http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcxqyp2wOzE

John T. Williams was a wood carver in Seattle who is hard of hearing. The cop surprised him, gave him seven seconds to respond and then shot him 5 times for not dropping his carving knife. The cops defense? “He wouldn’t drop the knife.” The fact that he was an old man, hard of hearing and had absolutely no idea why someone was yelling at him evidently didn’t phase the tax feeding, jack booted thug.

It’s a funny thing that happens when you give a small group of people a monopoly on the use of force over a vast population. They become corrupt. What’s that old adage about absolute power?

Full article here.

John Thompson was acquitted after 18 years in prison.

The prosecutors involved in my two cases, from the office of the Orleans Parish district attorney, Harry Connick Sr., helped to cover up 10 separate pieces of evidence. And most of them are still able to practice law today.

In 2005, I sued the prosecutors and the district attorney’s office for what they did to me. The jurors heard testimony from the special prosecutor who had been assigned by Mr. Connick’s office to the canceled investigation, who told them, “We should have indicted these guys, but they didn’t and it was wrong.” The jury awarded me $14 million in damages — $1 million for every year on death row — which would have been paid by the district attorney’s office. That jury verdict is what the Supreme Court has just overturned.

I don’t care about the money. I just want to know why the prosecutors who hid evidence, sent me to prison for something I didn’t do and nearly had me killed are not in jail themselves. There were no ethics charges against them, no criminal charges, no one was fired and now, according to the Supreme Court, no one can be sued.

Worst of all, I wasn’t the only person they played dirty with. Of the six men one of my prosecutors got sentenced to death, five eventually had their convictions reversed because of prosecutorial misconduct. Because we were sentenced to death, the courts had to appoint us lawyers to fight our appeals. I was lucky, and got lawyers who went to extraordinary lengths. But there are more than 4,000 people serving life without parole in Louisiana, almost none of whom have lawyers after their convictions are final. Someone needs to look at those cases to see how many others might be innocent.

If a private investigator hired by a generous law firm hadn’t found the blood evidence, I’d be dead today. No doubt about it.

A crime was definitely committed in this case, but not by me.

–John Thompson, NY Times

Prosecutors are just as, if not more corrupt than the people they put in jail. That’s just a fact. If you don’t believe that, I have a story to tell you.

Local governments use unique accounting methods that many, such as Mr Rauh, believe understate obligations. Based on his estimates, which use US Treasuries as the benchmark, each household already owes an average of $14,165 to current and former municipal public employees in the 50 cities and counties studied.

–Nicole Bullock, CNBC

Did you catch that? He is saying that every homeowner in those states owes more than $14,000 dollars to the government just to pay for the pensions of current and former public employees. That means that you are paying $14,000 to your neighbor who’s a police officer to fund his retirement at the age of 50 or 55. Folks, that is not even remotely sustainable. And, if you’re a public employee you need to realize that now. It behooves you to make alternative plans for your post-retirement income. There is going to be a shift of focus toward this issue at some point in the future, because it’s literally killing state economies. Once the first state takes on this issue(perhaps Pennsylvania), and starts reducing benefits to public retirees, it’s going to create a domino effect across the country. All the states will then be emboldened to follow suit.

Current pension assets for plans sponsored by Philadelphia can only pay for promised benefits through 2015, while Boston and Chicago would deplete their existing funds by 2019.

–Nicole Bullock, CNBC

Notice the number of stories coming out of Pennsylvania lately about how aggressive that state government is getting on collecting taxes. Remember the big brother video I posted the other day? That was Pennsylvania. This is a real issue that is going to pop at some point in the future. If you are publicly employed and betting on that big nice pension, you really need to pay attention to this issue. And, that means not just depending on voting for tax increases and such. Tax increases will not even scratch the surface of this problem.

Of the 50 state retirement systems, fewer than half had assets to pay for 80 percent of promised benefits in their 2009 fiscal years, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

–Dunstan McNichol, Bloomberg

Think about it. You’d have to raise taxes by $14,000 per family to cover these shortfalls. And that only gets you to par. Every year going forward after that you’d have to account for the new retirees by raising taxes again, and again, and again. That’s the inherent problem with pensions, and that’s why the private sector dropped them years ago. You won’t find any pension systems in the non-unionized private sector any more, because they are mathematically unsustainable. Simply moving the problem to government doesn’t magically make the math work.

We all know someone who works for the government, and those people aren’t bad people just because the government steals your money to pay their salary. It’s just the system we’ve grown up in. They are just living within the system as it exists. I think rather than chastising those folks, we need to be good neighbors and warn them about this issue. The fact that the government promised them such and so is irrelevant. If I promise to give you a Ferrari, it really doesn’t matter if I break my promise or not. The fact remains that I don’t have one to give to you. Governments promise people lots of things and then don’t deliver. It’s up to us as communities to look out for one another.

At about 8:45 a.m., the department opened shop for a gun buyback at its east precinct in Alberta, offering gift cards to anyone who brought in a gun.

Officers handed out $50 Visa gift cards to those who brought in handguns, $75 gift cards for rifles and shotguns and $100 for assault rifles. Those who brought in inoperable weapons received a $25 gift card.

No names or addresses were taken during the event and no charges were made against those who turned in a gun without a license.

The department had $1,400 in gift cards to trade for firearms, and by 9:30 a.m. the cards had run out.

People continued to drop off guns, however, and by the end of the buyback at noon, the department had collected more than 30 guns.

–Wayne Grayson, Tuscaloosa News

So, the Tuscaloosa Police Department just crapped $1400 down the toilet. The article goes on to say:

Anderson said most folks who dropped off guns had no use for them and simply wanted them out of the house.

“And most of the guns we see used in crimes are those just laying around the house, readily available,” he said.

“This was a huge success,” said Police Chief Steve Anderson. “Any gun that we get off the street is a gun that we can be assured won’t be used at a later date in an assault or robbery.”

–Wayne Grayson, Tuscaloosa News

A “huge success?” What are the odds that most of the people that turned in those guns have at least one other gun in their home? I’d say the chances are pretty high. And from looking at the picture that accompanied the story, I’d say that most of the guns that were turned in look like gun show surplus stuff anyway. Who wouldn’t turn in a beat up old AK-47 and get a $100? I would in a heart beat.

Look, I can sympathize with people being concerned about gun violence, but programs like these do absolutely nothing. You might as well just put up a sign in the yard that says: “Come get free money for that extra gun you were gonna sell on gunbroker.com anyway.”

They got 30 guns “off the street. Only about 60 million to go and they can call it a day.

Capt. Jeff Hartley pointed out the large amount of small weapons collected during the buyback.

“This was our main goal here. We wanted to get these easily concealable weapons out of people’s hands,” he said

–Wayne Grayson, Tuscaloosa News

I bet it was. The main goal of government is always to disarm the people. The less guns we have and the more guns they have the better they like it.

And that brings me to this story that Drudge linked to this morning: “FAA Under Pressure To Open US Skies to Drones.” Quoting from the article:

WASHINGTON (AP) – Unmanned aircraft have proved their usefulness and reliability in the war zones of Afghanistan and Iraq. Now the pressure’s on to allow them in the skies over the United States.

The Federal Aviation Administration has been asked to issue flying rights for a range of pilotless planes to carry out civilian and law-enforcement functions but has been hesitant to act.

–Joan Lowy, AP

So, given this quote, you might think that the FAA has been hesitant to act because of the implications on our liberty and freedom. Not so. They are more worried about making sure they’re safe:

Officials are worried that they might plow into airliners, cargo planes and corporate jets that zoom around at high altitudes, or helicopters and hot air balloons that fly as low as a few hundred feet off the ground.

On top of that, these pilotless aircraft come in a variety of sizes. Some are as big as a small airliner, others the size of a backpack. The tiniest are small enough to fly through a house window.

–Joan Lowy, AP

But wait, you say. It’s not like the government is going to use these things to bomb cities and such. This isn’t Iraq, after all, where the state war machine can kill people with impunity. This is America. Maybe not:

The Predator B, already in use for border patrol, can fly for 20 hours without refueling, compared with a helicopter’s average flight time of just over two hours. Homeland Security wants to expand their use along the borders of Mexico and Canada, and along coastlines for spotting smugglers of drugs and illegal aliens. The Coast Guard wants to use them for search and rescue.

–Joan Lowy, AP

So, I ask: how long will it be before these drones begin to terrorize anyone who is a threat to state power? Homeland Security(the scariest name for a state department outside of Minority Report) says they will use them to patrol the border and “spot” (i.e. shoot) drug smugglers and illegal alien smugglers. Give it a little time and they will move up to “spotting” (i.e. leveling) meth labs in rural areas. After all, why wouldn’t they? They already send in SWAT teams on drug raids where they often end up killing innocent people by breaking down doors and running in with guns. Wouldn’t it be far more efficient for them to just unleash their indiscriminate destruction from the air?

The story also relates how eager local law enforcement agencies are to get their hands on these drone aircraft:

State police hope to send them up to capture images of speeding cars’ license plates. Local police envision using them to track fleeing suspects.

–Joan Lowy, AP

So, just using some more logic, if the police want to use drones to “track” fleeing suspects, what would stop them from using those same drones to kill fleeing suspects if they thought they were dangerous? Wouldn’t that make the most sense? Cities like Birmingham, AL already have gunshot detectors scattered around the city to pick up the sound of gunfire and alert police. If you combine these with drones that can track a suspect fleeing the scene of a shooting, why not take him out? The police on the ground don’t hesitate to shoot first and ask questions later. Why would that change when using drones?

Civil liberties have slowly rotted away in this country over many decades. I blame myself for being blind to it in the past. I used to be in favor of things such as the Patriot Act because I bought the media hook line and sinker. Now I have seen this type of thing for what it is. Full body nude scans in airports and drones over our cities are not “necessary.” They are techniques the state is using to put us under their thumb. William Pitt said “Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.” (Speech, House of Commons, 18 November 1783)

Four women, two of them well into middle age, were discussing funeral plans for a friend when an Atlanta police officer told them to move.

Three did but one asked “why.” In answer to her question, Minnie Carey, then 61, was handcuffed, put into a police wagon and taken to jail, where she was held for nine hours.

The Citizen Review Board found that Atlanta Police officer Brandy Dolson had violated APD policies and had falsely arrested Carey.

“I was blown away,” Carey told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. “I had heard about people in the community being harassed by the police … It really didn’t shock me as much as it probably would have if I had not heard of people going to jail for no reason. I figured I was just another one.

“But I had the right to ask ‘why’ I had to move,” she said.

The Citizen Review Board – resurrected after the 2006 fatal police shooting of 92-year-old Kathryn Johnston in her home – voted in a recent meeting to sustain Carey’s false arrest claim and the allegation that the officer had violated the department’s arrest policies.

–Rhonda Cook, Atlanta Journal-Constitution

It should be no surprise that this type of thing happens over time. For a moment, push all of the propaganda out of your mind and just think about this in generic terms. What happens when you give one group of people the exclusive right to use physical force over another group of people? Remember Lord Acton’s famous words about absolute power. Well, it doesn’t just corrupt politicians. It corrupts police officers in an even more base way. Policemen have, by law, a monopoly on the use of force to make us comply with virtually anything they want us to. And we, again, by law, must disarm ourselves in their presence. That type of power cannot remain un-corrupted for long.

PITTSBURGH — Pittsburgh police Chief Nate Harper said three plainclothes officers have been reassigned during an internal investigation into the beating of an 18-year-old student violinist from the city’s Creative and Performing Arts High School.

Police charged Jordan Miles, 18, with assault and resisting arrest Jan. 11 because, they said, he fought with the officers who thought a “heavy object” in his coat was a gun. It turned out to be a bottle of Mountain Dew.

Miles said he resisted because he thought the men were trying to abduct him and didn’t identify themselves as police.

Miles’ family and attorney said he was hit with a stun gun and hospitalized after the violent Homewood struggle during which a chunk of his hair was yanked out and a tree branch went through his gums.

“I was accused for something I never had anything to do with,” said Miles, an honor student at CAPA. “I was completely innocent. They couldn’t find anything.”

Police took Miles to a Pittsburgh hospital for treatment. The student said he had to go back after he was released from custody.

“I want my son’s life restored, that’s all,” said Miles’ mother, Terez Miles. “I just want his life to go back to the way that it was before.”

City officials are conducting a full investigation, spokeswoman Diane Richard told Channel 11 News.

Reportedly the officers identified themselves as police. According to officials, the officers have been moved from plain clothes detail to uniformed duty.
–WPXI News, Pittsburgh

Notice that they still charged him with resisting arrest and assault even though they couldn’t find anything he had done wrong. Things like “resisting arrest” are complete fabrications made up by the state police machine to be a catch all in case they screw up and try to arrest the wrong guy. Anybody in their right mind that isn’t guilty of any crime would resist being forcefully marched to jail. It’s legitimate human nature.

Now, if instead of being beaten almost to death, he had actually walked up to the cops and asked them for help he most likely would have been told to get lost. The best way to get a cop to leave you alone is to ask him for help. The best way to get beaten to a bloody pulp is to mind your own business. The fact remains though – now days we have to protect ourselves from the police and from criminals. Which is which can be hard to distinguish sometimes. When the state gives itself a total monopoly on the use of force it’s inevitable that the people who get to legally exercise that force will eventually become corrupt and drunk with the dishing out of physical power.

But, it’s not just creeps and wierdos you have to worry about now. It’s the cops too:

University of Wisconsin-La Crosse student Adam Bauer has nearly 400 friends on Facebook. He got an offer for a new one about a month ago. “She was a good-looking girl. I usually don’t accept friends I don’t know, but I randomly accepted this one for some reason,” the 19-year-old said.

He thinks that led to his invitation to come down to the La Crosse police station, where an officer laid out photos from Facebook of Bauer holding a beer — and then ticketed him for underage drinking.

The police report said Bauer admitted drinking, which he denies. But he did plead no contest in municipal court Wednesday and will pay a $227 fine.

He was among at least eight people who said Wednesday they had been cited for underage drinking based on photos on social networking sites.

“I just can’t believe it. I feel like I’m in a science fiction movie, like they are always watching. When does it end?” Bauer said after court Wednesday.

Social networking sites are among many new tools law enforcement has adopted to find underage drinkers, said La Crosse police officer Al Iverson, who works in alcohol compliance and education.

“Law enforcement has to evolve with technology,” Iverson said. “It has to happen. It is a necessity —not just for underage drinking.”

Social networking sites are used to catch sexual predators as well, he noted.

–KJ Lang, Lacrosse Tribune

[HT David Kramer @ LRC]

It’s that last sentence that really chaps my hide. You see, that’s how it always starts. We begin to give up liberties and freedoms to our police overlords to protect us from legitimate moral crimes like sexual abuse. They then take those newly forfeited liberties and use them for other things that have nothing to do with the original intent. I don’t think children should drink alcohol. But I also don’t think that a 19 year old drinking a beer in his dorm is any of the state’s business, regardless of what the “law” says. We can send that same young man over to the middle-east to blow the heads off Arabs but we won’t let him drink a beer.

This is just another example of how, when it comes to giving up liberty, you can’t just look at whats “acceptable” right now. You have to think years down the line and consider what the authorities are going to do with that power you hand them. Because they always find ways to abuse it. Always.

OZARK, Ark. — Ozark Police Chief Jim Noggle says one of his officers used a Taser on a 10-year-old girl who was combative when the officer tried to get the girl into a patrol car to be taken to a youth shelter.

Noggle said Tuesday that officer Dustin Bradshaw went to the girl’s home after her mother called police woman called police.

According to a report filed by Bradshaw on Thursday, the officer found the girl on the floor of the house screaming and crying. She refused to follow her mother’s instructions and the mother told Bradshaw to use his Taser.

Bradshaw carried the girl to the living room and told her she was going to jail, according to the report. The girl was violently kicking, the report said, and struck Bradshaw in the groin with her legs and feet. The report said Bradshaw administered a “very, very brief” stun with the Taser, put the girl in handcuffs and carried her to his patrol car. She was taken to the Western Arkansas Youth Shelter in Cecil.

–General, AP

Ask yourself why the crap a police officer is even intervening in a dispute such as this. And, it’s clear that the reason the cop tazed the young girl was because she had kicked him. He tazed her purely out of anger. And he’s allowed to do this because the state has blessed him with the un-checked right to carry a weapon. And when we are in his presence, we are supposed to forfit our own weapons to him. Think about that for a moment. What happens when you give one group of people complete physical dominance over another group? That’s called slavery.

Mr. Grigg points out further details about this story on his post at Lew Rockwell about it:

Officer Dustin Bradshaw of the Ozark, Arkansas Police Department “had no choice” but to shoot a 10-year-old girl with a Taser and then arrest her, insisted Chief Jim Noggle.

The girl’s parents are currently separated. When the emotionally troubled child had a tantrum, the mother, Kelly Hamlert, called the police. Bradshaw’s official report claims that Hamlert told him to electro-torture the child if he “needed” to.

Some might recall that, just a few years ago, a Florida man named Douglas Dycus was charged with felony child abuse and domestic battery when he used a home-made electric stun gun to deal with a misbehaving 14-year-old boy. One would think that a similar criminal charge would be filed against someone who electro-tortured a 10-year-old girl, albeit by proxy.

One would think so. And one would be wrong — because when the state’s armed enforcers subject a small child to such torture, that’s not “child abuse,” but rather a law enforcement decision.

Savor, if you find its flavor palatable, this official admission that the fully-grown, armed “men” employed as Ozark’s “Finest” can be threatened by 10-year-old girls.

“If you can’t pick the kid up and take her to your car, handcuff her, then I don’t think you need to be an officer,” commented Anthony Medlock, the girl’s father. That assumes, of course, that arresting and handcuffing a 10-year-old girl is an appropriate reaction to a temper tantrum. Medlock doesn’t think this is the case, complaining that Bradshaw treated his child “like a dog.”

Officer Bradshaw of Ozark, Arkansas handled this problem with the same professional restraint displayed by Officer Joey Williams of the Hot Springs, Arkansas P.D.; Williams was caught on video strangling a 12-year-old girl during an ant-skateboarding crackdown.

–William Grigg, LRC

The days when policemen were helpful friends to the community is over. Ask yourself, when was the last time a policemen actually helped you with a problem? I can’t remember one. But, I can remember plenty of times I’ve been harassed with speeding tickets for going 10 mph over the limit, or told to get the ____ out of the way when a cop needed to get by me in a crowd. The police have been granted so much power by the state that they have become a problem in and of themselves instead of a solution to a problem.

I remember when my house got robbed about 10 years ago. The policeman basically said there was nothing they could do from the get go to get any of my stuff back or track down the people who did it. He basically just wasted my time for an hour filling out a report that would get stuffed in a file cabinet and never looked at again. It’s about time we looked at just what benefit all this police power is giving us. Or is it all just creating a new, bigger problem than the crime it is supposed to be fixing. I think that’s the case.

Check out this video and ask yourself exactly what gives this cop the right to body slam a teenager and choke a teenage girl for skateboarding on the sidewalk:

It doesn’t matter if you think that skateboarding on the sidewalk is a nuisance. If you think that somehow these kids “deserved” this treatment then what you are, in effect, saying is that it’s ok for brutal force to be employed by the state to stop behaviour that you don’t like. Well, guess what. Maybe somebody doesn’t like some of your behaviour. Are you ready to submit to a body slam, choking and tazing?