Category Archives: Laws

Grand Jury Acquittals and Police Abuse. Is Something Rotten?

eric garner

Two Grand Jury Acquittals in a Row in Police Abuse Cases.  Does this smell right?

Last week a grand jury cleared New York City patrolman Daniel Panteolo of any wrong doing after he was recorded on video applying a fatal illegal choke hold to Eric Garner. Garner’s alleged crimes were selling black market cigarettes and of course, that catch all charge that always works in the favor of the officer, “resisting arrest”.  Did Eric Garner deserve to die because he resisted arrest for the non-violent crime of selling untaxed cigarettes?

Grand juries seldom acquit.  History confirms that if a case goes far enough to go before a grand jury, the chances are literally better than 99% that the case will go to trial. In consideration of the fact that two independent grand jury decisions involving high profile police abuse cases have resulted in charges against police officers being dropped within the period of just a few weeks, is it reasonable to suspect that something corrupt might be afoot with respect to grand jury decisions involving police abuse cases?  Only the jurors themselves could honestly answer that question.

The police union consistently stands behind each and every officer

In response to the decision favoring Panteolo, in a recent AP news article, Patrick Lynch, president of the Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association, a union organization representing police officers, was quoted as saying that  “Police officers feel like they are being thrown under the bus”  He went on to say “ You cannot go out and break the law. What we did not hear is that you cannot resist arrest. That’s a crime.”

Watch the video for yourself. Garner was asthmatic.  As he was resisting arrest, he repeatedly gasped “I can’t breathe, I can’t breathe”. Panteolo didn’t back off.  Garner died.

Yet, supporters of the officer argued before the grand jury that Garner contributed to his own death, saying that the very fact that he could repeatedly say “I can’t breathe” proved that he could indeed breathe!  Something smells rotten in Denmark.

A Professor of Police Studies stands up for the police enforcing petty bullshit laws with lethal force.

“Everyone is just demonizing the police,” said Maki Haberfeld, a professor of police studies at John Jay College of criminal justice. “But police follow orders and laws. Nobody talks about the responsibility of the politicians to explain to the community why quality-of-life enforcement is necessary.”

The quality and intention of law has been forgotten

You’re really kidding aren’t you, Professor Habefeld?  Have you ever thought about examining the content and quality of the policies and laws on the books? Could it be that the people themselves do not believe that “quality of life enforcement” as you call it, is at all necessary?  Is it the politician’s role to change the people’s minds for them? Or is it the people’s role to replace politicians who would attempt to govern their beliefs?

Is the Professor aware that our representatives do not make conditions for the people, but rather, that they are to make decisions in response to the peoples’ wishes? A proposition like yours, Professor Habefeld, might be found true in a dictatorial monarchy, but not in the constitutional republic of the United States.

Our now socialized society is faced with a myriad of new petty and contradictory bullshit laws, all put in place by representatives acting in their own self interest, rather than in the interest of their constituency.

The real root of the police abuse problem lies in the existence of a mountain of bullshit laws that protect nobody

Yes, police are obligated to follow orders and laws.  The excessive taxation of tobacco is just one more unnecessary law. Nobody deserves to die over it. But apparently in Habefeld’s view, it really is entirely necessary to overtax nicotine addicts. After all, smokers are only ignorant peasants who don’t understand what’s best for them, and politicians do know what’s best for this obviously inferior peasant class of smokers.

Evil is progressive  

Once the foot is inserted in the door, evil pushes it open for itself wider and wider, one step at a time.  Once it gets its victims to believe that line about the politicians knowing what’s best for the smokers, then it will have them believing that it’s entirely necessary to strong arm and discipline people who attempt to circumvent this “entirely necessary” cigarette tax by selling them on the black market.

Once evil’s victims believe that, they are likely to believe the next step, namely, that black market cigarette sellers must be stopped because they promote nicotine addiction. That is, by the way, the very same addiction that the cigarette tax itself is also promoting. The cigarette tax is designed to generate tons of revenue.

Evil’s victims then must agree that if someone dies at that hands of an officer enforcing a law designed to protect the public from the evils of nicotine addiction, then that’s acceptable and righteous. After all, enforcing this cigarette tax law by stopping black market sales probably saved the life of some poor victim from nicotine addiction.  In evil’s view, that poor victim’s life would be more valuable than the life of some scumbag who dared to sell cigarettes on the black market, circumventing the City’s perceived right to rob smokers on account of their nicotine addiction.

Officers, please stand up for what is right!

Police officers who are capable of thinking for themselves instead of letting their union do it for them must conclude that solving the police abuse problem requires individual courage. Nobody deserves to die over minor “quality of life” offenses that have nothing to do with discouraging real crime. Until bad laws can be removed from the books, the best way to preserve the reputation of the police is for officers to exercise courtesy and common sense. Simply leave people alone who are not hurting others, and stop being abusive.

Read about this and similar issues at


Let’s Stop Fueling the Industrial War Machine!

ron paul


Today Ron Paul wrote the following on his Facebook page:  “Today the US House passed what I consider to be one of the worst pieces of legislation ever. H. Res. 758 was billed as a resolution, ‘strongly condemning the actions of the Russian Federation, under President Vladimir Putin, which has carried out a policy of aggression against neighboring countries aimed at political and economic domination.’ “

Ever since I was a child it seems to have been the dream of the industrial war machine to find a way to create WW3, and to get the American people to rally for war, cheering it on with more false cries of “patriotism”. The Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts from the Bush years were just primers for that, designed to conform the people into willingly accepting and rooting for a false sense of patriotism.

If we don’t awaken, WW3 will actually be upon us. We can either wake up and think for ourselves, or we can allow ourselves to be sucked in to supporting yet another senseless war.


Why in God’s name would we want to involve ourselves in a conflict between two eastern European nations which have absolutely NO connection with our lives here in America? This is even stupider than ANY other war this country has dragged itself into.

The American people are being constantly manipulated. The real truth about war is that EVERY single war is fought for some cause of chrony capitalism, and not actually for the political causes we are presented with by the major media.


“What’s chrony capitalism?”, you might ask. Chrony capitalism means that Congress acts through its connections in certain financially influential sectors of private industry, and vice versa.

So-called “conflicts” and “events” are fabricated through their mutual plans and cooperation. Certain news storie are cunningly crafted, and are presented by a carefully controlled media as the actual causes for war. The people are in this way led to believe they are actually fighting for freedom, and of course, they are not. It’s evil manipulation. It’s a great cover for the elitists who are all the while cleverly and quietly lining their own pockets.


Select bankers in high places become even richer as our government promotes numerous political conflicts, and even fuels both sides of the fire in many instances. It’s all covered up nicely with the help of a well connected media, and we’re all told it’s good for the country. Wave the flag, and God bless the USA, etc, etc.

We’re living in a fabricated dream world, and the bulk of what you hear on the news is falsehood designed to distract your attention from what’s really going down.

The money to finance war comes from the demands of Congress, from the Fed, via the chrony capitalis elites who have learned to manipulate the system in their favor. Where does the money itself come from to finance war?

It is literally fabricated out of thin air by the Federal Reserve Bank, which IS this country’s leading government approved Chrony Capitalistic organization. The very foundation of our financial system is as corrupt and evil as it can be, and it has been so since 1913.


If I only had the money already, I know I’d be heading to a part of the world where I can just isolate myself from this madness and go and live a peaceful coexistence with like minded people. I don’t even want to live with the knowledge that my tax dollars have anything to do with any of this. But of course I’m kidding myself, because tax dollars really have nothing to do with it at all. it comes from the Federal Reserve Bank, and it never even existed in the first place.

And yes, I’m seriously working on developing a plan to get out of here before the fecal material strikes the rotating blades. I’ll tell you where I plan to go later, perhaps after I’m gone.


Politics and the Ferguson Situation


The Politics Surrounding the Michael Brown and Darren Wilson Case

Let’s take politics out of the picture for a moment, shall we? That’s exactly how the Ferguson issue has been presented to the public – from essentially only only TWO very politically driven points of view.

Two Crowds of Political Followers

Supporters of Officer Darren Wilson’s innocence are comprised largely of one crowd of followers. This group of followers unquestioningly and dutifully rallies around a political position which consistently backs the actions of police under every circumstance. Staunch party-line Republicans tend to root for Wilson’s innocence because he is a trained police officer, and in the broad GOP view, the decisions of trained police officers are to be unquestionably respected. Their bravery and willingness to act in the capacity of enforcing the law are viewed as justification for their every action.

On the other hand, a sizable portion of the supporters of Michael Brown are among an opposing group of sheeple. Many from this crowd follow cries of “racism!”, whether those cries are really valid or not. Playing up racism is high on the Democratic Party’s agenda. Although racism probably played absolutely no role in the unfolding of this tragic incident, it is also difficult to deny that those who listen to the politics of race-baiting do tend to have favored the indictment of Officer Wilson.

This is not a criticism of either political ideology. However, following party line positions without developing one’s own independent individual analysis, whether one’s chosen party line is Republican or Democrat, is not at all objective. People tend to behave like sheep, blindly following the leading of their chosen political party. Staunch party-line followers are likely to form their opinions by the influence of their party’s agenda. As a result, true objectivity gets buried in politics.

An Objective Analysis of the Shooting

How about we remove political influences from this analysis? It was a touchy situation for Officer Wilson and for Michael Brown, but neither party line GOP followers nor party line race-baiting Democrats have truthfully really examined this case without bias.

Let’s begin with a decision to think for ourselves. Let’s stop thinking emotionally, stop unthinkingly following the opinions of the crowd whose political opinions we tend to favor, stop rallying behind biased emotions, and begin instead to apply logic and compassion for every individual who was involved in this tragedy.

One Likely Reason the Grand Jury did not Indict Wilson

American police officers are consistently excused from guilt in incidents involving the use of deadly force against civilians in the line of duty.  According to accepted guidelines for professional police behavior clearly defined and taught in police training programs, officers are justified in using deadly force in two instances. One condition is when the officer believes that “the subject poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officer, or others” [1]. The other condition is when the officer believes the subject “ is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.” [1]. A 1989 Supreme Court decision defined these two conditions using exactly the terminology quoted.

The wording on that decision presents the question as to whether the officer believed that the subject was a threat. It actually does not matter whether the subject was a threat or not. The question is whether or not the officer’s state of mind at the time of the incident was reasonable.  The officer must have been in a clear state of mind in order to have been capable of making a sound decision to open fire. Officers involved in cases of having used deadly force consistently justify their actions by claiming that when a split second decision was required, they did the right thing when they decided to open fire.

That’s always an effective and foolproof defense for police! Shouldn’t there be room to allow for the very likely possibility that an officer really could make a bad decision? Why does the decision consistently fall in the favor of the defense of the officer? It is because the people have been educated to trust the testimony of a police officer over that of a civilian. We are taught never to question the honorable intentions of a police officer.

But are not police officers also human beings, also capable of making erroneous decisions, and like the rest of us, capable of occasionally being in the wrong state of mind when on duty? We all have bad days. Is it not reasonable to assume that police officers might sometimes be capable of having been in the wrong state of mind when a shooting incident took place?

Because this point of view (that police officers can do no wrong at any time) is so prevalent, whenever police do use deadly force, the responsibility of the officer is assumed to be unimpeachable. Police officers are seldom considered to even be remotely capable of acting out of line. Is that a reasonable expectation of average human beings, or should we expect that every police officer is super-human?

The problem continues to grow. Shouldn’t it be addressed?

There is not enough room to list the ever increasing number of controversial police shootings that have occurred in the past couple of decades. Each case is proof that being a truly responsible police officer is quite a tall order for a human being. The stress and difficulty of the job, both of which come with the territory of the decision to be in law enforcement, must never be used to unquestionably excuse or justify the use of deadly force.

In light of the growing number of deadly police shooting incidents, wouldn’t it be reasonable to at least re-evaluate the conditions of the acceptability of the use of deadly force by police? Would it not be reasonable to also consider the re-evaluation of police training standards in cases of the use of deadly force?

For more on this and related subjects, visit our Facebook page at

[1]  1989 Supreme Court case, Graham v. Connor.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!