The Economist's Cookbook

http://www.thenewstribune.com/2010/09/25/1356027/state-patrol-officer-shoots-pregnant.html
Well, Let's see, Drug War? Check. Pregnant Suspect running from the people kicking her door in with guns? Check. Shooting of said pregnant female? Check. Now this fine upstanding officer will most likely get put on desk duty during the investigation, and be back at work in a month. If a concealed carry permit holder pulled a stunt like this, we'd never hear the end of it from the Brady Campaign. Keep licking your master's hand boys.

I'm not saying that drug dealers are nice people. I'm not saying that they are roll models. I'm not saying that drugs aren't destructive to one's health. But so are burgers, nicotine, and many prescription drugs. It's this goddamn neurotic thought that somehow these boys in blue are better then we are. Bullshit. These guys are people and should be trusted no more than you or I.

I found this especially interesting. It's very much worth watching and raises some interesting arguments in the justice sphere. How can we hope to "rehabilitate" people that are literally ticking bombs from a neuroscience standpoint.



Thoughts?

The US Justice Dept. is hiring Ebonics experts to decode bugged calls.

Today's Recipient is one Judge Thomas V. Gainer Jr. from Chicago.

Let's do a bit of looking at this shall we?

1.) Cop gets videotaped drinking shots and other beverages before getting into his car.
2.) Cop causes an accident resulting in two fatalites.
3.) Cop cleared of all charges.

Prosecutors made two attempts to prove that Ardelean did. After the two-vehicle fatal crash Nov. 22 in Roscoe Village, Ardelean was charged with misdemeanor DUI -- later upgraded to a felony. But those charges were dismissed when Cook County Judge Don Panarese ruled there was "no indication" Ardelean, who was off-duty at the time, was drunk. Prosecutors reinstated charges after saying they had a lengthy surveillance videotape showing Ardelean drinking five shots and other drinks at a North Side bar shortly before the crash.

Prosecutors also suggested in pretrial hearings that police the night of the crash turned a blind eye to Ardelean's intoxication. Among other things, he wasn't arrested or given a Breathalyzer until seven hours after the crash. But Gainer ruled in April that the supervising officer who ultimately made the arrest didn't have strong enough evidence to do so. Gainer's ruling also suppressed key blood-alcohol evidence.

So what does the judge in this case do? Well he throws out the video evidence of course.

Now I ask my readers, if one of us had pulled a stunt like this, what would have happened to us? More appropriately, what would have happened to one of us if we had killed two cops while driving drunk?

Remember kids: The cops are not on your side. They are not your friend. They are NOT there to "protect and serve" you.

FlexYourRights.org has put up their "10 Rules For Dealing With Police Encounters" on youtube.

This is split up into 4 sections. I'm sure that most liberty activists know these rules and know your rights, but it never hurts to brush up, just in case you have to use them. I have refused to consent to a search. The officer didn't like it, but I was allowed to leave. So review them! With thousands of laws, legal codes etc. you never know what might be illegal these days. So know your rights, be respectful (difficult to do, but entirely necessary) and calmly assert your rights.
Part 1:

Part 2:

Part 3:

Part 4:

Remember the cops are NOT your friend. It doesn't matter how well intentioned they may be. They are not on your side.

Stay safe and stay smart.

...And what's more ... THEY GET AWAY WITH IT.

REALLY?! I mean come on.

Some real gems from the article:

She insisted it was the car in front of her that was speeding, and refused to sign the ticket because she thought she'd be admitting guilt.

Rather than give her the ticket and let her go on her way, the officers decided to arrest her. One reached in, turned off her car and dropped the keys on the floor. Brooks stiffened her arms against the steering wheel and told the officers she was pregnant, but refused to get out, even after they threatened to stun her.

So naturally she sues the hell out of the parties involved, as she should. But wait it gets better.

But in a 2-1 ruling Friday, a panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed. Judges Cynthia Holcomb Hall and Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain held that the officers were justified in making an arrest because Brooks was obstructing them and resisting arrest.

The use of force was also justified because of the threat Brooks posed, Hall wrote: "It seems clear that Brooks was not going to be able to harm anyone with her car at a moment's notice. Nonetheless, some threat that she might retrieve the keys and drive off erratically remained, particularly given her refusal to leave the car and her state of agitation."

Holy Crap. yeah her reaching down and grabbing those keys to drive off erratically is about as likely as her sprouting wings to flee the scene!

Ya know, I know cops have a crap job and get a ton of garbage thrown at them in their line of work. But this is completely unacceptable. Having a high stress and dangerous job does NOT justify the arbitrary use of force whenever you feel like it!

This behavior will continue until the populace starts actually resisting, then things will get interesting.

Man arrested for crossing the street with a Pizza.

In the fashion of David Codrea from War on Guns I hereby dub this a "We're the 'Only Ones' With Munchies" article.

He walked down Church Street to the nearest pizza shop, which happens to be in Canada, and said that to his surprise he was stopped by state police and told that crossing on Church Street is illegal.
...
Fed up by what he perceived as hostility from the officer, Roy walked down the street, crossing the border a second time. And then a third."I went back and did it again, and this time I was met by the border patrol and he frisked me and handcuffed me, put me in the back of his cruiser, took me to border patrol headquarters, put me in a cell, held me for three hours, then let me out and told me I was going to be fined $500 dollars," Roy said.

Yes this will end well. Remind me why cops are even relevant?

But this raises three distinct issues.

1.) Border patrol agents need to get the pineapple out of their ass and leave people alone. At worst what should have happened is they should have asked to see the inside box to verify it wasn't filled with cocaine (please note I am against the drug war, I'm speaking hypothetically here). and wished the man a pleasant night and a good dinner.

2.) The liberties that police and law enforcement officers think they can take with people has gotten completely out of hand as the "DO YOU KNOW WHO I AM?" mentality has spread like cancer through the ranks of those that are supposed to protect people from ... you know ... real criminals.

3.) You NEVER separate a man from his pizza, it's just not right.

Copwatching (n):
1.) The act of observing law officers.
2.) The intent to keep your law officers honest by observing how they treat the public.

Article: http://www.wwl.com/Suit-claims-police-harass-journalists-and-bystande/6578605
Except that all over the country if you photograph, observe, or film a police officer doing anything you are most likely going to get your camera etc. taken from you as "evidence" where it will mysteriously come back to you without the relevant pictures or data on it.

The plaintiffs cite 11 other incidents since 2005 in which people were arrested or allegedly threatened while videotaping, photographing or merely observing police officers. The list of potential plaintiffs' witnesses includes Times-Picayune city editor Gordon Russell and Associated Press Television News producer Rich Matthews.

"It is a widely accepted and established custom for police officers to arrest or threaten people for filming them," said Brittany Barrient, a student attorney from the Tulane Law Clinic who represents Griffith and Learned.

Ladies and Gentlemen ... it is NOT just a few bad apples spoiling the barrel. There is an institutional problem that encourages thuggery, the rampant violation of rights, the "Only One" mentality (as David over at WoG) refers to it. We have a problem in your country and that is that no one in the justice and law enforcement system is accountable for their actions unless they go to such extremes as running over kindergartners with a tank!

But the article is interesting because it hales from the legally embattled state of LA. You know the state that just had a huge snafu over their officers shooting unarmed and nonthreatening people in a post-Katrina bloodbath.

I've met some good cops and serious props go to the cops that are a part of Oath-Keepers, but goddamn boys, some of your fellow members need to get a reality check.