Search
Archives

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

Categories

Archive for the ‘Law Enforcement’ Category

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: , , , , , , , , ,

Byron York’s article on the likely confirmation of Sen. Jeff Sessions as President Trump’s Attorney General illustrates why Democrats are legitimately frightened by what Sessions could do without legislative action.

For instance, York writes that “There are laws providing for the deportation of people who entered the U.S. illegally. Laws providing for the deportation of people who entered the U.S. illegally and later committed crimes. Laws for enforcing immigration compliance at the worksite. Laws for immigrants who have illegally overstayed their visas for coming to the United States. Laws requiring local governments to comply with federal immigration law.”

That’s quite the bargaining chip a Trump administration could use against Democrats. If Senate Democrats filibuster a Trump immigration bill, Sessions could simply start enforcing laws already on the books. That’s something Senate Democrats can’t prevent. Further, as York highlights, it’d be political suicide for Democrats to fight enforcing laws already on the books.

York also wrote that a Trump administration could force “sanctuary cities to observe the law” because “Attorney General Sessions could enforce an existing law, 8 USC 1373, which prohibits local communities from banning their officials from cooperating with federal immigration authorities.”

Democrats would be foolish to be obstructionists on immigration, especially sanctuary cities. Their obstructionism wouldn’t help them when a Trump administration reminded people of Kate Steinle or Grant Ronnebeck getting murdered by illegal aliens who had already committed felonies. While people are sympathetic towards breaking up families of illegal aliens, they aren’t sympathetic towards cities protecting violent felon aliens.

There’s little doubt that Democrats will fight this nomination though there’s no doubt that they’ll lose this fight.

This CBS report highlights the fact that Keith Lamont-Scott was a violent man. In fact, the report hints that the world is a better place without him. That isn’t a statement on whether Scott was carrying a gun when he was shot. It’s just a statement that he had a history of being a violent man.

The article opens with a statement that says “The black man killed by Charlotte police had a restraining order filed against him a year ago when he threatened to kill his wife and her son with a gun, according to court documents obtained Tuesday. Keith Scott’s wife filed the order on Oct. 5, saying that law enforcement officers who encounter him should be aware that he ‘carries a 9mm black’ gun.”

A man that’s threatened to murder his wife and son isn’t to be trusted.

Later in the article, it said “In the restraining order last fall, Rakeyia Scott sought to keep her husband away because ‘he hit my 8-year-old in the head a total of three times with his fist,’ she said in the restraining order document.” Still later in the report, it said this:

“He kicked me and threaten to kill us last night with his gun,” she said in the order filed in Gaston County, where the couple then lived. “He said he is a ‘killer’ and we should know that.”

Whenever the Democrats talk about African-Americans getting shot, the portray them as innocent victims who wouldn’t hurt a fly. Then they portray the officer as being a trigger-happy racist.

Consider this video of Hillary talking about the Lamont Scott shooting:

After unenthusiastically praising the police, Hillary went into the heart of her rant, saying “This much is certain. Too many people have lost their lives who shouldn’t have. Sabrina Fulton has become a friend of mine. Her son, Trayvon Martin, was killed not far from where we are today. Sabrina says that this is about saving our children and she’s absolutely right. We need to come together, work together, white, black, Latino, Asian, all of us, to turn the tide, stop the violence, build the trust.”

Mrs. Clinton just missed her Sister Soldjah moment. Time after time, the outrage over Ferguson, Baltimore and other places was built on fictions like ‘Hands up, don’t shoot’, only to have the myth demolished by verifiable forensic evidence.

This time, it’s likely that the black police officer who shot Keith Lamont Scott will be exonerated:

Homicide Unit Detectives interviewed multiple independent civilian witnesses at the scene and at police headquarters. Those witnesses confirmed that officers gave numerous loud verbal commands for Mr. Scott to drop the weapon and also confirmed that at no time did Mr. Scott comply with their commands.

A lab analysis conducted of the gun crime scene investigators recovered at the scene revealed the presence of Mr. Scott’s DNA and his fingerprints on the gun. It was also determined that the gun Mr. Scott possessed was loaded at the time of the encounter with the officers. The investigation also revealed that Mr. Scott was wearing an ankle holster at the time of the event.

Then there’s this:

It’s heartless for Democratic politicians to stoke racial tensions for political gain. What’s worse is those same Democratic politicians not speaking out against black-on-black violence.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

Since the shooting of Keith Lamont Scott in Charlotte-Mecklenburg, NC, Scott’s widow has accused the officers involved in the Scott shooting of shooting him without justification. That’s another myth that’s being accepted as verified fact by Democratic politicians. This Washington Post article provides a timeline of events that give us an accurate picture of what’s truth.

For instance, the article says that “Due to the combination of illegal drugs and the gun Mr. Scott had in his possession, officers decided to take enforcement action for public safety concerns. Officers departed the immediate area to outfit themselves with marked duty vests and equipment that would clearly identify them as police officers. Upon returning, the officers again witnessed Mr. Scott in possession of a gun. The officers immediately identified themselves as police officers and gave clear, loud and repeated verbal commands to drop the gun. Mr. Scott refused to follow the officers repeated verbal commands.”

Additionally, the article says that “Mr. Scott then exited the vehicle with the gun and backed away from the vehicle while continuing to ignore officers’ repeated loud verbal commands to drop the gun. Officer Vinson perceived Mr. Scott’s actions and movements as an imminent physical threat to himself and the other officers. Officer Vinson fired his issued service weapon, striking Mr. Scott. Officers immediately rendered first aid and requested Medic to respond to the scene.”

Most importantly, this is part of the report:

Homicide Unit Detectives interviewed multiple independent civilian witnesses at the scene and at police headquarters. Those witnesses confirmed that officers gave numerous loud verbal commands for Mr. Scott to drop the weapon and also confirmed that at no time did Mr. Scott comply with their commands.

A lab analysis conducted of the gun crime scene investigators recovered at the scene revealed the presence of Mr. Scott’s DNA and his fingerprints on the gun. It was also determined that the gun Mr. Scott possessed was loaded at the time of the encounter with the officers. The investigation also revealed that Mr. Scott was wearing an ankle holster at the time of the event.

Finally, there’s this:

That’s the gun Scott allegedly wouldn’t drop when told to by police officers. That’s the gun that allegedly has Scott’s DNA on it. It’s important that a thorough investigation is completed of this incident so that we get past this election-season myth that police officers have suddenly turned into bloodthirsty killing machines.

Where there’s forensic evidence that a police officer shot a man without justification, prosecute that officer to the fullest extent of the law. It’s equally important that Democrats stop characterizing the police as bloodthirsty criminals. Their rhetoric might get innocent officers killed.

Technorati: , , , , , , , ,

According to this article, the protests continue in Charlotte, NC, but that the violence has gone down. That’s a welcome sign for Charlotte-Mecklenburg in the aftermath of the shooting of 43-year-old Keith Lamont Scott.

According to the article, “Protesters flocked to Charlotte for a third straight night Thursday in the latest sign of mounting pressure for police to release video that might resolve the different accounts of the shooting death of a black man. There were contentious moments between demonstrators and police, but it was a far cry from the looting and destruction that was seen Wednesday night. Local officers’ ranks were augmented by members of the National Guard carrying rifles and guarding office buildings against the threat of property damage.”

While that’s definitely a step in the right direction, it isn’t definitive proof that Charlotte-Mecklenburg will soon be quieted down. I wish it was but it’s just a good first step.

Last night was relatively peaceful compared with Tuesday and Wednesday. That’s because “Charlotte Mayor Jennifer Roberts signed documents Thursday night for the citywide curfew that runs from midnight to 6 a.m.” State troopers were also brought in to help with crowd control.

That means North Carolina didn’t make the same mistakes that Jay Nixon made in Ferguson, MO or that Stephanie Rawlings-Blake made in Baltimore, MD.

Technorati: , , , ,

Based on this article, it’s clear that Officer Jason Falconer is a hero’s hero. It’s apparent that he didn’t let the rampage turn deadly. For that, everyone in Crossroads Mall should thank Officer Falconer for his quick thinking and his high-quality decision-making.

According to the article, “Five minutes after authorities received the first 911 call, Jason Falconer, a part-time officer in the city of Avon, shot and killed the attacker. Anderson said Falconer fired as the attacker was lunging at him with the knife, and continued to engage him as the attacker got up three times.”

One of the first things that I think might happen is that people will question whether Officer Falconer should’ve used deadly force. Based on the fact that the attacker kept lunging at Officer Falconer after he’d gotten shot, I think that point is settled. Officer Falconer used the right amount of force while preventing the loss of life.

If Officer Falconer is a hero, which he is, SCSU Interim President Ashish Vaidya isn’t a hero after issuing this statement:

This statement is beyond laughable:

No known St. Cloud State students, faculty or staff were injured, however we understand that many from our campus community work at and frequent Crossroads Center and may have been directly impacted.

That doesn’t mesh with this information:

A spokesman for St. Cloud State University confirmed that Adan was a student there, but has not been enrolled since the spring semester. Spokesman Adam Hammer said Adan’s intended major was information systems, which is a computer-related field.

No SCSU students were injured but the terrorist was a former SCSU student. Talk about spinning.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,