Somebody's Watching Me

I try to catch the things that tend to slip under the radar, mostly because the major news stories and their fallacies are already covered better by other bloggers. But this is a minor local news story that I've been monitoring for a bit, and I think it may have larger significance and consequences across the nation.

Timeline:

Fri, Feb. 19, 2010
Student claims school spied on him via computer webcam

Sat, Feb. 20, 2010
Subpoena issued in Lower Merion webcam case

Federal prosecutors have subpoenaed the Lower Merion School District for documents related to the controversial use of remote-control cameras on students' school-issued computers, The Inquirer has learned.

Tue, Apr. 6, 2010
Subpoena stands in L. Merion Web-cam case

A federal judge said Monday that he would not throw out a subpoena for a Lower Merion School District technology coordinator in a laptop Web-cam lawsuit.

U.S. District Judge Jan E. DuBois said Carol Cafiero might have information useful to the case because she was able to activate the cameras on the student-issued computers. Cafiero is trying to block efforts to get her to testify in the case.

Sat, Apr. 10, 2010
Key figure in 'Webcamgate' invokes Fifth

Carol Cafiero, who had previously sought to quash a subpoena ordering her to testify, refused to answer questions pertaining to the district's controversial practice of remotely activating webcams on Apple MacBooks issued to high-school students.


Fri, Apr. 16, 2010
Family: Pa. school snared 1,000s of webcam images

A suburban Philadelphia school district snapped secret webcam pictures of a high school student when he was partially undressed or sleeping in his bed, and captured instant messages he exchanged with friends, the student charged in court papers this week.

Sat, Apr. 17, 2010
L. Merion to let parents see secretly snapped photos

The president of the Lower Merion school board said Friday that investigators had retrieved "a substantial number" of photos secretly snapped by laptops the district gave its high school students, and that officials were arranging for parents whose children were photographed to see the pictures in private.

Mon, Apr. 19, 2010
Lower Merion report: Web cams snapped 56,000 images

Lower Merion School District employees activated the web cameras and tracking software on laptops they gave to high school students about 80 times in the past two school years, snapping nearly 56,000 images that included photos of students, pictures inside their homes and copies of the programs or files running on their screens, district investigators have concluded.

Tue, Apr. 20, 2010
Lower Merion details scope of Web-cam surveillance

Lower Merion School District employees activated the Web cameras and Internet address tracking software on laptops they gave to high school students about 146 times during the last two school years, snapping nearly 56,000 images, district investigators have concluded.

In 48 of those activations, images were recovered; 68 showed only the computer's Internet address. The rest showed nothing or could not be recovered.

Ahh, yes, the old 'we can't recover the files' trick.

And since even their own investigation had to walk back the number of times and images that were accessed, one would think in the midst of a Federal investigation that they would give it up.

But no, not these stalwart protectors of the children school district. They doubled down:

Wed, Apr. 21, 2010
Filing states student broke rules and had no expectation of privacy

Even in his own home, the Harriton High School sophomore had "no legitimate expectation of privacy" from the camera on his school-issued laptop, information systems coordinator Carol Cafiero contended in a court filing on Tuesday.

And the latest news is:

Administrator agrees to surrender [home] computer in Web cam case

56,000 photos of kids!? I bet some members of the Catholic Church wish they'd thought of this sooner.

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!

But a footnote to a 2005 memo made it clear that the rules were not always followed. Waterboarding was used "with far greater frequency than initially indicated" and with "large volumes of water" rather than the small quantities in the rules, one memo says, citing a 2004 report by the C.I.A.'s inspector general.

Officials Say U.S. Wiretaps Exceeded Law

The National Security Agency intercepted private e-mail messages and phone calls of Americans in recent months on a scale that went beyond the broad legal limits established by Congress last year, government officials said in recent interviews.

F.B.I. and States Vastly Expand DNA Databases

Law enforcement officials are vastly expanding their collection of DNA to include millions more people who have been arrested or detained but not yet convicted.

Gee, government agencies have actually exceeded the incredibly unconstitutional powers that were granted them without our knowledge ... and then they were granted them ex post facto!?

Wow, no one could have predicted ...



Cross posted at VidiotSpeak

The Whole World Is Watching* ...

... but somehow the Denver thugs cops don't seem to realize that they can't abuse do business as usual.

First up, a knockdown, drag out fight ... between an unarmed woman from the non-violent group Code Pink that think they have the right to peaceably assemble and a right to free speech and a Denver cop:

CodePink protester is slammed to the ground by police in Denver

Follow the link and notice how the cop beat her down because she didn't obey their orders quick enough while they were establishing a 'perimeter.'

Notice that after bashing her with a billy club the cops left her and several other people alone and there was no perimeter established.

Also notice she was only arrested when she started explaining to a news crew what had happened.

Next up, the rest of the constitution goes out the window:

Protesters denied access to attorneys, forced to march in leg shackles

In the letter, obtained by RAW STORY, the ACLU revealed that the police refused those arrested access to attorneys. Police did not let detainees use phones unless they posted their own bonds, and even failed to provide shoes, in one case marching a protester into court in bare feet and leg shackles, according the ACLU.

What's more, police are said to have tricked protesters into pleading guilty, by giving them the impression they had to plead guilty in order to post bond. This meant that no one was allowed to make a phone call unless they plead guilty, thus making it impossible for arrestees to even call a lawyer until admitting guilt.

Most ominously, the ACLU letter claims that protesters were told they would be "facing 'years' in jail for a conviction of a single particular charge."

"In fact, all the charges were municipal court violations that do not carry such penalties," the ACLU added in a footnote.

And finally, there is this Cops Gone Wild video of them saying a public sidewalk is private property and literally shoving a producer from ABC out into traffic and then cursing him for obstructing traffic ... but it wasn't for 2 hours until they arrested him.

The capper is the headline from ABC that blames the Democrats for the cops actions:

ABC Reporter Arrested in Denver Taking Pictures of Senators, Big Donors

Video is here.

I sense a pattern, the cops in Denver, (like cops everywhere), are willing to violate anyone's rights if they don't 'respect my authority.'[/Cartman]

They do it all the time, it's just hard to believe they do it when The Whole World Is Watching.

* The Whole World Is Watching was chanted by demonstrators during the police riot at the 1968 Dem convention.



Cross posted at SteveAudio

Get up, stand up: stand up for your rights!

$40,000 for Man Tasered on YouTube

About two months went by after Jared Massey was tasered by a highway cop in Utah before he turned to YouTube.
[...]
Like other YouTube tasings, waves of outrage over excessive force followed — fire the cop, ban Tasers — and the police started an investigation a week and a half later. But the initial results were discouraging for the critics: The cop was cleared of wrongdoing; Mr. Massey paid the speeding ticket that he protested before being shocked twice.
[...]
The deal was announced a week after a Utah prosecutor ruled the Mr. Massey did not commit any crimes in the traffic stop, according to The Salt Lake Tribune. His civil case focused on the fact proven in the video — that the officer did not seek to arrest him before drawing and firing the Taser.

But wait, there's more!

The man who videotaped a St. George police officer's tirade against him last year, and put it online labeled "Cop Gone Wild," filed a federal civil rights lawsuit Monday over the incident.
[...]
The confrontation happened about 2 a.m. Sept. 7 in a commuter parking lot in
south St. Louis County at Spokane and Reavis Barracks roads. Darrow, who runs
his own painting business by day and attends community college at night, told a
reporter last fall that he was there to meet a friend.

He also said that he installed a video camera in his Nissan Maxima after
previous run-ins with police.
[...]
But [police Sgt. James Kuehnlein], who has since been fired, approached his car and began questioning him.

Darrow responded with queries of his own about the justification for the stop.
He also asserted his Fourth Amendment rights to privacy.
[...]
Kuehnlein had Darrow step out of the car, pinned him against
Darrow's car, then got in Darrow's face and shouted, "You wanna try me tonight?
You think you've had a bad night? I will ruin your (expletive) night."

Darrow said no. Kuehnlein then suggests he could make up reasons to detain or arrest Darrow, the suit says. "Do you want to go to jail for some (expletive) reason I come up with?"
[...]
Darrow was released after about 18 minutes, the suit says, and never arrested.
[...]
Although Kuehnlein also claimed to be taping the encounter with his dash-mounted video camera, the tape has since been lost or destroyed.

Nothing pisses off a cop more than standing up for your rights, just make sure you get it on tape.

If you act now you get a special bonus track!

Rights of Protesters Violated, Judge Rules

The Bush administration violated the public’s right to free speech by keeping protesters far removed from the 2005 inaugural parade, a judge ruled yesterday.

U.S. District Judge Paul L. Friedman found that the National Park Service violated its own regulations by giving the inauguration’s private organizers preferential treatment and extraordinary control over access to Pennsylvania Avenue. The Presidential Inaugural Committee roped off most of the parade route and allowed only those with tickets inside: largely a crowd of Bush administration donors, supporters and friends coming to celebrate the start of President Bush’s second term.

Protesters were limited to small, specific areas, leading to a lawsuit by antiwar activists.

“The inauguration is not a private event,” Friedman said in his ruling. “The National Park Service, on behalf of the PIC, cannot reserve all of Pennsylvania Avenue for itself, leaving only the Ellipse and the northern part of John Marshall Park to protesters.”
[...]
Friedman said the Park Service allowed the Presidential Inaugural Committee to apply almost a year ahead of anyone else for a permit, contrary to its usual regulations. It then granted the committee exclusive use of nearly all of the parade route from the Capitol to the White House and allowed the group to use the area for five months before Inauguration Day, instead of the typical three weeks.

See you can stand up for your rights, all it takes is lots of money and lots of time. Oh, and get it on tape.



Cross posted at VidiotSpeak

I'm a queen on the street and a king at the station, It's a secret of mine, not a sign I'm gonna make that right

Multiple choice question: What would you say if I told you somebody cut me off in traffic, I followed them into a parking lot, pulled a gun and fired several rounds thru their windshield wounding the 20 something mom driver and her 8 year old child?

Should I;
a) go to jail, directly to jail, do not pass go, do not get bail?
b) go to jail, directly to jail, do not pass go, but have a high bail I can afford?
c) get an expense paid vacation?

If you answered 'c' you were correct:

California Officer On Leave After Shooting Mom, Son

Oceanside police are investigating what sparked an apparent road rage incident in a busy parking lot that ended with a woman and her son being shot by an off-duty San Diego police officer.
[...]
Police have not said who they think was the aggressor in the incident, but they believe it started after one of the parties committed some sort of right-of-way violation in front of the parking lot. When it was over, the officer had fired two bullets through the windshield of a Honda. Inside were a woman and a child.

"We understand that there were several rounds fired from the off-duty police officer and that the occupants of the car, an adult female and a male juvenile, were injured as a result of the gunfire," said Sgt. Kelan Poorman of the Oceanside Police Department.

Both were flown to Sharp Memorial Hospital and Children's Hospital.
[...]
"Right now, we've got statement from the son at this time.

The mother and child had to be MediVaced by chopper. The shooter gets a paid vacation, (sorry if my LEO friends disagree, but when my employer pays me while I'm taking time off, that's a vacation.)

And the fact they flew the wounded child to a different hospital than his mother, then interrogated the wounded child without a parent, LG or lawyer present is disgusting and maybe against the law.

INAL, and I don't have all the facts, but I would like to point out that every news story said the victims had to be MediVaced. To 2 different hospitals. So I have a couple of questions.

Q1) Was it in the same helicopter that made 2 stops or were their wounds serious enough that 2 simultaneous MediVacs had to be performed?

Q2) If this mom and her 8 year old boy's wounds were serious enough to require MediVacs to different hospitals then why, after being shot on Saturday night were :

The woman and child remained hospitalized Monday, but authorities said their injuries were not life threatening.

Well, golly, thanks to these unnamed 'authorities' for giving us their medical opinion!

Q3) Did anyone administer a BAC on this cop before he went on vacation?

BTW

The other driver, a white female in her 20's, was not armed

and the spin is in:

[Oceanside police Sgt. Kelan Poorman] said he did not know whether White [...] White acted in self-defense.

"I think that's probably why the shots were fired, but I'd be speculating," Poorman said.

Yeah, that it, that's the ticket, it was self-defense ... against an unarmed Mom and her 8 year old.

But wait, there's more!

Police: Woman in Oceanside shooting refusing to talk

A woman shot Saturday by an off-duty San Diego police officer during an alleged road rage incident has refused to speak with investigators, police said Tuesday.
[...]
Poorman said investigators don't have the authority to make the woman submit to an interview. [...]
Three days after the incident, investigators have yet to release key details about how the traffic dispute escalated into gunfire.

"They (investigators) don't want to try this in the court of public opinion," Poorman said.

So they don't have the authority to make her submit, but they can interrogate her son!? And if they didn't want to "try this in the court of public opinion" why are they releasing statements saying the cop fired in self-defense and the woman refuses to talk?

Wanna know why she refused to talk? Her lawyer told her not to.

I just know someone is going to ask 'if she didn't do anything wrong, why not talk to the cops?' And my reply would be 'what the hell is wrong with you!?' The cops shot her. The cops shot her son. The same cops are saying the officer fired in self-defense. The same cops interrogated her 8 year old son in the hospital without parental permission.

Of course you hire a lawyer, and when you hire a lawyer you should listen to their advice.

Then the poor, poor, Poorman also said White had already talked to investigators. Yeah, when White wasn't in a hospital bed and when White was interviewed at the Oceanside police station Saturday night with his attorney and peer support officers from the San Diego Police Department present.

This story stinks of cover-up and of the cops banding together, as always, to protect their own at the expense of the innocent civilians who pay their salaries.

If I lived in Oceanside I'd want my money back.

Don't understand, I'm wondering why; How can this happen it's so out of line

McCain says al Qaeda might try to tip U.S. election

Republican presidential candidate John McCain said on Friday he fears that al Qaeda or another extremist group might attempt spectacular attacks in Iraq to try to tilt the U.S. election against him.

If there's anything AQ wants it's 4 more years of Bushco and 'stay the course' rhetoric. It's proven to be the best thing that ever happened to AQ and their stated goal of disrupting the American economy.

So why would McLame say that? Was it so Bush could declare an emergency and institute martial law to steal yet another election?

And before you think I crimped my tinfoil hat just a little too tight today I think you should look at the little known Executive Directive 51 Bush signed a year ago:

National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive

The National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive (National Security Presidential Directive NSPD-51/Homeland Security Presidential Directive HSPD-20, sometimes called simply "Executive Directive 51" for short), signed by United States President George W. Bush on May 4, 2007, is a Presidential Directive which specifies the procedures for continuity of the federal government in the event of a "catastrophic emergency." Such an emergency is construed as "any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions."
[...]
The directive specifies that, following such an emergency, an "Enduring Constitutional Government," comprising "a cooperative effort among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government," coordinated by the President of the United States, will take the place of the nation's regular government, presumably without the oversight of Congress.[4] Conservative activist Jerome Corsi and Marjorie Cohn of the National Lawyers Guild have interpreted this as a break from Constitutional law in that the three branches of government are equal, with no single branch coordinating the others.
[...]
The signing of this Directive was generally not covered by the mainstream U.S. media or discussed by the U.S. Congress. [...]It is unclear how the National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive will reconcile with the National Emergencies Act, a U.S. federal law passed in 1976, which gives Congress oversight over presidential emergency powers during such emergencies.
[...]
After receiving concerned communications from constituents, in July 2007 U.S. Representative and Homeland Security Committee member Peter DeFazio made an official request to examine the classified Continuity Annexes described above in a secure "bubbleroom" in the United States Capitol, but his request was denied by the White House, which cited "national security concerns."[8] This was the first time DeFazio has been denied access to documents.

Did you get the "Such an emergency is construed as "any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions" part? The 'emergency' doesn't have to take place in the US, tho it might.

Considering their track record, it's impossible to consider that anything is out of bounds for these bastards.

A quick side note on McLame's hypocrisy. In the same article at the top he also castigated fellow Senate members for "not responding to the will of the people."

Well John, 60% of Americans want the US out of Iraq.

UPDATE: ThinkProgress reminds us of a recent McClain statement: "I disagree with what the majority of the American people want"



Cross posted at VidiotSpeak

Headline of the Day

Ex-Florida prison boss: Drunken orgies tainted system

Gee, ya think!?

Psycho Killer, Qu'est-ce que c'est?

Daytona cops to take DNA in all arrests
They hope a database will help catch a serial killer.

February 7, 2008

[...]
"DNA is going to replace fingerprints soon. Whether we're doing it now for the serial-killer investigation or whatever . . . DNA is going to be useful as a tool."
[...]
The chief said the DNA that is collected -- from any type of arrest and within the parameters of the law -- will be sent to the state's database. He hopes the effort, in the long term, will help area law-enforcement agencies solve a number of crimes.
[...]
he adamantly squashed rumors Wednesday that his officers were swabbing every person stopped for a traffic infraction.

"We are not setting up a traffic roadblock or swabbing people we stop for traffic violations," he said.

Yet on the same day another local news outlet reported:

Police Swabbing Mouths During Traffic Stops In Serial Killer Hunt

February 7, 2008

DAYTONA BEACH, Fla. -- Police officers in Daytona Beach are swabbing the mouths of persons of interests during traffic stops with special DNA kits in the hunt for an elusive serial killer, sources close to the investigation told Local 6.
[...]
Agents are using the DNA kits to collect as much DNA as possible during traffic stops and special operations in hopes on making a match.

Local 6 showed agents stopping a person of interest from Canada, who gave his DNA to officers on the street using the DNA kit.

So whether it was just bad reporting or the police chief flat out lied when he said collecting DNA wouldn't happen during traffic stops the real tell is when he said "Whether we're doing it now for the serial-killer investigation or whatever . . . DNA is going to be useful as a tool"

So they're just using an extreme event to justify what they've wanted to do all along. Sound familiar?

And if you're a proponent of the 'if you have nothing to hide you shouldn't be worried' POV, it's been debunked over and over. Even evangelical christians get it.

And our founding fathers especially got it:The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Is there anything more unreasonable about searching our persons than the collection of our DNA? Without a warrant? Without probable cause? With no excuse except, as Chief Wiggams Chitwood stated they are "a person of interest."

In this particular case chief wiggams is interested in white males with a girlfriend or wife. That's a lot of persons of interest.

DNA carries information about you, your parents, your siblings, your children ... and maybe enough info to create another you. That seems to be the uber-definition of unreasonable search and seizure.

Not to mention that our government is notoriously bad about protecting our data that they already have, misusing it, and completely inept about applying it in the real world.




Cross posted at VidiotSpeak

If you want me to keep your little secret

Joseph Heller wrote a great novel called Catch-22, which describes a paradox of logic:

Catch-22 is a term coined by Joseph Heller in his novel Catch-22, describing a paradox in a law, regulation or practice in which one is a victim regardless of the choice one makes[1]. In probability theory, it refers a situation similar to Heads I win, tails you lose. A familiar example of this circumstance occurs in the context of job searching. In moving from school to a career, one may encounter a Catch-22 where one cannot get a job without work experience, but one cannot gain experience without a job. Catch-22 situations are also sometimes called the chicken or the egg problems.

Of course, that never happens in real life. Except when it does, and like in the book, there ain't nothin' you can do about it:

A federal appeals court dealt a near-fatal blow Friday to an Islamic charity's lawsuit alleging it was illegally wiretapped by federal investigators, saying that a key piece of evidence the charity planned to use is a protected state secret.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled unanimously that a top secret call log accidentally turned over to the now-defunct U.S. arm of the Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation's lawyers by the U.S. Treasury Department can't be used as evidence.

Al-Haramain, which was labeled by the U.S. government as a terrorist organization, alleged it had been illegally wiretapped by the Bush administration without a warrant. But without the document, the court said, the foundation has little proof it was wiretapped.

And the real Catch-22 in this case?

The charity's lawyers voluntarily turned over the document to FBI agents after it was given to them. But a lower court ruled that the lawyers couldn't use the actual document to support their lawsuit but could use their memories of its contents to go forward.

Got that? The government gave them the document, the charity's lawyers "did the right thing" and gave it back. And now they can't use it to prove their innocence!


FindLaw has more details:

The decision, which reversed a lower court ruling, was a victory for the White House, but it didn't entirely put the issue to rest. The judges sent the case to the U.S. District Court in San Francisco to determine whether the law governing the wiretapping of suspected terrorists trumps the state secrets law.

. . . The appellate court's ruling also didn't resolve another lawsuit that more broadly challenges the warrantless wiretapping program.

An attorney for Al-Haramain said he was pleased with the appellate court's ruling because it gave him another chance to bring a lawsuit under a different argument.

"This is back to the drawing board," lawyer John Eisenberg said. "My case is still very much alive and kicking."

Of course, the GWBushCo administration has broadly expanded their interpretation of state secrets law, ruling that exposing illegal activities of the government violated the law, thereby invoking, once again, Catch-22.

Bastards.

(h/t to the vacationing Sailor)

Sheriff John Brown always hated me, For what I do not know

Bump & UPDATE:

Prosecutor Fired for Mishandling 'Phoenix New Times' Probe

Even the Goldwater Institute agrees:

Freedom of press prevails
Attack on 'New Times' was a danger to us all

Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas did the right thing on Friday by revoking a subpoena that was an egregious abuse of prosecutorial discretion, violating not only freedom of the press but the privacy rights of tens of thousands of Arizonans.

Chillingly, however, it took the willingness of two courageous newspaper publishers, Michael Lacey and Jim Larkin, to go to jail in order for this abuse of government power and its wholesale violation of privacy rights to come to light.

For standing up for freedom and being willing to sit in a jail they get my Hero Award of the week.

ORIGINAL POST:

Media Executives Arrested in Phoenix

Two executives from Village Voice Media — a company that owns a number of alternative weeklies including The Village Voice, The LA Weekly and The Phoenix Times — were arrested Thursday night in Phoenix on charges that a story published earlier in the day in The Phoenix New Times revealed grand jury secrets.

Whoa, that sounds bad, they 'revealed grand jury secrets!'

Until you look below the lede. The GJ 'secret' they exposed was the text of the subpoenas that a special prosecutor served them.

The scope is astounding. Here is a copy of the subpoena (pdf.)
Some of the low lights:

All documents, records, email, notes, images ... meetings, discussions, conversations, communications between or among reporters, editors, employees or other staff members ... all internet web site information for the Phoenix New Times internet site related to the web pages [...]
Sheriff Joe's Real Estate Game
Stick It To 'Em
Enemies List
Joe Strikes Back
[...] The information should include, but not be limited to: The Internet Protocol addresses of any and all visitors to each page of [the above.]

It gets so much worse:

The grand jury subpoena also demands Web site profiles of anyone and everyone who visited New Times online over the past two and a half years, not merely readers who viewed articles on the sheriff.

The subpoena demands: "Any and all documents containing a compilation of aggregate information about the Phoenix New Times Web site created or prepared from January 1, 2004 to the present, including but not limited to :

A) which pages visitors access or visit on the Phoenix New Times website;

B) the total number of visitors to the Phoenix New Times website;

C) information obtained from 'cookies,' including, but not limited to, authentication, tracking, and maintaining specific information about users (site preferences, contents of electronic shopping carts, etc.);

D) the Internet Protocol address of anyone that accesses the Phoenix New Times website from January 1, 2004 to the present;

E) the domain name of anyone that has accessed the Phoenix New Times website from January 1, 2004 to the present;

F) the website a user visited prior to coming to the Phoenix New Times website;"

And that's when Michael Lacey and Jim Larkin decided they needed to protect not just their reporters, not just their sources, but the privacy of everyone who'd accessed their newspaper's website. And all they released of the secret grand jury proceedings was the warrant asking for this material.

What kicked this whole feud off a few years ago was the newspaper discovering that Sheriff Joke managed to buy over a million dollars worth of commercial property on his sheriff's salary and then attempted to hide the transactions by removing them from the public record because he's a 'law enforcement officer.'

The law he abused was meant to protect cops home addresses' from criminal retribution, not public knowledge of crooked business deals. The newspaper was just doing their job in exposing public corruption. But these days you get fired and/or arrested for that.

Jeebus, we need folks like this in Washington DC! (Umm, I meant, the publishers, editors and reporters, not the sheriff and prosecutor ... we already have enough of those.)



p.s. Here's a bit o' history about Sheriff Joke.

BUMP and UPDATE: Florida boot camp death

UPDATE: The all white jury is in; NOT GUILTY
The all white jury has spoken and found the 7 boot camp guards, and Nurse Cratchet not guilty in beating a 14 year old black boy to death ... even tho there is video of the whole thing.

The back story is here and more recently here:

Guard testifies in his boot camp trial

A guard charged with killing a 14-year-old boy at a juvenile boot camp told jurors Monday that a video showing himself and other guards hitting, kneeing and dragging the boy depicts training designed to protect both the guards and the child.
[...]
Helms and six other guards are charged with aggravated manslaughter of a child. Nurse Kristin Schmidt, who is seen throughout the 30-minute video watching the altercation, also is charged in Anderson's death.
[...]
"These are not rogue officers who are trying to punish a kid," he said. "Nobody is going to say that those hammer strikes or knee strikes were unlawful, they were strictly according to procedure."

Excuuuuse me, the "Nobody is going to say" is just a lie. Many people say that kneeing, 'hammer striking', smothering, and killing a 14 year old boy is unlawful ... including medical examiners, police, human rights organizations and, obviously, prosecutors.

It's hard to believe the Nazi prison camp defense is in use in America today: 'It vas strictly according to procedure' AKA 'Ve vas just following orders.'


Cross posted at VidiotSpeak

UPDATE: Florida boot camp death

The back story is here and more recently here:

Guard testifies in his boot camp trial

A guard charged with killing a 14-year-old boy at a juvenile boot camp told jurors Monday that a video showing himself and other guards hitting, kneeing and dragging the boy depicts training designed to protect both the guards and the child.
[...]
Helms and six other guards are charged with aggravated manslaughter of a child. Nurse Kristin Schmidt, who is seen throughout the 30-minute video watching the altercation, also is charged in Anderson's death.
[...]
"These are not rogue officers who are trying to punish a kid," he said. "Nobody is going to say that those hammer strikes or knee strikes were unlawful, they were strictly according to procedure."

Excuuuuse me, the "Nobody is going to say" is just a lie. Many people say that kneeing, 'hammer striking', smothering, and killing a 14 year old boy is unlawful ... including medical examiners, police, human rights organizations and, obviously, prosecutors.

It's hard to believe the Nazi prison camp defense is in use in America today: 'It vas strictly according to procedure' AKA 'Ve vas just following orders.'


Cross posted at VidiotSpeak