Search
Archives

You are currently browsing the archives for the Law Enforcement category.

Categories

Archive for the ‘Law Enforcement’ Category

When I wrote that Daryle Jenkins was Antifa’s unofficial spokesman, I highlighted how he spun things to make his cause seem justified. There’s no way Antifa can spin this article successfully.

For instance, when it’s said that “The vast majority of the 4,000-some protesters who descended on Berkeley’s Civic Center Park last Sunday to demonstrate against a small group of Trump supporters were perfectly peaceful, but some of the 100 to 200 black-clad Antifa there ganged up on the Trump fans, punching and kicking them. Other Antifa carried colorful shields painted with the words ‘no hate’ to build a barrier that Antifa claims is needed to protect anti-racist protesters from the police and right-wingers. The activist said Antifa takes to the streets ‘out of love’, keeping nonviolent protesters safe from right wing protesters and the police.”

That isn’t just spin. It’s an outright lie. This video provides verifiable proof that that isn’t what’s happening:

According to the newscaster, Antifa protesters “broke through police barricades during a rally against hate and clashed with right wing activists.” It’s impossible to explain why Antifa rioters needed to break through police barricades and fight with right wing activists while protecting “nonviolent protesters from right wing protesters.” If there’s a police barricade separating the non-violent protesters and Antifa, then all that’s needed to ‘protect’ Antifa is for them to stay separated. Let the police do their job of protecting the peace.

Later in the article, an Antifa activist said “if the police try to attack protesters, Antifa gives other people the space to stay safe.” According to the article, “violence is justified, the Bay Area Antifa member said, because the far right is trying to create a fascist state.”

I’m pretty certain that thoughtful people might dispute who’s trying to create a fascist state. Activists that crash through police barricades to attack peaceful protesters aren’t likely to be considered peaceful protesters. They’re most likely to be called anarchists and/or rioters.

Anyone who’s followed Sen. McCain’s political career knows that he’s had a holier-than-thou attitude. When he co-authored the unconstitutional McCain-Feingold legislation, his interviews on the legislation focused on perceived corruption rather than on whether the legislation violated people’s civil rights. Sen. McCain insisted that ridding society of corruption, whether it was real or imagined, was more important than protecting a person’s civil rights.

Later, Sen. McCain helped push through legislation that tied the hands of interrogators interrogating terrorists, supposedly because these EITs were helping terrorists recruit more terrorists and because the EITs (enhanced interrogation techniques) were hurting our standing in the world. The truth is that a handful of countries were complaining about the EITs but that the problem was more imagined than real.

Now, Sen. McCain is criticizing President Trump’s pardon of Sheriff Arpaio, saying “”No one is above the law and the individuals entrusted with the privilege of being sworn law officers should always seek to be beyond reproach in their commitment to fairly enforcing the laws they swore to uphold.”

It’s indisputable that Sen. McCain is an American military hero. Spending years in the Hanoi Hilton bought him that honor. As a politician, though, he isn’t an American hero. It’s important to separate those identities. Sen. McCain isn’t a team player. He’s loved playing the part of a maverick essentially the last half of his political career.

I salute McCain, the war hero and POW. I’d ignore Sen. McCain, the politician, if he didn’t keep jumping into the middle of controversies, then making ill-advised decisions.

The Left’s latest chanting point is that President Trump’s pardon of Sheriff Arpaio means that he might pardon his friends facing federal investigations. That’s why it isn’t surprising to read Phillip Bump’s article, which reads like a liberal hissy fit on the subject.

Bump writes “The broader question raised by the pardon, then, is where Trump would draw the line. If he’s willing to pardon Joe Arpaio for ignoring a court order in service of a political goal Trump embraces, why wouldn’t he pardon another individual he respects for similarly ignoring a demand from the court.”

First, Bump’s premise is beyond flimsy. Presupposing that members of President Trump’s administration have committed crimes isn’t supported by any investigations. Until there’s more than unsubstantiated allegations of crimes being committed, I’ll ignore Bump’s liberal bias. The naming of a special counsel doesn’t prove anything except that Democrats will do anything in their attempt to delegitimize President Trump’s election. I’ll categorize that as the longest case of sour grapes in political history.

If there’s any doubt that this is the Democrats’ latest talking point to delegitimize President Trump’s election, check out this interview:

Then check out how similar this interview is to the first interview:

The clear message that I think President Trump is sending is that he isn’t like President Obama because he’s serious about protecting Arizona’s people from drug cartels and human traffickers. If Democrats want to pick that fight, let’s get it on. The Obama administration found a liberal judge to torment Sheriff Arpaio with a BS verdict.

Further, the Obama administration wasn’t serious about fighting illegal immigration. That’s indisputable because they frequently tied law enforcement’s hands behind their backs on immigration:

A group of immigration agents filed a lawsuit against the Obama administration Thursday, saying they are sick of being told not to do their jobs, a feeling intensified by the president’s new non-deportation policy and a previous memo directing them not to arrest certain illegal immigrants.

Sen. McCain, Sen. Flake, former President Obama and essentially all of the Democratic Party serving in DC have fought against enforcing the Tex-Mex border. Most importantly, they’ve fought against protecting law-abiding U.S. citizens.

As for the possibility of a president pardoning people whenever they want, that’s always been a possibility. There’s no reason to think that President Trump will pardon his political cronies, partially because his campaign staffers aren’t in trouble. The other faulty part of Bump’s premise is that there isn’t any proof anyone’s broken any laws. Why would anyone lie if they didn’t need to?

According to this St. Cloud Times article, a “Level 3 predatory offender will be returning to the St. Cloud community after serving his prison sentence, according to the St. Cloud Police Department. James Ross Forbes II, 30, of St. Cloud, engaged in sexual contact with a two-year-old girl he was babysitting, according to the St. Cloud Police Department. The contact included penetration. Forbes also had a history of sexual contact with a seven-year-old boy, according to police.”

What type of sick bastard engages in “sexual contact with a two-year-old girl”? What type of society essentially looks the other way when that type of predator gets a slap on the wrist? According to the article, “The St. Cloud Police Department is holding a community notification meeting at 6 p.m. Aug. 28 at the St. Cloud Police Department, Training Room C, 101-11th Avenue North. Representatives from the police department and the Minnesota Department of Corrections will be available to provide information on public safety.” It’s worse than that, though. The article says that “Forbes plans to move to the 100 block of East St. German Street on Aug. 21.” This is what Forbes looks like:

I did a little digging into Minnesota’s FAQ Page on sexual predators. Here’s one of the FAQs:

Q: What is a risk level?

Here’s Minnesota’s reply:

Risk levels are assigned by the Minnesota Department of Corrections (DOC) not the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA).
Risk Levels are assigned to registrants who are released from prison on or after January 1, 1997.
Risk level one indicates the least likelihood to re-offend. Risk level two indicates a moderate likelihood to re-offend. Risk level three indicates high likelihood to re-offend.
Information about Level 3 offenders is available on the DOC web site.

According to the article, Forbes “also had a history of sexual contact with a seven-year-old boy” prior to having “contact with a two-year-old girl he was babysitting.”

According to this fact sheet on sex offender treatment in prison, “Seventeen percent of Minnesota inmates are incarcerated for a governing sex offense, and an additional 14 percent have a prior felony conviction for a sex offense1. More than 90 percent will be released back into the community. Long-term, intensive residential sex offender treatment is used to reduce their risk of reoffending.”

Rather than having to waste time holding community notification meetings, I’ve got a simpler solution. Don’t let Level II or Level III sex offenders out of prison. Any predator that’s penetrated a 7-year-old buy and two-year-old girl” isn’t capable of being rehabilitated. Further, any government that won’t protect children from sexual predators has failed its primary responsibility of protecting its citizens. That government needs to be replaced by a government that puts its highest priority into protecting little children.

Finally, rewriting these sexual predator statutes is required. It should be written this fall and passed the first week of session next winter. No research is needed. Either politicians are serious or they’re part of the problem.

UPDATE: This morning, I wrote about the Level-3 sex offender that’s moving into an apartment on St. Cloud’s east side. Just a few minutes ago, I tried visiting the article to see what the comments were to the article. The article had disappeared. I suspect that it was pulled quite a while ago because there weren’t any comments. On a hot button topic like this, there’d normally be 25-50 comments.

The question now becomes about why the Times pulled the article from their website. Another question for the Times is why they ran the article on Saturday. Was it because they weren’t informed by the police? I suspect that isn’t why but that’s speculation. Surely, the SCPD knew long before this that this predator was likely to land in St. Cloud. Why weren’t St. Cloud residents notified before this morning?

Whatever the explanation, someone dropped the ball. That’s anything except acceptable.

Technorati: , , , ,

According to this article, Rep. Trent Franks, (R-AZ), has called for Robert Mueller’s resignation as special counsel. According to the article, “Mueller and former FBI Director James Comey have been longtime allies dating back to 2003 when the men both worked in Washington, Mueller as the FBI Director and Comey as Deputy Attorney General. Franks cited the pair’s relationship as a reason for Mueller to be disqualified from the probe. ‘Bob Mueller is in clear violation of federal code and must resign to maintain the integrity of the investigation into alleged Russian ties,’ Franks said. ‘Those who worked under them have attested he and Jim Comey possess a close friendship, and they have delivered on-the-record statements effusing praise of one another.'”

Gregg Jarrett laid it out perfectly, saying that “the special counsel statute says that if you have a personal relationship with any person substantially involved in the investigation or prosecution”, you cannot serve. It’s mandatory. Jarrett said that the language of the statute says that “you shall disqualify yourself.” It doesn’t suggest the special counsel should look into possible conflicts of interests. The statute says that the special counsel shall disqualify themselves.

The fact that Mueller hasn’t disqualified himself already indicates that Mueller isn’t the ethical man Democrats claim he is. That statute isn’t a suggestion. It’s a command.

Franks continued, saying this:

“Until Mueller resigns, he will be in clear violation of the law, a reality that fundamentally undermines his role as Special Counsel and attending ability to execute the law,” Franks said.

Mueller can’t stand for law and order if he’s selectively enforcing the law. It’s time he step aside ASAP.

Yesterday, Janeé Harteau resigned as Minneapolis’s police chief. Embattled Minneapolis Mayor Betsy Hodges has picked Medaria Arradondo to replace Harteau. The next question is whether Arradondo is the right pick to succeed Harteau. According to this MPR article, Chief Harteau was “the first woman, first Native American and first openly gay person to serve as chief in Minneapolis.”

R.T. Rybak was the mayor that picked Harteau to be his police chief. Now that Hodges is picking Harteau’s successor, it’s fair to ask whether she’s picking the right person for the job. This article suggests that she’s picking the wrong person. It says “Linea Palmisano, a city councilwoman who represents the ward where the shooting happened, told The Associated Press on Saturday that she’s known Arradondo for some time, relying on him to explain police initiatives and working with him during community meetings such as one introducing ‘implicit bias training’ for officers a few years ago.”

The fact that the Minneapolis Police Department has “implicit bias training” tells me that politicians are interfering too much. The National Initiative for Building Community Trust & Justice explains that implicit bias “can distort one’s perception and subsequent treatment either in favor of or against a given person or group. In policing, this has resulted in widespread practices that focus undeserved suspicion on some groups and presume other groups innocent.”

It’s important that Minneapolis gets this decision right. They’ve had problems for quite some time. Focusing on politically correct training isn’t wise. Apparently, that’s what Minneapolis has focus on. If you want the right results, you have to have the right training.

The point is that picking the right PC isn’t as important as putting the officers through the right training. At this point, the training emphasis needs to improve.

Last week, Gov. Dayton recommended that a fund be started to instruct police officers. At Gov. Dayton’s announcement, unfortunately, the most well-received speaker was Valerie Castile, Philando Castile’s mother.

That’s mostly because Gov. Dayton proposed that the training fund be named after Philando Castile. That didn’t sit well with the police. Their response was that “Still, the topic of naming the fund came up. Dennis Flaherty, a former executive director of the Minnesota Police and Peace Officers Association who was at the meeting, said it was ‘fair to say there was disagreement’ in the law enforcement community over naming the fund.”

Castile’s mother was well-received because she said “At the end of the day, everyone wants to go home. The police wants to go home and the civilian wants to go home. And if we can combine and work together as human beings that will happen. We got to learn how to communicate better with each other. We’re supposed to be the most intelligent species on the planet, but look (at) what we do to one another. We’re worse off than some animals, that just go around and prey on people.”

A loyal reader of LFR told me that Philando Castile’s uncle has participated in some meetings designed to work on police training issues. I was told that Castile’s uncle, for whatever it’s worth, is fairly level-headed. That’s believable in light of this paragraph:

Of police, she said, “We need them because the world would be chaotic if we didn’t have the police. Don’t get me wrong: I love having the police to protect and serve us. But when it comes to the point where there’s miscommunication and it turns out the way it turned out for my son, it’s unacceptable.”

This is a tragedy. This is the dashcam video of the shooting:

Gov. Dayton, unfortunately, spoke before he had the facts in the shooting. When he spoke, Gov. Dayton said that Castile probably wouldn’t have gotten shot if he was white. Gov. Dayton said that not knowing that Officer Yanez is Hispanic. Gov. Dayton said that without seeing the video of the shooting.
Technorati: , , , ,

I won’t mince words in this post. I haven’t respected NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio since he was elected. I didn’t think it possible but my respect for him shrunk this week. Via HotAir’s Allahpundit, I learned that Mayor de Blasio flew to Germany to protest President Trump while his city grieved after “Officer Miosotis Familia, a mother of three who was gunned down in her command unit as she wrapped up her shift.

Nothing says ‘I’m ignoring police officers’ like a mayor who flies off to Germany to protest the American president of the other party. Republican Nicole Malliotakis summed things up perfectly, saying “A member of the NYPD was murdered, a homeless crisis continues to worsen and our subway system seems to be on the verge of collapse and Mayor de Blasio has been criss-crossing the country pushing his national agenda, and now this.”

Mayor de Blasio just killed his national ambitions. Pictures of him protesting while his city’s crises go unresolved will leave a lasting impression. If there’s one thing the American people won’t tolerate, it’s a politician who is indifferent to cold-hearted towards law enforcement and the military. Mayor de Blasio is definitely cold-hearted towards law enforcement.

People know that I don’t agree with Eric Bolling often. His monologue in this video and the segment that follows is spot on:

Mayor de Blasio is a hard left progressive who doesn’t care about governing. He’s a despicable human being, too. Bolling is right. He shouldn’t return to NYC. NYC needs a real mayor, not this disgusting excuse for a human being.

Technorati: , , , , , , ,

By now, tons of ink has been spilled talking about the riot that happened prior to Milo Yiannopoulos’s performance at UC-Berkeley. Hopefully, this post will talk about something that hasn’t been talked about. I hope this takes a bit more of an historic perspective than those other articles. I hope this article exposes the wimpiness of the anarchist/Soros/progressive movement.

In the late 1960s and early 70s, UC-Berkeley gained notoriety for celebrating some of the greatest debates imaginable. The exchanges were testament to the intellectual heft of the students and personalities that participated in those debates. Today’s reporters, by contrast, talk about the students’ First Amendment rights to protest. Shame on them for that wimpy, obvious drivel. Nobody’s disputing the fact that students have the right to protest. That ‘reporting’ is missing the point, though.

The anarchists that inflict bodily harm on other students are the point that the MSM is missing. The point is that these anarchists aren’t interested in putting together a coherent argument, much less win a substantive debate. These rioters’ first instinct is to injure defenseless people. This is a perfect example of that:

People that pepper spray a student like that should be arrested, convicted and thrown in prison for lots of years. Period. That rioter’s intent was to harm and/or terrorize that young lady. There’s no justification for that.

BONUS QUESTIONS: Q1: Why do the anarchists show up wherever the Soros-funded protesters protest? Q2: Is Soros funding both operations?

Keeping the protesters and the rioters separate is important because the protesters, aka snowflakes, are intellectual wimps. They’re also fascists without knowing it. The snowflakes and anarchists don’t vote for Republicans. That word sets them off. If the Democratic Party wants to rebuild itself, they need to utterly repudiate these fascists’ actions. Otherwise, Democrats will become known as the party that won’t stand up to fascist or stand for the rule of law.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

All this week, I’ve focused attention on the ‘protesters’ protesting the Dakota Access Pipeline. I’ve reached the point where I’m getting upset with journalists who call these thugs protesters. This article highlights why they haven’t earned that title. They’ve earned the title of thugs.

The opening paragraph of the Daily Caller article emphatically states “The actions of the Dakota Access Pipeline protesters made law enforcement officers and their families fear for their safety, according to a North Dakota sheriff.” Couple that with the information from Congressman Cramer’s op-ed and it’s obvious that these are professional thugs. When I wrote about Congressman Cramer’s op-ed in this post, I quoted Congressman Cramer as saying “a little more than two weeks ago, during a confrontation between protesters and law enforcement, an improvised explosive device was detonated on a public bridge in southern North Dakota. That was simply the latest manifestation of the ‘prayerful’ and ‘peaceful’ protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline.”

This is downright frightening:

Law enforcement officers from nine states left behind families to help cover the protests over the pipeline. To protect his officers, Laney warned them from wearing name tags. “The fear that was put into our families, our spouse and children that are now home alone because mom or dad are away over here. And to find out your address has been published and their encouraging people to go take care of business,” said Laney.

Anyone that would attack the families of law enforcement officials is, in my opinion, a total dirtbag. We should treat them like they’re the nastiest people on earth because they’re close to the nastiest people on earth. Read this and tell me that these thugs shouldn’t be classified as criminals:

“The fear that was put into our families, our spouse and children that are now home alone because mom or dad are away over here. And to find out your address has been published and their encouraging people to go take care of business,” said Laney. “They won’t focus on that if they have to worry about their homes. That is terrorizing and a lot of that happened. It happened to me and to my people.”

Then there’s this:

“You have the mental stress of here and the mental stress of worrying about your family. There are some pretty nasty things published about what they were going to do to us and you’re standing on a hill, ‘hey we’re coming soon and you’re going to die tomorrow,’ I heard that many times,” said Laney.

Earlier this week, I wrote that these parasites were anarchists and eco-terrorists. After reading these articles, I don’t see a reason why I should change that opinion. If anything, I might’ve been too polite with these thugs.

This explains how the pipeline company has attempted to work with Native American tribes but were rejected:

Clearly, this isn’t about drinking water or the environment. It’s about shutting down a pipeline that got the right permits and that did everything possible to protect Native Americans’ lifestyle. In return, Native Americans and the anarchists they’re ‘protesting’ with set off IEDs and threatened police officers’ families.

I’ve lost all respect for the left. They aren’t interested in living by the rules. They’re interested in winning whatever the cost. If that means resorting to violence, that’s what they’re willing to do.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,