On tracking terrorists and other unwanted individuals

Agree. Agree and agree. Thank you, gworld.

As far as waterboarding, I wasn't sure if it was torture until John McCain said it was. That's good enough for me.

 

It is an easy thing to try, if you are still not sure about it, you don´t need to take the McCain word for it and can try it personally.

 

It's evening, and has only gone down to 110 F here. Saturday was 119 and Sunday 116. It's so hot! I think I might waterboard myself.


p.s. @Corwin, I found an interesting program at tutsplus.com if you're learning graphic design. When I started, I was just checking Adobe.tv, then finding random tutorials, but this program provides everything. It's actually following a course outline with classes, teachers, and a forum for each. It looks pretty good. I just signed up for it myself. It's just $19 a month. Might be worth checking...

 

Rebecca:

Good luck in that heat. Hope it leaves soon. Btw, I've usef gimp and photoshop. Gimp was fine for me but I don't do demanding work of that type.

 

Funny, I hit LIKE on the same post.

Obama seems to be more of a unifier than we thought. Now NOBODY trusts our government, even us.

 

It's 85 here in Boston, 88% humidity with no wind. Walking outside is like walking through soup.

@Rebecca Looks really interesting, I just might sign up, thanks for the heads-up[/quote]

 

Even Obama dislikes Obama's governance. Its practically universal.


In other news, here are some of California's finest, protecting and serving.

 

To the defense of the police, this guy was a complete prick. He rolled up with his music turned up all the way in an attempt to create a scene. He paraded around videotaping and yelling things about the cops being racist. It's not on the video but I am told the cops told him to turn down his music and leave or they would arrest him. Obviously in the video he didn't comply. The dog did run over to the owner because he was struggling with the police. At first the officers were just cautious. When the dog decided to lunge at the officers, that is when they decided enough was enough. It's sad to see a dog die because the dog had no idea what was going on. But the police were justified in what they did. Had the dog bitten the officer it would have been executed anyway. Police are not going to tolerate danger to themselves. The dogs owner had several chances to resolve the situation and go home without going to jail, and without his dog being shot. It's just sad the dog had to have this guy as an owner. Also, this guy has a criminal record and several arrests. Basically he hates white people and wants to create racial drama with the police force.

 

I'm curious. Having watched the video now, in it's entirety, what exact crime do you think this man committed? Playing music too loud in the middle of the day? There are very few neighborhoods where that is even against the law, and where it is, it is ticketable not arrestable.

Failure to comply with the officers request to shut his mouth and put his camera away (otherwise known as being a complete prick), assuming such off camera requests were ever made? Last time I checked, free speech and photography in a public place were completely legal.

I also saw no evidence the guy struggled with the police. He approached them, turned and put his hands behind his back. I'm also guessing that between the five cops, there were probably five cans of pepper spray, but they decided to use firearms on the animal.

Look, I get there isn't a lot of sympathy for a black guy getting the standard treatment from the cops. Add a criminal record, and now you have someone who really deserves a night stick to the head, just for breathing. I get it. I know I don't get that treatment, and I've been mouthy on an occasion or two. I might have even used the phrase "Free Donuts"(I've actually bought donuts and hand delivered them to officers before).

What I think should concern white folks is that, when this crap goes unanswered, how long is it going to be before its your dog with a few rounds in his chest?

 

Obstruction of justice can be a pretty broad charge, but it isn't unreasonable to believe the cops were having a hard time questioning people or conducting an investigation while this guy's music was playing loud and he was shouting at them. Clearly from the short video we see he was agitated at the police for some reason, and wanted to distract them from their job. If he just wanted to film it, why not simply sit there like the other guys? Did the police arrest the other men filming? By definition, he was obstructing the process of justice by harassing the police at an active scene.

The guy didn't need to be there, period. He was looking for trouble. It's clear to me from his history that he is trying to get involved in a racial situation with the police department to either further his cause, or get some sort of lawsuit. He was asked to turn down his music. He was asked to leave. He had plenty of chances to get out of the situation, but chose to advance it. They didn't care if people filmed it. Clearly the other guys filming were not harassed by the cops. The problem was his shouting and music. The guy had several routes to take before the end result.

Why get into a confrontation with the police? If he had a concern about race relations or civil rights, why not film the police and then report them with the police department later? We all know nothing could have been done at the scene. Everything is done afterwards.

At the point where he backs up to be arrested he seems to comply. But if you watch the video you can see him start jumping around and raising his voice while in handcuffs. At that point is where the dog gets worried and jumps out of the car. I'll stand by my previous statement. The cops using lethal force on the dog was justified when the dog lunged at the officer.

Bringing race into this is just ridiculous. People that want to be troublemakers will be troublemakers. This guy didn't have to be involved, he went looking for trouble. The idea that the police targeted this guy because he was a black man with music and a dog is just absurd. A white man doing the same things would get the same treatment. If you don't want to be involved with the police, DON'T BE INVOLVED. It would be a different situation if they picked him out of a crowd for filming, when others were doing the same thing. But the fact remains that he went out of his way to be in the situation, and had many opportunities to walk away a free man and with a dog.

 

It's like this every summer, so I shouldn't complain. Still, I'm so tired of it right now. Going outside feels like I'm walking around in a dryer. Every day the forecast is just Mon-Hot, Tues-Hot, Wed-Hot, Thurs-Hot, Fri-Hot, Sat-Hot, Sun-Hot...I would love some rain!

You're welcome.

Our humidity is probably half that. Just a higher temperature. I'm not sure which of us has it worse!

***********************

I was just glancing at what happened to that poor dog. I don't even want to read all the details. It just really bothers me to think of. I hope he didn't suffer much. Briefly glancing, it sounds like he had an idiot owner, and the police were trigger happy. It's heartbreaking. He was just being protective of his owner. It could have been handled differently.

I have a small dog. One time a few vicious dogs came at us while we were out on our walk. I grabbed my dog in my arms. We couldn't get away. They were aggressive, and kept trying to bite his legs, wanting to pull him away from me. I pepper-sprayed the hell out of them. It worked very well. Why couldn't the police do the same? Lethal force wasn't necessary. I've heard similar horror stories of when police raid houses.

 

Hell yes it can. So there it is, the law he violated. Obstruction of justice. Cuff him, stuff him, and shoot his dog.

Does it ever concern you that we have a legal system where legislators have essentially made a patchwork of laws to cover every possible situation, leaving "broad" wording to cover everything that isn't covered? For things that actually are well covered, like murder, we create multiple charges which can be filed one on top of the other. Murder, hate crime, use of a fire arm in the act of a felony, etc etc etc.

What we wind up with is a legal system where a crime that would normally carry with it a maximum penalty of lets say 10 years, when overlaid with all the other possible charges and multipliers (3 strikes), suddenly carries a life sentence. Of course most defendants are never actually charged to the full extent of the law. Oh no. Most people plea out without ever defending themselves in court.

Instead of facing an expensive court fight with a potential life sentence on the losing side, defendants plea out for a reduced sentence of...... 10 years, the maximum penalty of the original crime. All this, without burdening the courts with a long drawn out defense or a presumption of innocence. We extract confessions. Why do you think George Zimmerman is standing before a clearly absurd 2nd degree murder charge right now? They wanted him to plea out and he told them to F*ck themselves.

The real beauty of it is the fact people who accept such pleas then become ex-felons after "paying their debt to society"(the sick irony of that phrase), so that the rest of us can talk about altercations like this one using the phrase, "Hey, the guy had a criminal record".

To me, it seems obvious the guy was agitated. He clearly doesn't like cops. So what? Dislike of cops is not supposed to be a crime, and anyone following the news in California has some pretty good reasons to dislike cops, even without pointing out they are all a bunch of union workers helping to bankrupt our state.

 

I'm not sure on the reasons for the arrest. It may or may not have been necessary in the first place.
I feel sorry for the dog but I agree the cop had no choice given the situation.
Was the cop supposed to just let him bite him when you can clearly see he was just about to?

 

r3dt@rget believes that government should be able to do whatever they please in order to protect him. In r3dt opinion, this guy must be happy that they didn´t declare him "enemy combatant" and shoot him instead of his dog.

 

Police do not just place people under arrest. They see you commit a crime and then may decide to make an arrest. The bloke obviously commited a crime, in the police' minds at least, for him to have been arrested in the first place.

Scenario: The police could have let the bloke loose to secure the dog again before it attacked.
The bloke, who was obviously not concerned about the police orders, may have then been pumped by police' reaction to the dog and used it to make his escape. How would they know?
Once they've made the decision to arrest then the rules change.

A bloody big Rottweiler dog is coming for you. It is in attack mode. It is less than a second away from biting you. You have a gun. It wouldn't have stopped there.

I can see no alternative ending to the situation. How else could it have been handled?

 

LOL. Do you really believe this? Cops are no angels, especially in the USA. Your treatment by the police depends on the price of your car, your clothes and to some extend the color of your skin. If you are a white guy with an expensive suit, driving a big Mercedes, Rolls,... you can be sure that they are the nicest, politest public servants that you ever encounter but watch out if you are black, have an old T-shirt and driving a rust bucket.
I know this from personal experience. Long time ago I was living in LA and never had problems with wonderful cops that were always ready to help even when I was actually driving over the speed limit or made an illegal U-turn.

 

I see plenty wrong that they do and i'm no fan of unnecessary authority. There's a few absolutely rotten apples without doubt but I have no hesitation believing in general most police are honest, upright citizens. Some a little too honest. Some more than a little too corrupt.

But, given the same scenario, if you were (a good cop) there trying to resolve another crime and this sideshow was presented to you what would you have done here?

 

Looking at the situation, there was either a danger present or not. With the number of police cars involved, most likely there was some kind of danger present. They had enough manpower to secure the area and don´t let civilians enter the secure area. This is to protect civilians from stray bullets and officers from ambush from behind. In the video you see children on bicycles passing by which means if there was any kind of shooting the life of civilians would have been in danger. You could let anyone outside of secure area do whatever they want because they pose no threat to officers or themselves.
If you decide not to have a secure area then it is a public street and people have the right to walk, listen to loud music or film whatever they want. From what I saw in the video, this was a command and procedure mistakes with tragic consequences for the dog.

 

In 48 states it's legal to publicly videotape the police, as long as you don't physically interfere. Police were trying to stop it. Okay. The man puts his dog in the car to cooperate. I don't want to watch the video, but someone said the police were being rough. Dog jumps out of car to protect owner. The police could have removed cuffs, and said, "Please put your dog back in the car." Or, if not enough time, pepper spray would have stopped the dog. He didn't have to be killed. I feel badly for the dog...I don't think the police acted appropriately.

 

There were at least 3 people filming. Only one got arrested. Listen to what was coming out of the guys mouth and that's why he was arrested. Everyone had the right to video them but not the right to interfere, incite and cause disturbance.

I'm not convinced it was a mistake given what I can see in the video.

Terrible outcome, absolutely, but I do blame the stupid owner of the dog for this one.