Mall Cop’s Fight Highlights Public Misinformation on Authority

This article may seem contrary to the mission here, but I think it’s important that we, as citizens, know exactly what rights we do and don’t have, and precisely what the nature of authority really is in America today.

It becomes all too easy to cry “foul” when we see authorities throwing a temper tantrum, but that does not always mean they are wrong, or that a use of force was not justified.

So while we may not weep for the loss of a soldier in the army of tyrants, it is till important to understand that anarchy is no better solution than a police-state.

Now having said that, I believe the following article does an excellent job of pointing out how this authority did the right thing, the wrong way.

Thanks to Captain Six at Station.6.Underground for another contribution here.

*  *  *

This incident happened back in May, but I have decided to show it here since there is still quite a bit of discussion going on about it, and quite a lot of misinformation.

In the video you will see a Security Guard, under contract with the Cafaro company, attempt to enforce the regulations of the Ohio Valley Mall. A physical confrontation ensues. The debate here swirls around all sorts of misunderstanding by the general public, and the public's general disdain for authority.

As any regular reader here knows, I am not fan of authority myself, and certainly no "cop lover." But while I have to agree that this guard acted foolishly, technically, she had every right* to do what she did. The woman she confronted should have been arrested and charged.

VIDEO LINK

The primary misconception that the public often has is that security guards have no legal authority. This is completely incorrect. In some ways, private security guards actually have more power than a police officer.

You see, a police officer must have either probable cause that a crime has been committed or be acting under emergency authority in order to issue you a command. A security guard on the other hand, is acting as the agent of the property owner. Essentially, a guard has as much authority over their jurisdiction as you have in your own home.

The police may enforce the law, but that is where their authority ends. The security guard on the other hand, may enforce the law, any rule or regulation of the property, and may even make up rules as they go along. The only real exception there is that the guard can't compel you to commit a crime.

A guard might enforce a "shoes required" dress code for the mall, even though there is no law that says you have to wear shoes. A guard might also tell you to get up an move, right after you sat down at a table in the food court. The guard would have no obligation to explain why, and would not have to cite a "you can't sit here" rule in mall regulations. The guard might simply be telling you to move because that space was reserved, or perhaps there is a crew coming to fix a water leak there. Or maybe the guard just wanted that table for themselves. It doesn't really matter legally speaking. Now granted, a guard who goes around bullying people without cause or to get the best table in the foodcourt is not going to be looked upon well by their employer, or even fellow guards, but the legal authority is there just the same. 

So specific to this situation here now. A police officer might very well tell these people that they cannot photograph there, and order them to move along. While taking photographs is not illegal, the officer may establish a scene perimeter because of the emergency situation and enforce special circumstances within that scene. They might tell you to move along for reasons of safety, or even tell you that your photos are subject to confiscation as evidence in an ongoing investigation.

(It should be noted here, that emergency authority if often used to enforce some level of common decency too. Aside from being material evidence in an investigation, no one wants to see pictures circulated on the internet of their loved one's mutilated remains being extricated from a twisted wreck along some highway. And you probably wouldn't want to see a bunch of rubberneckers oogling you while you die either.)

The guard also has, generally speaking, this same emergency authority. Being a security guard does not grant that authority outside of their jurisdiction, but here on the mall property, the guard was indeed helping to manage an emergency situation and a hazardous condition within her jurisdiction as a consequence of the emergency. She could not go running out to the interstate and do the same thing, but there on mall property she had every right to do what she did.

Now here is where the guard's power goes even beyond that of a police officer. Even if there had been no truck rolled down the embankment, no emergency situation, the guard still had the authority to tell those folks to stop taking pictures and to move along. Not only were they impeding the flow of traffic and creating a hazardous safety condition, but the guard also has no obligation to explain herself to them. She didn't have to have a reason at all, legally speaking, as we have already seen with the foodcourt example. But at the same time, if one of those idiots had gotten run over they probably would have turned right around and sued the mall over it.

Okay, so we have now established that a guard can enforce the law and help to maintain a secure perimeter in an emergency situation. We have also seen that a guard may enforce the rules of the property, which may not have anything to do with actual laws. We have even seen that a guard has the right to make up the rules as they go. Just as you could in your own home. You could tell other people they can't smoke in your home while you sit down and light up a fat cigar. The guard is the legal agent of the property owner, and therefore has the same authority as the property owner.

But what can the guard actually do to enforce these rules? It's simple really. They can tell you to leave. And if you refuse to leave? Well then, now you have committed a crime. Criminal trespass. You are now subject to arrest. The guard may use physical force to affect that arrest, or may simply use physical force to stop you from continuing your criminal activity. This is the same authority a nightclub bouncer uses when they kick out drunks. If they ask you nicely to leave, and you don't, you're in trouble. This is the same in a bar, a mall, or when you are in someone's own home. You can be ejected through physical force, and you are subject to a criminal prosecution.

So yes folks, rent-a-cops do indeed have authoritahhh. In many ways, more so than a police officer. In fact, a guard could supersede the commands of a police officer, or even eject a police officer from the property in some instances, depending on the specifics. 

The last argument that can be made here is that the guard was not actually on private property, but public property. I have seen this argument made, but it is simply not true. Even if you let the public onto your property, let's say for a yard sale as an example, it is still your property and you have the right to kick someone out. This is true even of businesses like malls, that are often thought of as public areas, even when they really are not. This has been upheld numerous times and is well established in case law. Mall property is not public property.

Furthermore, where this incident took place was not a public roadway. The truck rolled over from the public interstate, but where the guard's confrontation occurred was on Mall Ring Road, which is private property. It is not owned or maintained by any public entity, but instead secured and maintained through private contracts. the guard was within her jurisdiction. The fact that it is private property has been established by numerous media reports and is also evident by the fact that the road is not accessible to Google Earth's Street View.

So all in all here, we must now conclude that the people taking pictures and loitering, were wrong, and that the guard was legally in the right. Not only was she enforcing mall regulations, she was also protecting the interests of the mall owners, and the safety of the very people who had become confrontational with her. Although we hear in the video some talk about who touched who her first, we also see now that the guard had every right to initiate physical force to enforce the mall's security.

The guard was under no obligation to "call the police" as some have suggested, because the guard herself is in fact the authority there.

Now, having said all of this in defense of the guard, we might also look at the manner in which she performed her duty. This is the real problem here. What she did was completely legal, and the other folks were indeed breaking the law at that point, we can also see this as an example of a total lack of professionalism. A lack of training and experience could be blamed here as much as any judgement of the guard's personality. So in that sense, we might even blame her employers partially for this incident. But it seems clear enough that whatever the reason, the guard lacked a certain level of professionalism. She lost control of her own temper, and at least partly because of that, she lost overall control of the situation. Meeting belligerence with belligerence and escalating a situation beyond one's control are not hallmarks of security and/or law-enforcement professional conduct.

Having worked int he field myself, I will share my opinion here on what I might have done in that situation. First, I would have established my authority with what is known as command presence. this can be accomplished through everything from wearing a well-fitting, neat uniform, to posture, to speaking in an authoritative tone, eye contact, and in general expressing an air of professional confidence.

When my commands were not followed, I would have selected on of two options. First, to continue my hard-ass approach and call for immediate backup. At that point, I have made a supervisor aware of an escalating situation. It is then left to them to either order me to disengage, or to send reinforcement to press the issue. The alternative for me would have been to humanize myself a bit. To try to build a small rapport of understanding, and basically tell them why they can't be there taking pictures.

"Look guys, I'm just doing my job. If one of you gets hit by a car, it's my ass," is something I might have said.

Or maybe, something a little condescending even like, "Come on people. Really? How morbid are you? Don't sit here taking pictures of someone having the worst day of their lives."

The idea here is to engage in a bit of coercive conversation, rather than just start screaming and yelling. If at that point they still refused to follow instructions, I would fall back to the first choice, and call a supervisor/dispatch for reinforcement and/or further instructions.

The guard's inability to stay calm, and to effectively maintain order led to her being fired from her job in the end. No charges were filed against her, which goes to show that she was legally justified in what she did. But at the same time, her employer saw the guard was unable to do her job effectively, and sent her on her way. Because of that, it is little surprise that the mall elected not to pursue charges against the transgressors.

So the next time you start making wise cracks at the mall cops, just remember that most are more professional than you give them credit for. They are at the short-end of plenty of jokes, they bite their tongue and carry on. Think what you want about security guards, but don't make the mistake of thinking that they are powerless. If pushed, they really can mess up your day. At the very least they can tell you to get the hell out and never come back.

Click here for an article on the incident from a local news source

*DISCLAIMER: This article is not intended as legal advice. Consult an attorney to learn the specific regulations and guidelines in your state and/or location

It May Soon Be a Felony to Annoy a Cop in NY

You read that right. The NY State Senate has passed a bill that is now before the Assembly, which will make it a felony, punishable by four years in prison, "TO HARASS, ANNOY, THREATEN OR ALARM A... POLICE OFFICER."

Many opponents are concerned that this law will be misused in a number of ways, but particularly against citizens and reporters who film police encounters. Police routinely abuse laws that are on the books already. Everything from arbitrary laws such as disorderly conduct and obstruction of police administration, to resisting arrest and assault on a police officer.

In this incident, a deaf and mentally handicapped woman was charged with felony assault on a police officer for the crime of acting as the officer's punching bag. In this case, a trucker was beaten within an inch of his life for the crime of obstruction, and resisting arrest. And in this case, a man was sentenced to 18 years in prison after he was shot by police in his own bed in the middle of the night. Police had raided the house with a no-knock warrarnt on the suspicion that it was a drug house, but only discovered personal use paraphernalia after shooting the man numerous times.

There are thousands of incidents like these which show police abuse of authority with the existing laws that are already in place. Even cases that defy logic entirely, like being arrested for resisting arrest. How can one be arrested for resisting arrest, if there is no other charge to justify an arrest in the first place?

New York lawmakers have justified their proposal as follows:

JUSTIFICATION:  Police officers all across this state put their  lives on  the  line  every  day  to protect the people of New York. New York State must establish laws and toughen existing laws that  protect  the police   from   becoming  victims  of  criminals.  Far  too  many  law enforcement officers are being harassed, injured,  even  killed  while honoring  their  commitment  to  protect  and  serve  this  state. The Legislature has a responsibility to do everything we  can  to  protect our  brave  heroes,  our police officers, from violent criminals. This legislation contributes to that premise.

As far as the notion that police officers are "putting their lives on the line" goes, this doesn't seem to be a a reasonable justification for making the police a privileged class protected by their own special set of laws that the average citizen does not enjoy. Fisherman are putting their lives on the line every day, in order to bring you fish-sticks and crab legs. They have the most dangerous job in America, followed by loggers. In fact, police officers rarely make the top 10 list for most dangerous jobs in America, yet cabbies, truckers, even refuse truck workers are more likely to be killed at work than a police officer.

If we are going to give police officers this special protection, perhaps we should also demand that the police be held especially accountable for crimes which violate the public trust.

I propose that we make it a felony, to commit a crime, while employed as a police officer, and especially crimes committed while in uniform or on duty. All too often, we see just the opposite. Rather than police being held accountable for crimes and betrayal of the public trust, they are given special privilege and shown gross favoritism in every phase of the accountability process.

The following links will show you just how unbalanced justice really is, between we the people, and they, the stormtroopers of the privileged class.

What Can We Learn From Criminal Complaints Against Cops?

Child Molester Cop Gets No Prison Time

D.A.'s Office Complicit in Brutality Coverup

SWAT Get Medals For Shooting at Innocent Family in Botched Raid

Cop Made Chief After Conviction for Negligent Fatal Shooting of Motorist

Firing With Intent: Are American Cops Out of Control

Top Cop Tells NYers 'Prove You're Not a Terrorist'

See the original article and other great articles at: Tech Dirt

NYPD Sergeant Says 'Guilty Until Proven Innocent' Is Just The Price We Pay For A 'Free Society'

from the nothing's-more-'secure'-than-a-jail-cell dept

We've been dealing with the New York police department lately, thanks to the mayor and the police chief using the recent Boston bombing as an excuse to increase surveillance efforts and enact other policies to further encroach on New Yorkers' civil liberties. Whenever something terrorist-related occurs, it seems as though the NYPD's reps can't keep their opinions to themselves, even as the department itself drifts further and further away from being a sterling example of How Things Should Be Done.

In a recent Christian Science Monitor article dealing with "teenagers, terrorism and social media" (focusing on the recent Cameron D'Ambrosio arrest for making "terrorist threats" via some improvised rap lyrics posted to Facebook), Sgt. Ed Mullins of the NYPD shows up to make some very disturbing statements about your rights and responsibilities as a (mere) citizen. It starts with the worst kind of "policy" and goes downhill fast.

Using a zero tolerance approach to track domestic terrorists online is the only reasonable way to analyze online threats these days, especially after the Boston Marathon bombing and news that the suspects had subsequently planned to target Times Square in Manhattan, Mullins says. The way law enforcement agencies approach online activity that appears sinister is this: “If you’re not a terrorist, if you’re not a threat, prove it,” he says.

you’re not a threat, prove it,” he says. "Zero tolerance" is never "reasonable." It never has been and it never will be. In fact, it's the polar opposite. Zero tolerance policies simply absolve the enforcers of any responsibility for the outcome and grant them the privilege of ignoring mitigating factors. It allows them to bypass applying any sort of critical thinking skills (the "reason" part of "reasonable") and view every infractions as nothing more than a binary IF THEN equation.

Mullins goes even further than this, though, asserting that the burden of proof lies with the person charged, not the person bringing the charges. This flips our judicial system on its head (along with the judicial systems in many other countries) and, if applied the way Mullins views it, puts accused citizens in the impossible position of trying to prove a negative. This is just completely wrong, and it's a dangerously stupid thing for someone in his position to believe, much less state out loud. (Mullins also heads the Sergeants Benevolent Association, the second-largest police union in New York City.)

Believe it or not, Mullins is not done talking. What he says next doubles up on the "dangerous" and "stupid."

“This is the price you pay to live in free society right now. It’s just the way it is,” Mullins adds.

No. It isn't.

This is the price Mullins is charging to live in the NYPD's severely stunted version of a "free" society. The NYPD has been harassing young minorities at the rate of 500,000 impromptu stop-and-frisks per year for the better part of the last decade. For the past 10 years, the NYPD has been regularly trampling citizens' civil liberties simply because they attend a mosque. The NYPD and Mayor Bloomberg have worked ceaselessly to make New York the most-surveilled city in the U.S.

That's the price New Yorkers are paying. It has nothing to do with living in a free society. The NYPD takes liberties away and high-ranking cops like Mullins have the gall to suggest there's some sort of equitable exchange occurring. Mullins doesn't seem to understand (or just doesn't care) that if you take away freedom you no longer have a free society.

It has been said that eternal vigilance is the price of liberty, but "eternal vigilance" isn't shorthand for oppressive surveillance and zero tolerance policies that make freedom less "free." "Eternal vigilance" isn't treating the Constitution like a relic too worn and tattered to serve any purpose in these "dangerous" times. And being an officer of the law isn't an excuse to shut your intellect off and allow your brain stem and broad policies to "work" in concert in order to treat loudmouth teens on Facebook like a guy with a trailer home full of explosives.

This "vigilance" is supposed to be put to use by citizens in order to prevent authorities like Mullins from encroaching on our liberties. It's not solely limited to a united military effort against foreign powers. There are plenty of people apparently willing to attack our freedom from the comfort of the home front.

Grammy Winner Lauryn Hill to be Re-Educated by Court Order

Read related article at: InfoWars.com

Gestapo Comes to Boston Suburb

This is an absolutely sickening display of police force, violation of the Constitution, and clearly shows that America is now dead. Welcome to the Fourth Reich.

Notice how the homeowner is pulled from the house and does not give permission for the police to enter. Notice too how the militant SWAT officer screams at the boy "hands up!" as if he is about to shoot the resident.

WATERTOWN, MA -- On Friday, April 19, 2013, during a manhunt for a bombing suspect, police and federal agents spent the day storming people's homes and performing illegal searches. While it was unclear initially if the home searches were voluntary, it is now crystal clear that they were absolutely NOT voluntary. Police were filmed ripping people from their homes at gunpoint, marching the residents out with their hands raised in submission, and then storming the homes to perform their illegal searches.
https://www.facebook.com/PoliceStateUSA
This was part of a larger operation that involved total lockdown of the suburban neighbor to Boston. Roads were barricaded and vehicle traffic was prohibited. A No-Fly Zone was declared over the town. People were "ordered" to stay indoors. Businesses were told not to open. National Guard soldiers helped with the lockdown, and were photographed checking IDs of pedestrians on the streets. All the while, police were performing these disgusting house-to-house searches.

It was just a few years ago when I presented the following video on another website. People rolled their eyes and the majority of the comments were along the lines of "that will never happen here." The frog is boiled now my friends.


Also see the video at the following link, which shows that the home-invasions and violations of liberty were not exclusive to that one street shown in the video above:

Boston Gestapo Victims Speak Out

Homicidal Cop Made Chief After Conviction

This sorry excuse for a police officer was convicted of negligent homicide after shooting a motorist to death. He was fired from his job, but later had his conviction expunged and has now been hired in another town as the department's chief.

“You put the uniform back on and you look at yourself in the mirror, and you think, I’m back,” he said. “It’s a good feeling.”

Just goes to show, yet again, that police can literally get away with murder, and whatever the hell else they feel like pulling.

D.A.'s Office Complicit In Brutality Coverup

Pentagon Declares Martial Law (Not Televised)

Pentagon Unilaterally Grants Itself Authority Over ‘Civil Disturbances’

The manhunt for the Boston Marathon bombing suspects offered the nation a window into the stunning military-style capabilities of our local law enforcement agencies. For the past 30 years, police departments throughout the United States have benefitted from the government’s largesse in the form of military weaponry and training, incentives offered in the ongoing “War on Drugs.” For the average citizen watching events such as the intense pursuit of the Tsarnaev brothers on television, it would be difficult to discern between fully outfitted police SWAT teams and the military.

The North Hollywood Shootout of 1997 is often touted by police as the reason behind the militarization of their forces. In that incident police engaged two bank robbers who were heavily armed with military-grade machine guns, and armored from head to toe in military-grade bullet-resistant Kevlar gear. The robbers were eventually killed, and though several officers were injured, there were no other deaths stemming from that incident. Nonetheless, this became a rallying point to arm not only SWAT teams with military-grade weaponry, but regular patrol officers as well.

The militarization of police has not been limited to pistols and rifles though. Some of this has been more subtle and psychological, such as new uniforms. Police have traditionally worn a blue uniform, usually with a tie, shoes shined, and carried themselves with a respectable and formal appearance. Today that trend has been broken by police wearing military-style tactical apparel, in a more intimidating black color rather than the professional blues. While one may not see this shift in uniform styling as of any concern, it actually goes to show the shift in the mindset of police, from public servant, to militant occupier. A shift where now the police no longer see a public to be served, but rather a public that is to be controlled as a potential enemy at any given moment.

This mindset of an undeclared guerrilla war being played out on the streets of America has led to inordinate amounts of spending by police departments on military-grade hardware. Particularly in the post-9/11 era, where the public are duped out of their freedoms and vast amounts of tax dollars under the guise of "protecting the homeland" from Muslim fanatics. This is despite the fact that an American citizen is 8 times more likely to be killed by a police officer than a terrorist.

In just this one instance, as an example, a man armed only with a golf-club was shot dead by police executing a search warrant targeting a woman they knew had already moved out of the home. They went ahead with the no-knock raid anyway, and shot this man dead in the process.

Caution, graphic video: Dead Bang: Man Shot Dead By Home Invaders (VIDEO)

While some may see things like this as isolated incidents, it's important to keep in mind that incidents like this will happen more and more frequently as police try to justify their own budgets for increased spending on everything from new cruisers every year to military-grade tanks and armored vehicles.

Police storm neighborhood with snipers and a tank to evict old lady

This report highlights how frequently military-grade force is applied for mundane reasons and run-of-the-mill police work.

Disturbing Results of SWAT Transparency Bill

Of course, we don't just have our local police departments in on the game any more either. Since 9/11, we now have the Department of Homeland Security, reminiscent of the Gestapo national police force in Nazi Germany. DHS are both a domestic spying apparatus, and a showcase for military hardware in civilian dress.

Why are IED/Mine Resistant Vehicles Being Deployed Within U.S.?

But it's not just new agencies, or regular police departments that are getting paramilitary upgrades either.

Why does the Department of Education need a SWAT team?

So what does all of this add up to?

Firing With Intent: Are American Cops Out of Control

In Boston, we saw our first widely publicized instance of martial law here in the United States. Not only were the police and Federal agents fully-equipped with heavy military-grade equipment, but they were acting in direct violation of the 4th Amendment.

Families Ripped From Homes By Police In Watertown

Some Americans were utterly shocked by this vulgar display of paramilitary might being brought to bear on an American town, utterly destroying the very foundations of what it means to be an American in the first place. Sadly enough though, there were so many other Americans that cheered the triumph of martial law, even in its failure to locate the suspect whom they claimed was the reason for this "Red Dawn" reminiscent invasion. Thanks to rigorous propaganda and the lobotomy of social consciousness, all too many Americans would echo this sentiment...

'If You're Not a Terrorist...Prove It' Says NYPD's Top Sergeant

And while some of us are still awake enough to realize the tyranny of all this, even those of us who try to stay aware, wind up missing key events in the march toward complete and utter totalitarianism. Did you know that if you are withing 100 miles of a United States border, you are in a zone where Constitutional rights have already been suspended?

America's Own Iron Curtain: DHS Suspends Constitution at Borders

The lines blurred even further Monday as a new dynamic was introduced to the militarization of domestic law enforcement. By making a few subtle changes to a regulation in the U.S. Code titled “Defense Support of Civilian Law Enforcement Agencies” the military has quietly granted itself the ability to police the streets without obtaining prior local or state consent, upending a precedent that has been in place for more than two centuries.

The most objectionable aspect of the regulatory change is the inclusion of vague language that permits military intervention in the event of “civil disturbances.” According to the rule:

Federal military commanders have the authority, in extraordinary emergency circumstances where prior authorization by the President is impossible and duly constituted local authorities are unable to control the situation, to engage temporarily in activities that are necessary to quell large-scale, unexpected civil disturbances.

Bruce Afran, a civil liberties attorney and constitutional law professor at Rutgers University, calls the rule, “a wanton power grab by the military,” and says, “It’s quite shocking actually because it violates the long-standing presumption that the military is under civilian control.”

A defense official who declined to be named takes a different view of the rule, claiming, “The authorization has been around over 100 years; it’s not a new authority. It’s been there but it hasn’t been exercised. This is a carryover of domestic policy.” Moreover, he insists the Pentagon doesn’t “want to get involved in civilian law enforcement. It’s one of those red lines that the military hasn’t signed up for.” Nevertheless, he says, “every person in the military swears an oath of allegiance to the Constitution of the United States to defend that Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.”

Sadly enough, the "presumption" of the constitutional law professor is false, and the unnamed defense official is correct. The military is not under civilian control, and has not been for roughly 150 years. Specifically, the authorization is called...

General Orders No. 100: The Lieber Code

...which reads in part...

“1. A place, district, or country occupied by an enemy stands, in consequence of the occupation, under the martial law of the invading or occupying army, whether any proclamation declaring martial law, or any public warning to the inhabitants, has been issued or not. Martial law is the immediate and direct effect and consequence of occupation or conquest.

The presence of a hostile army proclaims its martial law.

2. Martial law does not cease during the hostile occupation, except by special proclamation, ordered by the commander-in-chief, or by special mention in the treaty of peace concluding the war, when the occupation of a place or territory continues beyond the conclusion of peace as one of the conditions of the same.

3. Martial law in a hostile country consists in the suspension by the occupying military authority of the criminal and civil law, and of the domestic administration and government in the occupied place or territory, and in the substitution of military rule and force for the same, as well as in the dictation of general laws, as far as military necessity requires this suspension, substitution, or dictation.

The commander of the forces may proclaim that the administration of all civil and penal law shall continue either wholly or in part, as in times of peace, unless otherwise ordered by the military authority.”

And the military is already prepared to start rounding up American citizens.

New Military Transport Raises Concerns


The militarization of our local police forces is not simply a by-product of the times we live in. When you understand the real laws, when you understand history, you see that the local police are acting under the authority of the military, as a proxy.

Through revisionist history taught to us in classrooms and school books, the Civil War has been idealized as some great volcanic movement of freedom against racial oppressors. Even though it took another century after that for black folk to actually get civil rights, we are taught that the Civil War was all about liberating the peoples of Africa here in America.

They say that history is written by the victor, and the Civil War is no exception. The Civil War had nothing to do with freeing the slaves. The Emancipation Proclamation was a tactic of economic warfare against the rebellious Confederacy, it had nothing to do with equality for blacks.

"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality." -Abraham Lincoln, 1858

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it." -Abraham Lincoln, 1862

So what was the Civil War really about then? The same thing that most rebellions are born of. A rejection of tyranny and oppression. In that instance, it was a confederation of states who rejected Federal authority over the sovereignty of independent states.

And from those days to this, the United States has existed, not as a Constitutional Republic, but under a declared state of martial law.

U.S. Federal Authority Is Martial Law


The preceding compilation contains excerpts from an article published at Before It's News. Please visit that link for their full article. Excerpts are highlighted in gray. Some highlighted text reinforced by November Yankee

Military Troops Patrol Grand Central Terminal After 9/11

An Inside Look at NYPD's 'Stop and Frisk' Policy (VIDEO)

Regular readers here know that it is not uncommon for me to share stories of police brutality and things that generally show the police in a bad light. This video does deal with violations of citizen rights, but very objectively, even talking to the police officers themselves, as well as victims, and criminal justice experts. Please take the time to hear what they have to say.

Tweet

Prosecution would have used false evidence to execute Casey Anthony

One of the main sticking points by the lynch-mob couch-lawyers that Casey should have been hanged, is the supposed computer search for information on chloroform. During the trial the prosecution claimed that Casey had searched the term 84 times, based on the testimony of their computer expert John Bradley. Now it appears that not only was that information false, but that the prosecution knew that it was false, and never corrected the matter to the jury or shared the revelation with the defense.

This matter is not only a sticking point in the trial-by-media which still continues, but was in fact a primary reason that the prosecution intended to seek a death sentence against Casey. So not only did the prosecution let the jury believe that Casey had searched for chloroform 84 times, but they were going to execute her knowingly based on false evidence.

Was it really false evidence though? It does appear that the term was in fact searched one time from the Anthony home computer. But is that enough for a conviction? Is that enough to execute someone? I can tell you that I have searched chloroform a number of times since this trial, and on at least one occasion before the trial after I saw the movie The Vanishing. We also must consider too, who actually did the search.

Suppose this is why the State Attorney’s office has decided not to seek perjury charges against Cindy Anthony? Casey's mother testified at trial that she put in a search query for chlorophyll, and mistakenly entered chloroform. As anyone who as ever Googled knows, when you begin to spell out a word, it pops up with a list of closely spelled suggestions. One click is all it takes to land you someplace other than where you searching originally, either mistakenly, or because a new topic or term catches your interest in the moment.

When clarifying the error in an interview with the New York Times...

The Google search then led to a Web site, sci-spot.com, that was visited only once, Mr. Bradley added. The Web site offered information on the use of chloroform in the 1800s.

So, in a nutshell, the police used an incompetent programmer to design the software for their invesitgation, the prosecution used false evidence in order to prosecute someone and then did not disclose that fact to the defense when the programmer discovered an error, and were also planning to use that false evidence in order to execute someone. And you really want to give those people MORE power?

Say No To Cayleee's Law

Be sure to check out these two related articles from the big boys of media for more details:

Software Designer Reports Error in Anthony Trial

Casey Anthony Trial Witness John Bradley Backtracks After Blasting Prosecutors

Warren vs. District of Columbia

Most folks assume that the police are there to "prtect and serve." But who are they really there to protect and serve? It certainly is not the people...

Here is an introduction to the landmark case, you can read more at Wikipedia. 

Warren v. District of Columbia^[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981) is an oft-quoted^[2] District of Columbia Court of Appeals (equivalent to a state supreme court) case that held police do not have a duty to provide police services to individuals, even if a dispatcher promises help to be on the way, except when police develop a special duty to particular individuals.

In this case, three rape victims sued the District of Columbia for negligence on the part of the police. Two of three female roommates were upstairs when they heard men break in and attack the third. They phoned the police, reporting that their house was being burglarized, and waited on the roof. Their call was incorrectly dispatched as less important than it was three minutes after they made the call, and three police cars came to the scene, three minutes after the call was dispatched. One policeman drove by without stopping, and another officer walked up to the door and knocked. Upon receiving no answer, the officers left five minutes after they had arrived. Nine minutes later, the two women called the police again and were assured they would receive assistance. This call was never dispatched and the police never came. Believing that the police had arrived and were in the house, the two women called down to the third who was being attacked. This alerted the intruders to their presence, and they then took them captive at knife-point. They were then raped, robbed, beaten, and forced to submit to the attackers' sexual demands for the next fourteen hours. The court noted that because the police are only under a general duty to provide services to the public at large, a special relationship must exist between the police and the individual in question for the "duty" element of negligence to be satisfied. It held that no such special relationship existed so the case was properly dismissed by the trial court for failure to state a claim and the case never went to trial.^[3]