Our nation's debt is literally indenturing our children to our international debt holders, but most Americans don't care because they are more concerned about the latest saga involving Snooki on Jersey Shore rather than what really matters, our country’s future.
Showing posts with label police. Show all posts
Showing posts with label police. Show all posts

Monday, July 2, 2012

Border Patrol union blasts Homeland Security instructions to 'run away' and 'hide' from gunmen

We know that the government hates the idea of ordinary citizens having a gun which is why they tell you to run away and scream like a teenage girl if someone tries to rob or assault rather than standing your ground or defending an innocent life but this idea now applies to armed members of Federal Law Enforcement. Anyone how isn't aware the Supreme Court has already ruled that Law Enforcement has no duty to protect you, except if you are in custody. Now they are being told to save their own skin rather than get involved.

Border Patrol agents in Arizona are blasting their bosses for telling them, along with all other Department of Homeland Security employees, to run and hide if they encounter an "active shooter."

It's one thing to tell civilian employees to cower under a desk if a gunman starts spraying fire in a confined area, say members of Tucson Local 2544/National Border Patrol Council, but to give armed law enforcement professionals the same advice is downright insulting. The instructions from DHS come in the form of pamphlets and a mandatory computer tutorial.

“We are now taught in an ‘Active Shooter’ course that if we encounter a shooter in a public place we are to ‘run away’ and ‘hide’" union leader Brandon Judd wrote on the website of 3,300-member union local. “If we are cornered by such a shooter we are to (only as a last resort) become ‘aggressive’ and ‘throw things’ at him or her. We are then advised to ‘call law enforcement’ and wait for their arrival (presumably, while more innocent victims are slaughtered)."

The FEMA-administered computer course, entitled “IS-907- Active Shooter: What You Can Do,” is a 45-minute tutorial that provides guidance to all employees on how to recognize indicators of possible workplace violence and what to do should their office be invaded by gunmen and focuses around three main options; either evacuate, hide out, or in dire circumstances, take action.


Border Patrol union blasts Homeland Security instructions to 'run away' and 'hide' from gunmen

Thursday, June 9, 2011

Miami Beach police deny destroying cell phone of witness who captured Urban Beach Week shooting video - Miami Beach - MiamiHerald.com

This whole situation sounds like the Miami police are up to no good. The police didn't just confiscate people's cell phones but also took a reporter's camera, which makes it seem like they have something to hide like the fact that there was never a gun in the first place.

I get it the guy tried to gun down a cop which is illegal and plain stupid but as you can see from the video his car is stopped when the shooting starts. Now the cops state that he looked like he was reaching for a gun but if that was the case why did it take them several days to locate said handgun in the car. Maybe the real Miami CSI needs to call Horatio Cain if they can't locate a handgun inside of a car after an hour never mind a couple of days. Also it appears from other articles that the only people that were shot in this incident was the suspect and four innocent bystanders (who were shot by the police).

Look there are a lot more good cops then there are bad cops so I generally give police the benefit of the doubt but give me a break these cops were out of control.

Facing mounting criticism over accusations that Miami Beach police seized cameras and destroyed cellphones after killing a motorist who allegedly had a gun during Urban Beach Week, city officials cast doubt Tuesday on the account from a witness who said police held him at gunpoint and tried to confiscate his video of the shooting.

Narces Benoit, 35, of West Palm Beach, has told reporters that officers put a gun to his head, placed him in handcuffs and stomped on his cellphone after realizing he was recording the May 30th shooting from just a few feet away. Benoit released the video Monday after selling it for an undisclosed amount to CNN, which aired the clip and an interview with Benoit.

However, an unsigned statement issued late Tuesday by a city spokeswoman took issue with Benoit’s statements. The statement said police stopped him not because he was filming but because he matched the description of a man seen fleeing the shooting scene, and that he ignored officers’ demands to stop. He was taken in for questioning as a witness, the statement said. 

The statement also questioned Benoit’s account that an officer “smashed” his phone — the city e-mailed photos of the phone’s front and back showing only small cracks on the lower right front screen — and said Benoit didn’t turn over a copy of the video until he was served with a subpoena.

“This damage does not appear consistent with Mr. Benoit’s statements to the media that his phone was ‘smashed,’ ” the statement said.

The statement added that several other cellphones were seized by police during the investigation.

Reese Harvey, Benoit’s attorney, told The Miami Herald late Tuesday that his client turned over the video to police Friday without having received a subpoena. He said the phone’s damage is “consistent” with Benoit’s account of his altercation with officers.

“We think the video speaks for itself,” he said, referring to images showing an officer pointing a gun at Benoit and his girlfriend as they sat in their SUV.

Harvey said Benoit is considering filing a lawsuit and internal-affairs complaint.

Benoit’s allegations — coupled with a WPLG-ABC 10 report that an officer temporarily seized one of its video cameras after the fatal shooting of Raymond Herisse — have spurred criticism from photojournalists and the American Civil Liberties Union.

The National Press Photographers Association sent a stern letter to Police Chief Carlos Noriega on Tuesday requesting the release of any confiscated cameras and that officers receive better training on how to handle being on film.

“Unfortunately the reliance by your officers to question, detain, interfere with and seize property of those engaged in lawful activities under color of law is reprehensible,” wrote association attorney Mickey Osterreicher. 

Also Tuesday, John de Leon, president of the Greater Miami chapter of the ACLU, said police have “set themselves up for legal actions in connection with the suppression of peoples’ ability to document what police were doing.”

Videos shot by Benoit and a man in a Collins Avenue apartment show Herisse driving down Collins as shots ring out, and then a dozen Miami Beach and Hialeah police officers opening fire on his Hyundai.

Police said the incident began after Herisse struck a police officer with his car. Yet to be determined: whether Herisse fired at officers. After several days, police found a handgun in his car.






Monday, May 16, 2011

The Constitution is nothing more than an old piece of paper when courts are issuing rulings like this:

INDIANAPOLIS | Overturning a common law dating back to the English Magna Carta of 1215, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Hoosiers have no right to resist unlawful police entry into their homes.

In a 3-2 decision, Justice Steven David writing for the court said if a police officer wants to enter a home for any reason or no reason at all, a homeowner cannot do anything to block the officer's entry.

"We believe ... a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence," David said. "We also find that allowing resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties involved without preventing the arrest."

David said a person arrested following an unlawful entry by police still can be released on bail and has plenty of opportunities to protest the illegal entry through the court system. 

The court's decision stems from a Vanderburgh County case in which police were called to investigate a husband and wife arguing outside their apartment.

When the couple went back inside their apartment, the husband told police they were not needed and blocked the doorway so they could not enter. When an officer entered anyway, the husband shoved the officer against a wall. A second officer then used a stun gun on the husband and arrested him.

Professor Ivan Bodensteiner, of Valparaiso University School of Law, said the court's decision is consistent with the idea of preventing violence.

"It's not surprising that they would say there's no right to beat the hell out of the officer," Bodensteiner said. "(The court is saying) we would rather opt on the side of saying if the police act wrongfully in entering your house your remedy is under law, to bring a civil action against the officer."

Justice Robert Rucker, a Gary native, and Justice Brent Dickson, a Hobart native, dissented from the ruling, saying the court's decision runs afoul of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

"In my view the majority sweeps with far too broad a brush by essentially telling Indiana citizens that government agents may now enter their homes illegally -- that is, without the necessity of a warrant, consent or exigent circumstances," Rucker said. "I disagree."

Rucker and Dickson suggested if the court had limited its permission for police entry to domestic violence situations they would have supported the ruling.

But Dickson said, "The wholesale abrogation of the historic right of a person to reasonably resist unlawful police entry into his dwelling is unwarranted and unnecessarily broad."

This is the second major Indiana Supreme Court ruling this week involving police entry into a home.
On Tuesday, the court said police serving a warrant may enter a home without knocking if officers decide circumstances justify it. Prior to that ruling, police serving a warrant would have to obtain a judge's permission to enter without knocking.

Court: No right to resist illegal cop entry into home

Wednesday, December 8, 2010

NY Post - Elderly New York Woman Gets $100 Ticket for Throwing Newspaper Away

If you are still of the belief that the government is not out of control you need to read this:

Elderly New York Woman Gets $100 Ticket for Throwing Newspaper Away
What a bunch of garbage!

An elderly Manhattan woman living on Social Security was slapped with a $100 ticket -- just for throwing away a newspaper in a city trash can.

Delia Gluckin, 80, tossed the paper in a bin right outside her Inwood apartment building Sunday morning, only to be ambushed by an overzealous Department of Sanitation agent wielding a citation book.

"I was walking to take the subway downtown and dropped it in a trash can, and this lady in a blue uniform ran up to me," Gluckin told The Post.

"I thought she was going to ask for directions. She said, 'You just dropped garbage in there,' " according to Gluckin.

"I said, 'I didn't, it was just a newspaper,' and I offered to take it out," said Gluckin, who had tossed her Sunday Post out.

Sanition cop Kathy Castro wrote Gluckin the summons for putting "improper refuse" in a city litter basket.

"She acted as if I had a committed a crime," said the outraged octogenarian.

"I said, 'Look, lady, I'm a senior citizen . . . I'll just take it back.' I even said to her, 'Am I your first customer of the day? I really felt intimidated . . . I have a feeling she just wanted to make her quota."

Tuesday, November 16, 2010

AZ Republic - Arizona pension plan for police, fire adds to cost

Why are state pension plans broke? Answer: Corrupt and stupid politicians that create laws like those in Arizona, which lead to unsustainable payments to state retirees. I thought the only people who got $250K lump sum payments were Wall Street bankers not firefighters and cops.

Arizona pension plan for police, fire adds to cost
Fearing a potential exodus of police officers and firefighters eligible to retire, the Arizona Legislature a decade ago created the Deferred Retirement Option Plan ("DROP") as a way to keep experienced public safety officers on the job.

The deal seemed simple: If officers agreed to work up to five extra years before retiring, the DROP program would pay them a lump sum in addition to their annual pension when they finally retired.
The program remains enticing. Today, participants' lump-sum payments at retirement average $268,938 for all public-safety officers. The average payment for police officers is $247,422, and $314,338 for retiring firefighters.

Officers enrolled in DROP also draw their annual pensions once they step off the job.

The lump-sum payouts, combined with cost-of-living increases that have outpaced inflation and multiple years of investment losses, caused taxpayers' costs for the program to soar.

As a result, the Public Safety Personnel Retirement System is so underfunded that even its top administrator says the overall pension program needs to be changed, perhaps drastically, to stem the expanding public subsidy.

"The plan is upside down," said Jim Hacking, its director. "It's not reasonable or realistic for our constituent groups or anybody to say, 'We will not do anything.' It's not a rational response."

As DROP was rolled out during the past decade, public-safety retirees received cost-of-living adjustments to their primary plan, and average annual pension benefits grew to $44,025 - the highest among all Arizona public pension systems.

The public's tab through employer contributions for the combined pensions, cost-of-living increases and DROP payouts in the past decade has grown from $46.8 million to $316.2 million a year - a spike of nearly 576 percent, or 22 times more the rate of inflation during the same period. Those increasing costs mirror the growth in Arizona's five other public-pension systems. An Arizona Republic investigation has found the pension systems are costing taxpayers at least $1.39 billion a year - more than the current state budgets for higher education, corrections or a health-insurance program for the poor.

Byron Schlomach, an economist with the Goldwater Institute and a critic of the state's pension systems, said the public-safety benefits are overly generous and the burden for taxpayers was unreal.

"It's nice they have figured out a way to rob us," said Schlomach. "This is ridiculous. How can anybody justify this?"

Hacking said there was "no question DROP added some liabilities" to the public-safety pension trust, but he believes the system has been hurt more by investment losses at the beginning and end of the last decade due to stock market conditions, and by guaranteed cost-of-living increases to retirees.

Supporters of DROP say it has helped police and fire departments retain experienced talent while allowing municipalities to better plan when to add staff.

"Police officers were leaving as soon as they were eligible to retire," said Jim Mann, executive director of the 6,500-member Fraternal Order of Police. "There's a real need to keep experienced officers on the job because it costs so much to train new officers."

Tim Hill, president of the Professional Fire Fighters of Arizona, which also has 6,500 members, said the lump-sum payments were misleading. While they sound high, he contends the program saves the pension system money in the long run. He said once public safety officers opt into DROP, they no longer continue to accrue credits for their years of service. By comparison, he said, officers who remain a full 25 years or more and do not take part in DROP have their pensions calculated based on total years of service, giving them larger pensions that, over time, may eclipse DROP's upfront cost.

Neither employee organizations nor the pension system could provide precise estimates of whether DROP has been a net expense or savings for the pension system. However, around the same time the public-safety system instituted DROP, the Arizona State Retirement System, the largest public pension program, rejected the same program because its director said it was too costly.

While the payouts are rich, participation in DROP in recent years has fallen after steadily growing from 2002 to 2006, when a record-high 1,746 members were enrolled. Last year, participation fell to 1,044, or roughly 5 percent of the total active membership in the pension program.

Hacking said enrollment fell because in the past few years there have been fewer employees with the required 20 years of service to enter the program.

How it works

The Public Safety Personnel Retirement System allows its members to enter DROP after 20 years of service. They then must remain with their employer for up to five more years, and during that time neither the employee nor employer contributes to the retirement system.

Upon entering DROP, the employee's pension is calculated based on years of service up to that point and the highest consecutive three years of compensation. The amount the employee would have received in a pension is essentially set aside by the public-safety pension system, and the money is guaranteed to increase at the trust's assumed rate of growth, currently 8.25 percent.

The DROP payments are higher for those who come into the program with a larger salary and more years of service.

By law, the interest is paid even if the assumed rate doesn't materialize. That means there's no risk to the employee, but it's a big problem for taxpayers when the stock market drops, which caused negative returns for the trust in 2001, 2002, 2008 and 2009. When the system loses money, employers using tax dollars have to pay more to make up the losses.

Anthony Webb, an economist at the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College, said the guaranteed growth rate for DROP participants is unheard-of in the private sector unless money is placed in high-risk investments, but even then, there are no guarantees.

Hacking said the interest rate is set by state law, and he said the pension system is well diversified and not dependent on high-risk investments.

Along with the DROP benefit, participants have other benefits unique to public-safety personnel. Because of the recognized physical stresses of police and firefighting jobs, and the dangers of being killed on the job, public-safety pension systems generally have allowed participants to retire earlier than those in the private sector.

The average age for public safety retirees is 50.8 years, and the pension continues until a person dies. At that point, a spouse receives 80 percent of the pension until that person dies and the pension payments stop.

Benefits for DROP participants skyrocketed in 2007, when some of the first participants left the program and collected payouts after participating for the maximum five years.

That year, DROP benefits totaled $151.9 million, a 566 percent increase from the previous year when $22.8 million was paid. In 2007, DROP accounted for one-third of all pension benefits paid to police and firefighters. The previous year, it accounted for just 8 percent of all benefits.

DROP payments declined to $98 million and $91 million, respectively, in the past two years. But they still accounted for roughly 21 percent of all pension benefits for 2008 and 2009.

'Unsustainable'

A consequence of the large payouts and diminished investment earnings is that the pension trust currently is funded at just 65.8 percent, the lowest among the six public pension systems in Arizona.

That means the money now in the trust would pay for only 65.8 percent of the system's current liabilities if they all came due at the same time.

The goal is to be 100 percent funded; 80 percent is considered healthy by industry standards.

The closer a pension is to being fully funded, the lower the contribution rates for members and their employers.

Arizona law sets trust contributions by police and firefighters at 7.65 percent of their wages. If investment returns are poor and the trust is underfunded, the employee contribution is not raised.

Instead, any shortfall is generally made up by employers through tax dollars, though the trust also is partly funded through taxes on homeowner-insurance policies.

Employers currently contribute an amount equivalent to nearly 21 percent of an employee's gross wages. That's roughly four times the rate 10 years ago.

But Mann, of the Fraternal Order of Police, countered that while employer contribution rates may be high now, there were times when police officers and firefighters paid higher rates than their employers. When employers had lower rates, he noted, they were not asking to pay more to make it equitable.

Employer rates are projected to rise to 37.5 percent by 2024 in order to make up for the system's current indebtedness.

One reason for the increase: cost-of-living raises have been given to public-safety pensioners for 24 consecutive years.

In 2009, each retiree received an additional $1,761, a flat amount calculated on the average pension.

Hacking said the current overall program was "unsustainable," and he said he would work with employees and employers to propose changes to the Legislature next year.

He declined to disclose specific reforms, but he said it was possible DROP "will not look like the one we have now."

Wednesday, September 22, 2010

Christians Arrested at a Dearborn Arab Festival for Free Speech

These officers were way out of line to have these guys arrested. The situation was completely peaceful and there was no hint that a riot was about to break out.



As a followup the Judge refused to dismiss the case against these men and they are scheduled to go to trial.

Christian missionaries will stand trial in Dearborn

The four Christian missionaries arrested for disorderly conduct for preaching to a predominately Muslim crowd at the Dearborn International Arab Festival in June will stand trial after the judge refused to grant a motion filed by defense attorneys to dismiss the case.


The Thomas More Law Center, which is defending the missionaries, the ACLU of Michigan — two groups that rarely agree — and constitutional law professors told the Michigan Messenger that the arrests appear to violate the First Amendment.