Police States

[Ross]

Cop Tasers Injured Hit and Run Victim,
as he Starts Seizing,
Cop Says "Quit Resisting"

Donald Flores was the victim of a hit and run, bloody and hurt, he was in need of help. But when Sgt. Schultz of the Blue Island PD showed up, he got anything but.

Flores began walking back to his house after the accident, "I just wanted to go home to basically die, where I felt more at peace."

According to Flores, he first encountered two cops that did the right thing, but next he came across, Sgt. Schultz.

"Are you out of your effin' mind? You're bleeding.'"

Stunned, Flores says he yelled back and then it escalated. When the sergeant threatened to use a stun gun on him, Flores said he implored him not to because he has an electronic spinal device to treat a previous injury to his hand.

When the stun gun was used, Flores says it caused a seizure. "When I was seizing they told me, 'Stop it. Quit resisting,'" he says.

The attorney for Blue Island, Patrick Ward, tells a different story. He says Flores was the aggressor and shoved the sergeant with two hands, causing him to stumble backward.

He says Flores didn't tell officers about the electronic device until after the stun gun was used.

 



"Their actions were justified," Ward says.

Of course tasering an innocent man, whose just been in an accident and is covered in blood, is "justified"....if you're the police.

Flores was arrested and charged with resisting arrest, assault and battery.

All charges have since been dropped and he is now suing the Blue Island Police.

Something has to be done here, all too often the tax payers are the ones held accountable for the negligence of police. Nothing will ever change as long as the incompetent state can defer its liability to the citizens of the tax farm.

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/cop-tasers-injured-hit-run-victim-starts-seizing-cops-quit-resisting/

[Ross]

Floating around the iternet!

We are tired of the police state as it is.
Too many innocents are being murdered by law enforcement.

Also Eric Holder who won't do his job in Washington is going to Missouri with his bias and 50 FBI investigators to screw things up there a lot worse.

The truth there will probably never be known.

[Ross]

Stop and seize

Aggressive police take hundreds of millions of dollars from motorists not charged with crimes

After the terror attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, the government called on police to become the eyes and ears of homeland security on America's highways.

Local officers, county deputies and state troopers were encouraged to act more aggressively in searching for suspicious people, drugs and other contraband. The departments of Homeland Security and Justice spent millions on police training.

The effort succeeded, but it had an impact that has been largely hidden from public view: the spread of an aggressive brand of policing that has spurred the seizure of hundreds of millions of dollars in cash from motorists and others not charged with crimes, a Washington Post investigation found. Thousands of people have been forced to fight legal battles that can last more than a year to get their money back.

Behind the rise in seizures is a little-known cottage industry of private police-training firms that teach the techniques of "highway interdiction" to departments across the country.

One of those firms created a private intelligence network known as Black Asphalt Electronic Networking & Notification System that enabled police nationwide to share detailed reports about American motorists — criminals and the innocent alike — including their Social Security numbers, addresses and identifying tattoos, as well as hunches about which drivers to stop.

Many of the reports have been funneled to federal agencies and fusion centers as part of the government's burgeoning law enforcement intelligence systems — despite warnings from state and federal authorities that the information could violate privacy and constitutional protections.

A thriving subculture of road officers on the network now competes to see who can seize the most cash and contraband, describing their exploits in the network's chat rooms and sharing "trophy shots" of money and drugs. Some police advocate highway interdiction as a way of raising revenue for cash-strapped municipalities.

"All of our home towns are sitting on a tax-liberating gold mine," Deputy Ron Hain of Kane County, Ill., wrote in a self-published book under a pseudonym. Hain is a marketing specialist for Desert Snow, a leading interdiction training firm based in Guthrie, Okla., whose founders also created Black Asphalt.

Hain's book calls for "turning our police forces into present-day Robin Hoods."

Cash seizures can be made under state or federal civil law. One of the primary ways police departments are able to seize money and share in the proceeds at the federal level is through a long-standing Justice Department civil asset forfeiture program known as Equitable Sharing. Asset forfeiture is an extraordinarily powerful law enforcement tool that allows the government to take cash and property without pressing criminal charges and then requires the owners to prove their possessions were legally acquired.

The practice has been controversial since its inception at the height of the drug war more than three decades ago, and its abuses have been the subject of journalistic exposés and congressional hearings. But unexplored until now is the role of the federal government and the private police trainers in encouraging officers to target cash on the nation's highways since 9/11.

"Those laws were meant to take a guy out for selling $1 million in cocaine or who was trying to launder large amounts of money," said Mark Overton, the police chief in Bal Harbour, Fla., who once oversaw a federal drug task force in South Florida. "It was never meant for a street cop to take a few thousand dollars from a driver by the side of the road."

To examine the scope of asset forfeiture since the terror attacks, The Post analyzed a database of hundreds of thousands of seizure records at the Justice Department, reviewed hundreds of federal court cases, obtained internal records from training firms and interviewed scores of police officers, prosecutors and motorists.

The Post found:
•There have been 61,998 cash seizures made on highways and elsewhere since 9/11 without search warrants or indictments through the Equitable Sharing Program, totaling more than $2.5 billion. State and local authorities kept more than $1.7 billion of that while Justice, Homeland Security and other federal agencies received $800 million. Half of the seizures were below $8,800.

•Only a sixth of the seizures were legally challenged, in part because of the costs of legal action against the government. But in 41 percent of cases — 4,455 — where there was a challenge, the government agreed to return money. The appeals process took more than a year in 40 percent of those cases and often required owners of the cash to sign agreements not to sue police over the seizures.

•Hundreds of state and local departments and drug task forces appear to rely on seized cash, despite a federal ban on the money to pay salaries or otherwise support budgets. The Post found that 298 departments and 210 task forces have seized the equivalent of 20 percent or more of their annual budgets since 2008.

•Agencies with police known to be participating in the Black Asphalt intelligence network have seen a 32 percent jump in seizures beginning in 2005, three times the rate of other police departments. Desert Snow-trained officers reported more than $427 million in cash seizures during highway stops in just one five-year period, according to company officials. More than 25,000 police have belonged to Black Asphalt, company officials said.

•State law enforcement officials in Iowa and Kansas prohibited the use of the Black Asphalt network because of concerns that it might not be a legal law enforcement tool. A federal prosecutor in Nebraska warned that Black Asphalt reports could violate laws governing civil liberties, the handling of sensitive law enforcement information and the disclosure of pretrial information to defendants. But officials at Justice and Homeland Security continued to use it.

Justice spokesman Peter Carr said the department had no comment on The Post's overall findings. But he said the department has a compliance review process in place for the Equitable Sharing Program and attorneys for federal agencies must review the seizures before they are "adopted" for inclusion in the program.

"Adoptions of state and local seizures — when a state and local law enforcement agency requests a federal seizing agency to adopt a state and local seizure for federal forfeiture — represent an average of only 3 percent of the total forfeiture amount since 2007," Carr said.

The Justice Department data released to The Post does not contain information about race. Carr said the department prohibits racial profiling. But in 400 federal court cases examined by The Post where people who challenged seizures and received some money back, the majority were black, Hispanic or another minority.

A 55-year-old Chinese American restaurateur from Georgia was pulled over for minor speeding on Interstate 10 in Alabama and detained for nearly two hours. He was carrying $75,000 raised from relatives to buy a Chinese restaurant in Lake Charles, La. He got back his money 10 months later but only after spending thousands of dollars on a lawyer and losing out on the restaurant deal.

A 40-year-old Hispanic carpenter from New Jersey was stopped on Interstate 95 in Virginia for having tinted windows. Police said he appeared nervous and consented to a search. They took $18,000 that he said was meant to buy a used car. He had to hire a lawyer to get back his money.

Mandrel Stuart, a 35-year-old African American owner of a small barbecue restaurant in Staunton, Va., was stunned when police took $17,550 from him during a stop in 2012 for a minor traffic infraction on Interstate 66 in Fairfax. He rejected a settlement with the government for half of his money and demanded a jury trial. He eventually got his money back but lost his business because he didn't have the cash to pay his overhead.

"I paid taxes on that money. I worked for that money," Stuart said. "Why should I give them my money?"

In defense of seizures

Steven Peterson, a former U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration agent who arranged highway interdiction training through a company called the 4:20 Group, said that patrol officers used to try to make their names with large drug busts. He said he saw that change when agency leaders realized that cash seizures could help their departments during lean times.

"They saw this as a way to provide equipment and training for their guys," Peterson said. "If you seized large amounts of cash, that's the gift that keeps on giving."

There is no question that state and federal forfeiture programs have crippled powerful drug-trafficking organizations, thwarted an assortment of criminals and brought millions of dollars to financially stressed police departments.

Advocates of highway interdiction say it plays an important role in protecting the public and that officers take care to respect the rights of citizens.

"We don't go hunting for money in general," said Sandy Springs, Ga., Officer Mike DeWald, who has served as a trainer for 4:20. "I never have been pressured to go after money. We are in pursuit of the criminal element."

Police trainers said that their work has helped make the country safer by teaching police to be more vigilant in identifying drug smugglers and terrorists.

"9/11 caused a lot of officers to realize they should be out there looking for those kind of people," said David Frye, a part-time Nebraska county deputy sheriff who serves as chief instructor at Desert Snow and was operations director of Black Asphalt. "When money is taken from an organization, it hurts them more than when they lose the drugs."

Frye and Desert Snow's founder, a former California highway patrolman named Joe David, defended Black Asphalt, which David started in 2004. They said they have taken steps in recent years to ensure that the informal police network complies with state and federal laws. David declined to speak to The Post.

"The Black Asphalt is not flawless, however the intent behind it is," David and Frye wrote in a letter in 2012 sent to police and obtained by The Post. "The information being moved through the system has proven itself reliable on hundreds of occasions. Much more reliable than any criminal informant. The results have been staggering. It has proven itself an extremely valuable tool for law enforcement."

Hain, Desert Snow's marketing official, said "the operational and software platforms of the Desert Snow site and Black Asphalt site are completely separate." He said Black Asphalt is "a secure system for intelligence sharing" and does not store information.

"No personal identifying information from seizure reports have ever been collected or stored by the Black Asphalt," Hain said. "The Black Asphalt software is simply a pass-through system that allows the user to input data, which is then sent directly, via e-mail, to a select group of law enforcement (i.e. local investigators, ICE Bulk Cash Smuggling Center, DEA agents, etc.). Again, none of the personal information is held within the system, only the summary of the seizure. And then the seizure narratives are only maintained for 21 days before they get purged."

The Post obtained hundreds of Black Asphalt records from law enforcement sources with access to the system.

Among Black Asphalt's features is a section called BOLO, or "be on the lookout," where police who join the network can post tips and hunches. In April, Aurora, Colo., police Officer James Waselkow pulled over a white Ford pickup for tinted windows. Waselkow said he thought the driver, a Mexican national, was suspicious in part because he wore a University of Wyoming cap.

"He had no idea where he was going, what hotel he was staying in or who with," Waselkow wrote. The officer searched the vehicle with the driver's consent but found no contraband. But he was still suspicious, so he posted the driver's license plate on Black Asphalt. "Released so someone else can locate the contraband," he wrote. "Happy hunting!"

Waselkow's department did not respond to a request for an interview.

The Post's review of 400 court cases, which encompassed seizures in 17 states, provided insights into stops and seizures.

In case after case, highway interdictors appeared to follow a similar script. Police set up what amounted to rolling checkpoints on busy highways and pulled over motorists for minor violations, such as following too closely or improper signaling. They quickly issued warnings or tickets. They studied drivers for signs of nervousness, including pulsing carotid arteries, clenched jaws and perspiration. They also looked for supposed "indicators" of criminal activity, which can include such things as trash on the floor of a vehicle, abundant energy drinks or air fresheners hanging from rearview mirrors.

One recent stop shows how the process can work in the field.

In December 2012, Frye was working in his capacity as a part-time deputy in Seward County, Neb. He pulled over John Anderson of San Clemente, Calif., who was driving a BMW on Interstate 80 near Lincoln. Frye issued a warning ticket within 13 minutes for failing to signal promptly when changing lanes.

He told Anderson he was finished with the stop. But Frye later noted in court papers that he found several indicators of possible suspicious activity: an air freshener, a radar detector and inconsistencies in the driver's description of his travels.

The officer then asked whether the driver had any cocaine, methamphetamine, heroin or large amounts of cash and sought permission to search the BMW, according to a video of the stop. Anderson denied having drugs or large amounts of cash in his car. He declined to give permission for a search. Frye then radioed for a drug-sniffing dog, and the driver had to wait another 36 minutes for the dog to arrive.

"I'm just going to, basically, have you wait here," Frye told Anderson.

The dog arrived and the handler said it indicated the presence of drugs. But when they searched the car, none was found. They did find money: $25,180.

Frye handcuffed Anderson and told him he was placing him under arrest.

"In Nebraska, drug currency is illegal," Frye said. "Let me tell you something, I've seized millions out here. When I say that, I mean millions. . . . This is what I do."

Frye suggested to Anderson that he might not have been aware of the money in his vehicle and began pressing him to sign a waiver relinquishing the cash, mentioning it at least five times over the next hour, the video shows.

"You're going to be given an opportunity to disclaim the currency," Frye told Anderson. "To sign a form that says, 'That is not my money. I don't know anything about it. I don't want to know anything about it. I don't want to come back to court.' "

Frye said that unless the driver agreed to give up the money, a prosecutor would "want to charge" him with a crime, "so that means you'll go to jail."

An hour and six minutes into the stop, Frye read Anderson his Miranda rights.

Anderson, who told Frye he worked as a self-employed debt counselor, said the money was not illicit and he was carrying it to pay off a gambling debt. He would later say it was from investors and meant to buy silver bullion and coins. More than two hours after the stop had begun, he finally agreed to give up the cash and Frye let him go. Now Anderson has gone to court to get the money back, saying he signed the waiver and mentioned the gambling debt only because he felt intimidated by Frye.

A magistrate has ruled at a preliminary step in the case that Frye had reasonable suspicion to detain Anderson. Frye said he always follows the law and has never had a seizure overturned.

Legal scholars who viewed the video of the stop told The Post that such practices push constitutional limits. Officers often are taught not to tell the driver they have a right to leave at any time after a traffic stop is concluded. But extended stops in which the officer uses psychological pressure on the driver without charges or Miranda warnings can cross the line.

"Encouraging police to initiate searches for the purpose of seizing cash or other assets, rather than to seize evidence to be used in a prosecution, is a dangerous development," said Clifford Fishman, a law professor at Catholic University and former New York City prosecutor. "It is particularly troubling if police officers are trained to manipulate the suspect into forfeiting the assets or waiving the right to contest the search."

David A. Harris, a University of Pittsburgh law professor, said Frye's stop crossed the line when he detained the driver while summoning a canine.

"You cannot elongate the stop to bring in the dogs," he said. "In doing that, you're detaining the person without probable cause. That ain't kosher."

Read Much More at: http://www.cascity.com/howard/forum/index.php?action=post;topic=15917.70;last_msg=221736


Video's Too.

[Ross]

Obama just said on meet the press that Ebola is coming to the US.

I too have family members and friends in Law enforcement.

AN OPEN LETTER TO MY FRIENDS IN LAW ENFORCEMENT

By Chuck Baldwin
September 4, 2014
NewsWithViews.com

When I was a youngster, my dad told me, "Son, a policeman is your friend." Through his jail and prison ministry, Dad became a personal friend of our county sheriff (two of them, as a matter of fact)--as well as scores of deputies and city police officers. For all of my life, I have taken Dad's maxim to heart. In fact, for all of my teen years, law enforcement was my chosen profession. I wanted to go into law enforcement real bad. It took a divine call to Gospel ministry to change my plans.

Throughout my adult life, I have enjoyed the friendship of many peace officers. The county sheriff where I lived in Florida made me an honorary deputy sheriff. I still have the credentials to prove it. I count scores (and maybe hundreds) of law enforcement officers around the country as friends. In fact, there are scores of peace officers across the country that financially support my work. I have had kinfolk serve in various positions of law enforcement. Anyone who knows anything about me knows I have been a law and order guy all of my life.

I am as much of a red-blooded American patriot as one will find in this country. I believe in God, the Bible, the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. I believe in liberty, justice, and independence. I am a Christian and a pastor. Through my radio talk show and syndicated column, I have helped to elect many liberty-minded candidates to municipal, county, State, and federal offices. And, like Mike Huckabee who is a former pastor, I, too, ran for the office of President of the United States.

With the above said, it is extremely important that this letter be written, because so many honorable American traditions and customs are being radically and rapidly changed--including the philosophies, standard operating procedures, and rules of engagement of law enforcement. And the change is not for the better.

Let me just be blunt: ever since Ronald Reagan left office, both Republican and Democrat presidential administrations--along with both Republican and Democrat congresses--in Washington, D.C., are turning the United States of America into a giant Police State. And that means that our local and State police agencies are being transformed before our very eyes into the enforcement arm of this burgeoning Police State. And one of the biggest reasons for this growing threat to our liberties is that it seems that you--our local and State police officers and sheriff's deputies--do not understand that you are the ones that are being used to create this nefarious Police State.

I am talking about otherwise honest and honorable men and women. I am talking about the friendly policeman, sheriff's deputy, or State highway patrolman who lives across the street from us. I'm talking about the fellow Christian police officer we go to church with. It seems that the vast majority of you men and women in blue do not comprehend the way you are being used to create a Police State in our country. And until you awaken to this reality, nothing is going to be done to stop it.

The totalitarian regimes of history could not have succeeded in implementing their enslavements over the people without the submission and cooperation of the citizen-policemen within their countries. Nor can a Police State be constructed in America without your submission and cooperation. My concern is, the Police State is already being constructed in this country and most of you don't seem to even realize it--or don't want to realize it. In fact, some of you become angry with people like me when we try to warn the American people about it. This shows that you have already become acclimated and accepting of it.

Here is the problem: in today's America, virtually every police agency and sheriff's office is being dictated to, intimidated by, and bribed by the federal government. Much of the policies you operate under--and training you receive--comes straight out of the Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Justice Department. If you are a police officer in a State or city that does not recognize the right of the people to keep and bear arms, you are already the enforcement arm of Draconian, dictatorial government. You routinely put people in jail or prison for merely exercising the fundamental, God-given right to keep and BEAR arms. How can you live with yourself?

The concern that you, our friends and neighbors in law enforcement, are being turned into agents of oppression is very justified. The warning signs are ubiquitous.

I was told by a Marine Corps officer, who was there, that last year Marines at Twentynine Palms, California, were asked in a survey if they were ordered to turn their weapons on the American citizenry for the purpose of gun confiscation, would they comply with the order. Sixty-six percent of them said yes, they would. Two-thirds! When this same question was asked of Marines at Twentynine Palms back in the 90s, 26% of the Marines said yes. This is a very disturbing trend.

How many of you men and women of law enforcement would respond similarly? Again, in states such as California, Massachusetts, and Connecticut--and in cities such as New York and Chicago--this is already standard operating procedure. People are routinely arrested for merely possessing a firearm, with no harm being inflicted or even threatened. Plus, all it takes is for some kind of riot or "national emergency," and the rest of the Bill of Rights immediately go out the window.

Look at Boston after the marathon bombing. The city was turned instantly into a Nazi-style Police State. People's homes were invaded without warrant; people were manhandled; police dogs were turned loose on people without cause; guns by the hundreds were pointed at the people of Boston by police. No occupying military force in the world was any more efficient at locking down a large city as were the police agencies of the city of Boston and the State of Massachusetts.

Look what happened in Ferguson, Missouri. Regardless of whether the shooting of the young man was justified or not (along with everyone else, I am waiting for a proper and thorough investigation to provide an honest answer), the way police reacted to, what was at first, lawful protests, was unconscionable. Policemen training their firearms on innocent American citizens, including journalists, and threatening to blow their brains out is NOT acceptable behavior in a free society. Police agencies using military vehicles and military attack aircraft against American citizens is NOT acceptable behavior in a free society. Police-state tactics only served to exacerbate and inflame the situation in Ferguson, not alleviate it.

I lived on the Gulf Coast when Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans. Police officers went door-to-door confiscating the firearms of law-abiding, innocent citizens in the aftermath of that storm. This was done while lawless gangs were allowed to freely roam the streets of the city inflicting merciless atrocities on vulnerable residents. And the State of Louisiana is one of our more gun-friendly states.

Look at what happens more and more frequently at routine traffic stops. My mother-in-law (who is in her eighties) was recently pulled over for a routine traffic stop here in Montana. (She must have been pulled over for driving too SLOW.) Two officers came out of the police car, and one of them was actually pointing his pistol at her head. Her vehicle was not suspected of having been part of a felony. They ran her plates. They knew who she was. To point a gun at a harmless, innocent senior citizen--who is suspected of no violent crime--is the mark of a burgeoning Police State.

Policemen training their weapons on the public has become almost routine nowadays. Even many minor incidents will often result in SWAT teams being deployed. In fact, Eastern Kentucky University professor Peter Kraska documents research showing, "There has been more than a 1,400% increase in the total number of police paramilitary deployments, or callouts, between 1980 and 2000. Today, an estimated 45,000 SWAT-team deployments are conducted yearly among those departments surveyed; in the early 1980s there was an average of about 3,000."

See Kraska's report: Militarization And Policing--It's Relevance To 21st Century

Has violent crime increased 1,400 percent during that time? Not at all. In fact, for the last several years, violent crime has been decreasing to the point that currently it is at record lows. So, how can the need for SWAT teams increase by 1,400 percent? It is the result of Washington, D.C., deliberately militarizing our police agencies. Give them military equipment, weapons, training, etc., and they will start acting like soldiers not policemen.

It all begins with philosophy. The philosophy being drilled into police officers today is that of an "us versus them" mentality. In the eyes of a Police State, we are not citizens to be protected; we are enemy targets who are guilty until proven innocent. Plus, the phrase that we hear constantly repeated today by law enforcement personnel and spokesmen is "the safety of the officer."

Wait a minute! The sworn duty of a police officer is to obey the Constitution (including the Bill of Rights), which is designed to protect the rights, liberties, and safely of the American people. The role of the police officer is to protect the safety of the public. Any man or woman who volunteers to put on a badge should be consciously willing to put his or her life on the line to protect the public. That's what their job is all about. And no one forces them to take this risk; they take it of their own volition. Of course you men and women of law enforcement want to go home at the end of your shift. But so do the people of your community.

Policemen are not the only ones who face hostility and threats of violence. I have had my life threatened too many times to count. I have been shot at. (I've talked with several retired police officers who have told me that they never had to pull their gun during their entire career, nor were they ever fired at.) I have had my family threatened. And none of us wear Kevlar vests and helmets and can call backup with the push of a button (calling 911 is not the same as a policeman calling for back up--not even close).

If the safety of the officer is the primary duty of policemen, they should just shoot suspects on sight and eliminate the threat before it exists. And that is pretty much what they do in totalitarian countries. But this is America where the rule of law and the rights of the individual reign supreme. In a free country, people are judged to be innocent until proven guilty. Plus, the only lawful reason a police officer has to fire his weapon at someone is for the same reason that the rest of us can do so: for self-defense against an imminent threat to their (our) lives.

Over 5,000 American citizens have been shot and killed by police since 09/11/01. Based on official statistical data, we are eight times more likely to be killed by a police officer than we are by a terrorist. Currently, somewhere between 500-1,000 Americans are killed each year by policemen. By comparison, during 2012, 120 officers were killed in the line of duty.

"Despite far fewer officers dying in the line of duty compared with American citizens, police departments are not only increasing their use of protective and highly volatile gear, but are increasingly setting aside a portion of their budget to invest in new technology such as drones, night vision goggles, remote robots, surveillance cameras, license plate readers and armored vehicles that amount to unarmed tanks."

See the report: U.S. Police Have Killed Over 5,000 Civilians Since 9/11

Sadly, police agencies and county attorney's offices have a dismal record of thoroughly investigating police shootings (or even police brutality charges). Mostly, the word of the officer is accepted almost without question. Plus, it is common knowledge that many officers carry "throw down" weapons to alleviate incrimination. Furthermore, police officers are seldom willing to testify against a fellow officer--even when they know the officer has committed a crime.

It is past time that independent, citizen review boards with full investigative capability and with authority to begin disciplinary measures are required for all police shootings. I further recommend that every citizen install surveillance cameras inside their vehicles. Any government that thinks it needs to closely monitor our every move should be closely monitored by us.

A recent example of excessive use of force and the police-state mentality was prominently displayed in Boynton Beach, Florida. After questioning why the officers were ordering them around and starting to video-record the officers during a traffic stop, the policemen became enraged, began physically assaulting the young men, and one officer pointed his pistol at them threatening to immediately shoot them. Granted, the young men acted rudely and disrespectfully. But since when in America is cockiness and rudeness a potential death sentence?

But the worst part of the story came afterward when the chief of police issued a statement defending the conduct of the officers. Chief Jeffrey Katz viewed the video tape (recorded by a passenger in the car) and said the following: "When I watch this video, I don't see a car full of young men who are behaving in a manner consistent with FEAR OF THE POLICE." (Emphasis added)

See the report here:

'I'll Put A Round In Your A** So Quick': Florida Police Chief Defends Cop Who Threatened To Shoot Young Black Man Because He Filmed His Partner Throwing Him On The Ground

Ladies and gentlemen, that is not the statement of an American peace officer; that is the statement of a Nazi Brown Shirt. This is what happens when Washington, D.C., turns our local and State law enforcement officers into quasi-military units from a national police force. The police chief and his officers were angry that the young men didn't FEAR the police enough.

So, that's it. We are supposed to FEAR the police? Really? Then, pray tell, who are the police supposed to fear? My father didn't teach me to fear the police. He taught me to respect the police. And he taught me that the police were my friends. He did not teach me that I had to fear for my rights and my very life every time I'm pulled over for a traffic stop. And that's not the way that Sheriff Cliff Arnold's deputies behaved while I was growing up.

The Department of Homeland Security and Defense Department are all but forcing local and State police agencies to accept military equipment, tanks, attack helicopters, machine guns, and more. Last year alone, the Pentagon gave half a billion dollars of military gear to local police agencies. They are supplying suggested training procedures, complete with lists of the people whom they (Washington, D.C.) considers "dangerous."

Most of the intelligence that police agencies receive comes from the DHS-Fusion centers. Reading these memos is like reading the propaganda being spewed out by the radical, ultra-left wing Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). And in truth, much of the information that the Fusion centers distribute are carbon copies of SPLC propaganda.

For example, when I first moved to Montana four years ago, a local police lieutenant sent a memo to the city's police officers warning them about me. The memo accused me of things like being part of potentially dangerous militia groups, etc. He took words from off of my website and said they showed that I was an "extremist." What words, you ask? Words like: Liberty Fellowship, Black Regiment Pastors, Patriot Businesses, etc. Where did the lieutenant get that idea? He didn't know me from Job's turkey. He got it through a DHS Fusion center memo.

I later had a lunch meeting with the police lieutenant in the presence of a retired police officer and tried to assure him as to my character and integrity. I even showed him my honorary sheriff's deputy credentials. He admitted that he had not even read the content of my website and was merely going by the titles, which leads me to believe he may not have even logged onto the website at all but was merely taking the Fusion center report as "gospel." And, no, as far as I know, he did not send out a retraction to his officers. Thankfully, I have had several policemen and sheriff's deputies tell me personally how disgusted they were at the lieutenant's unfounded character assassination against me and that they appreciate the work I am doing.

In fact, I have had countless police officers and sheriff's deputies around the country write and tell me about similar memos they have received from DHS. I have even had deputies drive up to me and show me the memos they had received on the computers in their squad cars with the same kind of propaganda.

My friends in law enforcement, can you not see what is happening? Can you not see that you are being brainwashed into a police-state mentality where constitutional rights are seldom considered, especially in emergencies? All the feds must do is create some sort of national or local emergency and, presto, you become instruments of a Police State. Do you not see the trend?

By an overwhelming majority, your fellow citizens are NOT your enemies. We are your neighbors, fellow church members, etc. Are you going to let the machinations of would-be tyrants in Washington, D.C., and even in your own State and community, turn the honorable profession of peace officer into an "us versus them" Gestapo-like Police State?

True story: here in Montana, a small town police officer, who is assigned to the traffic division, was asked to speak to a church group. Mostly, he gives out traffic citations for minor violations. As he began his remarks, he said, "I am a cop; I work every day among the dregs of society." Really? People who get parking tickets and speeding tickets are the "dregs" of society? That, my friends, is the mark of an unfolding police-state mentality. And, remember, this is from the heart and lips of a professing Christian.

http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin821.htm

[Ross]

NYPD Officer Filmed Slamming Pregnant Woman on Pavement

by Tina Nguyen | 9:24 am, September 24th, 2014

A New York City police officer is under investigation after a video, showing him manhandling and slamming a pregnant woman on the pavement onto her stomach, was released on Facebook.

Read the rest at:
http://www.mediaite.com/online/nypd-officer-filmed-slamming-pregnant-woman-on-pavement/

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

This Exists?
Grandson Alleges That Police Tazed His Grandmother.
Twice.

by Tommy Christopher | 5:10 pm, June 29th, 2010

A catch-phrase is re-born?

An 86 year-old Oklahoma woman and her grandson have filed suit against El Reno police, who they say tazed the ailing granny simply because she asked them to leave. According to the complaint, Officer Thomas Duran ordered Lona Varner to be tazed, as grandson Lonnie Tinsley protested, "Don't taze my granny!"

The complaint gets weirder, as does the police version of the story.

Varner's complaint alleges that police stepped on her oxygen tube to cut off her air supply, then tazed her twice as they cuffed and stuffed her grandson.

Police were responding to this 911 call, in which Lonnie fears his grandmother may have taken something. Adding to the weirdness is the operator's Comedy Central-esque greeting of "El Reno 911...":

http://www.mediaite.com/online/this-exists-grandson-alleges-that-policed-tazed-his-grandmother-twice/

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Cop Filmed Viciously Beating Unarmed Woman on Highway

by Tina Nguyen | 1:11 pm, July 5th, 2014

http://static01.mediaite.com/med/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Screen-Shot-2014-07-05-at-12.45.54-PM.png

A cellphone video emerged this weekend of a California cop appearing to brutally beat a woman for no discernible reason on the side of a highway.

CBS Los Angeles reports that the video, filmed on Tuesday evening, depicts a California Highway Patrol officer angrily crossing the La Brea Freeway, yanking a barefooted woman down, and punching her "more than 11 times in the face."

Read more at:
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/cop-filmed-viciously-beating-unarmed-woman-on-highway/

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Video Captures Green Bay Police Brutally Assaulting Mouthy Bystander

by Luke O'Neil | 2:31 pm, April 23rd, 2014

Yesterday the internet had a bit of fun with the New York Police Department's hapless attempt at social media outreach by hijacking the #MyNYPD tag. On Monday came another reminder that it's not only big city police departments that know how to get their hands dirty with a video from an incident in Green Bay that shows a police officer brutally assaulting a bystander to an arrest who had been criticizing him.

The video, which was posted to Facebook on Monday, has since been shared over 40,000 times, and tens of thousands of other times on various YouTube posts. It shows Green Bay Police Officer Derek Wicklund attempting to arrest a man for allegedly carrying a drink outside of a bar, while Joshua Wenzel and a crowd of onlookers question the reasoning behind the arrests. As is often the case when inebriated college kids and overly-aggressive police officers collide, things do not go well from that point.

Wenzel, who appears to be screaming expletives at the officer but posing no physical threat, is pushed onto a car, body slammed to the ground, then punched in the face by Wicklund. "I'm turning that in, that was brutal," an onlooker yells. He is correct.

All of the officers in the video remain on duty, the Green Bay Press Gazette reports, although the department is conducting an investigation, they say. I wonder how that will go!


"We haven't had, per se, a formal complaint filed, but based on the information we received (Monday) we have decided to start our own investigation," Capt. Bill Galvin of the Green Bay Police Department said during a press conference Tuesday morning. "We're going to be looking at everything that took place before, during, and after that incident."

"Every complaint against an officer is investigated as fully as possible," Galvin said. "In an incident like this we didn't wait for someone to come forward and file a complaint, we felt something like this is something that should be looked at.

And so it will be looked at, all over the internet.

Elsewhere in police hurting people news, the Albuquerque Police's reign of terror continues, as they've killed yet another person, the third in five weeks. The woman in question pulled a gun on the officer, which is a bit more understandable as a cause for use of force than yelling bad words.

It is not illegal to swear at a police officer.

http://www.cascity.com/howard/forum/index.php?action=post;msg=222327;topic=15917.70

[Ross]

Presenting The Cutest Puppy Ever
Involved In An Incident
Of Alleged Police Brutality

by Tommy Christopher | 6:13 pm, May 30th, 2013

Miami-Dade Police are taking heat over their use of force in the arrest of 14 year-old Tremaine McMillian, after the teen's mother produced cellphone video of police using a choke hold to subdue him. Police say that McMillian posed a threat because, among other things, he gave them "dehumanizing stares."

Also injured in the incident, according to McMillian, was Polo, the aforementioned Cutest Puppy Ever Involved In An Incidence Of Alleged Police Brutality. Don't believe me? Check out the local CBS station's report, and tell me Polo isn't the most adorable thing you'll ever see in a news report about alleged police brutality:

http://www.mediaite.com/online/presenting-the-cutest-puppy-ever-involved-in-an-incidence-of-alleged-police-brutality/

[Ross]

Law /commentary

Police Officer Sued for Pointing Gun
at Teen's Head for a
Seatbelt Violation

Jordan Richardson  / @RobertJordanWV / October 27, 2014 /

The family of a Georgia teenager is suing the Waycross, Ga., Police Department for $12.5 million after a police officer allegedly pointed a gun to their son's head and handcuffed him on the ground—all for a seatbelt violation.

The incident occurred on Jan. 18 when high school senior Montre' Merritt was returning home and pulling into his driveway. Officer Cory Gay had been following Merritt for several blocks, but turned on his flashing lights when they neared Merritt's house.

Instead of conducting a normal stop, however, Gay approached the vehicle, pointed a gun to Merritt's head and forced him to lie on the ground. Despite Merritt's insistence that he had done nothing wrong, Gay called for backup and handcuffed the teenager—while his mother watched in horror.

When backup arrived, Gay released Merritt and cited him for a seatbelt violation. No explanation was given to Merritt or his mother about why such force was used.

Merritt recalled the emotional shock he experienced from the encounter:


Coming from me being a huge role model in my community, to see my mom witness that. That was one of the most painful things I could ever imagine for her. The pain that I still feel. The tears that I still cry. Everything is just real in reality. I have to wake up with this on my heart and on my mind every day, and it hurts.

As a result of this incident, Gay was suspended without pay for five days after the Waycross police chief determined the use of force was unjustified. Gay was subsequently required to attend use-of-force training.

But the Merritt family asserts the extra training is not enough.

Their lawsuit claims Gay falsely arrested Merritt, intentionally inflicted emotional distress on him, assaulted him and deprived him of his civil rights. Additionally, the lawsuit claims the city of Waycross and the Waycross Police Department were negligent for not properly training Gay.

They also claim the incident was racially motivated.

"What we have to do is target those wrong police officers and those wrong police departments that will harbor and maintain practices that take the lives and take the rights of citizens," said Reginald Greene, the family's attorney.

The allegations about Gay's behavior, if true, raise some troubling questions. What possible purpose was served by ordering Merritt to lie on the ground while pointing a gun to his head? There is no indication Merritt was behaving in a threatening manner. The Waycross Police Department took the right steps by recognizing that this was over the top and disciplined the officer.

Stories like this bring to mind other instances of inappropriate police overreaction:
•In Piedmont, Okla., a local police officer issued a $2,500 citation to a mother whose 3-year-old was urinating in their own front yard. Instead of simply ignoring a toddler who was still being potty trained, the officer wrote the ticket anyway.
•In Summerville, S.C., the local police arrested a 16-year-old boy for jokingly stating in a creative writing assignment "I killed my neighbor's pet dinosaur." As a result of the arrest, the teenager was suspended from school for the rest of week.
•In North Augusta, S.C. the police arrested and charged a young mother with disorderly conduct for using profanity while shopping for groceries—even though she had a First Amendment right to speak her mind.

In this case, whether Gay's decision to point a gun at Merritt was based upon racial prejudice or was simply the result of a lack of training, it is undisputed that a serious error took place, largely due to poor judgment by the officer.

Warren E. Burger, former chief justice of the United States, wisely once remarked, "The policeman on the beat or in the patrol car makes more decisions and exercises broader discretion affecting the daily lives of people every day and to a greater extent, in many respects, than a judge will ordinarily exercise in a week."

It is this authority which requires equal amounts of training and judgment for the public to truly have faith in their officials. Powerful discretion over the lives of average citizens should be exercised with wisdom. Not every situation calls for the use of force, and not every confrontation deserves to be escalated into a criminal arrest.

If police officers wish to uphold their oath to "protect and serve" then serious examination is required of the policies and procedures that lead to incidents like this.

Video at:
http://dailysignal.com/2014/10/27/police-officer-sued-pointing-gun-teens-head-seatbelt-violation/?utm_source=heritagefoundation&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=morningbell&mkt_tok=3RkMMJWWfF9wsRokuK3IZKXonjHpfsX56O4kWqa%2BlMI%2F0ER3fOvrPUfGjI4CT8BlI%2BSLDwEYGJlv6SgFQrLBMa1ozrgOWxU%3D

[redcliffsw]

Perhaps the police think they are to protect and serve the government/tyrants.

You gotta wonder about the police or even some of the county Sheriff's - whose side are they on?
The peoples' side or the tyrants?

[Ross]

A Month After Passing Anti-2nd Amendment Law,
Washington Authorities Still Baffled
on How to Enforce it

December 19, 2014 By Greg Campbell

Beyond the ideological divisions on the so-called "gun control debate," laws that try to curb lawful ownership of firearms have one central flaw that is utterly inescapable:

Only the law-abiding follow laws. Criminals, as the name would suggest, do not; what madman is content with committing mass murder with a firearm but is stopped only by the hefty penalties of purchasing a firearm or carrying a firearm when ineligible?

Now, Washington State authorities are scratching their heads. Having hurried-up and passed an anti-Second Amendment law, few, apparently, considered how to enforce the law and are putting on the issue of law enforcement.

I-594 was approved by Washington voters in November. The law prohibits private sales of firearms and welcomes government into the transaction.

The law is an 18-page quagmire of jumbled legalese and unenforceable garbage and the state Attorney General has thrown-up his hands in desperation and has now tasked local law enforcement to do their best in enforcing this law that confuses even legal authorities.

The state Attorney General's office has released a statement, saying,
"...Therefore, at this point we have no interpretations of the initiative to offer to the public beyond the text of the measure itself. Local law enforcement and local prosecutors typically enforce and prosecute firearms laws."
For those who do not speak baffled lawyer, allow me to translate:

"This law is an absolute mess and practically unenforceable; so, I now ask local law enforcement to, you know, just do the best you can and make up the law as you go along."

If the state's top law enforcer cannot figure out how to enforce the new provisions, surely the police cannot be expected to know, right?

How about the citizens? What should they do if they're being unfairly arrested for breaking a law that may or may not prohibit their actions? Contact the licensing bureau?

I wouldn't. The Department Of Licensing issued a statement clarifying that they know nothing:
"Please contact your local law enforcement agency if you have questions about firearms licensure requirements, clarification of definitions, violations of the law or need additional information regarding exemptions.... Again, the Firearms Program staff cannot provide legal advice or help the public or licensed firearm dealers interpret the firearms statutes found in RCW 9.41 or I-594"
Washington voters were fed a lot of misinformation about I-594; while Second Amendment advocates warned that this was a registration scheme, supporters maintained that this was purely a background check initiative and that family members would receive an exemption, but that only person-to-person transfers done outside of an immediate family were required to submit to a background check.

Progressivestoday.com, however, notes that that is not how the law is being interpreted:
You may notice a couple of concerning lines in that statement, such as "This program's role in the implementation of Initiative 594 is limited to record keeping requirements." If a background check is all this is, then why does a state agency keep records? The I 594 supporters continually said all along that this is not a registration scheme, so what are these records that are kept? Towards of the end of the statement, we also see "To report possession or ownership of a pistol acquired upon the death of the prior owner after December 4, 2014, contact the Firearms Program at 360.664.6616 or email at firearms@dol.wa.gov." Since transfers to immediate family members are exempt from having to go through the background check process, why does there need to be any reporting of inheritance of a firearm?

The Washington State Police want nothing to do with enforcement of the state law, either, as they didn't arrest anyone who participated in the "I Will Not Comply" rally that took place on December 13th, where 1,000-2,000 stood outside of the capitol building in Olympia, transferring and selling guns back and forth in an open defiance of I 594.

The Vancouver police department has a vague statement on their webpage that punts the ball back to the Department of Licensing, while Seattle PD has remained silent.

To demonstrate how easy it is for someone to break this new law, on the moment it went into effect, activists made a video of a firearms sale taking place on the street in downtown Vancouver, with nary a law enforcement officer in sight to do anything about it.

Lewis County prosecutor and sheriff have released statements saying they will not enforce it. So the question now becomes "If no one wants to enforce a law, is it still a law?"

To answer the above question, no; the Second Amendment protects our right to keep and bear arms and, just as importantly, it is the only amendment that clarifies in crystal-clear wording that this right shall not be infringed.

In this context we see that A) the Second Amendment supersedes this new law and that B) nobody is willing to interpret or enforce the law.

Therefore, the rule of law continues on its slide towards irrelevancy in America.

http://www.cascity.com/howard/forum/index.php?action=post2;start=70;board=2

[Ross]

Thousands dead, few prosecuted

An evidence photo shows a Chevy Malibu that Cleveland police officers riddled with bullets after a chase that ended in the deaths of an unarmed man and woman. Officer Michael Brelo, who investigators say fired 34 shots at the car and then climbed on the hood and fired 15 more through the windshield, is on trial on two counts of voluntary manslaughter.

Among the thousands of fatal shootings at the hands of police since 2005, only 54 officers have been charged, a Post analysis found. Most were cleared or acquitted in the cases that have been resolved.

n a rainy night five years ago, Officer Coleman "Duke" Brackney set off in pursuit of a suspected drunk driver, chasing his black Mazda Miata down rural Arkansas roads at speeds of nearly 100 miles per hour. When the sports car finally came to rest in a ditch, Brackney opened fire at the rear window and repeatedly struck the driver, 41-year-old James Ahern, in the back. The gunshots killed Ahern.

Prosecutors charged Brackney with felony manslaughter. But he eventually entered a plea to a lesser charge and could ultimately be left with no criminal record.

How the analysis was done: The 54 criminal prosecutions were identified by Bowling Green State University criminologist Philip M. Stinson and The Washington Post. Cases were culled from news reports, grand jury announcements and news releases from prosecutors. For individual cases, reporters obtained and reviewed thousands of pages of court records, police reports, grand jury indictments, witness testimony and video recordings. Dozens of prosecutors and defense attorneys in the cases were interviewed, along with legal experts, officers who were prosecuted and surviving relatives of the shooting victims.
Now, he serves as the police chief in a small community 20 miles from the scene of the shooting.

Brackney is among 54 officers charged over the past decade for fatally shooting someone while on duty, according to an analysis by The Washington Post and researchers at Bowling Green State University. This analysis, based on a wide range of public records and interviews with law enforcement, judicial and other legal experts, sought to identify for the first time every officer who faced charges­ for such shootings since 2005. These represent a small fraction of the thousands of fatal police shootings that have occurred across the country in that time.

In an overwhelming majority of the cases where an officer was charged, the person killed was unarmed. But it usually took more than that.

When prosecutors pressed charges, The Post analysis found, there were typically other factors that made the case exceptional, including: a victim shot in the back, a video recording of the incident, incriminating testimony from other officers or allegations of a coverup.

South Carolina shooting


Editor's note: This video contains graphic content. A police officer in North Charleston, S.C., has been charged with murder after shooting a man during a traffic stop. Authorities said the decision to charge officer Michael Slager was made after they viewed video footage of the incident that showed him shooting the other man in the back as he was fleeing the scene. (Obtained by The Washington Post)
Forty-three cases involved at least one of these four factors. Nineteen cases involved at least two.

In the most recent incident, officials in North Charleston, S.C., filed a murder charge Tuesday against a white police officer, Michael T. Slager, for gunning down an apparently unarmed black man. A video recording showed Slager repeatedly shooting the man in the back as he was running away.

"To charge an officer in a fatal shooting, it takes something so egregious, so over the top that it cannot be explained in any rational way," said Philip M. Stinson, a criminologist at Bowling Green who studies arrests of police. "It also has to be a case that prosecutors are willing to hang their reputation on."

But even in these most extreme instances, the majority of the officers whose cases have been resolved have not been convicted, The Post analysis found.

And when they are convicted or plead guilty, they've tended to get little time behind bars, on average four years and sometimes only weeks. Jurors are very reluctant to punish police officers, tending to view them as guardians of order, according to prosecutors and defense lawyers.

The definition of "officers" used in the analysis extends beyond local police to all government law enforcement personnel who are armed, including sheriff's deputies and corrections officers. The analysis included some shootings that officers described as accidental.

There is no accurate tally of all the cases­ of police shootings across the country, even deadly ones. The FBI maintains a national database of fatal shootings by officers but does not require police departments to keep it updated.

'As soon as I fired the shot, I knew the threat was done'

Ten years after killing an unarmed man in downtown Detroit, Michigan State Trooper Jay Morningstar remembers the event that changed his life.

Over the past year, a series of controversial police killings of unarmed victims — including Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., Tamir Rice in Cleveland and Eric Garner on Staten Island — has raised questions over what it takes for officers to face criminal ­charges. Often, the public is divided over whether the police went too far. Only in rare cases­ do prosecutors and grand juries decide that the killing cannot be justified.

Such cases include a Michigan state trooper who shot and killed an unarmed homeless man in Detroit as he was shuffling toward him, the man's pants down past his knees. The incident was captured on video, and the officer, who said he thought the man had a gun, was charged with second-degree murder. A jury accepted the officer's account and found him not guilty. He remains on the job.


They also include a police officer in Darlington County, S.C., who was charged with murder after he chased an unarmed man wanted for stealing a gas grill and three U-Haul trailers into the woods, shooting him in the back four times. A jury, believing that he feared for his life, found him not guilty.

Two Atlanta plainclothes officers opened fire and killed a 92-year-old woman during a mistaken drug raid on her home. As they pried the bars off her front door, she fired a single warning shot with an old revolver. The police responded by smashing the door down and shooting at her 39 times. One of the officers tried to disguise their error by planting bags of marijuana in her basement. The two officers pleaded guilty and received unusually stiff sentences of six and 10 years in a federal prison.

A rap musician, Killer Mike, wrote a song to memorialize the death of this African American grandmother at the hands of white officers, comparing her killing to "the dream of King when the sniper took his life."

After the death of Michael Brown last summer, concerns about racism in policing have exploded in public debate, in particular whether white officers use excessive force when dealing with minorities and whether the criminal justice system protects the victims' rights.

Among the officers charged since 2005 for fatal shootings, more than three-quarters were white. Two-thirds of their victims were minorities, all but two of them black.

Nearly all other cases­ involved black officers who killed black victims. In one other instance, a Latino officer fatally shot a white person and in another an Asian officer killed a black person. There were a total of 49 victims.

Identifying the exact role of race in fatal shootings and prosecutions is difficult. Often, prosecutors pursued charges against a backdrop of protests accusing police of racism. Race was also a factor in court when federal prosecutors stepped in and filed charges­ against officers for allegedly violating the victims' civil rights. Six officers, all white, faced federal civil rights charges for killing blacks.

In interviews with more than 20 prosecutors across the country, they said that race did not factor into their decisions to bring charges against officers. The prosecutors said they pursued cases­ based on the legal merits.

Coleman 'Duke' Brackney
Charged with felony manslaughter in the death of James Ahern. In a deal with prosecutors, he pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of negligent homicide. No conviction was imposed.
 
But defense lawyer Doug Friesen, who represented a white officer convicted in 2013 for fatally shooting an unarmed black man, said that "it would be naive" for prosecutors to say race isn't a consideration.

"Anytime you have politicians that have to make charging decisions, realistically that is part of their decision-making process," Friesen said. "They are asking themselves, 'Is there going to be rioting out in the streets?' "

Both Officer Coleman "Duke" Brackney and his victim James Ahern, shot dead in his Miata, were white.

Brackney, 32, recalled in an interview that he believed Ahern was about to back his car up and run over him. The engine was racing and the backup lights flashed, Brackney said.

A video, captured by a camera mounted on his cruiser's dashboard, indicated that the sports car was not moving when the officer opened fire. The existence of that video was the key reason why prosecutors decided to bring charges, they said.

"In my mind, it was the third time he tried to run me over," Brackney said in an interview with The Post. "His right hand came up in this sweeping motion, and I thought he was going for a gun. I don't know what a jury would have believed — and that's the problem. There was this risk, so entering a plea, I viewed it as a business decision."

After pleading to a reduced charge of negligent homicide, a misdemeanor, Brackney served 30 days in jail as part of a plea agreement. The judge deferred the conviction, and if Brackney fulfills the terms of his probation, the case will be dismissed.

"No one wants to take a life, but at the end of the day, I realize that I'm the one who got to go home," he said, adding, "I wouldn't change what I did."

He was fired by the Bella Vista Police Department, where he worked at the time, but was given another chance by the city of Sulphur Springs, Ark. Two years ago, city officials hired him to run the police department, where he manages a force of four officers who spend much of their time patrolling quiet streets and arresting small-time drug dealers.

Most of the police officers were white, most of the victims were black
In three-quarters of the reviewed cases, the race of the charged officer was white. Of those, two-thirds shot and killed a black person. In none of the cases did a black officer fatally shoot a white person.

Explore the details of all 54 officers » http://washingtonpost.com/graphics/investigations/police-shootings/

Most of the time, prosecutors don't press charges against police — even if there are strong suspicions that an officer has committed a crime. Prosecutors interviewed for this report say it takes compelling proof that at the time of the shooting the victim posed no threat either to the officer or to bystanders.

Much more to read at:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2015/04/11/thousands-dead-few-prosecuted/?hpid=z2