Police State Current Activity


View Police State Watch in a larger map
Showing posts with label police. Show all posts
Showing posts with label police. Show all posts

Saturday, July 31, 2010

Why Are Police Trained To Be Cowards?

Posted by William Grigg on July 30, 2010 10:12 AM


Melissa Greenfield appeared to be a slender, ordinary 20-year-old woman wearing a neck brace. The device in her hand appeared to be a commonplace cell phone.
But viewed in light of the paramount law enforcement concern, “officer safety,” Greenfield was transformed into a potential SMERSH assassin. So the heroic Sgt. Jonathan Burke of Ohio’s Delaware County Sheriff’s Office simply had to arrest her, confiscate her property, and hold her in jail for three days, reports the Columbus Dispatch.
At least, that’s how we’re supposed to view what was done to Greenfield and her boyfriend, Colton Dorich, on July 9 at a Flying J truckstop near Columbus.
Like many others their age, the vacationing couple was funding their trip across the country by soliciting donations from other travelers. While this could be called panhandling, it isn’t a crime.
Dorich’s sign — which he displayed while walking his dog — triggered a passerby to call the police. When Burke arrived, he demanded that Dorich produce ID.  Melissa withdrew her T-Mobile phone and announced that she was quite sensibly making a record of the event “for legal purposes and our own safety.”
Unfortunately, Greenfield didn’t understand that in any encounter between an armed agent of state coercion and a mere Mundane, it is only the former who is entitled to protection.
“When a sheriff’s deputy encounters an individual holding something in his or her hand, the deputy will take action to identify the item. This is done for the safety of the deputy, the involved parties and the public,” insisted Delaware County Sheriff Walter L. Davis III.
Of course, “safety” in this context supposedly means unqualified submission to those wearing the habiliments of the state’s punitive priesthood, who are indoctrinated to believe that they are compassed about by countless potentially lethal threats.
“Not knowing what the item in her hand was and having prior knowledge of all types of hidden weapons, including a cell-phone gun, I asked her several times to place it in her pocket and to keep her hands free,” wrote the timid Sgt. Burke in his official report.
Several years ago, .22-caliber pistols disguised as cell phones were  seized in raids against organized crime syndicates in Europe. This generated a small wave of alarmist stories about this new threat to “officer safety,” one that supposedly changed the “rules of engagement” in police encounters. The disguised pistols are heavier than common cell phones; the chamber is loaded by twisting the “phone” in half. To date, not a single “deadly decoy” of that kind has materialized in the U.S.
Burke demanded that Greenfield surrender the camera. She properly refused that demand. So the armed stranger abducted Greenfield under color of supposed law by arresting her and charging her with “obstructing official business and resisting arrest.” (Dorich wasn’t charged.)
The young woman, who was wearing a neck brace following a traffic accident, was held in jail for three days before pleading no contest to the spurious obstruction charge, for which she was fined twenty dollars. The equally bogus resisting arrest charge was dismissed.
After it became clear that the mysterious object Greenfield carried was a common cellphone and not exotic Eastern European spy tech it was returned — but the video record of the police stop had been erased. Fancy that.
As he Burke drove Greenfield to jail, he lectured his kidnapping victim about the supposed danger she posed to him. The sergeant insisted that it was “unacceptable for me to be filming his activities,” Greenfield told the Dispatch.
It may have been “unacceptable” to Burke, whose mind was cluttered with paranoid, self-serving fantasies, but as Greenfield observes, there was no actual law against making a video record of police carrying out official tasks.
Because Burke was armed, he was able to impose his will on Greenfield. This is precisely the kind of bullying that the rule of law is supposed to prevent. Like too many others supposedly entrusted to enforce the law to protect the public, Sgt. Burke has been taught to act in the service of his unreasonable fears, in the interest of his own self-protection.

Thursday, April 29, 2010

Martial Law, troops coming to Chicago?

 
 
     For the second time in as many years, state and local public servants are discussing the possibility of calling in the National Guard in response to high levels of violent crime on the streets of Chicago. Could it be that a fully disarmed public are easy targets for thugs and organized criminals of all types? Well, we can be sure that the mayor will never put two and two together. Fortunately, there seems to be some healthy hesitation by the Chief of Police and the Governor. Read up on the Rand Corporations "Stability Police Force" for America. There are those in this country who seek to permanently destroy the barrier between the military and local law enforcement, in the name of quelling riots, mass demonstrations, and civil unrest. Indeed, as we all lose our jobs and our homes to the banking superclass- people are going to be angry! Will the police and military come to realize they are among the robbed, or will they ensure the wholesale looting of American wealth, the undermining of US sovereignty, and the destruction of our civil liberties?

#
FAIR USE NOTICE:
These videos may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes only. This constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law.

Video Aired April 26, 2010 - MSNBC Nightly News

Monday, February 1, 2010

Framing their Argument: Civil Unrest and the Push Towards Martial Law

Hopefully we can all agree that a peace officer's primary duty should be to protect the people's rights, and secondly to protect the people's property within their jurisdiction.

NOTE: IF AN OFFICER READS THIS AND FEELS DIFFERENTLY, PLEASE COMMENT BELOW, AND PREPARE TO ARGUE YOUR POINT.

As the process of global interdependence unfolds, the prime beneficiaries of this system are eroding the legal safeguards against totalitarian government. The Patriot Act has severely undermined the freedoms of the American people, and the banker bailout of late 2008 has funneled trillions of dollars into the hands of the global financial elite. Despite public optimism at the onset of the Obama administration, it is evident that government continues in the direction of secrecy, cronyism, and widespread corruption. As it becomes clear that real economic recovery is not in the cards, and that Americans are in for a serious decrease in their standards of living, the oligarchs are looking at ways of maintaining their social order.

As this blog has covered in the past, there is a serious risk of civil unrest in the coming years. The question is, will law enforcement generally demand that the people (themselves and their families included) see that justice is done, no matter how high up the corruption goes, or will they simply follow orders from criminals? Being that the globalist elite have their agents deep within all relevant levels of government, it is in their interests to oversee a federal takeover of state and local police. The intellectual framework for this consolidation is being lain as we speak; the old Hegelian Dialectic: problem, reaction, solution.

Now, we all know that a cop's job is not easy. But at a time when our culture is spiritually sick, our savings is in the midst of destruction, and for millions the future looks quite bleak, it isn't about to get any easier. By nearly any measure, the general public is mentally/spiritually ill. Hope is on the decline, and violence is on the rise. At a time when government is roundly mistrusted and utterly irresponsible in fiscal matters, the police are being used as the state's enforcer, taxman, and bill collector. Moreover, the police (by default) stand as a separation between the government and the people. It is the American political establishment that has put law enforcement officers (LEOs) in this position, and their manipulation is plain to see in the media and on the web.

The trio of articles below lay out this version of the Hegelian Dialectic. Although I doubt that there was any intentional collaboration between the authors of the following pieces, these ideas are rampant on the intellectual outlets for the Law Enforcement community. Each article has been published within the last six-to-eight weeks, and intentionally promotes an antagonistic view of the current societal landscape, and the steps the authors deem necessary to confront it.


PROBLEM: "Are America's officers at war?" - Joel F. Shults, Ed.D.


As if the precarious situation that LEOs have been shoved into isn't problematic enough, Chief Joel Schultz of Alamosa, Colorado highlights the recent spike in police homicides. Schultz ties the pain of losing his comrades to the angry taunting of minorities who were on the scene following the shooter's execution, and anonymous message board posts after the well-publicized deaths of three Oakland police officers:

    "They will say the officers “got what they deserved” and that the public has lost confidence, that police are a violent racist occupying force. One blog said, “As the police and media work to defame and slander Lovelle Mixon [the murderer], we express our total solidarity.”"

It is not difficult to find hate-laced tirades against anyone, on any subject in the anonymous world of internet message boards (police officers not excluded). Surprisingly, Schultz seems most concerned about "a perfect storm of social factors" leading to widespread public criticism of heavy-handed police actions. In the wake of the recent rash of police murders, Schultz is just as concerned with media and public criticism of law enforcement agencies. He uses rhetoric that intends to anger fellow officers, and then attempts to psychologically profile those who are critical of the police; suggesting that anyone tired of police using brutal force against fellow citizens have some dangerous larger agenda. Rather than performing any self-evaluation, particularly regarding attitudes within minority populations, Schultz determines "we need to take the kind of connect-the-dots examination of patterns of violence that we have learned to do with terrorism." Like many posts on LEO forums like policeone.com,officer.com, and policelink, the article sends a powerful (if not subconscious) message to the casual reader: You are at war! It's you against the world! And that's a dangerous precedent to set.

REACTION: "SWAT options for multiple shooter terrorist attacks" - Lt. Andrew Esposito

If we are to accept the thesis of Mr. Schultz, then the officer on the beat is no longer a public servant, but a soldier in a war zone against a determined enemy. The predictable recommendation is that the police are too lightly armed against potential crises like those in Beslan and Mumbai in recent years. Lieutenant Andrew Esposito, Commander of Rockland County, NY's (REACT) anti-terror unit, warns of the need to investigate "how to deal with terrorism, whether it is domestic or foreign." Lt. Esposito bemoans the restraint that Posse Comitatus puts onto law enforcement in these United States:

    "We, on the other hand, follow the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 (meaning “the power of the county”), which was passed following the civil war after the federal government used troops to uphold the law, or “occupy”, the south in an effort to stabilize the country. Due to this statue, which was passed over one hundred years ago, our country is now more vulnerable."

Well, Lieutenant, the Bill of Rights is a couple of centuries old. Has it become outdated? Common Law has served as our legal framework for a half of a millennium, should we get rid of it, too? This article serves as an attempt to justify a return to an ugly period in American history, the Reconstruction era, which effectively diluted our republican form of government. Those state boundaries represent the people's only safeguard from a tyrannical federal government. We are not Cuba or Pakistan, and we do not want soldiers in our streets. Lt. Esposito believes that "due to Posse Comitatus, [law enforcement] response will be slow, and too late." The Lieutenant spends the rest of the article laying out the shortfalls of police capability to handle mass hostage-type attacks, and the lacking capacity for LEOs to serve as infantryman in an emergency. This piece serves to illustrate the perceived necessity for the army to be able to operate as another asset of law enforcement inside the US.      

SOLUTION: A Stability Police Force for the United States - RAND     Corporation

Right on cue, the infamous Rand Corporation has released their plan for a hybrid Army/civilian high-end policing outfit; the Stability Police Force (SPF) for America. Amazingly, this report outlines just the type of force, with the type of capabilities, called for in Lt. Esposito's article. In their introduction, they skirt around the fact that the unit is intended for domestic operations. But in contemplating the current strategy options, Rand concludes that the current status of forces is:

    "constrained by the limits placed on its ability to perform civilian policing functions by the Posse Comitatus Act. Without relief from this constraint, it could not take advantage of the opportunities provided the hybrid staffing option to develop and maintain the needed skills."

Those who had been tasked to put this report together almost certainly had a primary objective of justifying an end to Posse Comitatus, a frightening thought for any liberty concerned historian. The authors skillfully frame the debate around the need for an effective police force with availability for rapid foreign deployment. The SPF "can perform law enforcement functions and so contribute to domestic tranquility and homeland defense when not deployed" p105 (anyone else thinking 'enemy combatant status'?). Ah, yes, they will contribute to domestic tranquility and receive vital training; RAND has it all figured out. They envision something of a European model of deployment, and lay it out as such:

    "forces perform civilian functions when they are not deployed abroad. For instance, Carabinieri officers perform a range of civilian tasks in Italy, such as countering organized crime and conducting crowd and riot control. Gendarmerie officers are deployed under the Ministry of Interior in France, and routinely perform such tasks as criminal investigations and highway patrol. We concluded that this practice of engaging in civilian tasks on a routine basis was extremely useful preparation for when the organizations deployed abroad during stability operations. Such experience is difficult to get only through training."

The report touted that SPF soldiers "working as police officers would greatly contribute to the state of training and readiness of SPF personnel." Although the authors admit that the hurdles are "probably insurmountable," RAND does submit "the issue of contractors performing law enforcement functions."

Much of the document centers around high-end policing, or police that

    "fill a critical gap between military forces and civilian police. They are trained to deal with higher levels of crime and violence than regular civilian police, and are able to perform such tasks as high-end criminality identification, criminal investigation, special weapons and tactics (SWAT), crowd and riot control, and intelligence collection and analysis."

It is troublesome that intelligence agencies and non-governmental organizations have forecast an increase in civil unrest. The ongoing tea-party movement is likely the beginning of a popular uprising against the status-quo. Rather than to investigate government corruption and imprison the perpetrators of Wall St. fraud, articles such as these suggest that the military-industrial-complex is gearing up to face down those who demand justice on behalf of those who have perpetrated the criminal conspiracy.

























Saturday, January 16, 2010

Tyranny!: The Numbers Don't Lie


Attempting to quantify the nature or extent of the existing police state is not an easy task. How does one judge corruption, political repression, domestic surveillance, etc. After all, there is no international index of unjust laws, corrupt cops, paid-off judges and the like. There are a number of projects on the web that look at the raw data and try to do just that. I attempt to collate them here, and, in conclusion, you make your own judgement.

Total Number of Police (by Country)
Source: The Eighth United Nations Survey on Crime Trends and the Operations of Criminal Justice Systems (2002) (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Centre for International Crime Prevention)
  1. India 1,032,960
  2. United States 941,139
  3. Mexico 495,821
  4. Italy 322,433
  5. Germany 250,104
  6. Japan 231,700
  7. Thailand 215,450
  8. Turkey 165,833
  9. United Kingdom 152,576
  10. France 124,284
Number of Prisons (by Country)
Source:The Eighth United Nations Survey on Crime Trends and the Operations of Criminal Justice Systems (2002) (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Centre for International Crime Prevention)
  1. Malaysia 26,294
  2. Hong Kong 10,593
  3. Papua New Guinea 9,474
  4. Latvia 8,110
  5. Kuwait 2,566
  6. United States 1,558
  7. Oman 1,164
  8. Russia 739
  9. Turkey 504
  10. Mexico 448
Number of Prisoners (by Country)
Source: The Eighth United Nations Survey on Crime Trends and the Operations of Criminal Justice Systems (2002) (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Centre for International Crime Prevention)
  1. United States 2,019,234
  2. China 1,549,000
  3. Russia 846,967
  4. India 313,635
  5. Brazil 308,304
  6. Thailand 213,815
  7. Ukraine 198,386
  8. South Africa 181,944
  9. Mexico 172,888
  10. Iran 163,526
Number of Prisoner per capita (by Country)
Source: International Centre for Prison Studies - World Prison Brief
  1. United States 715 per 100,000 people
  2. Russia 584 per 100,000 people
  3. Belarus 554 per 100,000 people
  4. Palau 523 per 100,000 people
  5. Belize 459 per 100,000 people
  6. Suriname 437 per 100,000 people
  7. Dominica 420 per 100,00 people
  8. Ukraine 416 per 100,000 people
  9. The Bahamas 410 per 100,000 people
  10. South Africa 402 per 100,000 people
The Electronic Police State (by country)
Source: Cryptohippie, Inc.'s report called the Electronic Police State, a 2008 ranking of government high tech mass surveillance against its own people. 52 nations are graded on a scale of 1 to 4 (1=most free, 4=least free), in 17 different pertinent categories.
  1. China 3.58/4.00
  2. North Korea 3.47/4.00
  3. Belarus 3.29/4.00
  4. Russia 3.17/4.00
  5. United Kingdom 3.17/4.00
  6. United States 3.11/4.00
  7. Singapore 3.11/4.00
  8. Israel 3.05/4.00
  9. France 3.05/4.00
  10. Germany 3.05/4.00
Erosion of Civil Liberties in Developed, Democratic States (by country) ie. Lowest Scores
Source: Data from the Economist Intelligence Unit's Index of Democracy 2008, Interpreting column V data on Civil Liberties among economically developed Full-Democracies (Rankings 1 to 10, with 10 being most free).
  1. South Korea 8.24/10
  2. United States 8.53/10
  3. Slovenia 8.82/10
  4. United Kingdom 8.82/10
  5. Italy 9.12/10
  6. France 9.12/10
  7. Austria 9.12/10
  8. Portugal 9.41/10
  9. Greece 9.41/10
  10. Belgium 9.41/10
Now, if you as an American, are comfortable with an 8 out of 10 when it comes to our guaranteed civil rights, well than go in peace. There are many "flawed democracies" and developing nations that receive higher marks than us here in the Land of the Free, and the Home of the brave! For example, India may have a dysfunctional government, but it receives a 9.41 in protecting civil liberties. Amazingly, Mexico receives an 8.82 rating!
Make of it all what you will. If you want to pat yourself on the back, read Freedom House's Freedom in the World (66% funded by the US government). It paints a rosy, if not downright ignorant, picture of personal freedoms in today's United States. The statistics seem to prove that the good old USA has made a big business out of the criminal justice system. Particularly when viewing the stats on prisoners per capita, it would seem as if our huge government is nearly as oppressive as the states it admonishes for human right violations.