Dennis Gaydos, a homeless man from Palm Springs, was making his home outside of a church in the sunny Florida community without incident until a police intervention changed his life.
Gaydos says he was keeping to himself in his temporary home on the church grounds when the Palm Springs Police department SWAT team, dressed in full military garb, shot him multiple times with rubber bullets.
The close-range blast slashed off a portion of his right ear lobe and rendered his left eye a pulpy mess.
In the four years since the event, Gaydos has filed a federal lawsuit against Palm Beach County, Sheriff Ric Bradshaw and the Village of Palm Springs Police Department. The lawsuit, which was filed in late July, is in response to the SWAT team to removing him from his encampment and severely butchering him.
Other damages include “physical suffering, permanent disfigurement including the loss of use of a bodily function, injury and mental anguish.”
“What happened to Mr. Gaydos was outrageous,” says Kevin Anderson to Jose Lambiet of GossipExtra.com. Anderson, Gaydos’ police liability lawyer, adds that “the behavior of the police officers and deputies at the scene was simply unexplainable.”
The lawsuit states, with a deployed helicopter over head, “the plaintiff was overtaken by multiple deputies and police officers. The Plaintiff was not threatening harm to the officers or other individuals upon the defendants’ arrival.”
Authorities claim Gaydos refused to come out and, on the contrary, officers allegedly took action when they spotted Gaydos wielding a cell phone in one hand and a “knife” in the other.
Gaydos admits to having a cell phone in his hands at the night of the incident, but said he had just finished calling a food assistance agency.
It is believed that the food agency’s operator reported to law enforcement that Gaydos was living in underbrush by the church’s parking lot.
Gaydos claims the incident which left him blind and deaf should have never occurred since he had permission from the pastor to reside there.
Gaydos’ attorney added the artificial light in the area was more than sufficient to prevent an “accidental” shooting.
Palm Beach County records indicate the night of the incident, Gaydos didn’t have any criminal charges filed against him and was never arrested.
According to official records no knife was recovered from the scene either.
Five years after a California SWAT team raided the home of a man already imprisoned and pointed weapons at his loved ones, a Ninth Circuit panel will allow the family of Javier Bravo Jr. to sue the detective working the case.
The SWAT team in Santa Maria, California burst opened the door of Hope and Javier Bravo’s home in 2006 looking for their son over alleged connections with a drive-by shooting. Authorities were looking for the younger Bravo and believed he had hidden weapons involved in a 2006 drive-by shooting, but were unable to locate him after they stormed the house shortly after 5 a.m.
As luck would have it, Bravo was already behind bars. His incarceration was clearly listed on the search warrant obtained by Detective Louis Tanore, though authorities neglected to notice it before drawing weapons on the criminal’s family.
After pointing assault weapons at the 8-year-old grandson of the Bravos, the child ran off to the bathroom screaming. Hope Bravo then produced a letter penned by her son that was mailed from prison as to proof of his incarceration. As noted on the rap sheet attached to the warrant, Javier Jr. had been behind bars for six months already at the time of the raid.
At the time of the incident, a District Court judge ruled in favor of the authorities and argued that the fact that Javier Jr. was imprisoned at the time was irrelevant to the raid. Last Friday, however, a federal appeals court reversed the decision, allowing the family to go after the detective and others involved.
According to Judge Michael Daly Hawkins, the police “had no evidence that Mr. and Mrs. Bravo or E.B. were involved in the April 21 shooting or that during a period in which Javier Junior was not residing in their home they would have assisted Tangas gang members in concealing evidence, and specifically in concealing evidence from the shooting.” Further, the judge went after the detective and charged that his “generalized statements in the affidavit that it is 'common' for families of gang members to assist other members of the gang are insufficient to support probable cause to search the Bravos' home.”
A Seattle, Washington apartment rented by members of the local Occupy Wall Street chapter was raided and ransacked by the local SWAT team early Tuesday as part of an investigation into alleged anarchist actions.
Showing posts with label police. Show all posts
Showing posts with label police. Show all posts
Sunday, October 27, 2013
Monday, December 31, 2012
The Pirate Bay
(Reuters / John Gress)
The latest threat to intellectual property is, apparently, a nine year old girl. In an early-morning raid Finnish police confiscated her laptop after she allegedly illegally downloaded a music album from The Pirate Bay website.
When Finnish police turned up at the girl’s house last week with a search warrant authorizing them to look for evidence connected to the illicit file-sharing, many people were shocked.
But the police had no idea that the suspect was in-fact a small child.
The ‘evidence’ the police were relying on was collected by an anti-piracy group and based on a simple IP address.
The CIAPC (Copyright Information and Anti-Piracy Centre), one of the companies that has attempted to block Finnish ISPs (Internet Service Providers) from hosting The Pirate Bay, initially tracked the alleged illegal file share and demanded the Internet account holder to pay a cash settlement and sign a non-disclosure document.
The CIAPC is a non-profit association that is financed by its member associations as well as the Finnish Ministry of Education and Culture.
The user of the IP address, the girl’s father, refused to pay the 600 Euros demanded, torrentfreak.com reports, which led the CIAPC to throw the book at them, resulting in the raid and confiscation.
The album the girl allegedly downloaded was by Finnish pop star Chisu, who in the wake of the incident stated on her Facebook page that she did not want to sue any of her fans for downloading her music.
Moreover, according to the girl’s father, she apparently did not manage to download the music anyway as torrents are not something a nine-year-old would manage by a click or two, so the family ended up going to a store to buy it.
Her father said that when the police turned up he felt like it was the mafia demanding money.
“We have not done anything wrong with my daughter. If adults do not always know how to use a computer and the web, how can you assume that children or the elderly – or a 9-year-old girl – knows what they are doing at any given time online?” the girl’s father said. “This is the pinnacle of absurdity. I can see artists are in a position, but this requires education and information, not resource-consuming lawsuits.”
The age of the alleged infringer obviously did not impress the police and they left, telling the man that “it would have been easier for all concerned” if he had paid the compensation.
The little girl has had little to smile about throughout this ordeal, but a token gesture by a group of anonymous donors who gave her a brand new laptop must surely have cheered her up.
And although the group of donors asked to remain anonymous, there is speculation that it was in fact Chisu who slammed the police’s actions on her Facebook page.
“I hope that the matter will be resolved soon and am sorry to my 9-year-old girls,” the singer wrote, pointing to a free link to her music on Spotify.
The little girl’s case is just one of many in Finland. During the last fall, 28 Internet account holders settled with CIAPC. However, the details of their cases will never hit the headlines due to the non-disclosure documents they signed.
Finland isn’t the only EU country cracking down on illegal downloading. In 2009, France adopted a strict HADOPI law, or the “Three Strikes Law” a sort of which was then picked up by the UK and also by such nations as South Korea and New Zealand.
The “Three Strikes Law” requires internet companies to issue warning notices to customers alleged to have downloaded copyright content illegally, such as music or movies, if requested by the rights holder. After a third warning, a case can be brought before the Copyright Tribunal.
In the rest of the EU, different countries can apply the union’s directives and/or local laws for similar cases.
Still, politicians and business leaders are constantly searching for ways to set more limits to the Internet, which take forms of various proposed international acts such as the ACTA, or the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement. This very initiative, though signed by the bloc in 2011, failed to be adopted, as it was contested by fierce public protests.
The latest threat to intellectual property is, apparently, a nine year old girl. In an early-morning raid Finnish police confiscated her laptop after she allegedly illegally downloaded a music album from The Pirate Bay website.
When Finnish police turned up at the girl’s house last week with a search warrant authorizing them to look for evidence connected to the illicit file-sharing, many people were shocked.
But the police had no idea that the suspect was in-fact a small child.
The ‘evidence’ the police were relying on was collected by an anti-piracy group and based on a simple IP address.
The CIAPC (Copyright Information and Anti-Piracy Centre), one of the companies that has attempted to block Finnish ISPs (Internet Service Providers) from hosting The Pirate Bay, initially tracked the alleged illegal file share and demanded the Internet account holder to pay a cash settlement and sign a non-disclosure document.
The CIAPC is a non-profit association that is financed by its member associations as well as the Finnish Ministry of Education and Culture.
The user of the IP address, the girl’s father, refused to pay the 600 Euros demanded, torrentfreak.com reports, which led the CIAPC to throw the book at them, resulting in the raid and confiscation.
The album the girl allegedly downloaded was by Finnish pop star Chisu, who in the wake of the incident stated on her Facebook page that she did not want to sue any of her fans for downloading her music.
Moreover, according to the girl’s father, she apparently did not manage to download the music anyway as torrents are not something a nine-year-old would manage by a click or two, so the family ended up going to a store to buy it.
Her father said that when the police turned up he felt like it was the mafia demanding money.
“We have not done anything wrong with my daughter. If adults do not always know how to use a computer and the web, how can you assume that children or the elderly – or a 9-year-old girl – knows what they are doing at any given time online?” the girl’s father said. “This is the pinnacle of absurdity. I can see artists are in a position, but this requires education and information, not resource-consuming lawsuits.”
The age of the alleged infringer obviously did not impress the police and they left, telling the man that “it would have been easier for all concerned” if he had paid the compensation.
The little girl has had little to smile about throughout this ordeal, but a token gesture by a group of anonymous donors who gave her a brand new laptop must surely have cheered her up.
And although the group of donors asked to remain anonymous, there is speculation that it was in fact Chisu who slammed the police’s actions on her Facebook page.
“I hope that the matter will be resolved soon and am sorry to my 9-year-old girls,” the singer wrote, pointing to a free link to her music on Spotify.
The little girl’s case is just one of many in Finland. During the last fall, 28 Internet account holders settled with CIAPC. However, the details of their cases will never hit the headlines due to the non-disclosure documents they signed.
Finland isn’t the only EU country cracking down on illegal downloading. In 2009, France adopted a strict HADOPI law, or the “Three Strikes Law” a sort of which was then picked up by the UK and also by such nations as South Korea and New Zealand.
The “Three Strikes Law” requires internet companies to issue warning notices to customers alleged to have downloaded copyright content illegally, such as music or movies, if requested by the rights holder. After a third warning, a case can be brought before the Copyright Tribunal.
In the rest of the EU, different countries can apply the union’s directives and/or local laws for similar cases.
Still, politicians and business leaders are constantly searching for ways to set more limits to the Internet, which take forms of various proposed international acts such as the ACTA, or the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement. This very initiative, though signed by the bloc in 2011, failed to be adopted, as it was contested by fierce public protests.
civil rights abuses
NONE ARE MORE HOPELESSLY ENSLAVED THAN THOSE WHO FALSELY BELIEVE THEY ARE FREE
By S.R. Shearer
Niemand ist hoffnungsloser versklavt als jene, die fälschlicherweise glauben, frei zu sein.
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
William Blum, an investigative journalist in Washington, DC, writes in his excellent book, Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower:
"Overtly and covertly, legally and illegally, the military-industrial complex (in the United States) has joined forces with the prison-industrial complex, linked further to the omnipresent national security-police complex, all clasping hands tightly with the War on Drugs, in a declaration of War on the American people and the Bill of Rights. This Authority juggernaut - enamored with its own perpetuation, glorification and enrichment - has convinced the American public that without its storm troopers all hell would break loose and the safety and security of the citizenry would be on a life-support machine. In this undertaking, it has had the indispensable assistance of intimidated legislatures, an uniconoclastic judiciary, compliant media, and a president --- who - in the words of civil-liberties columnist Nat Hentoff - 'in this century ... has afflicted the most harm on our constitutional rights and liberties. [Please see our article, "Apostasy: Christianity In The Service Of A Religio-Political-Corporate-Terrorist State."]"The War on Drugs
The criminalization of marijuana in the United States in the 1930s at the behest of the oil industry and others threatened by hemp, and the maintenance of the criminal status of cannabis to this day by cryptofascist governments, principally the United States, profiting enormously, directly and indirectly, from the "War on Drugs" while callously inflicting, directly and indirectly, major harm upon their citizens, is one of the great contemporary crimes against humanity. How long are we going to let those bastards get away with this?
Prohibition:
The So-Called War on Drugs
Page One
by Peter Meyer
Don't miss The War on Drugs, Page Two
Afghan National Police
KABUL (Reuters) - Shortly after Friba joined the Afghan National Police, she gave herself the nickname "dragon" and vowed to bring law and order to her tormented homeland.
Five years later, she is tired of rebuffing the sexual advances of male colleagues, worries the budget for the female force will shrink and fears the government will abandon them.
Women in the police force were held up as a showcase for Afghan-Western efforts to promote rights in the new Afghanistan, born from the optimism that swept the country after the ouster of the Taliban in 2001.
Images of gun-wielding Afghan policewomen have been broadcast across the globe, even inspiring a television program popular with young Afghan women.
But going from the burqa to the olive green uniform has not been easy.
In Reuters interviews with 12 policewomen in districts across the Afghan capital, complaints of sexual harassment, discrimination and bitter frustration were prevalent.
Five years later, she is tired of rebuffing the sexual advances of male colleagues, worries the budget for the female force will shrink and fears the government will abandon them.
Women in the police force were held up as a showcase for Afghan-Western efforts to promote rights in the new Afghanistan, born from the optimism that swept the country after the ouster of the Taliban in 2001.
Images of gun-wielding Afghan policewomen have been broadcast across the globe, even inspiring a television program popular with young Afghan women.
But going from the burqa to the olive green uniform has not been easy.
In Reuters interviews with 12 policewomen in districts across the Afghan capital, complaints of sexual harassment, discrimination and bitter frustration were prevalent.
Monday, December 10, 2012
Muslims in USA
Liberty and Justice for Non-Muslims
By ANDREW ROSENTHAL
Since the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, genuine concerns about national security as well as politicking and fear have led to a shift in the balance between civil liberties and law enforcement. That much is indisputable, and widely discussed. Yet it’s rarely acknowledged that the attacks have also led to what’s essentially a separate justice system for Muslims.
By ANDREW ROSENTHAL
Since the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, genuine concerns about national security as well as politicking and fear have led to a shift in the balance between civil liberties and law enforcement. That much is indisputable, and widely discussed. Yet it’s rarely acknowledged that the attacks have also led to what’s essentially a separate justice system for Muslims.
Sunday, December 9, 2012
Priorities
by digby
Yes, we must cut Medicare and Medicaid because the government is so in debt. There's just no other choice.
Yes, we must cut Medicare and Medicaid because the government is so in debt. There's just no other choice.
Behold! The Johnston, Rhode Island SWAT team and their gear.
According to providencejournal.com, taxpayer largesse has equipped Johnston’s paramilitary-style police with two Freightliner tractor-trailers, twelve Humvees; 30 M-16 rifles and conversion parts to transform them into M-4 weapons; 599 M-16 magazines containing about 18,000 rounds; a sniper targeting calculator; night vision equipment, 44 bayonets for ceremonial purposes; five generators from M1 tanks; and 23 snow blowers.Saturday, June 30, 2012
arrest violated First Amendment rights
March 21, 2012
The U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments Wednesday in a case involving the arrest of a Colorado man who was thrown in jail after telling Vice President Cheney in 2006 that the Bush administration's policies in Iraq were "disgusting."
Environmental consultant Steven Howards is suing the Secret Service agents who arrested him, contending that the arrest violated his First Amendment rights because it was nothing more than retaliation for the views he expressed to the vice president. The case pits the need for protecting public officials against the rights of citizens to express their views to the people elected to represent them.
What makes this case doubly fascinating is the fact that even the Secret Service agents involved in the arrest do not agree on what happened. The agents who actually saw the encounter testified they saw no threatening action.
In contrast, the agent who made the arrest, Virgil Reichle, accused the others of covering up, and some of Reichle's fellow agents have testified that he asked them to change their reports to match his. All have acknowledged that if any of these accusations is true, it would amount to a crime under federal law.
Most of what happened that day in 2006 is no longer in dispute. Steven Howards had just dropped off his 8-year-old son at a piano lesson in Beaver Creek, Colo., when he saw Vice President Cheney standing in the open shopping area near the ski lift, shaking hands and talking to people.
"I walked up to him and told him that I thought his policies in Iraq were disgusting, and I walked away, and then I left and picked up my child at piano camp," says Howards.
About 10 minutes later, Howards was back in the area, but had become separated from his son. The agents, who didn't know Howards had lost track of his son, said they saw him looking anxious.
Agent Reichle of the Denver office went over to Howards and asked if he would answer a few questions about his conversation with Cheney. Howards said no and told Reichle that if he didn't want people accosting Cheney, he should "keep Cheney out of public places."
"The Secret Service agent got furious," Howards says, adding that he quickly found himself handcuffed "with my hands behind my back and I was being charged with felony assault of the vice president."
Though Howards initially told Reichle he had not touched the vice president, after reflecting on the encounter, he later conceded that he was wrong. He says he patted the vice president on the shoulder, meaning no harm. The Secret Service has since variously described Howards as having patted Cheney with an open palm or hit him on the shoulder with an open palm.
"If there would have been some threat to the vice president, I would have been down in the pavement when the interaction occurred, not arrested 10 minutes later," says an incredulous Howards.
The U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments Wednesday in a case involving the arrest of a Colorado man who was thrown in jail after telling Vice President Cheney in 2006 that the Bush administration's policies in Iraq were "disgusting."
Environmental consultant Steven Howards is suing the Secret Service agents who arrested him, contending that the arrest violated his First Amendment rights because it was nothing more than retaliation for the views he expressed to the vice president. The case pits the need for protecting public officials against the rights of citizens to express their views to the people elected to represent them.
What makes this case doubly fascinating is the fact that even the Secret Service agents involved in the arrest do not agree on what happened. The agents who actually saw the encounter testified they saw no threatening action.
In contrast, the agent who made the arrest, Virgil Reichle, accused the others of covering up, and some of Reichle's fellow agents have testified that he asked them to change their reports to match his. All have acknowledged that if any of these accusations is true, it would amount to a crime under federal law.
Most of what happened that day in 2006 is no longer in dispute. Steven Howards had just dropped off his 8-year-old son at a piano lesson in Beaver Creek, Colo., when he saw Vice President Cheney standing in the open shopping area near the ski lift, shaking hands and talking to people.
"I walked up to him and told him that I thought his policies in Iraq were disgusting, and I walked away, and then I left and picked up my child at piano camp," says Howards.
About 10 minutes later, Howards was back in the area, but had become separated from his son. The agents, who didn't know Howards had lost track of his son, said they saw him looking anxious.
Agent Reichle of the Denver office went over to Howards and asked if he would answer a few questions about his conversation with Cheney. Howards said no and told Reichle that if he didn't want people accosting Cheney, he should "keep Cheney out of public places."
"The Secret Service agent got furious," Howards says, adding that he quickly found himself handcuffed "with my hands behind my back and I was being charged with felony assault of the vice president."
Though Howards initially told Reichle he had not touched the vice president, after reflecting on the encounter, he later conceded that he was wrong. He says he patted the vice president on the shoulder, meaning no harm. The Secret Service has since variously described Howards as having patted Cheney with an open palm or hit him on the shoulder with an open palm.
"If there would have been some threat to the vice president, I would have been down in the pavement when the interaction occurred, not arrested 10 minutes later," says an incredulous Howards.
Friday, May 25, 2012
Henry Louis Gates
On July 16, 2009, Harvard University professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr., was arrested at his Cambridge, Massachusetts home by a local police officer responding to a 9-1-1 caller's report of men breaking and entering the residence. The arrest initiated a series of events that unfolded under the spotlight of the international news media.
The arrest occurred just after Gates returned home to Cambridge after a trip to China to research the ancestry of Yo-Yo Ma for Faces of America.[2] Gates found the front door to his home jammed shut and with the help of his driver tried to force it open. A local witness reported their activity to the police as a potential burglary in progress. Accounts regarding the ensuing confrontation differ, but Gates was arrested by the responding officer, Cambridge Police Sgt. James Crowley, and charged with disorderly conduct. On July 21, the charges against Gates were dropped. The arrest generated a national debate about whether or not it represented an example of racial profiling by police.
On July 22, President Barack Obama commented on the incident, criticizing the arrest and the response by the police. Law enforcement organizations and members objected to Obama's comments and criticized his handling of the issue. In the aftermath, Obama stated that he regretted his comments and hoped that the situation could become a "teachable moment".[3]
On July 24, Obama invited both parties to the White House to discuss the issue over beers, and on July 30, Obama and Vice President Joe Biden joined Crowley and Gates in a private, cordial meeting in a courtyard near the White House Rose Garden; this became known colloquially as the "Beer Summit".
An independent panel with experts from across the nation published a report on June 30, 2010, which states that "Sergeant Crowley and Professor Gates each missed opportunities to 'ratchet down' the situation and end it peacefully" and share responsibility for the controversial July 16 arrest. Crowley could have better explained how uncertain and potentially dangerous it is to respond to a serious crime-in-progress call and why this can result in a seemingly rude tone. Gates could have tried to understand Crowley's view of the situation and could have spoken respectfully to Crowley. The report cites research that shows people's feelings about a police encounter depend significantly on whether they feel the officer displays respect and courtesy.
The arrest occurred just after Gates returned home to Cambridge after a trip to China to research the ancestry of Yo-Yo Ma for Faces of America.[2] Gates found the front door to his home jammed shut and with the help of his driver tried to force it open. A local witness reported their activity to the police as a potential burglary in progress. Accounts regarding the ensuing confrontation differ, but Gates was arrested by the responding officer, Cambridge Police Sgt. James Crowley, and charged with disorderly conduct. On July 21, the charges against Gates were dropped. The arrest generated a national debate about whether or not it represented an example of racial profiling by police.
On July 22, President Barack Obama commented on the incident, criticizing the arrest and the response by the police. Law enforcement organizations and members objected to Obama's comments and criticized his handling of the issue. In the aftermath, Obama stated that he regretted his comments and hoped that the situation could become a "teachable moment".[3]
On July 24, Obama invited both parties to the White House to discuss the issue over beers, and on July 30, Obama and Vice President Joe Biden joined Crowley and Gates in a private, cordial meeting in a courtyard near the White House Rose Garden; this became known colloquially as the "Beer Summit".
An independent panel with experts from across the nation published a report on June 30, 2010, which states that "Sergeant Crowley and Professor Gates each missed opportunities to 'ratchet down' the situation and end it peacefully" and share responsibility for the controversial July 16 arrest. Crowley could have better explained how uncertain and potentially dangerous it is to respond to a serious crime-in-progress call and why this can result in a seemingly rude tone. Gates could have tried to understand Crowley's view of the situation and could have spoken respectfully to Crowley. The report cites research that shows people's feelings about a police encounter depend significantly on whether they feel the officer displays respect and courtesy.
Monday, April 23, 2012
kindergartner was carted off to jail
Salecia Johnson
is six years old. On April 13, her teachers say she had a temper tantrum
in class -- but instead of putting her in time-out, the school called the police.
Salecia was handcuffed, charged with battery, and kept in police custody for an hour before her parents found out what was going on. Though all charges have been dropped, Salecia -- a 6-year-old -- now has an arrest record.
Salecia's mom, Constance, says that "Salecia has been traumatized by this experience. She's afraid to return to school and recently woke up in the middle of the night saying 'they are coming to get me.'"
Constance wants to make sure that this incident won't affect Salecia's
future, and she wants answers about why police officers were involved in
the first place.
Constance
believes that what happened to Salecia is part of a larger problem.
Schools across America are adopting "zero-tolerance" policies that are
making police involvement in school disciplinary matters more and more
common, according to the Advancement Project, a group working with
Constance's family.
If thousands of
people sign Constance's petition, the police and the officials at
Creekside Elementary will see that they can't arrest and handcuff a
six-year-old girl without facing public consequences. Schools around the
country will take notice -- and Constance hopes there won't be another
child that faces what Salecia did.
Thanks for being a change-maker,
- William and the Change.org team
Even though it's been a week since Georgia kindergartner Salecia Johnson was carted off to jail in handcuffs after throwing a temper tantrum in school, her parents are still unsure what caused the 6-year-old's behavior.
"The facts aren't really clear to me how she ended up in the office in the first place. I'm sure something else was going on, because my child is not a bad child and she does not act out to this degree," Salecia's mother, Constance Ruff, 27, told The Root. She believes there's more to the story than what school officials or the local police department reported.
Last Friday, April 13, around 11:30 a.m., Salecia, who attends Creekside Elementary School in Milledgeville, Ga. -- about 100 miles outside of Atlanta -- was taken to the principal's office after being involved in an altercation with two other girls who were pushing one another, Ruff shared.
Once in the office, Salecia became "violent and disruptive" and displayed behavior that included "pushing several other students; running away from the school staff; slamming chairs around the school office; climbing up and knocking over a bookcase; knocking pictures off the wall; scribbling over the walls and door; and injuring a school employee," Baldwin County Schools Superintendent Geneva Braziel said in a written statement.
"That could have played a role in Salecia's acting out, because she was being disciplined and other girls weren't," said Ruff, who added that the school never contacted her about Salecia misbehaving but said that she did speak with her daughter's teacher after the girl complained about kids "picking on" her. Creekside Elementary School officials referred all questions to superintendent Braziel.
Braziel's statement also says that the school called the girl's emergency contacts -- who included Salecia's parents and Ruff's sister -- and that the police were involved because safety became a concern, pointing out that it was the Milledgeville Police Department's decision to handcuff and transport Salecia to jail. Milledgeville Police Chief Dray Swicord declined The Root's request to be interviewed for this story.
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
border patrol
The Border Patrol cites federal laws permitting it to operate checkpoints and stop suspicious drivers. Establishing internal checkpoints has been a long-standing policy in Texas and California, states along the border with Mexico, as well as (less frequently) New York, Vermont and New Hampshire.
The constitutionality of such laws, which clearly violate the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, has been challenged over the last several decades, but federal courts have consistently upheld the governments right to operate the checkpoints. The checkpoint issue reached the Supreme Court in 1976, which claimed that warrantless stops and searches do not violate the Constitution in areas near the border.
However, civil liberties advocates in Texas, Arizona and California have aptly described the checkpoints as ever-expanding militarized zones. There are approximately 8,000 Border Patrol agents on the US-Mexican border.
Monday, April 9, 2012
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
BUSTED: The Citizen's Guide to Surviving Police Encounters
MORE INFO ON DEALING WITH POLICE ......
Know-Your-Rights DVDs: http://flexyourrights.org/our_DVDs
Got questions about dealing with cops? We got answers: http://flexyourrights.org/faq
Official Facebook Page: http://www.facebook.com/FlexYourRights
Twitter: http://twitter.com/#!/FlexYourRights
Get Flex Your Rights Emails: http://flexyourrights.org/subscribe
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)