I saw a white man with a gun. I heard a policeman saying, "Place the weapon down on the ground, ple

Reply Wed 12 Nov, 2014 08:39 pm
Careful if you're driving through TN with out-of-state plates. They're policing for profits down there. Video at link: http://www.jrn.com/newschannel5/news/newschannel-5-investigates/policing-for-profit/I-40-Search-Raises-New-Policing-For-Profit-Questions-282197971.html

Video by NewsChannel5.com
Auto Start: On | Off
I-40 Search Raises New 'Policing For Profit' Questions

By Phil Williams. CREATED Nov 10, 2014 - UPDATED: Nov 11, 2014
NASHVILLE, Tenn. -- A traffic stop along Interstate 40 is raising new questions about your constitutional rights. Among the questions: what happens to your right to say "no" to a search when police are looking for cash?

The traffic stop occurred west of Nashville, along a stretch of interstate in Dickson County that's become well-known for a controversial practice known as "policing for profit."

For three years, our investigation has documented how drug interdiction agencies in that area target out-of-state drivers. Those agencies fund their operations under a state law that lets them seize cash from drivers based on the suspicion that it's drug money.

"It seems like Nazi Germany, you've got to have the paperwork and the proper authorities to come through Tennessee," said San Diego resident Ronnie Hankins.

Hankins and his wife Lisa had been on the road for days back in May, after attending a family funeral in Virginia, when they got stopped on the westbound side of I-40. It came right after they passed an interdiction agent with the 23rd Judicial District Drug Task Force.

Lisa was driving.

"I told her we are going to get pulled over," Ronnie remembered.

"What made you think he was going to stop you?" NewsChannel 5 Investigates asked.

"Because we had out-of-state license plates and my wife is Hispanic."
After separating Lisa from her husband, supposedly so he could write her a warning ticket for a traffic violation, dashcam video shows that the agent began repeatedly questioning her about what was inside the car.

Then, he had a favor to ask.

"You say there's not anything illegal in it. Do you mind if I search it today to make sure?" the officer asked.

Lisa responded, "I'd have to talk to my husband."

She told NewsChannel 5 Investigates, "I just feel like he was harassing me, you know, wanting me to say yes that he can search my car."

The agent continued, "I am asking you for permission to search your vehicle today -- and you are well within your rights to say no and you can say yes. It's totally up to you as to whether you want to show cooperation or not."

So why not say yes?

"I mean there was no reason for him to search my car," Lisa said.

The interdiction agent told her that he was asking "because I do believe that you are not being honest with me."

The agent didn't believe their story that they had been to a funeral for Ronnie's grandfather, even though a quick search of the Internet would have proved they were telling the truth.

"You have to either give me a yes or no," he continued. "I do need an answer so I can figure out whether I need a dog to go around it or not."

Lisa recalled, "I was getting upset because he kept on asking me over and over. I said you have no reason to search my car."

That's when a second agent brought out a drug dog to sniff around their car.

"If that dog does not hit, they don't get to search your car?" NewsChannel 5 Investigates asked.

"No," Ronnie answered, "there is no probable cause."

But that's exactly what happened.

The interdiction agent told Ronnie, "We've ran a dog, and the dog's alerted on the vehicle. So we are going to be searching it, OK? And whatever is in there we are going to find in just a second."
Ronnie was furious.

"There's never been any drugs in the vehicle and never will be," he insisted.

It turns out that the man whom the task force stopped knows a thing or two about law enforcement himself. He's a federal police officer at the Marine Corps Air Station-Miramar in San Diego.

Ronnie began arguing with the task force officer.

"You are lying about the dog hitting on the car. The dog didn't hit on the car either. You guys are drug task force. You are out here harassing me and my wife when I am just coming back from a funeral," he said.

The agent responded sarcastically, "That is exactly how I would expect most police officers to act."

NewsChannel 5 Investigates asked Ronnie, "You are convinced that they cued that dog to hit?"

"Yes, 100 percent," he said. "There is no doubt they cued that dog."

If you look in slow-motion, the dog passes an open window on the passenger side with no alert. The handler then leads the dog around the front. Then, on the driver's side, he turns his body around and gestures toward the window. Suddenly, the dog sits. That's the alert.

"Just like a child, you can make a child say anything you want. You can make a dog do whatever you want to if you train them the right way," Ronnie explained.

"And you are convinced that's what happened here?"


The two agents can be seen on the dashcam video discussing the allegation.

"He says we're lying about the dog alert," the first officer said.

The dog handler replied, "Was he not sitting there and saw the same things we saw?"

For almost an hour, the two agents searched the Hankins belongings.

"Man, it ought to be here," the first officer said.

"Can't make it be here," the dog handler answered. "Ain't that what you told me before?"


They even tore apart part of the dash of Lisa's new car.

"That really pissed me off when he started ripping everything out of my car," Lisa said.

"You felt violated?" NewsChannel 5 Investigates asked.

"Yeah, I felt violated. He didn't want to hear it."

And when Ronnie insisted there were no drugs, the agent confided he wasn't really expecting any.

"Well, I'll be honest with you, with you going this direction, I wouldn't think you'd have drugs in the car -- you would have a large amount of money," he said.

Ronnie's reaction: "I knew right now they were looking for money to fund their operations."
"And what made you think that?" we asked.

"Because they're not worried about the drugs, they were worried about the money."

When agents couldn't find anything, they wrote up a report to justify the dog's alert by saying they found "marijuana debris" on both the driver and passenger floorboards.

We showed the report to the couple.

"That's just them trying to cover their backside," Ronnie said.

He noted that the drug dog passed by the open passenger window and did not alert.

The truth, they said, is that all agents saw inside the car was grass from the cemetery where they had buried Ronnie's grandfather.

"It makes me angry that someone would attack my character because not only do they attack my character, but that could cost me my job," Ronnie said.

As for her experience, Lisa Hankins said she knows one thing for sure: "I know I won't never drive in Tennessee again. That's the last time."

The dog handler emphatically insisted, through his boss, that he did not give that dog any sort of command to alert on that car.

The Hankins said they're still suspicious.

While the agent thought they looked nervous, the Hankins said they were tired and jittery after being on the road for days. And Ronnie said, after two tours of duty in Iraq, that's just the way he is.

NewsChannel 5 Investigates took the dashcam video to a nationally respected respected expert. He believes the dog may have inadvertently been cued to hit on their car.
0 Replies
Reply Thu 13 Nov, 2014 05:20 pm

Really? That is your argument? The UN would have done something they never planned to do if the NRA hadn't stepped in to stop them?

I guess Obama would have given us an 8% GDP growth per quarter with no inflation if the GOP hadn't stopped him. That is about as real as your argument.
Reply Thu 13 Nov, 2014 06:18 pm
parados wrote:
Really? That is your argument? The UN would have done something they never planned to do if the NRA hadn't stepped in to stop them?

No. My argument is based on the reality that the UN very much wanted to implement a global civilian gun ban.
0 Replies
Reply Fri 14 Nov, 2014 06:56 pm
0 Replies
Reply Fri 14 Nov, 2014 07:07 pm
0 Replies
Reply Fri 14 Nov, 2014 07:24 pm
0 Replies
Reply Fri 14 Nov, 2014 07:26 pm
0 Replies
Reply Fri 14 Nov, 2014 07:41 pm

Pundits Lament 'Profiling of Blacks,' But Don't Some of Us Kinda Invite It?

July 14, 2013 - 1:24 PM

By Bob Parks

While MSNBC and CNN are both vying for the position of being the new "Black Entertainment Television," giving air time to every black face they can find to give an opinion of the "not guilty" verdict in the George Zimmerman-Trayvon Martin murder trial, the tone of the conversation is reduced to white-guilt condescension towards blacks.

"Profiling" is something we do every day whether we want to admit it or not. We profile products we'd never buy, who we'd prefer not to hang out with, who we've never vote for, regardless of the value those things or people could have in our lives.

For example, I am a black conservative. However, I would be willing to bet that when I'm seen walking down the street, the average person assumes I'm a liberal who votes accordingly. An initial conversation would be started on that basis and the response would vary depending upon the philosophies held by the person starting such conversation.

Young people, especially young black people, do things seen everyday that make many of us cringe. We see young black females initiating violent acts at McDonald's restaurants, young black males playing the "knock out game" on innocent people just walking down the street, and of course, we see the daily tally of deadly shootings within black communities nationally that all these media pundits on the left seldom seem to find time to talk about.

I said condescension.

Many of the liberals look at blacks (not their "black friends") as the downtrodden. I contend they look at blacks as one would look at their pet. We don't get terribly angry when a cat or dog pees in the corner because we assume it doesn't know any better. So, when blacks kill each other indiscriminately, liberals don't consider them as potentially intelligent human beings who knew right from wrong, but blame their "socioeconomic conditions" as an excuse for conduct that would be intolerable in any other community.

When I was growing up, and had I been in a neighborhood which my presence there may have been deemed suspect, when approached by someone who did live there, my response would have begun with a "Yes, sir" or "Yes, ma'am" and not a potentially threatening posture. Today's young people have been told their opinions are equal to adults - mix that with the thug, hip-hop mentality, and you have a potentially violent confrontation in the making.

Despite the holier-than-thou personae now being displayed by the visually-concerned air talent on MSNBC and CNN, I'm quite certain that, if some young black males walked in their direction on the sidewalk, they would be concerned. Not that a created-out-of-convenience "white Hispanic" would take those kids out, but that those kids might do... something.

We don't profile little old white ladies for suspicion of crimes because they don't commit crimes that often. I don't have baggy jeans, don't wear a do-rag and slippers, but do have some grey hair that comes and goes (if you know what I mean), so I don't generate the kind of scrutiny the activists lament. But, until we get a handle on the self-inflicted image wounds, we will continue to be profiled and people will expect the worst from us.

I would hope that, one day, white liberals would have the same expectations of blacks that they have for themselves. I would hope that, one day, all blacks would behave in a civilized manner and that our communities would not be killing fields no MSNBC or CNN pundit would enter without armed security.

Did Trayvon Martin deserve to die? No, that is until it was shown he became the aggressor and any person who was getting punched-out on a sidewalk would do the same thing George Zimmerman did. If a young man were sitting on top of Melissa Harris-Perry or Ben Jealous or Jesse Jackson or Savannah Guthrie or Al Sharpton or a Martin defense attorney, repeatedly punching their head into the concrete sidewalk and they had access to a gun before what could at any time be the final lights-out, you want me to believe they wouldn't use it? Yeah, right.

The Merriam-Webster definition of profiling is "the act or process of extrapolating information about a person based on known traits or tendencies." If there is video all over the Internet of black people behaving badly, and in most cases that video was uploaded by blacks or taken by municipal surveillance cameras, then people will take that information into account when deciding how to interact with blacks.

Until then, we'll continue to see black activists and white-guilt liberals lamenting the continuation of racial profiling in America, with no mention of the conduct of some blacks that may justify it. The Zimmerman-Martin trial was a media concoction that was done for ratings. Any damage done to race relations in this country makes for potentially profitable sequels. How it affects us on the street means little to them. And, until the climate that liberals created, perpetuate, and excuse in the black community is addressed, there will be another Zimmerman-Martin trial coming very soon.

You know they're looking for one at this very moment.
0 Replies
Reply Fri 14 Nov, 2014 07:45 pm
0 Replies
Reply Fri 14 Nov, 2014 07:52 pm
0 Replies
Reply Fri 14 Nov, 2014 07:56 pm
0 Replies
Reply Fri 14 Nov, 2014 10:12 pm
Cops Kidnap Blind Man, Dump Him on the Side of the Road in the Middle of Nowhere

In an apparent retaliatory move, Miami cops, kidnapped and dumped this innocent blind man in a desolate part of town.

Miami, FL — Blind since birth, 21-year-old Tannie Burke had no idea how to get home after police dumped him on the side of the road in the middle of nowhere.

On the night of August 27, four plainclothes police officers pulled up to an apartment complex in South Dade and arrested three young black men.

A bystander caught the interaction on video.

According to police, the three men were arrested because officers claimed to witness the horrible crime of passing a marijuana cigarette.

The men were arrested for possession of marijuana, a misdemeanor, and made to sign citations promising to appear in court.

Two of the men were let go, but c0ps threw the third man, Burke, into the back of their unmarked car. Burke was unable to even find the cop car.

“He’s blind dumbass,” the man videotaping the incident is heard saying. “If you don’t tell him he’s walking to the car how the f**k is he going to know?”

“T-Man what are they taking you for?” a woman shouts.

“I don’t know,” Burke replies.

After kidnapping him, Burke estimates that police drove him around for twenty minutes before dropping him off in a desolate section of South Dade.

“They put me off somewhere in Goulds. There were no street lights and no houses,” he said. “It was just dark.”

CBS4′s Jim DeFede asked, “Did you tell the officers you were blind?”

“Yes I told them in the car I was blind and I couldn’t see,” Burke said.

DeFede then asked, “Did they seem to care?”

“Not that I know of,” he answered. “They put me out somewhere where they aren’t no street lights and no houses.”

Burke can’t see anything out of his right eye and can only make out general shapes, with enough light, with his left.

Finally, after walking with one foot on the pavement and one in the weeds, a stranger came to his aid and led him home.

Marvin Armstrong, Burke’s stepfather and the man who filmed the interaction, expressed his concern.

“Forty-five minutes to an hour later he comes walking through the door all sweaty up,” said Armstrong.

“I was like, `How’d you get out?’ He said they released me way in the back,” Armstrong recalled.

According to CBS4, Burke believes the police took him away as payback for Armstrong’s actions. He said the cops complained about him after they put him in the car.

“They said, `Your stepfather got a lot of mouth. You know we don’t like that,’” he said.

Burke, who has never been convicted of a crime, has been arrested twice and detained by police on more than a dozen other occasions. Being stopped and handcuffed in his neighborhood, he said, is nothing new.

“I feel they stop me because they see a black man walking down the street,” he said. “I don’t know what to say about it. I just feel bad about it. That’s it.”

Two months after he was arrested, kidnapped and charged with marijuana possession the charges were dismissed.

Burke’s family has since filed a complaint with the Miami Dade police department, who declined to comment on the issue, citing that the incident was being investigated by Internal Affairs.

0 Replies
Reply Fri 14 Nov, 2014 10:17 pm
0 Replies
Reply Sat 15 Nov, 2014 04:13 pm

Family secret: What the left won’t tell you about black crime

By Jason L. Riley - - Monday, July 21, 2014

(The following is excerpted from “Please Stop Helping Us” by Jason Riley. Copyright ©2014 by Jason Riley. Used by permission of Encounter Books. All rights reserved.)

In the summer of 2013, after neighborhood watchman George Zimmerman, a Hispanic, was acquitted in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin, an unarmed black teenager, the political left wanted to have a discussion about everything except the black crime rates that lead people to view young black males with suspicion. Presi­dent Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder wanted to talk about gun control. The NAACP wanted to talk about racial profiling. Assorted academics and MSNBC talking heads wanted to discuss poverty, “stand-your-ground” laws, unemployment and the supposedly racist criminal justice system. But any candid debate on race and criminality in the United States must begin with the fact that blacks are responsible for an astoundingly disproportionate number of crimes, which has been the case for at least the past half a century.

Crime began rising precipitously in the 1960s after the Supreme Court, under Chief Justice Earl Warren, started tilting the scales in favor of the criminals. Some 63 percent of respondents to a Gallup poll taken in 1968 judged the Warren Court, in place from 1953 to 1969, too lenient on crime; but Warren’s jurisprudence was sup­ported wholeheartedly by the liberal intellectuals of that era, as well as by politicians who wanted to shift blame for criminal behavior away from the criminals. Popular books of the time, like Karl Menninger’s “The Crime of Punishment,” argued that “law and order” was an “inflammatory” term with racial overtones. “What it really means,” said Menninger, “is that we should all go out and find the n–– and beat them up.”

The late William Stuntz, a Harvard law professor, addressed this history in his 2011 book, “The Collapse of American Criminal Justice.” “The lenient turn of the mid-twentieth century was, in part, the product of judges, prosecutors and politicians who saw criminal punishment as too harsh a remedy for ghetto violence,” wrote Mr. Stuntz. “The Supreme Court’s expansion of criminal defendants’ legal rights in the 1960s and after flowed from the Justices’ percep­tion that poor and black defendants were being victimized by a system run by white government officials. Even the rise of harsh drug laws was in large measure the product of reformers’ efforts to limit the awful costs illegal drug markets impose on poor city neighborhoods. Each of these changes flowed, in large measure, from the decisions of men who saw themselves as reformers. But their reforms showed an uncanny ability to take bad situations and make them worse.”

Crime rates rose by 139 percent during the 1960s, and the murder rate doubled. Cities couldn’t hire cops fast enough. “The number of police per 1,000 people was up twice the rate of the population growth, and yet clearance rates for crimes dropped 31 percent and conviction rates were down 6 percent,” wrote Lucas A. Powe Jr. in “The Warren Court and American Politics,” his history of the Warren Court. “During the last weeks of his [1968] presidential campaign, Nixon had a favorite line in his standard speech. ‘In the past 45 minutes this is what happened in America. There has been one murder, two rapes, forty-five major crimes of violence, countless robberies and auto thefts.’”

As remains the case today, blacks in the past were overrepre­sented among those arrested and imprisoned. In urban areas in 1967, blacks were 17 times more likely than whites to be arrested for robbery. In 1980 blacks comprised about one-eighth of the population but were half of all those arrested for murder, rape and robbery, according to FBI data. And they were between one-fourth and one-third of all those arrested for crimes such as burglary, auto theft and aggravated assault.

Today blacks are about 13 percent of the population and continue to be responsible for an inordinate amount of crime. Between 1976 and 2005 blacks com­mitted more than half of all murders in the United States. The black arrest rate for most offenses — including robbery, aggravated assault and property crimes — is still typically two to three times their representation in the population. Blacks as a group are also overrepresented among persons arrested for so-called white-collar crimes such as counterfeiting, fraud and embezzlement. And blaming this decades-long, well-documented trend on racist cops, prosecutors, judges, sentencing guidelines and drug laws doesn’t cut it as a plausible explanation.

“Even allowing for the existence of discrimination in the criminal justice system, the higher rates of crime among black Americans cannot be denied,” wrote James Q. Wilson and Richard Herrnstein in their classic 1985 study, “Crime and Human Nature.” “Every study of crime using official data shows blacks to be overrepresented among persons arrested, convicted, and imprisoned for street crimes.” This was true decades before the authors put it to paper, and it remains the case decades later.

“The overrepresentation of blacks among arrested persons persists throughout the criminal justice system,” wrote Wilson and Herrnstein. “Though prosecutors and judges may well make discriminatory judgments, such decisions do not account for more than a small fraction of the overrepresentation of blacks in prison.” Yet liberal policy makers and their allies in the press and the academy consistently downplay the empirical data on black crime rates, when they bother to discuss them at all. Stories about the racial makeup of prisons are commonplace; stories about the excessive amount of black criminality are much harder to come by.

“High rates of black violence in the late twentieth century are a matter of historical fact, not bigoted imagination,” wrote Mr. Stuntz. “The trends reached their peak not in the land of Jim Crow but in the more civilized North, and not in the age of segrega­tion but in the decades that saw the rise of civil rights for African Americans — and of African American control of city governments.” The left wants to blame these outcomes on racial animus and “the system,” but blacks have long been part of running that system. Black crime and incarceration rates spiked in the 1970s and ’80s in cities such as Baltimore, Cleveland, Detroit, Chicago, Philadelphia, Los Angeles and Washington under black mayors and black police chiefs. Some of the most violent cities in the United States today are run by blacks.

Black people are not shooting each other at these alarming rates in Chicago and other urban areas because of our gun laws or our drug laws or a criminal justice system that has it in for them. The problem is primarily cultural — self-destructive behaviors and attitudes all too common among the black underclass. The problem is black criminal behavior, which is one manifestation of a black pathology that ultimately stems from the breakdown of the black family. Liberals want to talk about what others should do for blacks instead of what blacks should do for themselves. But if we don’t acknowledge the cultural barriers to black progress, how can we address them? How can you even begin to fix something that almost no one wants to talk about honestly?

Jason Riley is a member of the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/21/family-secret-what-the-left-wont-tell-you-about-bl/#!#ixzz3JB5H3Xmy
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
0 Replies
Reply Sat 15 Nov, 2014 04:17 pm

0 Replies
Reply Sat 15 Nov, 2014 09:04 pm

FBI Report: Americans Less Violent Than Ever, Except for Police
NOVEMBER 14, 2014

According to new FBI statistics released this week, violent crime rates in the US fell over 4% in the past year alone, bringing the amount of violent crimes lower than it has been in nearly 40 years. The statistics showed that there were an estimated 1.16 million violent crimes in the year of 2013, which is the lowest number since 1978, when 1.09 million were recorded.

Broken down, the report revealed that manslaughter dropped by 4.4% to 14,196, the lowest rate since 1968, while instances of rape were down 6.3%. Despite the tough economic times, robbery is also down by 2.8% and property crimes were down by 4.1%.

The violent crime rate has been steadily declining since 1994, but the prison population has continued to increase over the decades. There are currently over two and a half million people imprisoned in the US, which is by far the largest prison population in the world.

cops-beatdownHowever, a study recently published by Pew Charitable Trusts showed that for the first time in decades, the US prison population is actually on a decline. Their research found that the drop in crime that was seen in 2013 actually coincided with a decline in the prison population. According to their data, the amount of people in the US prison system peaked in 2008, and has since dropped 6%.

The study also found that there was a drop in the amount of prisoners in 32 of the 50 states, while imprisonment continued to rise in the other 18 states. California showed the largest drop in crime and imprisonment over the past five years, which is likely connected to lighter drug penalties that have been adopted in recent years.

Even among those who are technically “guilty” of breaking some law, a vast majority of prisoners are nonviolent offenders who don’t belong in prison to begin with. According to some statistics, nonviolent offenders make up nearly 70% of the prison population, many of these people are not guilty of any transgression, and they are in fact themselves victims of state violence.

While violence among citizens has dropped, violence against citizens carried out by police has been rising sharply.

According to the FBI’s annual Uniform Crime Report, 461 felony suspects were shot by police last year, which is the highest number seen in decades. These numbers are likely unreported as well, and only includes felony suspects, so it is possible that this figure is much higher than the study suggests.

Another interesting angle is that in the same time period gun sales soared across the country, which seems to support the idea that more people owning guns actually contributes to making society a safer place.

According to a Congressional Research Service report covered by Breitbart News on December 4, 2013, the number of privately owned firearms in America increased from 192 million in 1994 to 310 million in 2009 and has continued to increase every year since.

(emphasis added)
0 Replies
Reply Sat 15 Nov, 2014 09:29 pm
You know you're on the wrong side when it's the same side as the KKK:

0 Replies

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 09/27/2021 at 10:44:28