GUN SENSE KANSAS VERSION

Obtaining a concealed-carry permit in Kansas isn’t exactly a difficult task. A 2006 law made Kansas a “shall-issue” state, meaning that law enforcement does not have discretion to deny permits to people who meet certain qualifications; though people who want to carry concealed firearms also are required to complete a gun-safety class. A majority of the state’s senators, however, believe that it should be even easier to pack heat if you live in the Sunflower State. Twenty-six of the state’s 40 senators co-sponsored a bill eliminating the requirements to take the class and to obtain the a permit.

The bill is labeled a “constitutional carry” bill because of its supporters’ mistaken belief that a permitting requirement and similar restrictions on concealed firearms violate the Second Amendment. As the Supreme Court explained in District of Columbia v. Heller, the right to bear arms is “not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” Nor is this conception of the Second Amendment particularly new. To the contrary, Justice Antonin Scalia explained in his majority opinion, “the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues.”

Echoing National Rifle Association CEO Wayne LaPierre’s claim that “the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun,” Kansas State Senate Majority Leader Terry Bruce claims that this legislation will “lead to more protection of individuals.” Empirical data, however, does not bear out this claim. A literature review by the Harvard Injury Control Research Center determined that areas with more guns have higher homicide rates, for example. Another study found that, in higher education settings “there were more gun threats at schools that allowed firearms possession than schools that prohibited students from owning guns.”

Other data shows that the premise of the NRA’s good guy/bad guy framework is flawed. In reality, mass shootings — the kind of situation where a “good guy with a gun” might be best poised to end a killer’s rampage — are quite rare. Meanwhile, according to Washington State Sociology Professor Jennifer Schwartz, “nearly half of all homicides, committed by men or women, were preceded by some sort of argument or fight.” Forty percent of male offenders and about one-third of female offenders were drinking alcohol when they committed a homicide offense.

Homicides, in other words, don’t often occur for want of a good guy with a gun. They occur much more often because two guys are arguing at a bar, and one of them happens to be armed.

NFTOS
STAFF WRITER

IMPLODY AWARDS

JONI ERNST SHOE WEATHER PROTECTOR 

The Daily Show's Jon Stewart had to pick a winner for this year's "Implody Award" given for "unforced response errors" to President Obama's State of the Union address Tuesday night.

Previous winners included Marco Rubio, Michele Bachmann and Bob McDonnell and Stewart wondered who was going home with the "Implody" this year.

This years contestants were the official response given by "tea party" - the Koch Brothers favorite, Senator Hog Balls herself, Joni Ernst. As Stewart joked, if her job was to humanize the Republican Party, she failed epically.

Next up was Rep. Curt Clawson who gave the "official" "tea party" response, which was apparently filled with lots of basketball talk and immigrant bashing for good measure.

Not to be outshined, next up we had Sen. Rand Paul and his You Tube response, and his whining about how awful "liberal elites" are, which Stewart did a wonderful job responding to.

And finally, not want to be left out of the circus, Mr. Green Eggs and Ham AKA, Ted Cruz with the response he wishes he had back.

Drum roll please, and the winner is……..

Video Courtesy of Comedy Central

NFTOS
Blogger-In-Chief

Roger West

STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS 2015 GOP PWNED!

PRESIDENT QUICK WITS REPUBLICANS IN AD-LIB FEST AT SOTU ADDRESS

In front of the new, Republican-controlled Congress, a forceful and determined President Obama used his State of the Union speech on Tuesday night to push for a program of “middle class economics.” With his pitch, also came a slew of zingers – some scripted and some ad-libbed – that received applause, laughter and some GOP scowls. Here’s a look at his five best lines:

1. “I know because I won both of them.” Towards the end of his speech, Obama called for Republicans and Democrats to work together, acknowledging “I have no more campaigns to run.” But when Republicans began to clap, the commander-in-chief shot back, off-the-cuff: “I know because I won both of them” he said, to applause and laughter from Democrats.



2. “Let’s set our sights higher than a single oil pipeline.” Obama zinged Republicans for focusing too much on the controversial Keystone XL pipeline – which he has voiced opposition to – and instead urged them to focus on a long-term infrastructure bill. “Twenty-first century businesses need 21st century infrastructure — modern ports, stronger bridges, faster trains and the fastest internet. Democrats and Republicans used to agree on this. So let’s set our sights higher than a single oil pipeline. Let’s pass a bipartisan infrastructure plan that could create more than thirty times as many jobs per year, and make this country stronger for decades to come,” said the president.

3. “Well, I’m not a scientist either.” President Obama took a jab at climate change critics, arguing, “I’ve heard some folks try to dodge the evidence by saying they’re not scientists; that we don’t have enough information to act. Well, I’m not a scientist, either. But you know what — I know a lot of really good scientists at NASA, and NOAA, and at our major universities. The best scientists in the world are all telling us that our activities are changing the climate, and if we do not act forcefully, we’ll continue to see rising oceans, longer, hotter heat waves, dangerous droughts and floods, and massive disruptions that can trigger greater migration, conflict, and hunger around the globe.”

4. “It’s time to try something new.” Obama addressed his controversial decision to thaw relations with Cuba and asked Congress to begin to lift the embargo against the communist country. “In Cuba, we are ending a policy that was long past its expiration date. When what you’re doing doesn’t work for 50 years, it’s time to try something new,” he said.

5. Congress: You try living off the minimum wage. In his continued push to raise the federal minimum wage to $10.10, Obama challenged members of Congress who are against the proposal. “And to everyone in this Congress who still refuses to raise the minimum wage, I say this: If you truly believe you could work full-time and support a family on less than $15,000 a year, go try it. If not, vote to give millions of the hardest-working people in America a raise,” he said.

Things the Republican Party could not bring themselves to clap for last night - a short condensed list.

· An improving economy

· A soaring stock market

· Americans getting health insurance

· Mention of "solar power"

· Tax cuts for working families (A tax cut Republicans don't like?)"

· Affordable childcare

· Tax cuts for families with children (Another one?)

· Equal pay for women

· "America has put more people back to work than Europe, Japan, and all advanced economies combined."

· A "free and open internet"

· Rewarding companies that "invest in America" (C'mon, really?)

· "Working Americans"

· A resolution for the use of the force against ISIL

· "Trying something new" with Cuba

· Acknowledging that climate change exists

· Prohibiting Torture

· Not persecuting "people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender."

· Closing Guantanamo

· Making "voting easier for every single American"

To be fair, many of right wing neocons last night seemed confounded at the zingers lobbed their way by Obama - which probably made them incapable of showing support for above short list.

With the freak show that is the republican congress - one never knows what makes them tick.

It was a fun show to watch as far as the SOTU goes, with their sarcastic applause for Obama’s being unable to run again - that Obama’s quick wit left them stewing and fuming for the remainder of the evening, was priceless and a very pleasing sight to this ‘lazy shit bag liberal”. Call it cocky, call it swagger, but I like my President standing up to - and verbally bitch slapping the green slimy toed sloth [GOP] into reality.

It’s a great day when the conservatives are all in a tizzy. Good job Mr. President!

NFTOS

Blogger-In-Chief

Roger West

HOLLY FISHER, TEAHADIST , OFFERS UP CHEATING TO LIST OF CHRISTIAN FAMILY VALUES

So much for conservative Christian family values. Remember Holly Fisher, the teahadist gun toting-bible toting star who found internet fame after several of her photos went viral?

HOLY ROLLER, ADULTERER AND GUN NUT HOLLY FISHER

There was the photo of her posed, gun in one hand, Bible in the other, in front of a flag (because "Who would Jesus Kill?") -- the photo that gained even more fame after it was juxtaposed beside an image of terrorist Sherafiyah Lewthwaite, in a strikingly similar pose. There was the photo of her at Hobby Lobby, wearing a "pro-life" t-shirt, to celebrate the Hobby Lobby SCOTUS ruling that allows companies to limit women's reproductive care options.

Eventually, this internet fame translated into real fame, and Holly's star seemed to be rising within conservative circles. And then the rumors started that this family values, god-and-guns-Merica-loving icon had actually been cheating on her military vet husband. With, of all people, another member of the patriotic, family-values crowd: Joel Frewa of Tea Party News Network.

Frewa has since stepped down from his post in TPNN, and Holly has issued a public statement on her Facebook page that details what she describes as "a loss of faith", leading to the affair.

I’ve been married since I was barely 20, most of that marriage was in the army life. With deployment, kids, career changes, etc. we’ve had our ups and downs, like most couples. In the overwhelming mess of the political spotlight and trying to find myself and where I belong, I actually completely lost myself. I lost my faith in my marriage, I lost my faith in this life that not only I’ve chosen for myself, but a life that I promote. Happy military wife with kids and church and happy, happy, happy. False. My life crumbled. My marriage crumbled. I lost my faith in God. I didn’t know where I was going to go next or what I was going to do. For a very short period in the middle of that, I actually believed my marriage was over and found someone else.
Day after day, actually week after week, throughout the late fall, I found myself just trying to figure out what I needed to do to make myself happy and to get my life back on track. (emphasis added)

Now, to be fair to this dipshit, I don't care who Fisher sleeps with; it's her business. The only person who really has a right to be pissed at her is her husband, and he is standing by her. But her hypocrisy is pretty colossal, coming from a woman who has been so very vocal in trying to push her brand of morality, who has crowed loudly over the loss of women's rights because she sees those rights as contrary to her beliefs...and yet who acts in a fashion that is completely at odds with that moral code that she wants to foist on the rest of us.

But, really, it seems that in the conservative world, conservatives are the only ones who don't actually have to live up to conservative values. When they fail to live up to them - that is when someone catches them failing to live up to them (as happened here -- Fisher was at first pretty adamant in her denials) - well, Jesus stepped in and saved them, it's in the past and they're forgiven. For everyone else, of course, it's damnation and hellfire.

In the end, Fisher and Frewa are just the latest in an ever-increasing list of "family values" hypocrites, who piously push an ideology that they themselves are loath to commit to.

Originally posted at Rachel's Hobbit Hole.

NFTOS
Blogger-In-Chief

Roger West

WHAT'S IN THIS DAY YOU ASK?

THE GREAT DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING

Rep. Steve Scalise’s (R-LA) civil rights record has been under a media microscope in recent weeks, after a Louisiana reporter discovered that the House Majority Whip had spoken at a 2002 White Supremacist convention organized by a group founded by former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke. But while his 2004 vote against Louisiana’s Martin Luther King Jr. Day put him in a small minority at the time, he was far from the only legislator who fought against commemorating the slain civil rights leader over the decades-long fight to create a nationwide King Holiday. And several of the opponents remain in legislative office even today.

After King’s assassination in 1968, Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) introduced the first Congressional legislation to create a federal Martin Luther King Day holiday. In the years that followed, Congress held congressional hearings during which hostile witnesses said “violence was exactly what [King] wanted,” and that King formed a “common front” with the “virulently racist Nation of Islam.”

More than 15 years later, Congress finally enacted such a law. The bill, signed by President Ronald Reagan, passed in the Senate on a 78-22 vote and in the House of Representatives by a 338 to 90 margin. The most vocal opponents included the late Sen. Jesse Helms (R-NC), who mounted a 16-day filibuster of the proposal and smeared King as a Communist.

Voting with Helms against the King Holiday were four men who remain in the Senate today: Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Finance Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Banking Chairman Richard Shelby (R-AL) and Armed Services Chairman John McCain (R-AZ). Shelby and McCain were in the House at the time. House Appropriations Chairman Hal Rogers (R-KY) and House Judiciary Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations Subcommittee Chairman Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI) also voted against the proposal. McCain apologized in 2008 for being too slow “to give greatness its due,” and Hatch wrote in 2007 that the vote was “one of the worst decisions” he has made as a senator.

The fight to get a state law in all 50 states took even longer. While some states moved quickly — Illinois enacted its law in 1973 — others lagged behind.

In 1999, New Hampshire’s mammoth state house of representatives (212 to 148) and smaller state senate (19 to 5) finally enacted a law proponents had been pushing for more than a decade, to adopt King day. Since 1993, the state had observed a generic “Civil Rights Day” instead. Two of the state representatives who opposed the change now serve in the leadership of the state senate: Charles “Chuck” Morse (R) is now the Senate president and Gary Daniels (R) is now chairman of the capital budget committee. On his campaign website today, Daniels has an entire section highlighting his support for “States’ Rights” (King observed in a 1960 speech that “Most of the glaring denials, of basic freedoms in the south” were “done in the name of ‘states’ rights.'”) Fifteen opponents still serve in the state House of Representatives including controversial Deputy Speaker Gene Chandler (R), Criminal Justice and Public Safety chair John Tholl (R), Criminal Justice and Public Safety Vice Chairman David Welch (R), Finance Chairman Neal Kurk (R), Ronald Belander (R), David Bickford (R), Lars Christiansen (R), Robert Fesh (R), Jeffrey Goley (D), Mary Griffin (R), Richard Marple (R), Betsy McKinney (R), Sherman Packard (R), Anne Priestley (R), and Kenneth Weyler (R).

A year later, Utah’s legislature agreed to rename its “Human Rights Day” to honor King. The state’s house passed the bill 54 to 17, though current state senator Margaret Dayton (R) and representative Melvin R. Brown (R) were among the no votes. Dayton objected to the idea of naming holidays after individuals and successfully moved to also rename the state’s President’s Day holiday after Presidents Washington and Lincoln.

Rep. Scalise also opposed a resolution in Louisiana in 1996 expressing regret for slavery (now-U.S. Senator David Vitter (R) helped him water down the language but backed the weakened version). A similar measure in Maryland passed in 2007 unanimously in the state senate and with 5 no-votes in the state’s house of delegates. Three of those opponents — Delegates Richard K. Impallaria (R), Patrick McDonough, and Warren E. Miller — are still serving. Reps. Impallaria and McDonough have earned cheers from commentators on a popular white supremacist forum for their anti-immigrant activism and McDonough received bipartisan criticism for comments in 2012 warning of “roving mobs of black youths” near Baltimore’s inner harbor.







[h/t thinkprogress]

POLICE CHIEF SHOT FOUR TIMES, SHOOTER WALKS SCOTT FREE

POLICE CHIEF LOUIS ROSS

In Oklahoma, a white “survivalist” shot a police chief three times in the chest and once in the arm. The shooting did not result in an arrest or charges and the man, identified by local media as 29-year-old Dallas Horton, has been released.

In a press release, the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation said, “Facts surrounding the case lead agents to believe the man was unaware it was officers who made entry.” But Louis Ross, the Sentinel, Oklahoma police chief who was shot, said that he entered the home after “Washita County 911 received two calls from a man who identified himself as Dallas Horton, and claimed to have a bomb inside the head start school.”

Ross cast doubt on the credibility of Horton’s claim that he didn’t know officers were present, noting that there was “screaming from five officers of the law announcing our presence, requesting to see hands.” Ross only survived the shooting because he was wearing a bulletproof vest. He has “massive bruises and welts on his body” and the shot that hit his arm “went clean through.”

In a second statement released yesterday the Oklahoma State Bureau Of Investigation said Horton was “fully cooperating with the on-going investigation” and “no traces of explosives were found.”

A Facebook profile identified by Raw Story, that purports to be from a Dallas Horton of Sentinel, contains numerous racist images.

A sign on the front door of Horton’s home says he’s a “Certified zombie killer.” The mayor of Sentinel, Sam Dlugonski, described Horton as a “gun enthusiast” and survivalist. Dlugsonski was familiar with Horton, saying, “I’ve known that kid all of his life.”

So, it's ok to shoot black guys even when they're cops. Right!

Seriously readers, this has really gone beyond the level of farce a long time ago. At what point will we finally be able to call out the racists for what they are and do something about it? Because if the races were reversed, the shooter would be dead right now and the racists would insist he deserved it.

NFTOS
Blogger-In-Chief

Roger West

MAHER VERBALLY BITCH SLAPS LIBERALS FOR NOT BEING 'PROPER"

VIDEO COURTESY OF HBO

Bill Maher in his New Rules segment last night spoke on free speech, free speech for all, not just Liberals.

Liberals, via blogs and Twitter, took umbrage to Maher's attack on their one-sided view of free speech - Maher calling liberals "a part of the problem" and "your not even a proper liberal" for their relentless attacks on Rush Limbaugh and his sponsors.

Often the case, whether Liberal or Conservative, Americans take offense when its them - to which the free speech is intended, and which points to their humanistic failures.

Being one of the most Liberal men that this world has to offer, Maher's comments are spot on. I take no offense, but as repeatedly as honesty does, to those who seek honesty, and to those who the honesty is directed to - offense is taken.

Times are frequent when I disagree with Maher, but I do not go into tirades when our ideologies doesn't align. Liberals often invoke, when it comes to same sex marriage and abortion, that if you don't like them, then don't have one. Rush Limbaugh and as putrid comments are the same. I despise the drugster more than anyone, but he is entitled to blather on with his hate. How do I address it, I never listen to Rush Limbaugh and I silently boycott the advertises who support his smut.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Hey Liberals, if your going to talk the talk, then walk the walk. Put your adult diapers on and act like grown ups - and not be whiny little bitches who are offended because the "fact dart" is being tossed at you and not at the green slimy toed sloth [republicans].

Yes, in your free speech, you are entitled to vent your displeasure at the drugster, but, the drugster, like Charlie Hebdo, are entitled to doll out their version of diarrhea of the mouth and constipation of the brain as well.

NFTOS
Blogger-In Chief

Roger West

COPS USE BLACK MUGSHOTS FOR TARGET PRACTICE

SMH. 

 
Someone recognized her brother among the bullet-riddled mug shots

A Florida woman is outraged after finding that North Miami Beach Police had been using images of black men for target practice—including her brother’s mug shot.

Sgt. Valerie Deant, a musician with the Florida Army National Guard’s 13th Army Band, arrived at a shooting range with her fellow soldiers just after police snipers had been practicing on the same range last month. Deant was shocked to see her brother’s photograph among the mug shots of black men apparently used as target practice by the police. Woody Deant was arrested in 2000 in connection with a deadly drag race when he was just 18 years old.

“I was like why is my brother being used for target practice?” Deant told NBC Miami in a report published Friday. “There were like gunshots there.”

The incident was confirmed by Captain Jack Young, who oversees the shooting range. He said the targets are selected by whoever is renting the range. Police chief J. Scott Dennis told NBC that the decision to use mug shots of black men may have been a mistake, but that no rules were broken. He said his department includes minority police officers, and said the use of actual photographs for target practice is very common. Requests for further comment from Dennis were not immediately returned.

Woody Deant, who spent four years in prison after his arrest, was disturbed at his sister’s discovery. “Now I’m being used as a target?” he told NBC. “I’m not even living that life according to how they portrayed me as. I’m a father. I’m a husband. I’m a career man. I work 9-to-5.”

“The picture actually has like bullet holes,” he said.

North Miami Beach Police Chief J. Scott Dennis admitted that his officers could have used better judgment, but denies any racial profiling. Could have used better judgment? Are you fucking kidding me?

This an obvious challenge and affront to those with dark skin and their worth as human beings. Just that certain "glow" makes some white folk get crazy, unfortunately as is it - that some just happen to be officers of the law.

NFTOS

Blogger-In-Chief

Roger West

NEW CONGRESS TO MAKE LIFE MORE MISERABLE FOR ITS CONSTITUENTS

The 2014 election is ancient history, the lame duck session is a distant memory, and the 114th Congress is ready for work. The 113th Congress was one of the most unproductive and unliked in history. Initial signs that the next two years will be any better are unpromising.

The House and Senate are both devoting significant chunks of time to passing well-worn Keystone XL legislation that the President has threatened to veto. Last week the House voted to approve the Keystone pipeline for the 10th time. This week they’ve moved on to similarly well-tread and unproductive terrain by revisiting and passing another measure that Obama recently threatened to veto: one with much greater potential for harm to the government, let alone the environment.

The Regulatory Accountability Act (RAA), which the House passed on Tuesday, is ostensibly aimed at cutting costly regulations imposed by federal and independent agencies, but it would actually make it much more difficult to pass and enforce protective measures overseen by the government.

“It is actually a stealth attack on all the various statutes Congress has passed over the last 40 years.”

“It is actually a stealth attack on all the various statutes Congress has passed over the last 40 years to protect public health environmental quality,” according to Ronald White, director of Regulatory Policy at the Center for Effective Government. The RAA adds at least 70 new procedural steps into a process that already takes years for agencies to navigate through Congress. He said this is part of “a whole slew of anti-regulation legislation” that he expects to see in coming months.

“I think Congress is trying to lay down some political markers and make some political statements,” said White. “A lot of these bills were proposed in the last Congress and we expect many more that will be probably very close to the same.”

The RAA for its part would hamper the rule issuing and enforcing processes currently in place for clean air, clean water, safe food, stable financial markets, safe workplaces, and fair wages, according to the Center for Effective Government.

For one, the measure would require all federal agencies to conduct cost-benefit analyses including speculative estimates of “indirect” costs — even when some agencies are barred from relying on cost-benefit analyses for adopting standards. For instance, the RAA would require the EPA to consider the cost of any new clean air rule, even though the Clean Air Act prohibits the EPA from factoring in cost when adopting new standards.

“The whole point is that these acts all say that costs come into account after you’ve made a decision to protect public health,” said White. “The Clean Air Act says costs should be considered in strategies, but not in what constitutes appropriate levels of air quality. That’s based on science, not cost.”

Furthermore, the RAA would mandate that federal agencies adopt the least costly rule unless the agency can demonstrate that the additional benefits of any alternative justify additional costs. The legislation would also allow any interested party to ask an agency to hold a public hearing to challenge data that the agency used in drafting proposed rules. The only way to avoid the public hearing is for the agency to revoke the information being petitioned. It is not hard to foresee industry lobbyists taking advantage of this to request numerous public hearings relating to information they see as harmful to their goals.

“The goal of administrative procedure is to ensure that the government’s adoption of regulation is accountable and fair, but not at the expense of hamstringing the ability of agencies to fulfill the public interest,” wrote Sidney A. Shapiro, Wake Forest University law professor and Center for Progressive Reform scholar, this week. “The House obviously has no such concern.”

Shapiro writes that agencies already take four to eight years to “promulgate” complex regulations and that the new requirements would add two or three years to the process.

“It’s telling that the newly-empowered Republican majority in Congress has made it its first order of business to protect the profits of its corporate benefactors at the expense of the public interest,” writes Shapiro.

In an analysis for the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), Celia Wexler, a representative for the Scientific Integrity Initiative at UCS, says this “special-interest interference” jeopardizes the mandates of the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act. “The RAA emphasizes the costs to businesses, not the long-term benefits to the public,” she writes.

The Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act have offered economic benefits as well over the 40 years since their passage. The Administration has been pursuing an update to the CWA that would protect about 20 million acres of wetland and two million miles of streams. A recent analysis found that the economic benefits of this update would be between $300.7 million and $397.6 million.

The CAA’s track record is even more impressive. A 2013 study by the EPA concluded that between 1970 and 1990, the total monetized health benefits of the Act was between $5.6 and $49.4 trillion. By removing harmful pollutants from the air, the CAA helps people stay healthy — keeping them at work, at school, and out of the hospital


[H/T thinkprogress]

NFTOS

STAFF WRITER

GEORGE W. BUSH, THE GIFT THAT KEEPS ON GIVING

THE GIFT THAT KEEPS ON GIVING

In a recently released poll, Americans by an almost 2 to 1 margin blame the current turmoil in Iraq more on former president George W. Bush than the White House’s current occupant, though giving Obama low marks for his handling of the crisis.

In the survey, conducted between June 24 -30, Quinnipiac University contacted 1,446 registered voters and asked them point blank: “Who do you blame more for the situation in Iraq, President Obama or former President George W. Bush?” Of those polled, 51 percent said the blame rested with the 43rd president, while only 27 percent said Obama is more at fault. In military households, a plurality — 44 percent — still said that Bush is more at fault. Voters also by a sizable margin — 58 to 37 percent — believe that going to war with Iraq in 2003 in the first place was a bad idea.

The result of these questions, however, was highly partisan in nature. On the first question, 54 percent of Republicans inquired preferred to say Obama’s policies are behind the current situation; only five percent of Democrats said the same. And on launching the war in the first place, 56 percent of GOP members surveyed still approve of the war, while 80 percent of Democrats remain opposed.

Despite protestations from conservatives, Americans also back Obama’s decision to withdraw all troops from Iraq at the end of 2011. 58 percent of respondents agree that pulling troops was the right thing, compared to 37 percent who think it was a mistake. Again, the survey breaks down along partisan lines, with a full 90 percent of Democrats supporting the decision, compared to 62 percent of Republicans who believe it was a mistake. Compared to a similar question in late 2011, Quinnipiac found that slightly fewer Americans support the pull out, showing a 16 point drop over the years.

A slight plurality also disagree with the notion that the U.S. should carry out airstrikes in Iraq, an option that remains on the table as the Obama administration determines how best to aid Iraq in pushing back militants allied with the Islamic State of Iraq and Greater Syria (ISIS). When asked if the U.S. should use piloted aircraft, remotely piloted aircraft or cruise missiles, or both, just two percent advocated strikes using just fighter jets, while 20 percent were in favor of solely using drone strikes and missile launches. A full 39 percent said that neither option should be used, slightly edging out the 30 percent who called for both.

The survey also came to a similar conclusion as a previous Public Policy Polling (PPP) poll on the prospect of placing troops on the ground in Iraq. In PPP’s findings, 74 percent of Americans were opposed to the idea of sending in ground troops to help fight against ISIS. Several weeks later, Quinnipiac’s survey says that 63 percent of voters — including 56 percent of Republicans — are against the idea of ground combat troops to help defeat the Islamic militants.

And while Republican hawks like Sens. Lindsey Graham and John McCain continue to draw comparisons between the Iraq withdrawal and the pending pullout of combat troops in Afghanistan, Americans want Obama to stay the course on ending the longest war in American history. Forty-six percent of Americans, the survey finds, think that based on what they've heard the troop withdrawal rate from Afghanistan is “about right.”

While some of these numbers will be comforting for the White House, the poll isn’t all good news. When asked if they approve or disapprove of the way that Obama is handling the current Iraq crisis, a full 55 percent thought the effort was being mismanaged. Likewise, voters believe that Obama’s foreign policy-making skills are either on par or worse than those of Bush: 25 percent believe the former, while 39 percent believe the latter.


Meanwhile in Iraq, while the Iraqi military has made some gains against ISIS, the political crisis that has been running parallel to the takeover of several cities and towns continues. Iraq’s parliament, which was meant to form a new government after its most recent elections last week, has opted instead to adjourn until August. In the meantime, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s caretaker government is still in place, despite increasing calls for the Shiite leader to step down from his role to help facilitate reconciliation with Iraq’s Sunni population. (HT: TPM)

NFTOS

Blogger-In-Chief

Roger West

IN A RARE INSTANCE, POLICE CHARGED WITH ON AN ON-DUTY MURDER

Albuquerque Police Ready Themselves for The Kill of James Boyd

Two officers will be charged with murder in Albuquerque over the March 2014 fatal shooting of a homeless man, the district attorney announced this week. The charges come in a city that has seen a spate of police killings far disproportionate to its size, and a finding by the Department of Justice that the majority of a spate of police killings violated the U.S. Constitution.

As the story goes, police fired on a homeless, mentally disturbed man who appeared to be surrendering at the time. Officers first approached 38-year-old James Boyd while he was sleeping in the Albuquerque foothills to talk to him about illegally camping. Video of the incident appears to show that he had agreed to walk down the mountain with officers, when one of them fired a flashbang device that disoriented him, and deployed a police dog. Boyd then pulled out two knives and started to run away from police, appearing at one point to tell officers he was agent for the Department of Defense, when the shots were fired.

The police department initially said the shooting was “justified,” but later conceded under public pressure that may have been a mistake. The shooting of Boyd was one of two controversial police shootings in a period of less than ten days, and one of more than 37 in the city since 2010, 23 of them fatal. To put this volume in context, New York City saw about the same number of shootings during that period for a population that is 15 times as high, according to the ACLU of New Mexico.

In a demonstration of outrage, the city erupted in protest for 10 hours in late March, escalating into what Mayor Richard Berry called “mayhem” as officers clashed with protesters, donning riot gear and deploying tear gas.

In retrospect, the images coming out of that protest provided a foreboding preview of clashes to come in Ferguson, New York City, and elsewhere, where grand juries ultimately did not file any charges against the officers who killed unarmed victims and illuminated the epidemic failure to hold police accountable for what many perceive as brutality. But this week, the narrative changed course in New Mexico. Bernalillo County District Attorney Kari Brandenburg did not take the case before a grand jury. And she did not find the use of deadly force “justified.” Instead, she will charge two officers with the highest possible charge of first-degree murder, according to the New Mexico Political Report.

A contributing factor may be the role of the federal government in the city. While a federal investigation of the Boyd incident has not yet yielded any civil rights charges, the federal government did exercise its other power to curb police brutality via a citywide investigation of police brutality. The so-called “pattern and practice” investigations that the Justice Department has deployed in some 20 cities over the past five years may have had some of the most sweeping impact in curbing police brutality under Attorney General Eric Holder.

Albuquerque is now under federal monitoring and subject to an agreement known as a consent decree, after the Justice Department investigation yielded scathing findings that a majority of the Albuquerque police department’s 20 fatal shootings between 2009 and 2012 were unconstitutional.

While filing charges is not among the changes mandated in the agreement with the Justice Department, it may have influenced the culture and attitudes of government officials, as the report found that a select number of officers were responsible for a disproportionate number of violent incidents, and that those individuals were not punished or corrected in any way after their actions.

[h/t thinkprogress]

NFTOS
STAFF WRITER

NYPD COMMISSIONER REFUSED TO DISCIPLINE OFFICERS FOR CHOKE HOLDS – “REPEATEDLY”.

NYPD COMMISSIONER BILL BRATTON

A new report from the New York City Department of Investigation found discrepancies in “determining how and when [NYPD] officers should be held accountable for using choke-holds.” The report, which was spurred by Officer Daniel Pantaleo’s deadly choke-hold of Eric Garner, also concluded that recommended disciplinary actions for officers who used choke-holds were routinely ignored by the Police Commissioner.

Chokeholds are illegal use of force tactics, as stipulated in Section 203–11 of the Patrol Guide. However, a close examination of 10 chokehold cases between 2009 and 2014 found that disciplinary measures were not consistent. The incongruity is due, in large part, to how two separate investigative units define and review the cases. One group, the CCRB, relied on substantive evidence to determine whether or not an officer “interfered” with breathing. But a second agency, the DAO, used a more broad body of evidence, including an officer’s personal history, and a more specific definition of a choke hold to determine if disciplinary action was warranted.

Additionally, in six chokehold cases reviewed by the Police Commissioner, the Commissioner instituted less strict penalties than the recommended by the CCRB or DAO. The Commissioner also refrained from penalizing officers in two of the six cases he reviewed.

In one incident, in which the Police Commissioner refused to penalize a school safety officer, the officer in question slammed a 19-year-old female high school student against a wall and grabbed her neck for three to four seconds. The officer was initially called to prevent the student from walking away from school officials, who were attempting to discipline her. The incident was caught on video, and the CCRB verified that a chokehold was used. Both the CCRB and DAO recommended penalties for the officer.

In another noteworthy case, a 15-year-old suspect was handcuffed to a bar when an officer wrapped his arms around the suspect’s neck and choked him. The suspect’s claim was verified by a Sergeant and another eyewitness, and the CCRB proposed Administrative Charges. But the Police Commissioner withheld punishment, per the DAO’s suggestion.

According to the report:

“While the Police Commissioner has full authority to depart from the disciplinary recommendations of CCRB, DAO, and the Deputy Commissioner of Trials, such decision-making must be grounded in reason and should not be arbitrary. However, it appears that in none of the six cases at issue did the Police Commissioner furnish any explanation for his disciplinary decisions, or more specifically, his reasons for rejecting and undercutting the disciplinary recommendations of CCRB . Instead, the Police Commissioner communicated final disciplinary decisions via a cursory “Endorsement “form which provided a boilerplate explanation for the departure.”

The investigation comes on the heels of discontent between the NYPD and the public, and tension between officers and Mayor Bill de Blasio. Protesters against excessive police force and misconduct have taken to the streets since early December. Meanwhile, police enraged by perceived slights from Bill de Blasio have substantially cut back on their policing duties. As a result, the number of arrests over the last two weeks have plummeted in the last two weeks, as have the number of criminal

For the NYPD, de Blasio is the new Benghazi. Ignore the fact you're breaking your own standards of conduct at will, just yell 'de Blasio' and turn your backs on the public you're paid to serve.


[H/T thinkprogress]

NFTOS
Blogger-In-Chief

Roger West

ZIMMERMAN ARRESTED AGAIN

NRA and Fox News poster boy and his collection of arrest mug shots. 

George Zimmerman, the notorious Florida defendant acquitted for shooting dead 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, was arrested Friday for assault and domestic violence. It’s at least the fourth time Zimmerman has been accused of violence since the Martin case ended in 2012.

Just this past September, a driver reported that Zimmerman threatened to kill him during a road rage incident, pulling up alongside him and allegedly saying, “Do you know who I am? I will fucking kill you.”

In November 2013, Zimmerman was arrested after his girlfriend Samantha Schiebe called 911 reporting that he pointed a shotgun at her and barricaded himself inside. Deputies moved furniture he had put up against the door to get to him. At the time of his arrest Zimmerman had five guns and 100 rounds of ammunition. But he got his guns back after Schiebe asked that prosecutors drop the charges.

Two months earlier, Zimmerman’s estranged wife also called 911 to report that Zimmerman was threatening her and her family.

In the most recent incident, Zimmerman was booked late Friday night on a charge of aggravated assault with a weapon, according to News 13 Orlando.

George Zimmerman has committed more crimes than Trayvon Martin yet Trayvon is considered a thug. It's only a matter of time before he kills someone else. Thanks Florida for unleashing this sociopath into the world.

NFTOS

Blogger-In-Chief

Roger West

"BY THE BOOK"

THIS IS WHY THE NYPD HAS THEIR PANTIES ALL WADDED UP?

Bill Maher is back from vacation, and he does not disappoint in his New Rules section from last night.

Maher takes a harsh look into why police circa 2015, why they need to "man-up".

Maher went off on the NYPD for “throwing a tantrum” at Mayor Bill de Blasio and asked when they started “suffering from PMS.”

Maher repeatedly clarified that he supports the police, but he’s a little annoyed that “New York’s whiniest” engaged in a slowdown because they felt “unloved” by their mayor.

He tied this into a broader theme of police officers as these ‘infallible” forces that will justify anything as “by the book.” Maher suggested they should “get a new book,” pointing to cases like Eric Garner and Tamir Rice. And the way some police unions have been particularly ardent about defending the cops struck Maher as the same kind of “union bullshit” that explains why people hate unions in the first place.

Video Courtesy of HBO




Now I am positive that the police will take umbrage to this blog, why, because its a factual depiction of policing.

During a previous segment in last nights show, Salman Rushdie and Maher were discussing the Al Qeada Paris attacks - and Maher stated, [speaking on a few bad apples in the Muslim faith] "when there are this many bad apples, there's something wrong with the orchards". I think this is also very fitting to the bad apples in our police forces today.






NFTOS
Blogger-In-Chief

Roger West

FREE COLLEGE FOR ALL?

Today President Obama will announce a plan to make community college free for students who maintain their grades.

The program would be available for both half-time and full-time students who maintain a 2.5 grade point average (GPA) and apply to community colleges that offer occupational training in high-demand fields or credit toward a four-year degree. Tuition costs would be covered up front.

While Obama isn’t expected to discuss how much it would cost or how to fund it, the federal government would share it with states, covering three-quarters of the average cost of community college with states that participate covering the rest. The government already provides about $9.1 billion in aid to community colleges. If all states were to participate, as many as 9 million students could partake and would save an average of $3,800 a year.

Obama will announce the proposal in Tennessee, which has already launched a very similar program. State residents who graduate from high school, maintain a 2.0 GPA, attend mandatory meetings, work with a mentor, and do community service can get the costs of community college tuition that aren’t covered by other programs like Pell Grants paid for. Its program is expected to cost about $34 million a year and has already attracted 58,000 applicants, nearly 90 percent of Tennessee high school seniors and more than twice as many as expected. There is also a higher proportion of Black and Hispanic student applicants for the program than are currently enrolled in college.

Chicago has also launched a program this year that will give students with a 3.0 GPA waivers for tuition, books, and fees at community colleges. Other states, such as Florida, Mississippi, and Oregon, are considering similar plans, while some have looked at “pay it forward” programs that allow students to attend community college or public university at no cost with the requirement that they repay a certain portion of their income after graduation.

If President Obama truly wants to transform the cost of higher education, however, he could make college free for all students without having to lay out more money to pay for it. That’s because the federal government could take the $69 billion it currently spends to subsidize the cost of college through grants, tax breaks, and work-study funds and instead cover tuition at all public colleges, which came to $62.6 billion in 2012, the most recent data. (The government spends another $197.4 billion on student loans.) That would give all students who want to get a college degree a free option to do so. It could also put pressure on private universities to compete with the free option by reducing their costs, which have risen 13 percent over the last five years.

Eliminating college tuition with the money spent on subsidies could also make the system more equal. Currently, the government’s tax-based aid mostly flows to wealthy families instead of low- and middle-income ones. And Pell Grants, which do go to low-income students, have been cut in recent years and cover a small percentage of the cost of college.

[h/t thinkprogress]

NFTOS

STAFF WRITER

ERICK ERICKSON BEING ERICK ERICKSON

ERICK ERICKSON

RedState.com editor and Fox News contributor Erick Erickson opened his radio show Wednesday with the disclaimer that he would be “lighting the ships on fire on the seashore and burning the bridge down behind me.” He proceeded to compare the firing of Atlanta’s anti-gay fire chief to the violent shooting that took place this week at French magazine Charlie Hebdo, killing 12 journalists.

“A publisher published something that offended,” Erickson wrote in an accompanying blog post, “So the terrorists decided they needed to publicly destroy and ruin the publisher in a way that would not only make that destruction a public spectacle, but do it so spectacularly that others would think twice before publishing or saying anything similar.”

He went on to clarify, “It is not because the ideas are bad, but because the ideas offend a group that can destroy and tear down.” Finally revealing that he was talking about Atlanta and not France, Erickson concluded, “The terrorists did what had to be done to publicly destroy and ruin the offender… And the terrorists won in Atlanta.”


Listen to his full segment (via Jeremy Hooper):




When Mayor Kasim Reed announced the firing of Fire Chief Kelvin Cochran on Tuesday, he made it clear that it was not because of his religious beliefs, but for his poor judgment in distributing his self-published book that condemned homosexuality. Atlanta has sexual orientation nondiscrimination protections and Cochran was fostering an unwelcoming working environment that did not represent the city’s values. Moreover, while Cochran was suspended for a month to investigate complaints about how he distributed his book, he openly promised to continue engaging in such actions, which Reed felt seriously undermined his “judgment.”

But Erickson and other conservatives have made a martyr of Cochran. “He has been fired for being a Christian,” Erickson concluded, dismissing Reed’s statements to the contrary. “The fire chief wasn’t passing the book around, except to people who asked for it,” Erickson claimed to know via “inside sources” in Atlanta’s City Hall.

Last week, Erickson criticized the notion that a transgender teenager’s suicide after her family rejected her identity epitomized a form of social genocide against LGBT people, suggesting that such a claim was offensive to Holocaust survivors, though no such comparison was made.

But Erickson defended the comparison he was openly making between Cochran’s firing and the death of 12 journalists:

“We gotta talk about what happened in France, but I just think it is worth pointing out that one group destroys the livelihood of those who dare to mock or dissent, and the other took their lives, but both are doing it to drive debate from the public square… to shut them up and shut them down, segment them away from society.”

NFTOS
STAFF WRITER

ATTORNEY GENERAL IN CALIFORNIA TO TACKLE POLICE BRUTALITY

CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL KAMALA HARRIS

When California Attorney General Kamala Harris was sworn in for her second term on Monday, she announced plans to address excessive use of force and continue the dialogue about policing tactics. Harris hopes to ease the tension between police officers and the general public, as other attorney generals stay silent on the issue of police conduct.

During her inaugural speech, Harris outlined her plan to investigate how the state’s Department of Justice conducts training on bias and use of force. Specifically, the state’s Division of Law Enforcement has been asked to produce a thorough report of special agent training.

The attorney general also committed to talking with law enforcement and the communities they serve, in order to address the tensions between them. “The work to build trust with the communities we are sworn to protect never ends. Trust is a reciprocal relationship. We must acknowledge that too many have felt the sting of injustice,” she said. “As a career prosecutor, I have always known one central truth: the public and law enforcement need each other to keep our communities safe.”

In light of numerous police killings of unarmed civilians last year, which disproportionately impacted mentally ill persons and people of color, Harris’ remarks seem hopeful. However, tied in with national demands for a reduced use of force are calls for independent prosecutors to review incidents of police brutality, which Harris does not endorse.

“I don’t think it would be good public policy to take the discretion from elected district attorneys,” she expressed last month. “I don’t think there’s an inherent conflict. … Where there are abuses, we have designed the system to address them.”

Most officers are not charged, let alone convicted in excessive force cases, and prosecutors have a far-reaching hand in those trials. Many believe there are conflicts of interest when local prosecutors, like Robert McCulloch in St. Louis who oversaw the grand jury review of Darren Wilson, are involved in the investigation of officers they work with on a daily basis and lean on for re-election.

So if the way indictments and prosecutions are conducted is not reformed, a commitment to addressing excessive force cases may not actually lead to the reforms people want. Still, it remains to be seen if and how Harris will address the deaths of Ezell Ford and Omar Abrego, who were killed by police in Los Angeles. Local police say they are still investigating the cases in the face of community protest. And the autopsy in Ford’s case dubs it a homicide. People have petitioned the attorney general to either appoint a special prosecutor to investigate their cases or press charges herself.

NFTOS
STAFF WRITER

THREE RING CIRCUS TENT NOT LARGE ENOUGH TO HOUSE ALL THE LUNATICS IN THE GOP

While the House is scheduled to reelect Rep. John Boehner to Speaker on Tuesday, the vote may not go as smoothly as expected. Rep. Louie Gohmert , one of a number of Republicans displeased with Boehner’s leadership, announced on Fox News Sunday that he would challenge the standing speaker for his role.

In an interview with Glenn Beck on Monday morning, Gohmert outlined changes he would make in Congress if he were to serve as speaker of the House. In additional to removing the current “dictatorship in Congress,” and calling for abolishing at least two-thirds of regulations, he said he would defund “everything that means anything” to Obama until the border is secured.

“We secure the border and we make it clear to the president, yes we know we need immigration reform but we’re not changing anything until you secure the border and here’s the money to do it,” the tea party representative said. “We’re defunding all of these things until you secure the border.”

Listen here:




He also called for fiscal changes including throwing out the current tax code and ending automatic increases to federal agencies’ budgets.


In the interview, Gohmert touched on government surveillance, saying Congress should “stop the government spying on American people” and said that the government’s energy policies should not provide subsidies for any particular types of energy. “Let’s let the market tell us which energy to use,” he said.

Gohmert’s announcement came a day after conservative Rep. Ted Yoho  said on Facebook that he would throw his name into the pool of representatives challenging Boehner for the Speaker role. A number of representatives have said they would not support Boehner’s reelection, including Reps. Steve King , Paul Gosar and Jim Bridenstine , while a few freshman House members ran campaigns in which they promised to stand up to Boehner if elected.

The GOP circus needs to add another tent for the ever growing population of the assclown club. The usual three-ring circus tent is just not large enough.

NFTOS

Blogger-In-Chief

Roger West

GRAND JUROR IN BROWN CASE SUES TO LIFT GAG ORDER

FERGUSON PROSECUTOR BOB MCCULLOCH

A Ferguson grand juror who heard the case of Darren Wilson previewed potentially scathing criticism of St. Louis County Prosecutor Robert McCulloch, in a lawsuit alleging that McCulloch skewed the views of jurors when he delivered a lengthy public presentation to announce that the jury wouldn't file any charges against Wilson for killing Michael Brown.

The juror filed a federal lawsuit Monday anonymously to challenge a gag order that prevents him from talking about the grand juror proceedings at all. But even in this lawsuit seeking more permission to speak publicly, the juror dubbed “Grand Juror Doe” reveals a host of significant concerns about the case, and asserts he would have a whole lot more to say if permitted.

Among Grand Juror Doe’s concerns are that Wilson’s case was treated dramatically different than hundreds of other cases he heard during his grand jury service. In addition to prosecutors devoting exponentially more time to the case than most, Grand Juror Doe also believes McCulloch made the “insinuation that Brown, not Wilson, was the wrongdoer” and placed much more emphasis on the victim than in any other case he heard.

He also questions “whether the grand jury was clearly counseled on the law.” And he believes the skewed picture of grand jury deliberations to the public was exacerbated by how evidence was released. With “heavy redaction's and the absence of context, those records do not fully portray the proceedings before the grand jury,” the lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri asserts.

“Plaintiff would like to speak about the experience of being a grand juror, including expressing Plaintiff’s opinions about the evidence and the investigation, and believes Plaintiff’s experience could contribute to the current public dialogue concerning race relations,” the complaint states. “In Plaintiff’s view, the current information available about the grand jurors’ views is not entirely accurate—especially the implication that all grand jurors believed that there was no support for any charges. Moreover, the public characterization of the grand jurors’ view of witnesses and evidence does not accord with Plaintiff’s own.”

The issues raised by Grand Juror Doe have been raised by others before. As McCulloch delivered his grand jury announcement in an ill-timed evening press conference, many balked at the lengthy presentation of evidence that not only felt to many like a defense of Darren Wilson rather than an attempt to file charges against him; it also purported to explain the grand jurors’ decision even though McCulloch was not a part of grand jury deliberations. As Grand Juror Doe points out, a decision not to indict simply means an insufficient number of jurors wanted to file charges; it doesn't mean that jurors could not have vehemently disagreed in their decision, let alone about the reasons why.

Grand Juror Doe’s concern that jurors were not properly briefed on the law is also grounded in some facts that have already emerged. Among the issues that have come to public light: Assistant prosecutor Kathi Alizadeh instructed grand jurors on how to decide the case based on a statute that was invalidated by the U.S. Supreme Court two decades ago. Months later, she handed corrected instructions to the jury without ever explaining what the error had been in the first ones.

And the notion that this grand jury case was not treated like the vast majority of others in the criminal justice system was among the first evident differences in this case and other recent cases involving police officers. Most grand jury cases involving defendants without the power or influence of police officers last a few days at the most. Prosecutors often present 40 indictments in a day, albeit not necessarily in homicide cases. That’s because the prosecutor’s burden is merely to establish that probable cause exists such that jurors can decide whether to indict — not to try the case.

But some legal experts pointed out that the grand jury presentation was treated more like a trial than an indictment, which makes it a particular problem that the process was shrouded in secrecy, because trials are inherently public proceedings. As University of Illinois criminal law expert Andrew Leipold said:

“If my client killed someone tomorrow and claimed it was in self-defense, he would be arrested and required to post bond while awaiting a grand jury decision. Then, the prosecutor would not be allowed to bring both sides of the story into the building.”

Other problems have been raised that are not even the subject of Grand Juror Doe’s lawsuit, including that McCulloch admitted to putting a witness on the stand whom he knew was lying. But Gov. Jay Nixon said he won’t exercise his power to appoint a new special prosecutor to file new charges; and no one expects McCulloch to exercise his own option to do so. There is one other avenue that could yield new charges against Darren Wilson: Under Missouri law, the presiding judge in that district could appoint a new special prosecutor at any time if she determines that the case was tainted by bias or conflict.

Grand Juror Doe’s lawsuit suggests there may have been other problems with the case that could be illuminated if a court lifted the gag order. In several other racially charged cases that have been the subject of public scrutiny, jurors who participated in actual trials have had the freedom to come forward after the trial was over. And they spoke publicly how Stand Your Ground and other expansive self-defense provisions played a role in the deliberations in the trials of George Zimmerman, Michael Dunn, and others. Behind the cloak of grand jury proceeding secrecy, we know much less about the proceedings that yield indictments in almost every single case.

NFTOS

STAFF WRITER

TIN FOIL HAT SCOIETY MEMEBER AND IGNORAMUS LOUIE GOHMERT TO SEEK SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE

Watch out John Boehner! The Tin Foil Hat Society in the House are revolting! Wingnut Rep. "Terror Babies" Louie Gohmert made a "major announcement" on Fox this Sunday and said he's challenging Boehner for Speaker.

In the olden days, crazy-stupid men like Louie Gohmert were satisfied with living in attics, emerging only to yell at children and at inanimate objects from time to time.

Now men like him are elected to Congress, and for some perverse reason, his party and his constituents aren't ashamed to have him there.

NFTOS

Blogger-In-Chief

Roger West

THE BENEFITS OF THE NYPD NOT DOING THEIR JOB

NYPD LOOK THE OTHER-WAY PROGRAM IN FULL SWING

In response to growing tensions between the New York Police Department and the city, police unions encouraged officers last week to not make arrests “unless absolutely necessary,” resulting in a 66 percent drop from the same period last year. While the protests have drawn scrutiny for “squandering the department’s credibility” and leaving the city’s streets virtually unattended, they have also had the unintended effect of benefitting New York’s low income residents who are usually the target of the city’s tough-on-crime practices.

The work stoppage is a result of outrage by police officers — led by union chief Patrick Lynch — over how Mayor Bill de Blasio responded to a grand jury’s decision not to indict the police officer who killed Eric Garner, an unarmed African American man. The brutal murders of two New York city officers by a troubled man from Maryland in an apparent retaliation for the Garner killing has only inflamed tensions, leading Lynch to blame de Blasio for the killing and scores of police officers to engage in protest actions against the mayor.

The signs of tension first became apparent when some police officers turned their backs to de Blasio when he spoke in the hospital following the assassinations and then engaged in a mass back-turning when the mayor spoke at the funeral of Officer Rafael Ramos. Last week, the police went a step further and stopped arresting New Yorkers for small crimes or ticketing people for minor offenses like parking violations, carrying open containers of alcohol or public urination.

As a result of what the New York Post is calling a “virtual work stoppage,” tickets and summonses for minor offenses have plummeted by 94 percent and overall arrests have fallen 66 percent. Theoretically, the practice will strain police budgets, which rely on fines from tickets to make-up for funding shortfalls. ​

Although it’s not the intended goal of the work stoppage, the decline in arrests could save New Yorkers money. The city residents who are normally hit with tickets for minor violations tend to be low income individuals who are forced to pay up a hefty portion of their paychecks.

The city began following the broken-windows style of policing in the early 1980s, a strategy championed by NYPD Commissioner Bill Bratton which focuses on eliminating low-level crime to prevent more violent offenses in the city’s neighborhoods. But a report earlier this year by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in Manhattan found that the NYPD’s practice of arresting more people for minor offenses since 1980 has disproportionately affected young black and Latino men.

While de Blasio and Bratton have followed through on their promise to reform the city’s stop and frisk practices and the mayor announced in November that police would stop making arrests for low-level marijuana possessions, there are still racial biases in police practices throughout the city that result in a tougher financial burden on those already struggling to make ends meet.

And New Yorkers of all income levels are also saving money on one of the most consistent ways the city can slam people with tickets— parking violations are down by 92 percent, from 14,699 to just 1,241 this year.

NYPD officers have long spoken about quotas which require them to issue a certain number of summons per month to maintain statistics showing a reduction of crime in the city’s neighborhoods. Although Bratton promised an end to arrest quotas when he took office in January, the city’s police are still operating under a quota system which is illegal under state law, according to a recent report by the Police Reform Organizing Project. The group called on Bratton and de Blasio to end the quota system in its October report, which described how police are still using the quota system, as evidenced by the number of misdemeanor arrests and the poor quality of those arrests under Bratton.

[h/t think progress]




NFTOS
STAFF WRITER