I've often said I've seen rock bottom for stupidity...then someone breaks the rock.
Tucson News Now
Jackson Councilman says' Let's throw rocks at police'
JACKSON, MS
Jackson Ward 3 Councilman Kenneth Stokes wants to send a message to police from other jurisdictions who chase misdemeanor suspects through Jackson.
He says he wants to send that message with rocks, bricks and bottles.
Today the councilman told reporters that police from surrounding cities put Jackson children in danger when they chase people on neighborhood streets. He says he'd like black leadership to team up and use force.
"What I suggest is we get the black leadership together, and as these jurisdictions come into Jackson we throw rocks and bricks and bottles at them. That will send a message we don't want you in here," he says.
Stokes also suggests taking court action against outside police agencies that chase misdemeanor offenders into Jackson.
I wonder if the libtard Democrat realizes if they throw rocks, bricks and bottles at the cops, people open themselves up to being arrested for assault on a police officer and interference with public duties? Of if the cops are treated like this, there will be reaction from the police, like delays in response time for other calls for serve. Probably does, but he doesn't care.
Over the past several weeks, the Paris, Bamako and San Bernardino attacks have focused my writing on armed assaults. I've written about how, contrary to the hype, armed assaults are not a new tactic, and the threat they pose should not be allowed to push politicians to rashly adopt security measures that undermine personal liberties while doing little to actually keep people safe. I have also written about ways that security forces and individuals can respond to such attacks to help mitigate their impact. Finally, I discussed how advances in medical equipment and the procedures followed by medical first responders and trauma centers have helped to save the lives of many armed assault victims.
But all of these themes are reactive and do very little to help prevent such attacks. However, while I've been writing on these reactive topics, I have also been working with a team to forge a new Stratfor product that focuses on protective intelligence, which is inherently proactive. The confluence of these two concepts — armed assaults and protective intelligence — has me again thinking about ways to prevent armed assaults rather than merely responding to them. Obviously, prevention is always better than mitigation.
Understanding Attacks
The first step in working to prevent any type of attack is to understand how such attacks are conducted. This pertains not just to the tactics and techniques used in the actual attack but also to the planning process that must occur before the attack can be launched. Viewing attacks as the result of a discernible planning process — what we refer to as the terrorist attack cycle — and then breaking that process into its distinct phases and tasks makes it possible to identify times during the attack cycle when those conducting it are vulnerable to detection.
Different types of actors carried out the recent armed assaults. The operatives in the Paris attacks had received small-arms training at camps in Syria and had fought in Syria and Iraq, but the San Bernardino attackers were grassroots jihadists who had not received such training. However, despite differences in their levels of training and experience, all actors must follow the same steps if they are going to plan an attack. Individuals who have received advanced training in terrorist tradecraft skills such as pre-operational surveillance are likely to be more sophisticated during the attack cycle than untrained individuals, but training does not absolve them of having to follow it.
Sometimes individuals do conduct ill-conceived and poorly executed attacks that involve shortcuts in the planning process. But this type of spur-of-the-moment attack is usually associated with mentally disturbed individuals rather than terrorists. It is extremely rare for a terrorist to conduct a spontaneous attack without first following the steps of the attack cycle.
Furthermore, the cycle is independent of ideology. It does not matter if the person planning an attack is a white supremacist, a radical environmentalist, a grassroots jihadist or a member of the al Qaeda core. They must all follow the same steps, accomplish the same tasks and operate in the same predictable areas. Understanding this helps to guard against different types and levels of threats.
Protective intelligence is the process of studying the attack cycle and using an understanding of the cycle to proactively identify, assess and mitigate potential threats. Protective intelligence practitioners carefully study the tactics, tradecraft and behavior associated with militant actors. This then allows security teams to search for and identify elements of those tactics and behaviors that can provide indications of attack planning prior to the launch of an assault. Many of these indicators are not inherently criminal. For example, visiting a public building and observing security measures or standing on the street to watch the arrival of a VIP at an office building are not illegal, but they could indicate that someone is plotting an attack. Even in cases where such behaviors cannot be stopped legally, steps can be taken to identify the potential assailants and let them know that they have been detected, or measures can be put in place to help mitigate the threat.
Some of the points during the attack cycle when potential attackers are most vulnerable to detection are during surveillance, while they are acquiring weapons or building bombs, and while they are testing bomb components. There are other, less obvious points when people on the lookout can spot preparations for an attack, such as while the potential assailants are training for an attack or even during pre-attack deployment.
To really understand the intricacies involved in planning attacks, protective intelligence practitioners cannot simply acknowledge that something like surveillance occurs. They must carefully deconstruct the activity to gain an in-depth understanding of it. Dissecting an activity like pre-operational surveillance requires not only examining aspects such as the demeanor demonstrated by those conducting surveillance and the specific methods and cover used; it also requires identifying particular times when surveillance is most likely and noting certain optimal vantage points (called "perches" in surveillance jargon) from which a surveillant is most likely to observe a specific facility or event. This complex understanding of surveillance can then be used to help focus human or technological countersurveillance efforts to make them most effective. This same type of deconstruction must be done for every step and activity of the planning process.
Applying Knowledge Proactively
But in many cases, especially those involving grassroots jihadists and other poorly trained operatives, the selected target will not have the kind of formal protective intelligence assets mentioned above. Attackers with little training tend to avoid targets that have robust security and countersurveillance teams. Does this mean that armed assaults against such soft targets can't be stopped? The answer is an emphatic no.
Even though there are no formal security teams watching for signs of hostile surveillance at soft targets, aspiring attackers still need to conduct pre-operational surveillance, and this activity is vulnerable to detection by an outside observer. Such observation is aided by the fact that most terrorist operatives practice poor surveillance technique and exhibit terrible demeanor while conducting it — and grassroots terrorists tend to display even worse demeanor than professionals. This opens them up to detection by what I refer to as "grassroots defenders" — ordinary citizens who practice good situational awareness and who report people engaged in suspicious activity such as building or testing bombs, suspiciously acquiring weapons or conducting pre-operational surveillance. I also consider regular police officers to be important grassroots defenders. Attentive police officers on patrol and conducting traffic stops have discovered and thwarted a number of terrorist plots.
It is important to note here that grassroots defenders are not vigilantes, and this is not a call to institute the type of paranoid informant network that existed in East Germany. It is also not a call to Islamophobia; indeed, the Muslim community is an important component of grassroots defense, and many plots have been thwarted based on tips from the Muslim community. Grassroots defenders are simply citizens who possess the proper mindset to take responsibility for their own security and the security of others and who report possible terrorist behavior to the authorities. Some have scoffed at the "If you see something, say something" campaign, but the principle works, especially when people are educated about terrorist behavior — one of our goals at Stratfor.
If people know what they are looking for, it is often possible to tell if your neighbor is making bombs, or if someone is involved in other pre-operational activity. But aside from such discreet indicators, there are frequently far more overt signs. It is very common after an attack to hear witnesses talk about how the attacker had made threats or had showed signs of becoming increasingly radicalized. Reporting such signs to the authorities can stop — and has stopped —attacks.
One recent example of a grassroots defender saving lives by preventing an armed assault was when a concerned citizen called the police department in Waseca, Minnesota, to report a person with a suspicious demeanor entering a storage facility. When police responded, they found that the suspect was storing gunpowder, pyrotechnic chemicals, a pressure cooker, steel ball bearings and other items used in bombmaking inside the locker. After interviewing the suspect, 17-year-old John LaDue, the police learned that he was planning a Columbine-style gun and bomb attack against his school.
In another example, an alert gun store employee in Killeen, Texas, called the police after a customer behaved suspiciously while purchasing a large quantity of smokeless powder. The police were able to track the suspect based on the license plate the employee provided. Their investigation determined that the subject, Pfc. Naser Jason Abdo, was an Army deserter who had planned to conduct a bombing and armed assault against a Killeen restaurant frequented by soldiers from the nearby Fort Hood.
Obviously, not every person lurking suspiciously outside a shopping mall is a terrorist, and not every small explosion indicates terrorist bombmaking activity. But reporting such incidents to the authorities will give them an opportunity to investigate and determine whether the incidents are innocuous or sinister. The grassroots threat may be amorphous, but it is not invisible; it can be detected and stopped.
A few years ago I was one of the responding officers in an officer down shooting. We had the suspect cornered in a building, there were over 100 cops out all with weapons, an armored vehicle and a helicopter surrounding the place. And we had idiots walking up to us asking, "What's going on?" We were screaming, "Get the hell out of here.." and forgive us, a few other choice words, to get them to move.
This was an article from this morning's Houston Chronicle, of the shooting in San Bernardino, CA, with the vetted imported terrorist. Decent read, but I want to point out something on this picture.
I've had disagreements with conservative/libertarian friends on the need for heavy vehicles in law enforcement. If you want to know why, look at what happened in San Bernardino. But this is what drives me nuts. Look at the right side of the picture and you see a civilian, obviously in a business suit, in his personal vehicle with his phone out to photo it. IDIOT! If things start going south, you have an excellent shot (pardon the pun) of getting killed! The cops have body armor on and an armored vehicle to stop small arms fire.
This desire to have the next Rodeny King video is going to lead to an unrelated third person getting shot. And then the usual suspects who are always calling, "Cops are infringing on our rights!..." will not be screaming "Why didn't the police stop this civilian getting hurt?"
If we got guns drawn, there is a reason. Stay away.
The usual suspects are outraged Officer William Porter was not convicted of a felony in the transport and eventual death of Freddie Gray. From the Baltimore Sun editorial of December 17, "...after jurors failed to come to an unanimous decision on any of the four charges on Mr. Porter no doubt will serve as a disappointment to those wished for the verdict in this case to send a clear and unambiguous message."
In contrast, the statue of Lady Justice shows her with a blindfold and balance. She's not there to "send a message" but to determine if the accused is guilty of a criminal act. And one of the basic tenets of Western jurisprudence is the burden of proof falls upon the prosecution. The obvious desire for railroading the officer by the editors of the Sun (And let's be honest, the City Attorney and Mayor, the Department of Justice, and the usual race baiting poverty pimps like Jesse and Al) reminded me of something from my first district court case.
I booked a suspect for Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) and five months later I was subpoenaed. After the jury was selected, the judge spoke to them for a few minutes. After thanking them for doing their civic duty (Truthfully, a lot of people do dodge it), he explained masterfully to the jury of laypersons (and a rookie cop) how justice works. (From an almost 15 year old memory and the names have been changed to protect the guilty!):
"Ladies and gentlemen, the defendant, Mr. Smith, sits behind the table, he sits there innocent and only you can make him guilty in the eyes of the law. Mr. Smith has the absolute presumption of innocence. He is under no obligation to speak and none of us here, including myself, can force him to answer a question. Mr. Smith is under no obligation to present a defense, although he has hired one. And I am instructing you that you cannot make any inference of his guilt or innocence because of his not speaking or presenting a defense. Those are his rights.
The burden of proof in this matter falls completely on the shoulders of the prosecution, Mr.Jones. He must prove every element of his case to you, individually and in full. Mr. Jones must prove all elements of his case, in your mind, beyond a reasonable doubt (emphasis his). If he fails in doing that, or the defense successfully raises a reasonable doubt in just one element of the prosecution's case, you must acquit the defendant. Mr. Jones doesn’t have to prove beyond all doubt; that is an impossibility. And the prosecution is further at a disadvantage because he must present all of his evidence to the defense prior to trial so they can prepare for it. Mr. Jones cannot give the defense any surprises. However the defense is under no obligation to present any evidence to the prosecution until the trial."
Ms.Mosby denied the officers had probable cause to arrest Gray because he didn't have an "illegal weapon," yet her office refused to present the knife he was carrying to the officers’ lawyers for examination. She accused the officer of a false arrest, because the knife was found subsequent to his arrest. Any criminal attorney (or cop on the street) knows after a suspect has been detained he can be searched, and once the weapon is found, it’s fair game for prosecution. Knowing she had a very flimsily case, she tried to stop the release of the Gray autopsy report. Ridiculously she said her prosecutors, “…’have a duty to ensure a fair and impartial process for all parties involved’ and ‘will not be baited into litigating this case through the media.’”
Almost ten years ago America witnessed a major travesty of justice when a politically motived prosecutor named Mike Nifong attempted to make his career with the prosecution of a group of white college students accused of raping a black stripper. After his case fell apart, Nifong was removed from the case and the North Carolina Attorney General took over. The three students were completely exonerated and Nifong eventually lost his law license and was jailed. As she tried to railroad Officer Porter and the other officers, will Ms. Mosby face justice like Mr. Nifong? Time will tell. Only if she faces justice in the future, Ms. Mosby should pray she receives a more justice from the attorney who judges her.
Michael Thiac is a police patrol sergeant and a retired Army intelligence officer.
Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik, formerly known as Boris and Natasha, had changed their looks, names, and religion to make a new future and escape the harassment by Rocky and Bullwinkle.
The Fearless Leader joined the U.S. Department of Justice, making sure that Rocky and Bullwinkle be held responsible for disrupting any of Syed's and Tashfeen's activities.
Syed became a government health inspector to pay the bills, since bomb-throwing didn't bring much income. That allowed him to inspect many soft targets in the area unobstructed. Tashfeen stayed home making bombs, plotting, and communicating with the network.
In other words, they had a normal lifestyle of a well-adjusted family in Las Humanas, actively participating in social media, vacationing at training camps, and having a blast.
At the same time, Rocky and Bullwinkle continued to bitterly cling to their guns and religion, scorned by the mainstream media, shunned by Hollywood, and out of touch with the new generation of America's children. The patriotic duo was classified as "domestic terrorists" and placed under 24/7 government surveillance.
To all my liberal/libtard friends out there, who said of Darren Wilson “He din’t have to shoot Mike Brown…” watch this. The action starts at just past 5 minutes, but watch the whole video the first time to set it up. See how the turd-hopefully dead-sack of shit (forgive me, I’m a bit worked up after watching that video) was “acting’ calm, cooperative, he was in a hospital, being moved down the hall for treatment, completely unarmed, jumps out and grabs for the cop’s gun. For all you YouTube lawyers out there, that shows he intends to have a deadly weapon in his possession, while disarming the peace officer. That shows intent to potentially use the deadly force against the officer or a third person. Now, for all you legal geniuses out there, what have you now reached?
Come on, you know what a cop “shouldn’t have done”, you always love playing Monday morning quarterback, come on, what have you now know?
The officer has “reasonable fear for himself or a third person suffering loss of life or serious bodily injury”. And according to Graham vs O’Connor, USSC, 1989, he can now use deadly force, in this case a pistol.
Observed something else, see how the sack of shit, after being fired upon (don’t know if the first shot hit him) and having the officer, with his weapon pointed at him, says “fuck this!” and again charges the officer, after he’s already been shot. He acted like an animal, charging the officer.
To the officer in this scene, your restraint is incredible. You called for help, warned him multiple times, scream “do no do that!…you can’t go for my weapon!!!” and only shot his ass twice (that I can tell) when he charged. I think if that was me I would have unloaded my Sig-Sauer…don’t know if every round would have hit, but every one would have been fired.
I’ve had multiple discussions over law enforcement use of force over social media and in person, I’ve had several rather heated discussions recently, including the Mike Brown incident. This punk was already injured, was being treated at a hospital, was surrounded with, from his perspective, “hostiles”, and he tried to disarm the officer. Again to my liberal/libtard friends, you know, those of you who think “All we need are camera’s on cops to show the racism, sexism, Islamafobia (whatever is the flavor of the week)”, I say look at this. You are getting a look at the real world is like for police on the street. And to borrow the phrase from Jefferson Parish (LA) Sheriff Newell Normand, “WAKE UP!”
This is what this animal would try on an armed cop, what do you think he (Or Mikey Brown, or Treyon “B Hussein Obama Junior” Martin) would do to you when your unarmed.
Think about that as you walk to visit a sick friend in the hospital…where a prisoner may be being moved down the hall…if he had gotten the gun, do you think you would be safe?
Think about it.
Watch the full video first, but the rear action start at 5.00
Here is the story of the sack of shit. He was stopped for an accident with a stolen truck and suspicion of DWI.
Police release video from hospital shooting FARMINGTON — The Farmington Police Department released video footage Thursday that depicts the violent struggle on Sept. 6 between Officer David Rock and Heriberto Nava-Martinez at San Juan Regional Medical Center moments before the officer shot the man. The footage, which is from Rock's body camera, shows the officer conversing with Martinez in Spanish outside a hospital room shortly after 10 p.m. Sept. 6, less than an hour after Farmington police arrested Nava-Martinez on allegations he crashed a stolen pickup truck through the front gates of a Farmington business and then drove it erratically up and down East Main Street. Nava-Martinez, 23, was transported to San Juan Regional Medical Center after the incident due to health concerns and to have his blood tested for drugs and alcohol...
Many a cop has had to deal with picking up a shoplifter from a store and the incumbent issues. Whenever I pick one up, the first thing I do is "Cuff em!", because they see me, they know it's up. Now here we go, what happens before we get there.
Hopefully the cop was able to get assault charges on the turds.
From the great northwest, Seattle PD did a great job handling business. As we say in the Lone Star State, "Nice shooting Tex!"
At 2:26 notice how they held fire until the lady in the SUV got the hell out of dodge and for all the YouTube lawyers out there, yes, that is justified use of deadly force. The officers had reasonable fear for loss of life or serious bodily injury of themselves and others, seeing the suspect was driving with complete disregard for the safety of other.
I've recently subscribed to Reason magazine and it's defiantly a good read. Libertarian point of view, I can see the writing appealing to the young people of today. But they put up this short video base on the Star Wars series, making points on current issues. Enjoy and have a great weekend!
Just in time for the holidays, The Star Wars Libertarian Special features Senate filibusters, border patrol stops, eminent domain, a guest appearance by Edward Snowden, and rarely seen footage from Chewbacca's galaxy-trotting documentary series about free-market economics. May the market forces be with you.
From the "I never saw this one coming" file, prisons are having to deal with prisoners getting contraband into the prison. And they are limited to what they can do, which is understandable. Shotguns? Besides the FAA saying we can't shoot at them, I'll bet the guards have their weapons loaded with buckshot, more useful for large slower moving target. If anything, they would need bird shot to get the drones! :) And the FCC will have a hit if they try to interferer with the communication system.
Like firefighters and those who just want to relax in the privacy of their own backyards, U.S. prisons have a drone problem.
Guards at the Lee Correctional Institution in Bishopville, S.C., recently found 17 illegal cellphones in one inmate’s cell — all of them (according to a report in the New York Times) smuggled in using drones.
In Mansfield, Ohio, a drone delivery of tobacco and drugs caused a near riot in a prison yard as inmates fought over the payload. In Cumberland, Md., officers had better luck, arresting two men in a car outside the Maryland state prison there. In the car were tobacco, pornography, and drugs — and a drone.
Similar reports have come in from Oklahoma and Georgia, as well as places outside the U.S., including Canada and Russia.
Breaking into jail
The point is that these unmanned aircraft systems are clearly capable of delivering contraband over prison walls. Furthermore, it’s hard to spot them, much less find out who is controlling them.
Worse, when it comes to policing the problem at federal prisons, the U.S. Bureau of Prisons (BoP) is severely handcuffed. Despite having tons of shotgun-armed guards at its prisons, the bureau can’t simply shoot down any drone that happens to appear near a prison; the Federal Aviation Administration doesn’t allow it.
Guards can’t blast drones with radio waves to interfere with the control signals from their operators either: Intentional interference of that sort is illegal, according to the Federal Communications Commission.
All of which is why the BoP has issued an RFI (request for information) looking for a solution.
The RFI — a preliminary step before the agency actually hires someone to implement a solution — is soliciting ideas that will help the BoP detect and neutralize drones trying either to conduct surveillance of prisons and the areas around them or to deliver contraband (such as weapons, drugs, or pornography).
(While the BoP has jurisdiction over federal prisons only, the solutions it finds should also be available eventually to state and local facilities.)
Unfortunately for the BoP, other federal government agencies aren’t being particularly helpful. The FAA would not discuss the issue, except to say that if anyone were to drop something into a prison, that person would be guilty of violating the law. The Department of Justice would not discuss the issue of drones on the record, except to say that Yahoo Tech should contact the FAA. The FCC did not respond to requests for comments.
Complicating matters, the BoP’s RFI seems to be attracting little interest. So far, only one question has been posted regarding the issue, and that was to find out whether the BoP will fund research. (It won’t.)
Detection and registration
Still, the agency does have some options. The law does not prohibit the deployment of sensors at prisons to alert guards that a drone is approaching. Nor does it prohibit sensors that would detect a drone launch at its source. This could allow law enforcement to get to the site of the drone launch and arrest those involved.
And, it should be stated, sending a drone into a prison does violate a long list of federal laws and, if it’s a state prison, state laws as well...
Good read all in all. I spent a year as a jail supervisor and we never had this issue to deal with because we did not have an outside area for the inmates. The only times they saw outside was when they entered and left the facility. Not much of an issue for the county prison but defiantly can be something for Texas Department of Corrections. Then again they can ask the locals for a little help, "Hey, you keep what you kill, no limit, we'll lose you in the pursuit..." :<)
