden.

Deputies tell KTEN, the man was taken by helicopter to a hospital in Plano, Texas and he's expected to survive.

Under sheriff Ken Golden says the girl is a hero and that under the circumstances, she did everything right to protect herself ."She did everything she was supposed to do and as a last resort, she did what she had to do to protect herself."

The Home intruder has been identified as Stacy Jones of Texarkana. So far no charges have been filed. The girl's name has not been released.


348
Martial Arts Topics / Re: Evil in Connecticut and elsewhere
« on: January 18, 2013, 02:16:35 PM »
Very good article by Ms Coulter. Incidentally, anyone who has not read the story of the 1927 school bombing really should. really places things in a different light.

Regarding the MEDICAL parts of the 23 executive orders, speaking as both a physician and an avid shooter/combat arms practitioner, there is nothing in the 23 points that goes beyond common sense with the exception possibly of directing the CDC to study gun violence - and that could be fine if done even-handedly and could even be helpful, although I don't trust the CDC to do a balanced analysis on this issue. There is nothing in the wording that states that I as a family practice Dr  HAVE to talk about guns, only that I am allowed to (which I do routinely on physical exams, especially for kids - reminding parents to secure arms and teach gun safety only makes sense). It is good to have a clarification that I am under no liability for reporting an obviously dangerous looney to the local PD - I am required to do it for unsafe driving, certainly should for truly obviously psychotic or violent patients. I tell you, living in a small town like I do, if I report such an individual can be a little nerve-wracking!  Striving for parity of mental health services with other services is LONG overdue. Overall, I think the executive orders are mostly reasonably balanced. Less draconian than I anticipated. That is being left to Congress, I suppose.

My understanding is that one state (I believe Connecticut) has proposed that all people seeking to purchase a gun need a letter from a doctor stating they are of sound mind. That is nuts and I am opposed to it on multiple practical and theoretical grounds. That is not among the proposed executive orders.

One danger we run into as people defending the 2nd amendment is that there are those who are irrational in their beliefs on both side; when we irrationally attack rational proposals, we feed into the "gun nut" stereotypes. There are a lot of  Americans out there with conflicted feelings on this issue. Alienating those who are attempting to be rational with Glenn Beck style rants and half truths doesn't help the cause. Remember that just because we disagree with it does not make a proposal irrational. There can be rational disagreement, in fact our system is built on it.  Irrational responses and over-the-top hyperbole just makes gun owners appear to be the paranoid crazies the gun-phobics think we are.  They are a lost cause. Its that large middle ground of Americans with mixed feelings on the issue we need to reach and show the light......

C Dr Dog

Correct me if I'm wrong, but under Obamacare, aren't all medical records supposed to be digital and accessed by the USG? Thus readily dataminable?

349
Martial Arts Topics / Re: Tactical Gun Issues
« on: January 04, 2013, 01:44:24 PM »
Thank you, sir!

This is exactly what I was looking for. The information about copper is very useful. I was under the exact opposite impression and was prepared to spend lots time and money to attempt to get every bit of copper out after every shooting session.

"remember cleaning is a support task, not a mission essential task. Keep guns functional clean and they will work."

I'm stealing this quote.  :-D

350
Martial Arts Topics / Barrel break procedure in for precision rifle?
« on: January 03, 2013, 03:05:03 PM »
I'm starting to develop my skillset in the realm of precision rifle. My rifle is a Remington 700 in .308 w/heavy bbl. I've gotten mixed messages on the need for barrel break in and procedures for doing it. Any suggestions? Sources to read up on?

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 22