Posts Tagged ‘police state USSA’

ALEXANDRIA, Va. (AP) — A federal judge expressed skepticism Friday about the constitutionality of the government’s no-fly list, suggesting that those who find themselves on it ought to be allowed a meaningful opportunity to clear their names.

http://news.yahoo.com/judge-hear-arguments-constitutionality-no-fly-list-094428655.html

As of now-there is no meaningful appeal for anyone placed on the no fly list,just like there’s no relief from weapons disability at the fed level for those who made a mistake 10,15,20,30years ago to get their second amendment rights restored-which should never have been taken away in most cases.

This case will hopefully be decided for the appellant,and the courts will stop this massive overreach by the federal government.

No way in hell is the no-fly list Constitutional-it’s a secret government list of “enemies”,in the past young children have been placed on the list,and the late Sen. Kennedy was placed on the list at one time.

The list is a clear violation of the fourth amendment-among the many other things that are wrong with the list.

Since 2000, the court has decided 13 cases that significantly weaken the Fourth Amendment’s guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures:

Illinois v. Wardlow (2000) – Flight in a high-crime neighborhood may constitute reasonable suspicion for a warrantless stop.

Board of Education v. Pottawatomie (2002) – Public schools can randomly drug test students who engage in extracurricular activities.

Maryland v. Pringle (2003) – When drugs are found in a car, all occupants may be arrested even without particularized evidence connecting them to the drugs.

Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada (2004) – A state can compel someone stopped by police to identify himself.

Illinois v. Caballes (2005) – Police can use a drug dog to sniff around a car even without prior probable cause or reasonable suspicion that drugs are present.

Samson v. California (2006) – Parolees can be searched without a warrant even if there is no reasonable suspicion or probable cause of criminal activity.

Hudson v. Michigan (2006) – No suppression of evidence for violation of the knock and announce requirement.

Herring v. US (2009) – Police can rely on information received from another law enforcement agency that there is a warrant out for the arrest of a person, even though the information is erroneous, which raises the bar for exclusion of illegally obtained evidence.

Kentucky v. King (2011) – Police can search without a warrant under the exigent circumstances exception even if the police themselves created the exigency.

Arizona v. US (2012) – Police can ask about immigration status if they have reasonable suspicion the person is not lawfully present in the United States, even though “reasonable suspicion” is based on racial profiling.

Florida v. Harris (2013) – Alert by a drug-detection dog can constitute probable cause for search even without a showing that the dog is reliable.

Maryland v. King (2013) – Arrestees can be forced to provide DNA samples even if they are not convicted of a crime.

Fernandez v. California (2014) – Police can conduct warrantless searches under the consent exception even if a co-tenant objects to the search.

2014_07_bratton10a.jpg

(ANTIMEDIA) NEW YORK, NY- NYPD Commissioner Bill Bratton announced Thursday that 350 heavily armed NYPD officers, called the “Strategic Response Group,” will soon be patrolling protests and the city at large.

He said the new strain of hyper-armed police will be

“…equipped and trained in ways that our normal patrol officers are not. They’ll be equipped with all the extra heavy protective gear, with the long rifles and machine guns — unfortunately sometimes necessary in these instances.”

Bratton announced  their purpose is specifically

“…designed for dealing with events like our recent protests, or incidents like Mumbai or what just happened in Paris.”

Lumping protesters in with terrorists, he said the permanent force will deal with “disorder control and counterterrorism protection capabilities.” It will allegedly assist on crime scenes and help with “crowd control and other large-scale events.”

It is not unusual for authorities to ramp up “security” efforts following attacks (such as the ax attack against officers in October), but the idea of machine-gun clad officers is disturbing, especially considering past NYPD abuses of protesters and other residents.

The federal government, which has attempted to feign concern with police brutality, is partially funding the militarized venture. The Department of Homeland Security is supplying resources, as is the city of New York. The Pentagon has previously provided machine guns, ammuniton, and other military gear to New York police and other local cops around the country.

The program is set to begin with two precincts in Queens and two in Manhattan, though Bratton did not specify when. During the announcement at a Police Foundation breakfast at the Mandarin Hotel, Bratton also said his plan was backed by both Mayor Bill de Blasio (who came under fire from cops last year) and the city council.

He said the effort is intended to improve police relations with communities since “regular” police will no longer be called from their local precincts to deal with protests and alleged security threats:

“For years we’ve been asking our officers to engage in the community, but we’ve never given them time to do it, or the training.”

Such “crises” will now be handled by the machine gunning cops (machine guns are banned for private citizens). Bratton has also previously asked the city for more tasers to “improve relations” by reducing fatal shootings.

In his Thursday announcement, Bratton additionally called on the MTA to install cameras on all subways-for safety, of course.

Unsurprisingly, there is outrage against the proposed plan. Priscilla Gonzalez, Organizing Director of Communities United for Police Reform, said Bratton’s

“…demands for less oversight of the NYPD and a more militarized police force that would use counter-terrorism tactics against protesters are deeply misguided and frankly offensive. We need an NYPD that is more accountable to New Yorkers and that stops criminalizing our communities, especially when people are taking to the streets to voice legitimate concerns about discriminatory and abusive policing. Despite growing evidence that discriminatory broken windows is a failed and harmful policing strategy, Commissioner Bratton stubbornly continues to defend and expand it.”

The move comes as crime has dropped in New York and the police ticket-writing boycott in protest of Mayor de Blasio led to no increase in conflict.

BREAKING: New NYPD Policy To Patrol Protests With Machine Guns

DENVER (Reuters) – A young woman suspected of driving a stolen car filled with teenage passengers was shot dead by Denver police on Monday after she struck an officer with the vehicle as he approached on foot, authorities said.

Denver Police Chief Robert White told reporters that there were five very young people inside the car when the shooting occurred, and the person who was fatally shot “appeared to be a teenager.”

Her name and age were not immediately released.

White said the incident began when an officer responded to reports of a suspicious vehicle in an alley in the city’s Park Hill neighborhood.

The first officer on scene ran the plates on the car and was told it was stolen and called for back-up, White said. A second officer then arrived and when the pair approached the vehicle, the driver hit one of the officers with the car.

“Both officers fired several shots” at the driver, White said, and the person who was shot was later pronounced dead at a local hospital. The chief said the officer who was struck suffered a possible broken leg and was expected to recover.

http://news.yahoo.com/denver-police-shoot-kill-young-woman-struck-officer-224221994.html

USA!USA!USA!

officer-safety-pew-pew-pew-complete-power

ht/wirecutter / wisco Dave

Michigan is routinely classified as an open carry state; however, it’s  discretionary if you are not white. If you are not white and the police officer (Detroit Police Officer James Taylor in this case) decides that non whites shouldn’t have guns, then you get arrested for concealed carry and the prosecutor and judge can play along and even bar the attorney’s from mentioning that open carry is legal during the trial.

No, this case was not argued in the Central Court of North Korea in Pyongyang, this case was argued in Detroit, Michigan. Although it is hard to tell the difference after hearing about this case.

Fortunately,  two attorney’s came to the victim’s defense. Here is the synopsis from one of the attorneys.

Synopsis by Jim Makowski, Esq.

PEOPLE v. WOODY AAR

On September 13, 2014, Elijah Woody, Jr., a 24 y.o., African-American male, was hanging out chatting with 4-5 friends on the sidewalk of an inner city neighborhood in Detroit. WOODY was open carrying a Glock 23 in a Blackhawk SERPA OWB holster and wearing jeans, a t-shirt, and a light jacket buttoned all the way up.

At approximately 7:50p, a car containing three officers from the Detroit Police Department’s Tactical Response Unit, rounded the corner and approached the group. The TRU officers dress in BDUs and typically act in a paramilitary fashion.

As everyone in Detroit knows but most of us from the suburbs do not, it is common for DPD officers to stop, frisk, demand identification and conduct illegal, unconstitutional searches of any group of black males on public property. If they find anything illegal or questionable they will then lie as to how they learned of the offense.

True to form, the officers stopped the car, jumped out and demanded everyone produce ID. Officer James Taylor went straight to WOODY and asked him “you got some bullshit on you there,” referring to the Glock. WOODY is immediately disarmed, cuffed and placed in the back of the squad car. The officers did not inquire whether he had a CPL until after transporting him to the Detroit Detention Facility, and charging him with the five-year felony of Carrying a Concealed Weapon.

When the police wrote their report they had to come up with a story to justify their encounter with WOODY. The officers claimed they observed the group drinking from red Solo cups and, as they drove up they “smelled the strong odor of burning marijuana” from a moving car about 15’ away (must be some bloodhound genes there). Officer Taylor claimed that when WOODY noticed their approach he “bladed” his body to limit their ability to see his right hip and started “backpedaling.” Taylor claimed that WOODY then turned full face on, lifted the right side of his jacket and exposed the Glock hidden under his jacket, stating he was “open carrying.”

Shortly after the arrest I was contacted and advised about this gross abuse of WOODY’s rights. I reached out to my good friend Terry Johnson, a fellow 2A defense lawyer, to see if he was interested in jointly defending WOODY. He agreed so we took the case.

http://www.miopencarry.org/new/2015/01/michigan-is-an-open-carry-state-if-you-are-white

ProPublica has just published a long investigation of the use of flashbang grenades, an issue I’ve written about quite a bit, including here at The Watch.

These are the incendiary devices intended to temporarily stun, blind and deafen everyone within range. They have some limited appropriate uses, such as when police are confronting someone who is in the process of committing a violent crime. But they’re used far more often than that, and there’s a long trail of people injured and even killed.

[I]n Little Rock, Ark., the police department is still using flashbangs on nearly every raid, according to ProPublica’s analysis. Police department records obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union, as part of its nationwide survey of police militarization, showed that between 2011 and 2013, Little Rock police tossed flashbangs into homes on 112 occasions, or 84 percent of raids — nearly all of them in predominantly black neighborhoods.

Little Rock Police Department spokesman Sidney Allen defended the practice, saying, “You may see a large number of flashbang deployments, but what we see is a large service of warrants without gunfire.” But no weapons were found at three-quarters of the homes during this period, according to department records obtained by ProPublica. Most searches yielded drug paraphernalia such as small baggies of marijuana and glass pipes. Others just turned up bottles of beer.

One Sunday afternoon in 2012, Sharon Kay Harris, a diminutive 54-year-old grandmother, was still in her church clothes getting a soda out of the fridge when police officers threw a flashbang into her kitchen. “It was very scary,” Harris said. “It’s real loud, it sounds like a gun going off.” Other officers broke down her front door with a battering ram and threw a flashbang into the living room, igniting a pile of clothing. A few weeks earlier, Harris had sold a plate of food and six cans of beer without a license, a misdemeanor in Arkansas, to an undercover officer. The officer returned on a second occasion to catch Harris in another offense: selling liquor on a Sunday. During their raid on Harris’ house, the police confiscated several cases of beer, which she freely admitted to selling along with hot dogs, nachos and fajitas . . .

Little Rock Police Department spokesman Allen said he does not consider the force used on Harris’ home to be excessive. “If she hadn’t been selling illegal items out of the home, no warrant would have been served,” he said. “What you call extreme, we call safe.”

officer-safety-pew-pew-pew-complete-power

Even when deployed properly, it’s important to remember that these devices, by design, inflict pain and punishment on people. That’s perhaps a justifiable use of force when it’s necessary to apprehend someone who is putting others at imminent risk of injury or death. But flashbangs today are primarily used in raids to serve warrants on people still merely suspected of nonviolent, consensual drug crimes. Not only are these suspects not putting anyone at imminent risk, but they have yet to even be charged with a crime. Another way to put it: Police are using premeditated violence as an investigative tool. And that’s merely the problem with using these devices against suspects. Let’s not forget the bystanders who may be inside, or the possibility of police mistakenly targeting the wrong house, a not uncommon problem in drug investigations.

Officer safety is important. But the ubiquity of flashbangs shows that in too many police agencies today, officer safety has become a higher priority than the safety of the citizens the officers serve.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2015/01/14/the-flashbang-menace/

That’s what happens when the local police have all kinds of tacticool shit and no effin clue how to use it. There’s a huge lack of training for SWAT teams all over the USA-that’s why they do dumb assed shit like raid the wrong house,shoot a 5# dog because it was “acting aggressive” towards them,or shoot-often killing- innocent people in their own homes-innocent people who have committed no crime.

They get shot,the stormtroopers kill their Labradoodle,or toy poodle,or mini schnauzer, because it was being so mean to them that they were in fear for their life.

We need to ban these special snowflake SWAT teams,and these stormtroopers need to be held accountable when they raid the wrong home,shoot innocent people at said wrong home,and when they kill the family dog at the wrong home. When they shoot each other-who cares-one less stormtrooper to shoot your wife,your kid,and your dog,kick in your door,break windows to toss flashbangs in the hole where the glass used to be, toss a flashbang into the baby’s crib,break doors all through your home,ruin your carpeting,and tear all your belongings up and toss them all over the floors.

And cops wonder why so many people despise them??????

Here’s what the guys with the tacticool gear and no clue how to use it did this time…

“ALBUQUERQUE (Reuters) – An Albuquerque police officer shot and critically wounded a fellow officer during an undercover narcotics bust at a fast food franchise parking lot at around mid-day on Friday, police said.

Police would not release additional details of the shooting or of the nature of the officer’s injuries.

“Both officers involved were working in a plain clothes, undercover capacity and have been with the department for many years,” said Albuquerque Police Department spokeswoman Celina Espinoza said, adding that two suspects were arrested.

The incident comes after a federal investigation concluded the police department in the mid-sized U.S. city in New Mexico used excessive, even deadly, force against passive civilians.

In October of last year, Albuquerque and the U.S. Justice Department announced an agreement for the city’s police department to undergo reform and be monitored for use of excessive force.

Another police officer was shot during a traffic stop on Jan. 3. On Dec. 15, an Albuquerque police officer accidentally shot a bystander when his weapon discharged as he climbed through a window during a burglary investigation.

The officer in Friday’s underwent surgery at University of New Mexico Hospital, Espinoza said. A second undercover officer was treated and released from the hospital with minor injuries. She said she did not know the cause of the injuries.

Wallace Anderson, who was inside the restaurant at the time of the shooting, told broadcaster KOB 4 he saw two unmarked cars pull up.

“They surrounded this vehicle so it couldn’t back up and escape. At that point, the shots happened and a guy was dragged to the pavement,” Anderson said.”

http://news.yahoo.com/albuquerque-police-officer-shot-fellow-officer-during-drug-055419976.html

NYPD: 2 officers shot in the Bronx

Posted: January 6, 2015 by gamegetterII in Police state USSA
Tags: ,

Two police officers were shot in the Bronx Monday night, the New York Police Department confirmed.

Police officials told the Associated Press the two cops’ injuries were not life-threatening. Several local news outlets reported the officers were shot while responding to a robbery.

 WNBC in New York reported one officer was shot in the back, but is believed to have been wearing a bullet proof vest that may have saved his life while the second officer suffered a graze wound to the elbow.

The Daily News two robbery suspects fled on foot and that responding officers recovered a revolver at the scene.

Both WNBC and the New York Post reported one robbery suspect first fled in a car and crashed, then fled on foot. No suspects have been taken into custody.

The shootings come just weeks after NYPD police officers Wenjian Liu and Raphael Ramos were fatally shot in Brooklyn on Dec. 20 by a man believed to be seeking revenge for the police-involved deaths of Ferguson teen Michael Brown and Eric Garner of Staten Island.

Earlier Monday New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio and NYPD Commissioner Bill Bratton held a press conference to announce a dip in crime in the city. Bratton also addressed reports of an intentional work slowdown by NYPD cops angry at the mayor’s support of recent anti-cop protests in NYC.

“At this time, I would not use the term slowdown,” Bratton said, adding if he discovers organized effort on the part of police, “we will deal with it very forcefully.”

http://news.yahoo.com/nypd–2-officers-shot-in-the-bronx-042649723.html

December 31, 2014
Back in July, we looked at the case of Jason Wescott, a Florida man shot and killed by a police SWAT team during a drug raid over an alleged sale of $200 worth of pot to a police informant. The tragedy was exacerbated by the fact that according to friends and relatives, Wescott had been previously threatened by a man who had broken into his home. When he reported the threat to police they apparently told him, “If anyone breaks into this house, grab your gun and shoot to kill.” Officers from the very same police agency then raided Wescott over some pot. When he grabbed his gun, they killed him.All that would be appalling in and of itself. But a new report from the Tampa Bay Times shows that it’s actually quite a bit worse. The paper was able to obtain the identity of the informant that led to the raid on Wescott’s home, Ronnie “Bodie” Coogle. And he has a lot to say.

A 50-year-old felon and drug addict, Coogle was the principal Tampa Police Department informer against at least five suspects this year. He conducted nine undercover operations. In their probable-cause affidavits, his handlers called him reliable. Even Tampa’s police chief praised his “track record.”

Coogle said they were all wrong. He said he repeatedly lied about suspects, stole drugs he bought on the public’s dime and conspired to falsify drug deals.

One of those he lied about, he said, was Jason Westcott, a young man with no criminal convictions whom a SWAT team killed during a drug raid that found just $2 worth of marijuana. Critics from across the country condemned the Police Department’s handling of the case as an example of the drug war’s lethal excesses.

“They’re making statements that are lies, that are absolute untruths, that are based on shady facts,” Coogle said of Tampa police. “Everything they’re saying is based on the informant. And I was the informant.”

Coogle said he decided to step forward, exposing his identity and risking retribution from drug dealers, because of his remorse over Westcott’s death. “I’ve got morals, and I feel compassion for this guy’s family and for his boyfriend,” he said. “It didn’t have to happen this way.”

Coogle is nobody’s idea of a righteous whistle-blower. The only constant in his story is his own dishonesty; even when he confesses to lying you don’t know if he’s telling the truth.

Much of what he says can be neither proved nor disproved, in large part because of the Police Department’s minimal supervision of his work. But Coogle’s allegations against the cops who paid him, and even his own admissions of double-dealing, aren’t necessarily what’s most disturbing about his account.

Most unsettling of all might be what nobody disputes — that police officers were willing to trust somebody like him in the first place.

When you’re trying to gauge the honesty of statements from a habitually dishonest person, it’s helpful to look at motives. Coogle had plenty of motive to lie to police about drug investigations. He got paid for his tips. I’m not sure what motive he’d have to lie here. What he told the paper will almost certainly end his gig as an informant, and, as the except points out, will likely put him in the crosshairs of the people he has reported to the police. Here’s how his lies got Jason Wescott killed.

Westcott and Reyes didn’t know much about the ingratiating junkie who slept in their neighbors’ tool shed. He showed up at their house almost daily last winter, eating their pizza and smoking their pot. As a token of friendship he once gave them a vacuum cleaner he had stolen from Walmart.

“You could tell he wasn’t the greatest of people or whatever,” Reyes said. “Jason, he kind of befriended everybody, you know what I’m saying? And that’s where we went wrong.”

One day he asked if they could get him heroin. “I’m like, ‘I don’t even know what heroin looks like,’” Reyes recalled.

The shed-dweller was Coogle, of course, fresh out of jail and staying with his in-laws. And when he asked for heroin he wasn’t asking for himself.

Coogle said his police handlers had urged him to seek heroin from Westcott and Reyes, but Westcott rebuffed him. We’re not involved in any s— like that. We’re pot smokers, Coogle remembered him saying.

But Coogle said he didn’t think his bosses would like the truth, so he told them the couple was connected to a heroin supplier in New York. He said he picked the state simply because he knew Westcott was born there.

“It was a bull—- story,” he said.

He then says the police started to lie themselves.

On the night of April 8, Coogle said, he stepped into an unmarked truck waiting for him on Knollwood Street with bad news: Westcott had no pot to sell. But as he started to explain, he said, the detective in the driver’s seat glared and cut him off.

“He said, ‘No, you got a gram, right?’ ” Coogle recalled. “You could tell with the body language and the way he was talking that he didn’t want to drive away from there without doing a buy.”

Back at the rally point where other undercover officers had gathered — the parking lot of a Bravo Supermarket on Sligh Avenue — he said he and his handler sat in the parked truck and talked, the detective’s pen poised over a report to which Coogle would eventually sign his name.

“It was almost like he was reading me the Riot Act,” Coogle said. “He’s like, ‘Listen, we’ve got too much manpower out here tonight for us to come up dry.’ And after him saying that in a couple of different ways but saying the same thing, I caught on to what he was saying. And I said, ‘Yeah, I bought the gram.’ “

Police reports indicate Coogle bought $20 worth of marijuana from Westcott that night.

Coogle said it was one of two times he swore to buying drugs when a target he approached actually had none to sell. The second was a falsified $50 crack-cocaine purchase from the Sulphur Springs suspect, he said.

In both cases, he said, Tampa detectives assured him they weren’t doing anything wrong — just guaranteeing the arrests of people they knew were dealers. “Once they determine that there’s criminal activity,” he said, “after that nothing else counts.”

Coogle also says that police distorted his story about Wescott’s gun, the apparent reason for the decision to use the SWAT team to apprehend him. If you’ll remember back to the first post, there’s another reason to believe that Coogle is telling the truth, here. The police also initially claimed that the tip about Westcott’s drug dealing came from neighbors, not a drug addicted confidential informant. That is, until the Tampa Bay paper interviewed those neighbors and discovered they had said no such thing. The police then “revised” their story. (Incidentally, all of these stories were reported by the Tampa Bay Times’ Peter Jamison. He deserves a ton of credit for his tenacity on this story.)

Read more @

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/12/31/a-drug-informant-lied-swat-pounced-a-man-died/

Two U.S. senators are questioning whether the FBI has granted itself too much leeway on when it can use decoy cellphone towers to scoop up data on the identities and locations of cellphone users. The lawmakers say the agency now says it doesn’t need a search warrant when gathering data about people milling around in public spaces.

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the chairman and ranking member on the Senate Judiciary Committee respectively, have written a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder and Department of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson about the use of the surveillance technology called an IMSI catcher, though also referred to by the trade name “Stingray.”

Cell tower simulators work by mimicking the legitimate cell towers used by companies like Verizon, AT&T, and Sprint. They catch the signals emitted from cellphones and other mobile devices and extract insight into who owns the phone, his or her location, and other details. That’s a bit like someone setting up a big blue box, posting a United States Postal Service logo on the side, copying information from the letters fooled users deposit in it, and then soon after dumping the accumulated mail into a real mail box. No one need be the wiser.

The hitch of, course, is that spoofing the U.S. Postal Service would be illegal. What Leahy and Grassley are wondering is whether what the FBI is doing crosses a legal line.

What has particularly prompted their concerns, they say, is a meeting between their Senate staffs and the FBI. In that discussion, the agency representatives, they say, indicated that FBI policy requires obtaining a search warrant before using a cell-tower simulator to go after a target. But, say the senators, FBI officials revealed that along with the carve-outs for search warrants for cell-tower spoofing that follow regular law enforcement practice — where the public is in immediate danger or where it is a fugitive being tracked — the FBI has recently granted itself an exception for “cases in which the technology is used in public places or other locations at which the FBI deems there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.”

That would seem to suggest that the FBI has determined that simply making a call while walking down a city street is enough to free federal law enforcement from its internal restrictions on digging into your phone data. The senators have given the departments until Jan. 30 to respond. The FBI did not respond to a request for comment.

Read more @

http://tablet.washingtonpost.com/politics/senators-question-legality-of-fbis-new-policy-on-cellphone-tracking/2015/01/03/a12b6aec2287b69b9cddc8c30a75ef4f_story.html