Thursday, March 31, 2016
Police must operate to a higher standard. Failure been ignored creates a permissive mindset and this leads to our present situation where it appears that police are now running amok. That should never be seen to be true.
Permissiveness regarding one standard leads to creeping permissiveness regarding other standards as well and discipline ultimately slips.
It is the inevitable slippery slope that ultimately needs to be corrected by draconian methods including retraining.
Police in the United States managed to escape prosecution when facing allegations they violated civil rights an incredible 96 percent of the time.
This is almost the exact opposite of the conviction rate for everyone else, as normal citizens are are prosecuted at a rate of 93 percent.
The investigation by the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review (the Trib), based on an analysis of nearly 3 million federal records, found that from 1995 through 2015, federal prosecutors overwhelmingly opted not to pursue prosecution.
Indeed, the 96 percent refusal to press charges sharply contrasts with the rejection rate for all other complaints — just 23 percent.
Investigators found the most common reasons given for refusing to prosecute officers were “weak or insufficient evidence, lack of criminal intent required under a 1945 Supreme Court ruling standard, and orders from the Justice Department.”
In response to the Trib’s study, Justice Dept. spokeswoman Dena Iverson said the DOJ takes “any allegation of law enforcement misconduct seriously and will review those allegations when they are brought to our attention.”
But the lopsided tendency for U.S. prosecutors to reject charging officers in civil rights cases could easily be seen as validation for outrage at what amounts to police impunity.
“It’s a difficult situation for the legal system in general,” Mel Johnson, assistant U.S. attorney for civil rights cases in Wisconsin’s Eastern District, told the Trib.
“Federal and state governments have not succeeded in deterring police misconduct. I would say the legal system has a way to go.”
Prosecuting civil rights allegations is a tricky matter, in general, but the challenge to prove an officer acted “willfully,” which the Supreme Court ruled over 70 years ago, remains the greatest stumbling block.
“The standard is high and challenging,” said Alan Vinegrad, a former federal prosecutor in New York who oversaw civil rights cases.
“It’s got to be a willful deprivation of rights, meaning the police officer intended and wanted to either kill or injure the person. Not just ‘it was reckless or negligent’ or anything like that.”
Therein lies the most pertinent dilemma. Because the officer’s malintent must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, cases where judges find an officer unjustified in his or her use of force can’t necessarily be prosecuted as civil rights violations.
Questionable evidence also plays a role, particularly when various witness accounts of the same event differ.
As Craig Futterman, a law professor and founder of Civil Rights and Police Accountability Project at the University of Chicago, points out, juries have a bias toward police officers — evidenced by reluctance or failure to convict — so prosecutors must factor in that tendency when deciding if charges will be fruitful.
Law enforcement unions argue police wouldn’t be able to do their job if they feared acting as they feel appropriately might cause them to be charged with a crime.
Tim Lynch, director of the Project on Criminal Justice at the Cato Institute, described another, more telling, bias:
“There’s first of all the general reluctance on the part of prosecutors to go after people in law enforcement because they consider themselves all working on the same team.”
As some experts the Trib consulted for its investigation explained, one solution would involve lesser options than prison to increase accountability, while balancing law enforcement’s concern about effectively doing their jobs.
Others, like Radley Balko, author of Rise of the Warrior Cop, have argued that mandating police to have liability or similar insurance — making them accountable via their bank accounts — might be the best option.
“This is an area, quite honestly, where the feds need to be bolder and put greater resources in,” Futterman explained.
“Indeed, the failure to aggressively bring those cases has allowed too many abusive officers to believe that they can operate without fear of punishment.”
As the Trib summarized:
“Even with video or other strong evidence, the defense can argue the officer believed the dead person was armed or was a threat, or the officer had only a split-second to make a decision.”
Just about everyone is familiar with the effectiveness of that argument — I thought my life was in danger.
When Trump announced his candidacy, I understood immediately that he had one massive advantage. He already had decades of brand building behind him. While every other candidate had to spend hundreds of millions just to be remembered on election day, he already had that recognition.
That meant that his real risk was in establishing credentials as a potential president. If he could do that then he had to win as no one has enough money or time to overcome the name recognition advantage.
Then he went to work and he deployed what even in hindsight looks to be an absurd strategy. He targeted the Archie Bunker crowd representing a third of his potential audience and got them onside by been completely outrageous. That alone gave him a lock on the nomination. Even better, nothing he says needs to be taken seriously later when he is president, except to provide a laughing point.
By been outrageous and unreasonable he allows himself the luxury of completely changing his position without consequence. Who will blame him if he decides building the greatest wall in the world is simply too costly? It was nonsense to begin with.
By doing this he has forced all his competitors to sound like colorless speech readers with no room for growth. That folks is what is called winning conditions. Most amusing is watching all the GOP Mandarins musing about changing the rules. Do they really want a revolution?
At this point he is effectively unstoppable even on the convention floor..
'Winning' is Trump's electoral strategy
Mar 14, 2016 | By Martin Barillas
Donald Trump, who continues to win primaries to the consternation of his critics within and without the Republican Party, has made his appeal across partisan lines by invoking patriotism and the concerns many Americans have over issues ranging from immigration, Islamic terrorism and national security, trade and a flagging economy. He spoke of these issues in a speech in Boca Raton last night. Two days before the crucial primary, in which critical states such as Florida and Ohio are at stake, he told 8,000 listeners that as president he would get tough with Islamic terrorists.
Recalling one of the most significant military commanders of the Second World War, Trump said “General George Patton, can you imagine General George Patton right now? He’s spinning in his grave when he sees we’re not beating ISIS.”
"We are doing a politically correct war. We have to knock the hell out of ISIS. They cut off heads. They’re drowning people. We have to knock them out. We have to knock them out bad. We have to get back to our country. We have to rebuild our country now. It’s time. It’s now time that we rebuild the United States. Our roads are falling apart. Our schools are a disgrace. You see it on television — rat-infested, walls falling down. We build schools over there, we build it again, they blow it up, we build it again they blow it up. This goes on four or five times. And if they need money for Brooklyn, if they need money for Boca, they need money for any place, we don’t have it to do anything. Our thinking is wrong. We’re going to have really smart thinking. We are going to think so good and here’s what’s going to happen: We’re going to start winning again."
As for foreign trade, and America’s status vis-à-vis China, Trump said that the United States continues to play the loser. “Think about it: When was the last time the United States won at everything? We’re losing at war, we’re losing at trade, we’re losing at everything,” Trump said. “This isn’t China. I use China because it’s greatest abuser of all. China abuses us more than anyone.
I hope they still like me after this speech by the way, but I don’t care. I have the biggest bank in the world is a tenant of mine in Manhattan, from China — 400 million customers — the biggest bank in the world.”
If the United States would to try to defeat its most significant trading partner, Trump said, “we could do great against China.” He said, “I sell condos in China for tens of millions of dollars — I love China, but their leaders are too smart for our leaders,” Trump said. “We can’t keep letting it go on.”
The GOP frontrunner then sought to set out his vision for his presidency. “So here’s what’s going to happen,” said Trump. He continued, saying:
"We’re going to start winning with our military, we’re going to knock the hell out of ISIS. We’re going to start — we can’t let it go any further. It’s too bad. It’s too bad. We are going to start winning with our military. We are going to take care of our vets. We are going to have strong borders. We are going to build a wall, and we are going to have Mexico pay for it.
"We are going to have great education — right now we are way down at the bottom of the list worldwide, but number one in cost per pupil. We’re going to get that changed around a lot. We’re going to get education taken care of. We’re going to do it locally — it’s going to be so much better, so much less expensive. We’re going to be proud of our educational system, because right now it’s so bad, it’s so broken and there’s so many people making so much money out of that system. So, we’re going to win with education.
"We’re going to win at every single level. We’re going to get rid of Obamacare, we’re going to win on health care, we’re going to start winning on every level. I say it kiddingly, but I mean it 100 percent: We’re going to win, win, win! We’re going to win so much, you’re going to get sick and tired of it. You’re going to say 'Mr. President, we can’t take it anymore, we’re winning too much! Please, we don’t want to win that much anymore, we can’t take it, Mr. President!' And I’m not going to care — we’re going to keep winning! Because we’re going to make America great again. We’re going to make it greater than ever before! I love you, go vote on Tuesday!"
For the paranoid, this is what it all looks like if nothing is done to counter all this. On the other hand once society does get the will to correct the worst tendencies all this stops been an issue. I really do not think that we need be rough about it with those in our society as they all become acculturated.
What needs to be addressed is the abuse of hate laws under the guise of religion. That protects even their own adherents
Otherwise this is the Islamic dream of hate run amok. The rest of the world is learning about all this and discovering that there remains no compromise or love with any leader of this political movement just as with Hitler who modeled Nazism after Islam. Again this is the learning phase.
The counter movement will slowly gather momentum and critical leadership resulting in the conversion of Islamic women to Christianity along with their financial emancipation and outright control of family finances. This will not be through War but through Progressive Confrontation..
As Muslim population grows, what can happen to a society?
June 23, 2010
What happens to society's as the Muslim population grows in percentage of the total?
In the book, Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat, written by Dr. Peter Hammond, he explores the topic of the impact that an increasing Muslim population has on that society. The lists below illustrate the Muslim population status of countries around the world, and exactly what changes to the societies can be expected according to Hammond.
The book as well as the author are controversial, but the topic is definitely something that needs to be explored and understood. From the book:
As long as the Muslim population remains around or under 2% in any given country, they will be for the most part be regarded as a peace-loving minority, and not as a threat to other citizens. This is the case in:
United States -- Muslim 0.6%
Australia -- Muslim 1.5%
Canada -- Muslim 1.9%
China -- Muslim 1.8%
Italy -- Muslim 1.5%
Norway -- Muslim 1.8%
At 2% to 5%, they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs.
This is happening in:
Denmark -- Muslim 2%
Germany -- Muslim 3.7%
United Kingdom -- Muslim 2.7%
Spain -- Muslim 4%
Thailand -- Muslim 4.6%
From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. For example, they will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves -- along with threats for failure to comply. This is occurring in:
France -- Muslim 8%
Philippines -- 5%
Sweden -- Muslim 5%
Switzerland -- Muslim 4.3%
The Netherlands -- Muslim 5.5%
Trinidad & Tobago -- Muslim 5.8%
At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves (within their ghettos) under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish Sharia law over the entire world.
When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions. In Paris , we are already seeing car-burnings. Any non-Muslim action offends Islam, and results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam , with opposition to Mohammed cartoons and films about Islam. Such tensions are seen daily, particularly in Muslim sections, in:
Guyana -- Muslim 10%
India -- Muslim 13.4%
Israel -- Muslim 16%
Kenya -- Muslim 10%
Russia -- Muslim 15%
After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues, such as in:
Ethiopia -- Muslim 32.8%
At 40%, nations experience widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks, and ongoing militia warfare, such as in:
Bosnia -- Muslim 40%
Chad -- Muslim 53.1%
Lebanon -- Muslim 59.7%
From 60%, nations experience unfettered persecution of non-believers of all other religions (including non-conforming Muslims), sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon, and ***ya, the tax placed on infidels, such as in:
Albania -- Muslim 70%
Malaysia -- Muslim 60.4%
Qatar -- Muslim 77.5%
Sudan -- Muslim 70%
After 80%, expect daily intimidation and violent jihad, some State-run ethnic cleansing, and even some genocide, as these nations drive out the infidels, and move toward 100% Muslim, such as has been experienced and in some ways is on-going in:
Bangladesh -- Muslim 83%
Egypt -- Muslim 90%
Gaza -- Muslim 98.7%
Indonesia -- Muslim 86.1%
Iran -- Muslim 98%
Iraq -- Muslim 97%
Jordan -- Muslim 92%
Morocco -- Muslim 98.7%
Pakistan -- Muslim 97%
Palestine -- Muslim 99%
Syria -- Muslim 90%
Tajikistan -- Muslim 90%
Turkey -- Muslim 99.8%
United Arab Emirates -- Muslim 96%
100% will usher in the peace of 'Dar-es-Salaam' -- the Islamic House of Peace. Here there's supposed to be peace, because everybody is a Muslim, the Madrasses are the only schools, and the Koran is the only word, such as in:
Afghanistan -- Muslim 100%
Saudi Arabia -- Muslim 100%
Somalia -- Muslim 100%
Yemen -- Muslim 100%
Unfortunately, peace is never achieved, as in these 100% states the most radical Muslims intimidate and spew hatred, and satisfy their blood lust by killing less radical Muslims, for a variety of reasons.