Thursday, August 21, 2014


News Clips For The Day


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/15/tom-coburn-fox-news-not-fair-balanced_n_5681430.html

Here's One Republican Senator Who Isn't Exactly A Fan Of Fox News
The Huffington Post  
| By Katherine Fung
August 15, 2014

Republican Senator Tom Coburn called out Fox News during a talk on Wednesday, saying that some of the network's shows are exactly the opposite of what the network claims to be in its "Fair and Balanced" slogan.

“There are certain shows on Fox I can’t watch,” Coburn told audience members at Tulsa Community College in Oklahoma. “Because they’re totally not fair and totally not balanced. What I want is, I want all the information in which I can make the best decision.”

BuzzFeed reported that he was asked how he would "fix" the media if he were in charge of it. Coburn also said that "the truth is somewhere in between" Fox News, CNN and MSNBC, and lamented the current state of journalism as a whole.

His comments about media start at the 23:40 mark in the video above.

Coburn has criticized Fox News in the past, and several Fox News hosts returned the fire. In 2010, for example, Coburn told voters to not "be biased by Fox News."




Here we have proof of another Republican who is not a sheep in his thinking. He will probably be drummed out of the party soon. Well, maybe not. His voting record looks like a Republican's all the way down the line. In checking on Coburn, I found this web site of individual voting records, and it is very good, in case you ever want to use it – http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Tom_Coburn.htm#Gun_Control.





Obama underestimating "serious" threat from ISIS?
CBS NEWS August 21, 2014, 7:17 AM

President Obama vowed on Wednesday to do whatever was necessary to protect the American public from the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), but Mike Morell, the former deputy director of the CIA who is now a national security analyst for CBS News, says the administration might not understand the immediacy and severity of that threat.

The U.S. military mission in Iraq is narrowly focused on helping displaced Iraqis by flying in humanitarian aid, and protecting U.S. interests in the country -- not on targeting ISIS leadership.

That, says Morell, is not enough. He argues the relatively "small leadership" of the group must become the focus, along with reclaiming territory those leaders now control, and "that means capturing or killing them."

Morell explains that under current White House policy in order to take lethal action against any individual terror suspect, that person must be a member of a named terrorist organization (ISIS meets this requirement), and they must pose a direct threat -- and capture cannot be an option.

"I don't know if they (Obama administration) have made that determination or not," said Morell.

The former CIA insider says the only way to effectively combat ISIS, which has re-branded itself simply the "Islamic State," is to bolster Iraq's own military force -- which literally ran away in many instances from the Sunni extremists as they spread from Syria into north and west Iraq earlier this summer, and to get better intelligence on the leaders' movements.

It remains unclear, however, how much information U.S. officials have on the whereabouts of ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadior his top aids. If the group's leaders are still in Syria -- a distinct possibility given that ISIS is now being actively targeted by U.S. air power in Iraq -- finding and killing them would be no easy task.

Senior administration officials have told CBS News White House correspondent Major Garrett that the vast majority of intelligence from Syria is signals-based, meaning from cellular and other forms of electronic communication.

Human intelligence from inside the war-torn country is rare and thought to be less reliable.

Highlighting the challenges of trying to operate in Syria, the U.S. government acknowledged for the first time on Wednesday a failed attempt by Special Operations Forces to rescue American hostages held in the country by ISIS -- including journalist James Foley, who was later brutally executed by the group.

"The U.S. government had what we believed was sufficient intelligence, and when the opportunity presented itself, the president authorized the Department of Defense to move aggressively to recover our citizens," said Lisa Monaco, Obama's top counterterrorism adviser, in a statement. "Unfortunately, that mission was ultimately not successful because the hostages were not present."




“The U.S. military mission in Iraq is narrowly focused on helping displaced Iraqis by flying in humanitarian aid, and protecting U.S. interests in the country -- not on targeting ISIS leadership. That, says Morell, is not enough. He argues the relatively 'small leadership' of the group must become the focus, along with reclaiming territory those leaders now control, and 'that means capturing or killing them.'... The former CIA insider says the only way to effectively combat ISIS, which has re-branded itself simply the 'Islamic State,' is to bolster Iraq's own military force -- which literally ran away in many instances from the Sunni extremists as they spread from Syria into north and west Iraq earlier this summer, and to get better intelligence on the leaders' movements.”

Michael Morell has decades of CIA experience including al Qaeda, and is a most intelligent man. If he says Obama needs to put more military power into Iraq at this time, I believe him. Also, from my own viewpoint, ISIS is a much more dangerous enemy than most groups, including Hamas and al Qaeda, because their goal is to conquer both Iraq and Syria, and perhaps parts of other Middle Eastern nations. He is today's Hitler. If we, as we did in the 1940's, fail to put up a sufficient force against this group, it may be impossible to root the ISIS forces out. I hope Obama will donate a large supply of weapons and ammunition, as the Kurds and Iraqis have been asking us to do, if we are firmly opposed to sending troops back in. I think we need to do that sooner rather than later. See the following article on Morell's background.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/11/09/michael-j-morell-introducing-the-cia-s-new-acting-director.html –
Michael J. Morell: Introducing the CIA’s New Acting Director
By Kevin Fallon

His CIA career began in 1980, when he was 21-years-old. He was aneconomic analyst with a salary of $15,193. For 14 years, he served as an analyst and manager of East Asia intelligence, and was promoted to director of the CIA’s office of Asian, Pacific, and Latin American analysis in 1999.

He’s been in the room with the big guys for over a decade. For a time, heserved as the executive assistant to former CIA director George J. Tenet, and was in charge of presidential briefings for parts of both Bill Clinton’s and George W. Bush’s presidencies. As chief of the staff that produces the president’s daily brief, his job was to sit down every morning with the president and fill him on the latest intelligence.

He was with President Bush on 9/11. He was Bush’s intelligence advisor at the time, and, according to The Wall Street Journal, had “been at the center of nearly every fight against al Qaeda and has seen the limits of U.S. intelligence.” As such, he served as “the CIA’s devil’s advocate before the raid on Osama bin Laden’s hideout in Pakistan.”

It was Morell who in August 2001 delivered the fateful report, “Bin Laden Determined to Strike the U.S.,” that would be made infamous by the 9/11 Commission. He was in that Sarasota, Florida classroom where Bush was reading a children’s book when he first heard that the World Trade Center had been hit. When Bush asked, “Who did this?” Morell said, “I haven’t seen any intelligence, but I would bet every dollar I have that it’s al Qaeda.”





Former Kent State Guardsman offers advice on Ferguson
CBS NEWS August 20, 2014, 7:23 PM

Scenes from Ferguson, Mo. have stirred comparisons to the turmoil that occurred during the civil rights and anti-war movements in the late 60s and early 70s. One of the most infamous incidents involving the National Guard at the time was the May 4, 1970 shooting at Kent State University, which left four students dead.

Ronald Snyder, who was in his early 30s, was a captain in the Ohio National Guard and led C Company, 1st Battalion, 145th Infantry, to control protesters at Kent State.

According to Snyder, he was about 50 yards away from the shooting, but his unit was not directly involved.

The now, 77 year-old has been watching the developments in Ferguson.

"You meet force with force. That's the basic rule that's followed," Snyder said on the National Guard's role in dealing with rioters in a phone interview with CBS News.

Snyder was trained in riot control and said that no matter the situation, "you still use the same main procedures." Some of which include working with local law enforcement to control the situation.

Local police, highway patrol and now Missouri National Guard troops have arrived in Ferguson after a week of violent protests following the shooting of Michael Brown, an unarmed black teenager, who was killed by a white police officer.

"We always worked with the police at that point in time. When it became obvious that the police no longer had any control, the Riot Act was usually read to the general public that was doing the rioting. Whether it be smaller units, or larger groups of people that they wouldn't disperse or wouldn't abide by curfew, then you deploy the tear gas. The tear gas was the factor that usually brought everything in control," said Snyder.

Snyder has had first-hand experience with this when the Ohio Guard deployed a large amount of tear gas the morning of July 18, 1968 to disperse rioters in Akron. That quickly stopped the riot according to Snyder.

Tear gas has been used by law enforcement to control protesters in Ferguson. While Tuesday night was relatively calm, the threat of further unrest hangs over the city.

"That is to only try to meet force with force. To assist anybody that is injured and to get people out of the way of dangerous situations. These things can blow up right in front of you and when you least expect it," said Snyder.

He said protests not only attract people concerned about a cause, but also draw troublemakers eager to take advantage of the situation.

"It [rioting] becomes an ideal platform for certain peripheral members of the community to commit their mischief.... and in general trying to create situations where more injury and maybe even killings occur," Snyder said.

Although the cause of the riots that Snyder was involved in were different than Ferguson he says, they still have the same outcomes he described, creating "a lot of mayhem and confusion."

"Once we got the riots settled down [in Akron]... the citizens realized that they were destroying their own community," said Snyder.

He described that local leaders would talk to church congregations and the community, "there were various community leaders that actually lead and actually explained the ramifications of what the rioters were doing and how it was going to hurt them later on."

Ferguson's leader's told residents to stay home Tuesday after dark to "allow peace to settle in." They want to reconnect with the predominantly black community .

"Citizens should form committees to deal with this. Deal with their politicians, deal with their police and to work with law enforcement and the political entities... to bring about an understanding so these things don't happen again," said Snyder.




"You meet force with force. That's the basic rule that's followed," Snyder said on the National Guard's role in dealing with rioters in a phone interview with CBS News.... "'Once we got the riots settled down [in Akron]... the citizens realized that they were destroying their own community," said Snyder. He described that local leaders would talk to church congregations and the community, 'there were various community leaders that actually lead and actually explained the ramifications of what the rioters were doing and how it was going to hurt them later on.'.... 'Citizens should form committees to deal with this. Deal with their politicians, deal with their police and to work with law enforcement and the political entities... to bring about an understanding so these things don't happen again,' said Snyder.”

This guardsman's advice is very much on target, I think, and is similar to the things the city government has proposed to do. Now they just have to do it. I have a strong impression from several of the articles that the Ferguson community has been repressed for years, rather than being included, in deciding what goes on that affects them, and that police intimidation and too often undue force was the rule rather than the exception. See the Huffington Post article below. There is a certain philosophy involved in many officer shootings.





http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/19/police-deadly-force_n_5693020.html

Why Do Cops So Often Shoot To Kill?
Posted: 08/19/2014

WASHINGTON -- The fatal shooting of a man by police on Tuesday near St. Louis kept the spotlight on law enforcement's use of deadly force, as protests continue in nearby Ferguson over the police shooting death of teenager Michael Brown.

The two shootings bear little resemblance to one another. Brown was an unarmed teen who, according to eyewitnesses, was trying to surrender when a police officer shot him at least six times. The man killed on Tuesday, whose name hasn't been released, was wielding a knife, according to police. When he refused officers' orders to put down his weapon and walked toward them, they shot him to death, police said.

As tensions continue to flare over Brown's death, many question the circumstances under which the law justifies a police officer's use of deadly force. When faced with a perceived threat, why is it that many officers shoot to kill, rather than simply to wound?

Members of law enforcement are legally permitted to use deadly force when they have probable cause to believe that a suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm either to the officer or to others. In such cases, most officers are trained to shoot at a target's center mass, where there is a higher concentration of vital areas and major blood vessels, according to a report by the Force Science Institute, a research center that examines deadly force encounters.

John Firman, director of research, programs, and professional services at the International Association of Chiefs of Police, said that shooting at a limb is impractical. Aiming at an arms or legs, which move fast, could result in a misfire that fails to neutralize the threat and may even hit the wrong person, he said. "The likelihood of success is low."

"That's a Hollywood myth," Firman told The Huffington Post when asked why police officers don't tend to shoot people in the limbs. "In all policy everywhere on force in any law enforcement agency in America, the bottom line statement should read: If you feel sufficiently threatened or if lives are threatened and you feel the need that you must use lethal force, then you must take out the suspect."

Officers are trained to assess the risk before firing, Firman said, but often a situation escalates quickly. A guide from his association on officer-involved shootings states that deadly force is legally justified "to protect the officer or others from what is reasonably believed to be a threat of death or serious bodily harm; and to prevent the escape of a fleeing violent felon who the officer has probable cause to believe will pose a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others."

The legal justification for deadly force by police is informed by the 1985 Supreme Court ruling in Tennessee v. Garner, in which a pair of police officers fatally shot a 15-year-old boy after he fled from a burglary. It turned out the boy had stolen a purse and just $10 from a house, and the Court ruled that a police officer may only use deadly force to prevent the escape of a violent felon.

Some law enforcement officials said the question of whether officers should shoot to wound or kill misses the point. Officers are often forced to make a split-second decision and are trained to try and deescalate the situation before firing.

Troy Church, a former police chief in Maiden, North Carolina, said officers are trained to shoot to stop a suspect who poses an imminent threat. "Can death result? Certainly it can," Church wrote in an email. "But you are not trained to kill."

Peter Jirasek, a retired police sergeant and criminal justice educator from Illinois, explained that the concept of shooting to wound would not hold up under Tennessee v. Garner. Jirasek said it's unfair to simply state that officers are trained to kill when lethal force is justified in some cases and discouraged in others by law.

"If you only seek to wound someone by shooting, you do not have justification to shoot at all," Jirasek said. "An attempt to shoot to wound all too often can end up in death. It does no good if a police officer says, 'I was just trying to wound and ended up killing somebody,' because that officer now faces criminal prosecution, not to mention a civil lawsuit. And the law will say the officer better be justified in using deadly force."

Jirasek added that tasers and bean bag rounds have been instituted as lesser forms of force if an officer needs to bring a suspect into compliance but has no reason to use deadly force.

Some have argued that law enforcement protocol and training should be re-examined in the wake of Brown's death, since he was unarmed and, according to eyewitnesses, wasn't posing a significant threat to the police officer who shot him. Studies have found that police officers are more likely to use excessive force toward black men than toward whites.


Tennessee v. Garner
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)[1], was a case in which theSupreme Court of the United States held that under the Fourth Amendment, when a law enforcement officer is pursuing a fleeing suspect, he or she may use deadly force to prevent escape only if the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.




“As tensions continue to flare over Brown's death, many question the circumstances under which the law justifies a police officer's use of deadly force. When faced with a perceived threat, why is it that many officers shoot to kill, rather than simply to wound? …. Aiming at an arms or legs, which move fast, could result in a misfire that fails to neutralize the threat and may even hit the wrong person, he said. "The likelihood of success is low. That's a Hollywood myth," Firman told The Huffington Post when asked why police officers don't tend to shoot people in the limbs. 'In all policy everywhere on force in any law enforcement agency in America, the bottom line statement should read: If you feel sufficiently threatened or if lives are threatened and you feel the need that you must use lethal force, then you must take out the suspect.' Officers are trained to assess the risk before firing, Firman said, but often a situation escalates quickly.”

“A guide from his association on officer-involved shootings states that deadly force is legally justified 'to protect the officer or others from what is reasonably believed to be a threat of death or serious bodily harm; and to prevent the escape of a fleeing violent felon who the officer has probable cause to believe will pose a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.'...'An attempt to shoot to wound all too often can end up in death. It does no good if a police officer says, 'I was just trying to wound and ended up killing somebody,' because that officer now faces criminal prosecution, not to mention a civil lawsuit.'... Some have argued that law enforcement protocol and training should be re-examined in the wake of Brown's death, since he was unarmed and, according to eyewitnesses, wasn't posing a significant threat to the police officer who shot him. Studies have found that police officers are more likely to use excessive force toward black men than toward whites.”

This is a fascinating article. I had heard before that shooting to wound only places the officer in danger, as he can then fight the officer and take his gun from him, shooting him with it. The statement that it's hard to aim well enough to shoot just a leg or an arm, but a body shot will more likely find its target, sounds equally logical, but those aren't the reasons. According to Wikipedia, the “deadly force” (a “kill shot” is not specifically stated) is allowable if the officer “has probable cause” to suspect the perpetrator “poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.” That is disturbing, because Brown had done nothing but run, unless the officer's statement that he tried to get his gun away from him is true. The Huffington Post article did say, though, that the officer is 'trained to try and deescalate the situation before firing.”

From the eyewitness reports, this officer didn't try to deescalate at all, but instead went immediately to physical force when the boys didn't move out of the street to the sidewalk as commanded. Two or three of the reports say slightly different things. The construction I have been able to make is a combination of the two stories.

Warren reached out of his car window and grabbed Brown by the neck. Then he tried to get out of his car when the car door hit Johnson and “ricocheted off.” He said that one of the boys “pushed him back toward the car”and then tried to take his gun, but the boy Johnson said that the door hit him when Warren opened it and “kind of ricocheted backward” and neither boy made any attempt to take Warren's gun.

What a fatal misunderstanding. I would like to see police be mandated to try to deescalate before doing an physical force, as there is apparently no step in between a push and a bump, and six gunshots. There should, I think, be a minimum provocation before gunshots are used. Failing to get out of the road is annoying, I'm sure, but it's not worthy of the death penalty. I agree with the author of this article that “perhaps” it's time to revise the laws. Also, officers shouldn't patrol neighborhoods without a partner to share the physical force if force is required, and to bear witness as to what happened, and the police authorities should be less lax in how they discipline officers in gunshot cases. The idea of “body cams” would also be the second most important procedure to institute, because there's a great disagreement here as to exactly what did happen. The third most important thing is that there should be a white officer and a black officer working together when possible so the temptation to kill a man partly because he is black, and therefore can't defend himself or is “worth less than a white person,” doesn't happen.





New theory on how Americans were infected with Ebola in Liberia?
CBS NEWS August 20, 2014, 9:01 PM

Liberia has taken a drastic step to contain the Ebola outbreak. A slum in the capital, Monrovia has been sealed off. Riot police used weapons to keep residents from escaping. Nearly 2,500 people in four West African nations have been sickened by the Ebola virus; more than 1,300 have died.

About 160 health care workers have also become sick, including two Americans who were wearing protective gear to prevent infection. That's been a big concern in the medical community, but CBS News correspondent Dr. Jon LaPook learned today one possibility that's strongly being considered is that two Americans were actually infected outside the Ebola ward, at dinner or some other setting where they would not have been expected to be wearing the protective equipment.

Nancy Writebol and Dr. Kent Brantley apparently came in contact with a Liberian health care worker who was sick. He had at least a fever and several days later he died from Ebola.

Now, if it turns out that's how the two Americans got Ebola, it would actually be kind of reassuring because then you wouldn't have to invoke a problem with the protective equipment as the reason for them getting infected, LaPook said.



This theory seems very logical to me. People can transmit the disease before they become visibly sick, and so proper care to avoid contact probably wouldn't have been taken. One report said that the Ebola virus can actually live on surfaces, as the flu virus can, with people picking it up when they touch surfaces like doorknobs which everybody has to touch. I must say, though, this outbreak seems to be spreading faster and to more different places than those of a few years ago, which makes me fear that it may be spread by the air. In the book The Hot Zone, the virus Ebola Reston spread among all the monkeys in the laboratory though they had no contact with each other, and at least one of the human workers tested positive for the antibodies. Luckily that virus only made monkeys sick, so no humans died.



Watch out, cyber-bullies: Kids have new tools to fight back
By NAOMI CHOY SMITH CBS NEWS August 19, 2014, 5:45 AM

For 13-year-old Samantha Milan, the worst part about being bullied was the fact that it happened in front of a huge audience. "This kid started threatening me, and then it went online to Instagram," she said. "The caption said something like, 'Look who's hungry.' It made me feel like I just wanted to die."

A growing number of teenagers like Samantha say they've been bullied online. Almost 15 percent of students in grades 9 to 12 have experienced cyber-bullying, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's 2013 Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System. And those kids are more than twice as likely to consider suicide, according to a recent study in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

"It feels horrible because everyone can see it," Samantha said. "And everything that goes online, never goes away. Even if you destroy the computer, it's still there."

Cyber-bullying can involve nasty text messages or offensive pictures posted on social media, and there's a whole range of technology available to fight it.

The social network We Heart It is designed to prevent an experience like Samantha's. It allows users to share photos but no one can post comments on them. It's very popular with teens, who make up most of its 25 million users.

Identity protection program Metlife Defender offers a service that monitors a child's online accounts for abusive content, then sends alerts to their parents.

And just last week, the U.S. Department of Education unveiled a new app called KnowBullying to help parents spot warning signs and talk to their kids about the problem.

Another recently-released cellphone app called StopIt takes a different approach. It enables children to take a screenshot of a harassing post, picture or text message, and anonymously send it to a trusted adult. This is the app's most popular feature among teenagers, who often want to help, but are worried about retaliation.

The StopIt app helped put an end to offensive tweets about a 14-year-old boy from Kenilworth, New Jersey, who has Asperger's syndrome. "It was a child who finally said 'Enough is enough,' and I'm so grateful to whoever that child was," said the boy's mother, Tina Lynaugh. "I'm glad that the children feel comfortable that they can actually say StopIt, and not feel intimidated themselves or feel that they'll be attacked next because they came forward."

David Brearley High School in Kenilworth is one of 14 schools that introduced the StopIt app to their students a few months ago. Principal Brian Luciani said he quickly saw a decrease in reports of harassment. "There's a little more accountability," Luciani told CBS News. "If you're going to bully someone, even if you're just quote unquote 'just joking around'... there will be consequences to those actions."

Kenilworth Superintendent Scott Taylor said many of his students felt empowered by the app. "Knowing that a teenager has something right there in the palm of his or her hands that could stop a bullying incident in its tracks makes them feel comfortable," he said. "It makes them feel confident that something can get done if they an incident of bullying or are a target of bullying."

These are high-tech solutions for a high-tech problem. But they may not be as effective if children don't feel comfortable telling their parents or friends that they're being targeted.

That's exactly what happened to one of Samantha Milan's classmates, Samantha Taska, who was also bullied. "I felt like I had no one to turn to," Taska said." But you shouldn't isolate yourself from people, because who are you gonna tell? Tell your best friend, tell your teacher, tell your aunt, tell your uncle, tell someone."

Some children, however, may feel that their parents just won't understand -- and in some ways they may be right. If parents are out of touch with the technology their kids are using, they may not realize how it can be abused. Samuel Lam was bullied on Facebook in middle school, but didn't think his parents could help. "My parents had absolutely no idea what was going on at the time," Lam recalled. "Facebook, they hadn't heard of it at the time, they didn't know what Twitter was, any of the social networks."

His fears were echoed by Kenilworth parent Tina Lynaugh, who said she struggles to keep up with the gamut of social media options available to kids. "Your children are going on technology that you don't know about. As a parent it's more frightening because I did not grow up with technology."

And it's not just Twitter, Facebook and Instagram. Messaging apps Secret and Snapchat are both hugely popular with teens, and have come under fire for their potential for abuse.

Snapchat, whose messages and photos self-destruct as soon as they've been viewed, is frequently used for sexting and other inappropriate posts. And while teens may think the disappearing messages can't come back to haunt them, the company recently settled charges with the Federal Trade Commission for, among other things, not informing users that messages could be saved without their knowledge.

Some critics have argued that Secret, where users can post anonymously, enables cyber-bullying, but the company told CBS News that it has systems in place to counter that, including "automated efforts to flag and automatically block" inappropriate content. In addition, "every user can flag, block and report any post or comment," which is then sent to a real human for review and possible removal.

So what can parents and children do when faced with a cyber-bully? Experts offer these tips:

- Take a screenshot or save a text message.
- Block or unfriend the bully.
- Report the bully to the website.
Tell a trusted adult, like a family member or teacher.

Samantha Milan and her classmates are starting an after-school club called "Fear to Fierce" to help other bullied teens. "If you're out there right now," she said, addressing the bully who taunted her about her weight, "I want you to know that I'm fierce, and you can't bring me down."




I've never heard of any of these apps, either to fight bullying or to be the bully, so I'm like many of these kids parents. Technology replicates like viruses these days, and I don't even try to keep up with it. I have never knowingly been bullied, but I did “unfriend” one person on Facebook because he kept making right wing comments. Snapchat is interesting because kids are using it to do things that would get them into trouble, like sexting, and many kids didn't know that a copy of the nude picture or whatever had actually been kept. My favorite is the after-school club called Fear to Fierce, because it involves real person to person contact with friends and discussion of what to do about bullying, increasing their friends rather than isolating them. A peer group formed with a purpose such as this one is a very powerful weapon against “the bad guys.”





Officer suspended after pointing rifle at Ferguson demonstrators
CBS/AP August 20, 2014, 8:54 PM

FERGUSON, Mo. - A police officer who was part of the effort to keep peace during protests in Ferguson has been suspended for pointing a semi-automatic assault rifle at demonstrators, then cursing and threatening to kill one of them, police said Wednesday.

A protester captured the exchange on video that has been posted to YouTube and several websites. It happened Tuesday night during the latest of several protests that have followed the Aug. 9 shooting death of 18-year-old Michael Brown by a Ferguson police officer.

On the video, a man is heard saying, "Oh my God! Gun raised!" as the officer approaches. The identity of the man who shot the video is not known.

"My hands are up, bro! My hands are up!" the man said.

The officer walks near the man with his gun pointed and appears to say, "I will (expletive) kill you."

St. Louis County police spokesman Brian Schellman said the officer is with the police department in St. Ann, another St. Louis County town near Ferguson. His name hasn't been released. Messages seeking comment from St. Ann's police chief were not returned.

Schellman said a county police sergeant took immediate action, telling the officer to lower the weapon and escorting him from the area. The officer was suspended indefinitely.




I'm very glad to see that a police officer who got out of hand has been punished, and immediately apparently. He was “ pointing a semi-automatic assault rifle at demonstrators, then cursing and threatening to kill one of them.” An unnamed county police officer walked up to him, told him to lower his weapon and escorted him off. Whamo!





CHP officer in highway beating could face "serious charges"
By CRIMESIDER STAFF CBS/AP August 20, 2014, 6:49 PM

LOS ANGELES -- A California Highway Patrol officer who was videotaped repeatedly striking a woman on the side of a Los Angeles freeway could face "potentially serious charges," the agency said Wednesday after forwarding its investigation to the district attorney.

Officer Daniel Andrew, who was given a desk assignment after the incident, was removed from duty and put on paid administrative leave, the CHP said. The agency didn't reveal if it made a recommendation to prosecutors but said in a news release that its report outlined potentially serious charges he could face.

It didn't specify possible charges. The July 1 incident sparked outrage as video showed Andrew hitting Marlene Pinnock, several times on the side of Interstate 10. Pinnock, who says she is homeless, is a 51-year-old grandmother, reports CBS LA.

Andrew said in his report that Pinnock was a danger to herself and had tried to walk into traffic lanes.

Drivers had called emergency dispatchers to report that a barefoot woman was on the freeway shoulder who appeared drunk or high. Pinnock has been diagnosed with bipolar disorder and was off her medication for two to three months before the altercation with Andrew, said Pinnock's attorney Caree Harper.

In an interview with The Associated Press, Pinnock said she believed the officer was trying to kill her.

"He grabbed me, he threw me down, he started beating me," she said. "I felt like he was trying to kill me, beat me to death."

Pinnock filed a lawsuit against CHP Commissioner Joe Farrow and Andrew in federal court for civil rights violations. The lawsuit claims excessive force, assault, battery and a violation of her due-process rights.

The DA's office will review the investigation and decide on the filing of criminal charges against Andrew, reports CBS LA. The CHP also has an internal administrative investigation underway, reports the station.




This is another case that disturbed me deeply, and this is the first I've heard about the officer being punished, but apparently he was. His violent assault on a homeless woman who was wandering around in the road and talking to herself was heartless and totally unnecessary. He said that she called him “the devil,” but she was talking to herself, so he knew she wasn't in possession of all her faculties. In an interview with The Associated Press, Pinnock said she believed the officer was trying to kill her. Judging from what I saw on the TV news, I think she may be correct in her estimation of the situation. He should have immediately forgiven whatever she said to him under those conditions, and as gently as possible escorted her off the road and into his police car. Then he should have taken her to the emergency room of a hospital for observation.

One of the ways that some police officers fail most is their unconscionable handling of mentally disturbed people. If she had tried to assault him it would be slightly different, but in this case he just abused her, and possibly because he enjoyed doing it. Some people join the police so they can legally beat people up. They're sick, of course, but they are also evil. The police departments need to administer a thorough psychiatric exam to everybody who applies to join the force, not just to see if they are psychotic, but to see if they have tendencies toward violence or other antisocial behavior.

While they are at it, they should find out, too, if the individual is an honest person, because many police officers steal drugs that have been confiscated and sell them on the street for pocket money, or use them to plant evidence on somebody they have accidentally killed to give themselves the appearance of probably cause. One of the real problems with the police forces is the freedom street officers have to get away with things without their supervisors finding out. That's how we get “dirty cops.” I know I read too many murder mysteries, but my impressions also come from years of reading the news. Most cops aren't bad, but those who are sometimes make up for the difference, it seems to me.