Search
Archives

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

Categories

Archive for the ‘Law Enforcement’ Category

Tim Pawlenty’s flier is causing quite a stir. It’s definitely gotten under the skin of Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey.

The flier “features several uniformed Minneapolis officers standing next to the candidate for governor in front of two squad cars.” Frey “said the mailer may have violated two city policies, calling it an unauthorized use of the Minneapolis police trademark and citing a prohibition on officers other than the union president or a designee appearing in a political advertisement.” That isn’t what’s bothering Frey the most, though.

According to the article, “Tensions are already high among the union, Frey and the City Council. Frey noted that the flier, among other claims, includes Pawlenty’s promise to crack down on so-called “sanctuary” policies meant to separate local police officers from enforcing federal immigration laws.”

“Our policy preventing MPD officers from asking about immigration status is not an advisory guideline that can be selectively ignored,” Frey said. “It is a city law that cannot be reversed by Bob Kroll or any political candidate. They don’t speak for the city. So let me make it clear: Our separation ordinance will be enforced no matter who occupies the office of governor or who is leading the police union.”

Mayor Frey apparently is under the impression that sanctuary city laws are constitutional. If he wants to pick that fight, I’m betting that a Pawlenty administration would be more than happy to have that fight.

Council Member Steve Fletcher said police appearing in the advertisement are “explicitly undermining that separation ordinance,” and questioned whether it would make people less likely to report crimes to police. “We want to preserve the intention that Minneapolis police are acting in accordance with city values,” Fletcher said. “And when they wear the uniform to assert a different set of values, they undermine public trust in their mission.”

The government can’t tell anyone that they can’t express their political opinions. There’s a strong case that can be made that this ordinance violates these officers’ First Amendment rights. Again, I’m betting that a Pawlenty administration would be happy to help with that fight.

In 2006, then-Attorney General Mike Hatch got fined for using official OAG stationery in inviting people to a Hatch for Governor fundraiser. In that case, the candidate used government resources to further his campaign. In this instance, the candidate merely is showing that “Tim Pawlenty is endorsed by the Police Officers Federation of Minneapolis.”

Politically speaking, this is a win-win situation for Pawlenty. It’s a win in the sense that this police officer federation endorsed him. It’s a win because Mayor Frey’s complaint elevates the profile of that flier. Here’s the flier in question:

It’s apparent that Erin Murphy hasn’t thought about crime from a police officer’s perspective. That’s totally apparent after reading this article. First, Jeff Johnson said “I watched the body camera footage from the Thurman Blevins shooting today. It shows clearly that Blevins was carrying a gun and that the Minneapolis officer involved did everything he could to convince Blevins to surrender before firing his weapon. Serving our communities as a police officer is one of the hardest jobs in America today and we shouldn’t second-guess the very difficult decisions they make until we have all of the facts.”

Gov. Pawlenty issued a statement, saying “The actions of the Minneapolis police officers involved in the shooting of Thurman Blevins were clearly appropriate. Police officers protect our communities at extreme risk to themselves every day. We support and appreciate them. Those who claimed Blevins did not have a weapon or that officers acted improperly owe the officers an apology.”

Next, compare those statements with what Erin Murphy said:

As I watched the body camera footage of Thurman Blevins death, I was struck not only by the end of his life and the hard questions it raises, but by the beginning of the video. From the first moment officers are on scene they are loudly swearing, and threatening a man who appears to be sitting on a curb with a woman and child. From the first moment the police are shouting, scaring him, pushing him, and engaging in a way that led to the awful ending of his life.

He ran, yes. He was armed, yes. He reportedly was drunk and had fired shots, yes. All of those things might have led to his death, but none of them had to. I don’t understand why calmly starting a conversation wasn’t an option or wouldn’t have been a better course.

I don’t know much about Thurman Blevins. Had the officers approached the situation differently he might be in jail right now for firing his weapon into the sky and ground, or could be sitting on that curb with his family enjoying a morning off. I don’t know.

When a man (or woman) wields a gun, that officer has a responsibility to protect himself/herself and their partner. That isn’t a situation where the officers have a ton of options. It’s literally a kill-or-be-killed situation.

Notice how Rep. Murphy blames the officers, not Mr. Blevins. Rep. Murphy, if you were faced with this life-or-death situation, would you take a pacifist’s approach? Would you let a person who has a gun wave it around? If that’s truly what you’d do, there’s a high probability that you’d be shot. Further, by taking the pacifist’s approach, you’d put your partner’s life in jeopardy, too.

This story is troubling:

More protests are expected in Minneapolis over the decision not to charge officers involved in the June 23 deadly shooting of Thurman Blevins. The two Minneapolis officers involved say he pointed a gun at them during a short chase. CBS News’ Dean Reynolds spoke to Blevins’ sister and cousin who dispute the officers’ version of events. Blevins’ sister Darlynn and cousin Sydnee Brown admitted he had a gun on him but say he was scared for his life when he ran from police.

“It was the way that they approached him when they came out of the vehicle,” Darlynn said. “I mean, who else is not going to run if somebody is behind me telling me ‘I’m going to shoot you. I’m going to kill you.'”

First, here’s the police body cam video:

Then there’s this interview of Blevins’ family:

Let’s state something here emphatically. Gov. Dayton’s reckless statements after the Philando Castile shooting contribute each day to the tension between minority communities and police officers. Gov. Dayton said that “Would this have happened if those passengers, the driver were white? I don’t think it would have.” Since that day, tensions have escalated. Rep. Murphy’s statements just further escalate the tensions.

That’s inexcusable.

The St. Cloud Times’ Nora Hertel should be applauded for applying an excruciating amount of scrutiny during Keith Ellison’s visit to St. Cloud this week. It’s a safe bet he won’t grant her an exclusive interview after she put the screws to Mr. Ellison. Check this out.

For instance, we found out that “Ellison told a friendly audience in St. Cloud [aka CAIR-MN] that it’s difficult to get legislation passed in Washington D.C. now, while state attorneys general are on the front lines of protecting people’s rights.”

Later, we found out that Ellison “shared his platform and took questions from the small group Friday at New York Gyro on Third Street North. Ellison has served in Congress for 12 years and practiced law long before that.” Still later, when asked about his views on law enforcement, Ellison replied that “Like fire service and public utilities, public safety services should be delivered fairly, Ellison said. He supports a number of reforms including: allowing felons to vote, decriminalizing marijuana, training police on de-escalation and implicit bias. He supports drug courts and wants to treat addiction as a medical, rather than a law enforcement, problem.”

In other words, Ellison’s priority would be to teach the police to stop being racists and to stop shooting innocent minorities when these minorities are given fair, specific instructions by law enforcement officers.

According to the Kirwan Institute, the definition of implicit bias “refers to the attitudes or stereotypes that affect our understanding, actions, and decisions in an unconscious manner. These biases, which encompass both favorable and unfavorable assessments, are activated involuntarily and without an individual’s awareness or intentional control. Residing deep in the subconscious, these biases are different from known biases that individuals may choose to conceal for the purposes of social and/or political correctness. Rather, implicit biases are not accessible through introspection.”

Let’s understand this. Implicit bias resides “deep in the subconscious”, meaning that they “aren’t accessible through introspection.” Further, these biases “are activated involuntarily and without an individual’s awareness or intentional control.”

If we don’t know that these traits exist and they’re “activated involuntarily”, how are we supposed to prevent them? That’s assuming that they actually exist, which I’m skeptical of, at least to the extent that Mr. Ellison says they exist.

Left out of Ms. Hertel’s article is Mr. Ellison’s extensive (and disturbing) interview with radical Rabbi Michael Lerner:

Treating Ellison like he’s just another political candidate ignores Mr. Ellison’s support of cop killers. In his past, Ellison has questioned detectives investigating cop killers like Kathleen Soliah:

At the event, Ellison told the Pioneer Press he believed the prosecution of Olson was political. In his speech, Ellison noted he didn’t know much about the SLA and he thought Olson was being prosecuted in the court of public opinion because of some of her political beliefs.

“I’m a supporter of anybody who’s subject to political prosecution based on their being in a vilified group,” he told the Pioneer Press. “Your chances of getting a fair trial are low. I’ve been waiting for the evidence against her. I don’t think they would not cheat to prosecute this woman.”

Here’s what he said about Assata Shakur and Bernadine Dohrn:

Ellison also spoke favorably of convicted cop killer Assata Shakur and expressed his opposition to any attempt to extradite her to the United States from Cuba, where she had fled after escaping prison.

“I am praying that Castro does not get to the point where he has to really barter with these guys over here because they’re going to get Assata Shakur, they’re going to get a whole lot of other people,” Ellison said at the event, which also included a silent auction and speech by former Weather Underground leader Bernardine Dohrn. “I hope the Cuban people can stick to it, because the freedom of some good decent people depends on it.”

Summarizing, Ellison thinks that cop killers are misunderstood civil rights heroes and that police officers are racists. Is that the type of man we want leading law enforcement? Is that the type of man we want harassing law enforcement? I don’t think so.

A week ago, Jerry Brown and Xavier Becerra, California’s governor and state attorney general respectively, were riding high while touting California’s sanctuary state law. Since then, Brown and Becerra have done nothing but backtrack on immigration. Don’t expect their losing streak to end anytime soon. Los Alamitos was the first openly defiant city to challenge SB 54. It wasn’t the last.

Last night, Los Alamitos voted for a second time to opt out of SB 54. By a vote of 4-1, “Los Alamitos Council members voted … to opt out of a state law that prohibited state and local police agencies from informing federal authorities in cases when illegal immigrants facing deportation are released from detention.”

Councilman Mark Chirco was the lone dissenting vote. Afterwards, Chirco said “the council has no legal authority to approve the ordinance and criticized the council members for what he called being irresponsible, stating that the measure will open the city to lawsuits.”

That started the Democrats’ criticism:

Shortly after the vote, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) tweeted that the ordinance is “a blatant violation of the city’s obligation to follow a state law that puts our local resources to use for the safety of our communities rather than toward federal immigration agencies.” The civil rights group previously threatened the city with a lawsuit if it passes the ordinance.

It isn’t surprising that the ACLU has it bassackwards. California doesn’t have the authority to ignore federal immigration policies. Let’s be blunt. That’s what California is doing by not notifying ICE of when illegal immigrants are getting out of jail.

The Democrats’ arguments are worthless as trash:

Omar Siddiqui, a U.S. Congressional candidate in California running to unseat Republican Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, also spoke at the meeting, urging the council to oppose the motion as “our communities are safer when we work with each other and trust each other, not when we operate under a police state.”

Tell that to the Steinle family. This is an outright lie that’s told by Democrats. There’s no proof that verifies that as anything more than spin or theory.

Don’t be surprised if people reject Siddiqui. There’s an anti-sanctuary state backlash building in California. More people are getting tired of California’s failed liberal policies, especially with regards to illegal immigration. They’re tired of hearing how safe their communities are when they aren’t.

It doesn’t require a rocket scientist to figure out that this controversy is increasing voter intensity on the right. People are rejecting the Democrats’ anything goes immigration policies.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

Anyone that thinks liberalism is intellectually significant is kidding themselves. Think of this: liberals think that 18-year-olds are old enough to serve in the military but too stupid to make an informed decision about smoking and buying firearms. Further, Democrats think that that 16-year-olds can cast well-informed votes. If those facts don’t give you intellectual whiplash, then you’re a liberal.

This article almost gave me intellectual whiplash. Fortunately, I could tell from the title of the article that this was typical Democrat propaganda.

The article opens by saying “Akron City Council is expected to vote tonight on whether to prohibit the sale of tobacco products to those under 21. Proponents hope the rest of the Summit County will follow Akron’s lead.”

That sounds eerily similar to the arguments made by proponents of a similar measure put before the St. Cloud City Council. In that instance, the Council passed the proposed ordinance 4-3. After the motion was made and seconded in St. Cloud, Mark Fritz, the owner of E-Cig Emporium in St. Cloud, testified, saying “Your ordinance will not stop them. You need to recognize all you’re doing is hurting your local businesses.”

What Fritz referred to is the fact that St. Cloud’s neighboring cities haven’t adopted this ill-fated measure. It’s ill-fated because the 26th Amendment states:

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

The minute these laws get challenged, they’ll be flushed into the dustbin of history by the Supreme Court. One of the organizations pushing the 21 age limit for smoking in Minnesota is Clearway Minnesota / Minnesotans For A Smoke Free Generation. They present as fact this opinion:

Raising the purchase age to 21 will prevent youth tobacco use and save lives.

It’s impossible to verify this. Something else worth considering is whether the laws will be enforced. This video hints that they aren’t enforced:

That’s before talking about how high a priority preventing ‘under-age’ smoking is to police departments. I can’t picture a PD for a city the size of Akron will put a high priority on stopping underage smoking when there’s an opioid epidemic underway. There’s only so many hours in a day. Police departments don’t have unlimited resources.

That’s why passing these laws is a waste of time. If you want to decrease teenage smoking, education programs are much more efficient than banning products.

Technorati: , , , , , , , ,

Many of the Parkland people that’ve hogged the spotlight (pun intended) can’t hold a candle to one of the true heroes of that horrific day. At the age of 15, Anthony Borges has done more heroic things than David Hogg and Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel will likely do in their combined lifetimes. All young Mr. Borges did on that fateful day was use his body to protect the lives of 20 other students.

Compare that with disgraced Deputy Scot Peterson, who stayed outside to establish a perimeter while Nikolas Cruz allegedly fired his weapon, killing 14 students and 3 teachers. But I digress.

Borges “was released from the hospital Wednesday after suffering wounds to the lungs, abdomen and legs.” In his statement, which was read by his attorney, Borges said Superintendent Runcie and Sheriff Israel “failed us students, teachers and parents alike on so many levels. I want all of us to move forward to end the environment that allowed people like Nikolas Cruz to fall through the cracks. You knew he was a problem years ago and you did nothing. He should have never been in school with us.”

The FBI and the Broward County Sheriff’s Office have come under intense scrutiny following the shooting. The FBI admitted days after the shooting that they received a call on Jan. 5 from a person close to Cruz expressing concerns about his erratic behavior and disturbing social media posts. The former school resource deputy, Scot Peterson, did not enter the school during the shooting. The former deputy denied wrongdoing and retired from the office before an investigation was launched.

Peterson is the poster child for a disgrace. What he did fits the description of a coward. Rest assured that he’ll be one of the defendants in the Borges’ civil lawsuit.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

It’s difficult taking Parkland students David Hogg, Emma Gonzalez and Cameron Kasky seriously, especially since their targeting seems more guided by ideology than logic. Their targets have been Marco Rubio, who definitely isn’t part of the problem, and the NRA. They’d have a hint of credibility if they’d taken the FBI and the Broward County’s Sheriff to task for their failings. Since that didn’t happen, there’s nothing that they’ve said that suggests that they’re serious policymakers.

This discredited trio seems disinterested in the fact that Deputy Scot Peterson ignored sheriff office’s protocol when he told other deputies “Do not approach the 12 or 1300 building, stay at least 500 feet away.” The sheriff’s protocol “calls for deputies to engage an active shooter until the threat is eliminated.”

By not engaging the shooter, Deputy Peterson didn’t do his job. The Parkland student activists haven’t criticized him or his wimpy sheriff boss. Why haven’t they taken aim at Dep. Peterson and Sheriff Israel? Is it because Sheriff is helping them criticize the NRA? If that’s the case, then these students aren’t principled problem solvers. They’re displaying the traits that do-nothing career politicians show.

Why haven’t these frauds gone after Sheriff Israel like this?

WPLG’s Bob Norman approached Sheriff Israel on Monday outside a Wings Plus restaurant where the Democrats club was scheduled to meet, asking the sheriff, “How do you have the time to politic when you got all these problems?”
“Your stories have never been balanced,” Sheriff Israel accused the reporter.

“This isn’t about me, sheriff,” Mr. Norman fired back. “There are 17 dead people. If you’re disappointed in me, I think there’s a lot of people disappointed in you.” “You know, I disagree with you,” Sheriff Israel said. “You haven’t heard? About the country being disappointed in you and the [Broward Sheriff’s Office]?” Mr. Norman asked. “No, not at all,” Sheriff Israel responded. “My job is to protect and serve the Broward County residents.” “Did you do that?” Mr. Norman asked. “Did you do that?”

“But when the report is in, we’ll have that conversation,” Sheriff Israel said. “Are you ever going to take responsibility for what happened at Stoneman Douglas?” Mr. Norman asked. “When the report’s in, we’ll have that conversation, Bob,” the sheriff repeated.

Gonzalez, Hogg and Kasky haven’t gone after these incompetents even though they stood by while their classmates died.

It’s impossible for me to take these students seriously because they haven’t proven that they’re interested in solving the problem. Thus far, they’re more interested in being media stars.

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

In the gospel according to David Hogg, politicians who accept money from ‘special interests’ (like the NRA) have “blood on their hands when an innocent dies. If that’s the battlefield that Mr. Hogg wants to fight and die on, let’s have at it. Hogg insists repeatedly daily that politicians (like Marco Rubio) have blood on their hands if they’ve accepted campaign contributions from the NRA.

Let’s apply those principles to illegal immigration. Instead of the NRA, let’s plug in La Raza and Eric Holder or Luis Gutierrez. Let’s swap out the NRA and Marco Rubio. Mary Ann Mendoza lost her son in May, 2014 when her son “was killed in a head-on collision with a wrong-way driver.” The driver, Raul Silva-Corona, wasn’t “deported two decades ago after he was convicted for crimes in Colorado.”

In July, 2014, Ms. Mendoza wrote to then-President Obama, saying “The prosecutors were ‘lenient’ on him and several charges were dismissed. When he was convicted of these crimes (in) 1994 and the government knew he was in the country illegally, why wasn’t he deported? Why are any of these illegal criminals in this country? I am furious that the Federal Government allowed this criminal to stay in this country and KILL my son!” Tonight, Ms. Mendoza was interviewed by Martha McCallum. Here’s that interview:

Democrats insist that people who accept campaign contributions from the NRA have “blood on their hands.” By their definition, politicians who accept campaign contributions from La Raza or other open borders organizations have blood on their hands. By Hogg’s definition, politicians like President Obama, Eric Holder, Jerry Brown and Xavier Becerra have blood on their hands because they’ve let criminal aliens out of jail, only to see them be commit more crimes, including murder, rape and other violent crimes.

BTW, yes, that means that liberals like Jeff Flake, Lindsey Graham and John McCain have blood on their hands, too. But I digress.

Let’s get serious about this. Democrats won’t vote for funding the border wall. Ever. They’ll play gimmicks and say that they’ll vote for funding the wall but they won’t actually vote for funding Trump’s wall. It’s a simple matter of admitting that Democrats are beholden to their open borders special interest allies.

Building the wall is imperative. If you think that walls don’t work, ask Prime Minister Netanyahu and the IDF if they work. Finally, here’s Ms. Mendoza’s letter to President Obama in 2014:

It’s 4 years later and Democrats still haven’t built the wall or secured the border. It’s time we stopped believing that Democrats give a damn about protecting US citizens. The façade is crumbling. It’s a myth to think that they give a damn about anything other than acquiring, then maintaining political power.

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

Xavier Becerra once thought he could push Sheriff Hutchens around. When he found out he couldn’t push Sheriff Hutchens around, he quickly backed down. Thursday afternoon, he issued this guidance letter, otherwise recognized as a white flag of surrender. In the letter, he states “The Values Act does the following: 1. Sets the parameters under which California state and local law enforcement agencies may engage in ‘immigration enforcement,’ as defined, and requires certain information about joint law enforcement task forces and transfers of individuals to immigration authorities to be reported to the California Department of Justice.”

Actually, SB 54, aka the California Values Act, states “This bill would, among other things and subject to exceptions, prohibit state and local law enforcement agencies, including school police and security departments, from using money or personnel to investigate, interrogate, detain, detect, or arrest persons for immigration enforcement purposes, as specified, and would, subject to exceptions, proscribe other activities or conduct in connection with immigration enforcement by law enforcement agencies. The bill would apply those provisions to the circumstances in which a law enforcement official has discretion to cooperate with immigration authorities. The bill would require, by October 1, 2018, the Attorney General, in consultation with the appropriate stakeholders, to publish model policies limiting assistance with immigration enforcement to the fullest extent possible for use by public schools, public libraries, health facilities operated by the state or a political subdivision of the state, and courthouses, among others.”

Wednesday, when Becerra was full of himself, hinted that he might arrest Sheriff Hutchens. Thursday, after Orange County voted to join US Attorney General Sessions’ lawsuit, Becerra backed down quicker than Barack Obama backed away from his Syrian red lines.

Becerra is a lightweight who tried fighting someone in a higher weight class in terms of gravitas. This shows who’s the heavyweight in terms of gravitas:

Wednesday night, immigration attorney Raul Reyes did the unthinkable. He agreed with Tucker Carlson that Sandra Hutchens, the Orange County Sheriff, isn’t breaking the law and shouldn’t be arrested by California Attorney General Xavier Becerra.

In fact, “Raul Reyes said he agreed with Carlson when it came to the case of one county official who is planning to post names of inmates-to-be-released so that ICE can take proper action. The official has been warned that their actions may defy the new state law. Reyes said it complies with the law because it doesn’t “single out” Latino names or names of illegal immigrants.” Later in the interview, though, Reyes said that most Californians agree with Becerra.

From the judicial system’s perspective, it’s irrelevant if it’s popular politically. In this instance, the only thing that’s relevant is whether Sheriff Hutchens obeyed the language found in SB 54. SB 54 prohibits California law enforcement officials from contacting ICE and telling them when illegal immigrants who’ve broken California’s laws when the prisoners are getting released from jail. Sheriff Hutchens hasn’t contacted ICE. Instead, she’s simply posted the release dates for all prisoners. That’s what happens when legislation is sloppily written.

Mr. Reyes might be right in saying that Becerra might be supported by Californians if he arrested Sheriff Hutchens. That’s what happens in the court of public opinion. In a court of law, though, that’s irrelevant. In court, what’s important is whether the state can produce evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt whether that Sheriff Hutchens broke the law.

Since there isn’t proof that Sheriff Hutchens contacted the federal government, California can’t convict Hutchens of violating any criminal statute. In fact, depending on California state law, it’s possible the sheriff might be able to file a lawsuit of malicious prosecution against Mr. Becerra.

Technorati: , , , ,