"Paez said. 'It’s our constitutional right to film.”'
It is also the responsibility of the boss (citizen) to make sure the employee (cop) is not doing anything improperly.
In California, that is also backed up with case law, Wilkins v NBC, which reiterates anything in public may be filmed, with or without anyone's permission or knowledge.
With smartphones everywhere, police on notice they may be caught on camera
In South Gate, police had already been warned: Just expect that you might be filmed with cellphones and other cameras as you do your job.
After high-profile uses of force caught on video in places like South Carolina, New York and L.A.’s skid row, officers in the Southeast L.A. suburb had been told to take filming in stride. If you're not doing anything wrong, police brass reasoned, what do you have to worry about? Q&A: New push to protect people who videotape police officers
So on Sunday, when a lawman was caught on video snatching a woman’s cellphone in South Gate as she recorded and smashing it on the floor, it was with relief that South Gate police said the officer wasn’t one of their own but a deputy U.S. marshal.
“We’ve had incidents where people have videotaped us and it requires unbelievable restraint. Typically during times where things can be a little chaotic,” said South Gate police Capt. Darren Arakawa. “We really have to convey we’re living in a different environment now where police action is scrutinized and a lot of video is surfacing. We simply tell our officers to assume they’re being recorded out in public at all times.”
The idea of an unseen camera capturing an officer’s conduct first became prominent after the Rodney King video in 1991, Arakawa said. But video’s starring role in controversial police actions, including beatings and shootings, has increased in the more than two decades since. And more and more police departments, including the LAPD, are planning to equip their officers with body cameras.
“It’s a double-edged sword. Law enforcement is adopting some of the practices of technology as well with body cameras, digital records, dash-cams,” Arakawa said. “It’s just indicative of the times.”
On Sunday Beatriz Paez, 34, recorded video of deputy marshals as they detained a group of people in her neighborhood. Someone else in turn was recording her, on the video that ended up on YouTube and sparked the U.S. Marshals Service investigation.
“The U.S. Marshals Service is aware of video footage of an incident that took place Sunday in Los Angeles County involving a Deputy U.S. Marshal. The agency is currently reviewing the incident,” officials said in a statement.
“There is no situation in which an officer can intentionally grab and destroy a camera being used to lawfully record law enforcement,” said Hector Villagra, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California. “The officer’s conduct is a blatant and deliberate violation of the Constitution and his duties as an officer to abide by the law.”
In the video, Paez is shown standing on the sidewalk aiming a cellphone toward two men standing a short distance away, wearing black shirts with tactical vests reading “Police” across the back. As the men stand with their backs to the woman, she can be heard saying “You are making me feel unsafe, and I have a right to be here” and “You need to stay away from me, I don’t feel safe with you closer to me,” among other statements.
Paez said Tuesday that the men had noticed her recording moments earlier and began to back up toward her to block her view. About 27 seconds into the video, a third man, a deputy U.S. marshal wearing a tactical vest and carrying a rifle, walks across a front lawn toward the sidewalk where Paez is standing.
Paez appears to aim her phone toward the deputy as one of the other men motions toward her with his arm. The words spoken at this point in the recording are unintelligible.
At 32 seconds, Paez takes a couple of steps away from the men. The deputy marshal crossing the lawn then rushes toward her and grabs the device from her hand.
“Oh! No! Don’t do that!” Paez is heard yelling as the man wrestles the device out of her hand and smashes it on the ground.
The phone’s screen was shattered and the device stopped working, said Paez’s attorney, Colleen Flynn. They plan to try to recover the video Paez was recording from the phone’s chip, Flynn said.
Paez said she began recording when she saw the law enforcement presence, their military-style weapons and a line of people being detained. She said the officers started letting the people they detained go soon after she pulled out her phone and started recording.
“It’s our responsibility to take care of each other,” Paez said. “It’s our constitutional right to film.”
Times staff writer Richard Winton contributed to this report.
The map below tracks what we know, based on press reports and publicly available documents, about the use of stingray tracking devices by state and local police departments. Following the map is a list of the federal law enforcement agencies known to use the technology throughout the United States. The ACLU has identified 51 agencies in 21 states and the District of Columbia that own stingrays, but because many agencies continue to shroud their purchase and use of stingrays in secrecy, this map dramatically underrepresents the actual use of stingrays by law enforcement agencies nationwide.
Stingrays, also known as "cell site simulators" or "IMSI catchers," are invasive cell phone surveillance devices that mimic cell phone towers and send out signals to trick cell phones in the area into transmitting their locations and identifying information. When used to track a suspect's cell phone, they also gather information about the phones of countless bystanders who happen to be nearby. Click here for more info on stingrays.
Please sign and share everywhere guys,Australia needs a Bill of Rights
urgently save our rights before the government takes every last one of
them!
We
the Australian people call on the Australian government at all levels
to support a national referendum for a “Bill of Rights” for every
Australian, to be attached to our constitution, and become retrospective
on all legislation.
When our forefathers debated and introduced our Constitution, they
expected our common law system of adjudication would fill in the gaps in
respect of our civil and human rights, never expecting they would have
to protect the Australian people from their own government undermining
our liberty through socially engineered legislative reforms that
overstep our most basic freedoms and liberties.
The construction of the Bill, must be by way of genuine community
consultation, and be put to the people by way of referendum, so that it
can become protected by our constitution and become an important part of
our national curriculum.
The base wording will be the use of the United nations declaration of
human rights V The Australian Bill or Rights collation by Mark
Aldridge, link attached.
A bill of rights will empower the liberty of our people, the rights
of future generations and will act to define the actions of our
legislators and our judiciary, to restore our basic freedoms, natural
justice and informed democratic process.
We the undersigned expect our elected members to do our will, that
being the addition of a bill of rights to the Australian Consitution of
1901. http://www.markmaldridge.com/BILL-OF-RIGHTS-FOR-AUSTRALIA.html
Letter to
Leader Of The Opposition Bill Shorten
Tony Abbott the Prime Minister The Australian Federal Government
To attach a bill of rights to our constitution by referendum.
OFF THE WIRE
Martial Law & Gun Confiscation - Gun Registration - A reminder from New Orleans
Martial Law in Boston and Gun confiscation in New Orleans? It's happened before and will happen again! In
the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, local authorities in New Orleans
set out to confiscate all firearms in the region. By doing so they
created "gun free zones" where only criminals & law enforcement were
armed. These officials seemed oblivious to the principle that, "gun
laws only take guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens". Criminals
don't obey the law. Criminals take advantage of situations where people
are unable to defend themselves.
Watch this video, produced by the NRA, telling the stories of the citizens on New Orleans. https://youtu.be/1Q2BXH0JfOc
Checkpoint is on Poway and Oak Knoll Roads heading into Poway as of 9:00PM
Deputies from
the the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department's Poway station will be
holding a DUI checkpoint from 7 p.m. Friday to 3 a.m. Saturday in Poway.
The
purposes of the checkpoint are to educate the public about dangers of
driving under the influence of drugs and alcohol, to serve as a
deterrent to potentially impaired drivers and to provide the important
service of promoting public safety, according to a press release from
the San Diego Sheriff's Department.
The deputies will be focusing
on apprehending people operating motor vehicles while intoxicated and/or
under the influence of drugs, driving while unlicensed, or driving with
a suspended or revoked license.
This checkpoint is funded by a
grant from the California Office of Traffic Safety. The California
Office of Traffic Safety joins the San Diego County Sheriff's Department
in urging the public to call 911 to report drunk drivers.
Congress has taken the first and perhaps historic step toward phasing out the 20-year-or-bust retirement system the U.S. military has used to shape and retain its career forces since the end of World War II. The replacement plan, as endorsed by the House armed services' personnel subcommittee, is a blended system that would cut by 20 percent the value of future force annuities in return for an added tool to build nest eggs earlier — 401(k)-like Thrift Savings Plan with government matching of service member TSP contributions. Get more details on this plan by reading this week's Military Update.
Congress on Thursday took a first, perhaps historic step toward phasing out the 20-year-or-bust retirement system the U.S. military has used to shape and retain its career forces since the end of World War II.
The replacement plan, as endorsed by the House armed services’ personnel subcommittee, is a blended system that would cut by 20 percent the value of future force annuities in return for an added tool to build nest eggs earlier — a 401(k)-like Thrift Savings Plan with government matching of service member TSP contributions.
The enhanced TSP, with matching of monthly deposits of up to five percent basic pay, would provide something the current High-3 plan cannot: portable retirement benefits available not only to careerists but most of the 83 percent of service members who leave service short of 20 years.
To ensure enough members stay for careers, the blended plan also would offer at the 12-year mark a continuation payment, to be paid usually as a lump sum equal at least to 2.5 percent times monthly basic pay, if members will commit to serving four more years. At 16 years, the pull of an immediate lifetime annuity at 20, even though reduced, still should be effective, according to force modeling tools.
The personnel subcommittee, led by Rep. Joe Heck (R-Nev.), would mandate the revised retirement plan for anyone entering service for the first time on or after Oct. 1, 2017. Members already in service, or reentering the military after that date, would be given the choice to stay under the current High-3 retirement plan or opt in to the blended plan.
The House panel endorses all but two features for reforming retirement that the Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission unveiled in January. Heck and colleagues rejected the idea of allowing members on date of retirement to accept a lump sum rather than full or partial military annuities until age 67.
The lump sum was to give new retirees a cash-out option until old age to be able to buy a home or start a business years before actual retirement. It would have saved the government money over time. It seems Heck and colleagues feared potential financial disasters that could befall retirees who would trade 20 or more years of inflation-adjusted annuities for ready cash.
For members eyeing longer careers, the House panel also rejected the commission’s premise of ending government matching of TSP contributions at the 20-year mark. The House panel plan would allow matching to continue through 30 years of service. This would lower projected cost savings from the new plan by about $150 million a year.
Still the blended plan, by encouraging both active and reserve component members to use markets to grow part of their own retirement, is expected to lower Defense Department retirement costs by more than $30 billion through 2021. Annual steady state savings, in 2016 dollars, would be $8.5 billion when fully implemented in 2047.
Both critics and some commissioners had advised lawmakers to provide government matching of TSP contributions beyond 20 years. Otherwise, lifetime benefits for longer-serving members would be significantly reduced compared to current benefits under High-3 plan.
But even without matching past 20 years, the commission said its blended plan still would allow the services to sustain force profiles — that is, keep desired numbers and quality of personnel out to 30 years. So the step taken by House panel is to quell complaints or ensure more fairness across generations of retirees and not a move to ensure career force requirements.
The retirement reforms are found in the personnel section of a draft fiscal 2016 defense authorization bill that the full House Armed Services Committee will vote on next week. Rep. Max Thornberry (R-Tex.), chairman of the full committee, said Senate colleagues also are ready to take up retirement reforms as endorsed by the commission after two years of study.
Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), personnel subcommittee chair, have signaled they believe military retirement needs to be modernized.
The current plan, adopted in 1945, provides an immediate annuity equal to 50 percent of basic pay after 20 years of service. Annuities climb by another 2.5 percent of basic pay for each year served beyond 20.
The blended plan would provide only 40 percent of basic pay after 20 years and two percent more for each added year served. Thus the new plan would pay 60 percent of basic pay after 30 years versus 75 percent.
Blended plan participants, however, automatically would be enrolled in a TSP with government matching and be fully vested in the account balance after only two years service. Enrollment would be automatic with members having to opt out annually to avoid making even minimum contributions and matching. The services would have to develop financial education plans to ensure members understand TSP investment options and other factors impacting their financial health.
Most current members with 12 or more years of service would be expected to decline the new plan. They wouldn’t be eligible for the continuation payment and older careerists would not have enough service years remaining to build TSP balances big enough to cover the 20 percent hit to immediate annuities after 20 years or more service.
Still, the commission estimates 40 percent of the current force would switch to the blended plan. Some military associations criticize it for offering new benefits to those who leave early by lowering retired pay of future careerists. They also worry too much of the burden and risk of securing a robust retirement will shift to individuals. They argue too that portability of TSP accounts could create force retention challenges particularly in times of sustain conflict or booming civilian job markets.
The House panel appears to accept commission arguments that TSP options are relatively safe and conservative, that even careerists stand to gain in total lifetime benefits if they are steady, informed and disciplined fund investors, and that a good education programs will ensure that most are.
Meanwhile, rather than leave service with no retirement, the typical enlisted at four years could have a TSP worth $4400, assuming they contribute four percent of basic pay and see average annual returns of 7.3 percent, the return rate on TSP overall since 2001, the commission said.
The typical enlisted member who serves eight years, under the same assumptions, would have savings of $13,000, it said. An officer after four years could leave with almost $8500 or, after eight years, with $26,000.
To comment, write Military Update, P.O. Box 231111, Centreville, VA, 20120 or email milupdate@aol.com or twitter: @Military_Update
OFF THE WIRE
By The Free Thought Project
Are you ready to be educated? These simple steps could save your butt in an "isolated incident" with a "bad apple".
Learn more: http://bit.ly/1HEu3Uh
image: http://www.youredm.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/festivallawyer1-759x449.jpg?d3f58d CAMERON BOWMAN | YourEDM
I am a criminal defense attorney with the firm Valencia, Ippolito and
Bowman in San Jose, California, I am not only a former prosecutor but a
former DJ and drummer and an avid festival goer. I combine my two
passions (The Law and Music) in my column, “The Festival Lawyer”.
The, “Festival Lawyer” is an ongoing column giving festival goers
practical advice about their rights in any encounter with the police.
The column also discusses harm reduction and other safety issues
relevant to the festival community. My idea for “The Festival Lawyer explains in less than two minutes”
video series is to outline some simple steps you can take to safeguard
your Constitutional Rights in a variety of situations. Although geared
primarily for festival goers, these tips actually apply to anyone,
anywhere.
The first video in my series outlines the five steps you need to take to keep your phone free from unwanted police searches.
STEP ONE – KNOW YOUR RIGHTS
“THIS IS A PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT……WITH GUITAR…” Know Your Rights – The Clash
A negative encounter with a police officer can become a tense and
scary situation if not handled correctly. It’s important to stay calm
and not escalate the situation. Learning and then politely using a few
key legal phrases can make it much easier for you to stand up for your
rights. But before you can enforce your rights, you have to know what
they are. Or to put it another way: “As a practical matter, not knowing your rights and not having any rights are the same thing.” Festival Lawyer 2015
Last June, in a case called Riley v. California, the Supreme Court gave everyone an important new 4th Amendment right that they may not know about. The Riley court
ruled that the police now are required to get a search warrant before
they can search a suspect’s cell phone after arrest. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/26/us/supreme-court-cellphones-search-privacy.html?_r=0
Now normally, the police don’t need a search warrant to go through
your property after you have been arrested. Legally speaking, the
idea is that you’ve given up your normal privacy rights since you are
on your way to jail. Also, law enforcement needs to check you for
weapons and make sure you don’t have evidence that can be destroyed. A
warrantless search like this is called a, “Search incident to
arrest.” Up until the Supreme Court’s ruling in Riley, a lot of
courts took the position that cell phones were covered under this
“Incident to arrest” exception. These courts ruled that there was no
real difference between a person’s cell phone and a wallet or purse and
officers were allowed to search them all without a search warrant.
On the other hand, some courts took the position that cellphones are
more like mini computers. Police are generally required to get a search
warrant before searching the contents of a home computer. This is due
to the extremely private nature of the information housed on them.
In Riley, the Supreme Court sided with privacy advocates and
civil libertarians on this issue. Because of the sensitive private
matters that might be on a person’s phone, the Supreme court ruled that
it is more appropriate to require the police to get a warrant before
searching them. ( (PS, don’t act like you don’t know what
I’m talking about when I say “sensitive private matters”…. Most of you
wouldn’t let your spouse or friends go through your cellphone let alone a
police officer!!)
As Chief Justice Roberts explained in the court’s decision:
“Modern cellphones are not just another technological
convenience….With all they contain and all they may reveal they hold for
many, ‘the privacies of life.” The fact that the the cell phones are
mobile doesn’t change the fact that this is exactly the type of private
information the 4th Amendment is meant to protect.”
For police looking to search a suspect’s cell phone, Roberts had one simple instruction:
“Our answer to the question of what police must do
before they search a cell phone seized incident to an arrest is
accordingly simple - get a warrant.”
Okay so now that you know that you have a new constitutional right,
how do you go about protecting it? It’s important to realize that most
of the time, cops don’t want to bother with getting a search warrant for
a phone. Instead, they will normally just ask the owner to give them
permission to search it.
Therefore the simplest tip I can give you is to NEVER give the police permission to search your phone.
I can hear you saying, Never?! Really? Never? …As in never ever?
Yes, never ever. Or to paraphrase Nigel Tufnel, “None more never”
The Supreme Court has ruled that it is your absolute and complete
right to say “NO’ to a search of a phone. So, a police officer who asks
you for permission to search your phone is basically saying, “Hi, mind
if I violate your Constitutional Rights by rummaging through your
personal property ?”
Remember, the Supreme Court’s ruling in Riley specifically addresses
searches performed during an arrest. So if you are not under arrest –
say you got pulled over for a traffic citation – then the police have
even less right to search your phone.
The important point is that if you give the police permission to
search your cell phone you can’t later go back and argue about their
actions. You’ve waived your right to object. On the other hand, If you
refuse, the police can still search the phone, but now they have to
justify their search to a judge and show they have probable cause for
the search.
That’s why, legally speaking, there is just no good reason for you
to agree to ever let the police go on a “fishing expedition” of ANY of
your personal property.
If you are asked if you consent to a search, say clearly and firmly
“I DO NOT CONSENT TO A SEARCH OF THIS PHONE”
People sometimes worry that saying no to a police officer is going to
make them “Look guilty.” But If the police are detaining or arresting
you,how it looks is really the least of your problems. As the great
Saul Goodman put it, “It’s getting arrested that makes you look guilty”
As I mentioned in the article, it is super nerve racking remembering
what to do and say in an encounter with the police. Therefore we’ve
created a lock screen with some of the key legal phrases you may need
in a police encounter available as a download lock screen here
STEP THREE – ADD A PASSWORD TO YOUR PHONE FOR EXTRA SAFETY
As an additional protection, I recommend adding a password to your
phone. Under the 5th Amendment of the Constitution you have a right not
to incriminate yourself. If the police ask you for your password or try
to force you to reveal your PIN, that may end up violating your right
against self-incrimination.
The law in this area is a little tricky. You see, the right against self-incrimination says that you can’t be forced totestify against yourself. But courts have ruled that you can be forced to give physical evidence against yourself, like giving a DNA sample or a voice examplar.
That’s why the police are allowed to force a suspect to stand in a
physical lineup and say “Hand me the keys you f*cking c*cksuckers” with
a bunch of other “Usual Suspects” without running into a 5th Amendment
issue. (Unedited, super unsafe for work language scene here..)
I suggest adding a password to your phone rather than just going
with a fingerprint ID because of this potential issue. It’s not that
there is anything wrong with a fingerprint ID. In fact, they are
wonderfully convenient. However, at least one court out there has
ruled that forcing a suspect to use their fingerprint to open a phone
doesn’t constitute “testimony” and therefore doesn’t implicate the 5th
Amendment.
As the court wrote:
“In this case, the defendant cannot be compelled to
produce his passcode to access his smartphone, but he can be compelled
to produce his fingerprint to do the same.”
As always, YOU are always in the best position to know what to
do in a particular situation legally and practically speaking given
all the facts and the law of your jurisdiction. This is particularly
true when it comes to the issue of recording the police.
On the one hand, recording the police is easily the most effective
way to document a bad encounter with them. Recording a bad interaction
preserves the truth of what happened and can provide evidence for your
lawyer if you have to go to court later. I have personally seen clients
exonerated through the use of cellphone footage on numerous prior
occasions.
On the other hand, the decision to start recording a police officer
can seriously inflame an already tense situation. Officers who see a
recording device may feel their authority is being challenged in some
way.
Police officers have a great deal of discretion as to who they arrest
and why. In the court system, attorneys sometimes use the term,
“contempt of cop” to describe a situation where an officer arrests
someone for a charge like “interfering with an arrest” or “drunk in
public” for essentially failing the attitude test with the officer. Your
personal assessment of when to start recording the police is going to
depend on a lot of factors including your own comfort level and the
nature of your encounter. But it’s important to get the legal knowledge
ahead of that decision. That way when you do record, you know how to do
so legally and safely.
The always great Steve Silverman of flexyourrights.org has an excellent video on what you need to know legally and practically before video taping a police encounter.
Step 5 – DOWNLOAD A STREAMING APP FOR YOUR PHONE
Okay, so you have done your research in Step 4. If you do you choose
to video record the police, you will also want to download a streaming
application.That way, you don’t have to worry about the police
confiscating your phone or your evidence being lost or destroyed in some
manner. Flex Your Rights as well as copblock.org recommendBambuser
for this purpose. Bambuser is an mobile video streaming platform that
allows users to stream and share live video using your smart phone.
I found Bambuser very easy to download and use. It allows you to
either stream “live” or save for later uploading, allows you to
broadcast in public or private,and share to most social networks easily. Bambuser: Cost: Free Download: Android Download: iOS More: http://bambuser.com/broadcasts
I’ve also heard good things about this streaming app FiVo Film Cost: $1.99 Download: Android, Download: iOS More: http://fivofilm.com/
FINAL POINTS – LEGAL DISCLAIMER
Reminder. I am an attorney but I am not YOUR attorney. Nothing here
should make you think that I am giving you legal advice or that I am
establishing an attorney-client relationship. The point of these
articles and videos is to get you started on learning the law for
yourself. Now go take action. Lock down your phone and make it “Fest Law
Approved.” Be sure to tell your festival buddies .
As always, If you have ideas on how to share this information or how to improve the next video please contact me at @ info@festivallawyer.com
#besafehavefun
Read more at http://thefreethoughtproject.com/prosecutor-teaches-protect-phone-police-2-minutes/#rTQbVdlIVzrwIlPU.99
Recent research has confirmed what many motorcycle riders have known
for years. "Lane splitting" – or riding in between lanes of traffic –
obviously saves riders a lot of time, but it's also considerably safer
than sitting in traffic and acting like a car, as long as it’s done
within certain guidelines, and contrary to what many drivers think, it
actually speeds up traffic for everyone else on the road. Riders, please
pass this information on to the drivers in your lives.
It’s time for certain drivers to get these thoughts out of their
heads: "lane splitting is queue jumping," "motorcyclists should have to
wait in line like the rest of us," "riding in between cars is suicidal."
While it’s illegal in most of the United States, it’s accepted in many
other parts of the world, and evidence is mounting that lane splitting
is safer for riders than sitting in traffic, and actually benefits car
drivers as well as the riders themselves.
Safety benefits of lane splitting for motorcyclists
One of the key arguments against lane splitting is that, to many
driver’s eyes, it seems like a dangerous practice. From a rider’s
perspective, this couldn’t be further from the truth.
The most common type of accident on the road is a rear-ender. These make up 40 percent of all accidents
in the United States, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration. And while most of these are minor fender benders between
car drivers, there’s really no such thing as a minor fender bender if
someone slams into the back of a motorcycle. By splitting between lanes,
riders are able to put a shell of slow or stopped traffic around their
bikes and protect against the inattention of other road users.
In a recent Berkeley study
undertaken with the California Highway Patrol’s assistance, 7,836
motorcycle crashes were examined closely, with some 1,163 of these
crashes having occurred while the rider was lane splitting.
Riders who were splitting at the time of their accident were
significantly less likely to be injured in every category than those who
weren’t: 45 percent fewer head injuries, 21 percent fewer neck
injuries, 32 percent fewer torso injuries, 12 percent fewer arm/leg
injuries, and 55 percent fewer fatalities.
This is quite possibly because the majority of those splitting
accidents happened at speeds between 1 and 30 mph (50 km/h). The data
also shows that the safest way to lane split is to travel at less than
30 mph, and less than 10 mph above the speed of the surrounding traffic.
Injury rates leap up in all categories when both of these conditions
are violated.
Benefits of lane splitting for other road users
Lane splitting is an unspoken contract between riders and drivers.
Riders don’t wait for stopped cars, and in return, they don’t make the
cars wait for them. Where many drivers get it wrong is that they see
lane splitting as "queue jumping" that will cause each car to go one
further spot back in the queue. In truth, a filtering bike disappears
from the queue altogether, the only time a motorcycle holds a car up is
when it sits in traffic and acts like another car.
Filtering bikes work their way to the front of stopped traffic at red
lights, and accelerate away much quicker than the cars around them.
When they reach the next stoppage, they disappear again between the
lanes and no car is held up.
Certainly, this is a good deal for the rider, who arrives much
earlier than the car driver. But every filtering rider has a positive
effect on traffic flow that benefits every other motorist. A 2012 Belgian study
found that if just 10 percent of drivers were to switch to motorcycles
and filter through traffic, travel times would decrease for the
remaining car drivers by some eight minutes per journey. This benefit
would not exist if motorcyclists ignored the inherent advantages of
their smaller, narrower vehicles and sat in line like cars.
The same study
found considerable environmental benefits to lane splitting. Not
because bikes emit less carbon (many larger bikes are as bad as cars),
but because every bike that lane splits actively reduces the amount of
time every other vehicle on the road spends sitting in traffic jams.
So the next time a rider wriggles past you in traffic, remember that
it’s a win-win. The rider is saving time and money, and looking after
their own safety, but they’re also making everyone else’s journey
faster. So give them some space, for your own sake.
OFF THE WIRE
You gotta fight for your right to ... film cops on the job.
Rights don't always come easy. Beatriz Paez was exercising hers when a U.S. Marshal violently snatched her cellphone, threw it down, and kicked it.
It happened last weekend in Paez's South Gate neighborhood. The Marshal and other law enforcement officers were reportedly serving warrants on alleged biker gang members at a nearby home when she started videotaping the action from a sidewalk.
Paez later said that the lawman warned her that she was too close, but she claimed to reporters that she was a few houses down from the action.
You do have the right to record the cops in public, but you can't interfere with investigations. The area between the two is somewhat gray.
This much we know: Filming the police has led to countless revelations about conduct and overuse of force that might not otherwise seen the light of day. It appears that Paez was doing the right thing before she was thwarted.
Luckily, a neighbor was also capturing the situation on video (below) shot through a home window.
The ugly episode has inspired South Bay U.S. Rep. Janice Hahn to draft a resolution to "officially, publicly and collectively reaffirm the rights of citizens to film law enforcement officers," she said in a statement this week.
If U.S. Congress says you have the right to film cops on the street, you have a right to film cops on the street. Unfortunately, there are police who have yet to receive the memo.
In the case of the U.S. Marshal, Hahn is calling for a federal investigation. She says:I have called on the U.S. Attorney General to launch an independent investigation by the Department of Justice into this matter so the public can have confidence that the marshals will be held accountable, and I want all law enforcement officers to receive training and instructions to respect the rights of citizens to film police activity.
Paez expressed shock at the Marshal's actions and quickly lawyered up. She plans to file a civil rights suit against authorities.
A U.S. Marshal's Service official told us previously that superiors were aware of the video and would look into it.
Hahn said she was "alarmed and upset" by the lawman's actions:
I condemn the actions of the U.S. marshal who violently and improperly responded by destroying Ms. Paez’s property, terrifying her and denying her rights.
Illinois just quietly passed a law that makes it a felony to record the police without consent
In most states it is completely
legal to record police when they are on duty. It's a basic right that
keeps the government accountable. But Illinois just passed a vague law
that discourages people from recording interactions with police by
making it a felony in certain situatons, adding jail time if a person
"eavesdrops" on a police officer. This could be a dangerous trend unless
we stop it now.
Sign the petition to Illinois Governor Pat Quinn:
"We have a First Amendment right to record
interactions with law
enforcement and government officials. Don't make Illinois a
Constitution-free zone. Veto the Amendment to SB 1342. There should be
no increased penalty when people record police and government officials,
and no expanded powers for law enforcement to eavesdrop without a
warrant."
At a time when people nationwide are calling for
more transparency from police, politicians in Illinois want to make it
more illegal to record them.
People from across the political spectrum agree that the
government needs to be accountable and transparent. The right to film
and record law enforcement and government officials is a basic freedom that protects us from abuse.
The U.S. is having an important conversation about police violence right now, in large part because people are able to record acts of abuse and share them freely on the Internet and with the media.
Follow us for breaking updates on this campaign!
But the legislature of Illinois just hastily passed
an amendment to a completely unrelated bill that would make it
increased felony to record police, prosecutors, or other officials when
they have a "reasonable expectation of privacy." i would change But the
bill doesn't define what
that means, which creates a chilling effect and means the law can be
used selectively. This leaves Illinois residents in doubt about whether
or not they have the right to record their interactions with law
enforcement. In March, the Illinois Supreme Court declared
the state's eavesdropping law unconstitutional, specifically because it
interfered with the public's right to record police. The new law is just as bad:
by imposing stricter rules on recording police interactions than other
interactions, the law discourages the public from exercising their
rights.
Similarly vague laws have caused problems in other states. In May, a Massachusetts woman was charged with "wiretapping" for recording a police officer who was arresting her.
The ACLU of Illinois is less concerned than us about the felony
enhancement, but they point out another extremely troubling aspect of
this Amendment: it greatly expands the circumstances in which a law enforcement officer or informant can secretly record conversations without a warrant.
Read the full text of the Amendment here.
Please share this page widely with your friends and family. Sign the
petition and call Governor Quinn at 312-814-2121 to ask him to Veto the
Amendment to SB 1342.
As reported last week, Senator Chuck Grassley has rekindled a debate over whether veterans who cannot manage their own benefits should be considered “mentally defective” by the FBI and barred from buying guns.
Veterans in the VA’s Fiduciary Program are automatically flagged and it turns out that over 99% of the names the FBI’s database came from the Department of Veterans Affairs. Veterans whose names are on the list are barred from buying guns under the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act. Veterans can regain the right to manage their benefits, but it’s a lengthy and complicated process.
In his letter, Grassley writes, “Under the current practice, a VA finding that concludes that a veteran requires a fiduciary to administer benefit payments effectively voids his Second Amendment rights — a consequence which is wholly unrelated to and unsupported by the record developed in the VA process.”
What do you think? Is a declaration that a vet is incapable of managing his or her own benefits enough of a red flag to warrant a ban on buying guns? Does the Fiduciary Program work and are its decisions fair? Should people with mental health issues be prevented from buying weapons? Or is that provision of the Brady bill a violation of the Second Amendment? Sound off below!
When
most Americans look back on the birth of Freedom in the Americas, they
always look to that one fateful day in July of 1775. While yes, the
United States marks the first successful attempt at creating a free
nation, it was not the only one. Earlier in that same century, on a
little island in the Caribbean, a small nation arose opposed to the
monarchs across the ocean: The Pirate’s Republic.
Now, contrary
to popular belief, most Pirates of the Republic were not simply
bloodthirsty killers and rapists. No, they were ordinary men, trained
and experienced in warfare, that were cast off by their host nations
when they were no longer needed. These were men and women who had been
made for war and discarded in peace.
You can imagine how that
felt (And yes, because I was let go from the Army due to budget cuts, I
can sympathize). Here were hundreds of men, taken from their homes (In
some cases against their will), sent across the world to fight in wars
they didn’t care for, and simply given orders to cease fire when peace
was declared.
No plan to bring them back, no training program
to integrate them into a peaceful job. Not even a simple “Thank you for
crippling the Spanish Shipping in the West Indies”. They were only told
that peace was declared and left to their own devices.
In all
reality, what did Great Britain expect? They had created a fleet of
“Privateers” in the Caribbean and left them to their own devices. The
ships they were armed with did not have adequate hold space to become
merchant vessels (They also had no prospects of traders), each one was
armed to the teeth and crewed by the most aggressive men the British
could muster. Piracy was not simply a random choice, it was a foregone
conclusion.
The Republic didn’t spring up overnight either. The
Colony of Nassau on New Providence Island was in a poor state even
before Queen Anne’s War. Generations of corrupt officials had ruled the
colony (Including a former pirate), it was central to the major shipping
lanes at the time, and there was little care given by the crown to the
fledgling city in the Caribbean.
Due to the extreme lawlessness
and chaos on the island, a combined force of French and Spanish ships
attacked and basically destroyed the colony in 1703. Undaunted, the
inhabitants returned from their inland hideaways and rebuilt. With no
effective leadership, it became an even greater threat to their
neighbors still loyal to the crown.
As the Pirates of New
Providence became more successful, their names began to be known. Former
Privateer Benjamin Hornigold was one of the many Pirate Captains the
island looked towards for Leadership. In time, his first mate, Edward
Teach (A.K.A. Blackbeard) would be named Magistrate, with their rival
Henry Jennings being named Counsel next to Hornigold.
The three
infamous Captains would spawn a whole conglomeration of successful
pirates, including “Calico” Jack Rackham, Stede Bonnet (The Gentleman’s
Pirate), “Black” Sam Bellamy, Mary Read and the most famous, Charles
Vane. By 1716, the Pirates Republic had transformed from a mass of chaos
and disorder into a nation to be feared by all.
Core of Liberty
What truly made the Republic successful was its complete lack of
strict governance. Each Captain was expected to keep their men in line
with no real governance from above. Edward Teach was given leave to
enact his own laws and enforce them on the island, but in the spirit of
freedom he held so dear, his laws were mostly born from common sense and
not controlling his “subjects”.
Even more astonishingly was
how well this system of chaos actually worked. Captains were not simply
the owners of their vessels, they were elected by the crews that manned
them. Anyone, regardless of national origin, religion or even sex could
be voted in as a ship’s captain. The Pirate’s Republic saw the first
self-freed slaves as Captains while the rest of the world was still
keeping Africans in chains.
Anne Bonny and Mary Read were the
most famous female pirates, but they were not the only ones. However,
they were the only two to be captured, tried and convicted of Piracy,
but their ultimate fate is unknown. Neither were Captains though, as
they both served under Jack Rackham and were captured when his ship was
surprised by a British Patrol Vessel.
Captains could only
maintain their position so long as they remained profitable to their
crew. A Captain who couldn’t find vessels to plunder or wouldn’t lead
his men into battle might find himself adrift in the Atlantic or
ship-less once they returned to Nassau.
Many Captains ruled by
not only success, but fear as well. Edward Teach once shot his
Quartermaster at dinner simply to assert that he was the one in charge.
Although not a member of the Republic, Edward Low single-handedly
butchered a captured crew because their captain tossed a small fortune
in gold overboard; this came after he sliced off the captain’s lips,
cooked them and forced him to eat the still warm flesh in front of both
horrified crews.
Despite this utter lack of control and
disregard for worldly laws, the Republic worked. By 1718, the small
island nation had become a threat the world could no longer ignore.
Millions of Pounds and Pesos had been lost in trade and materials, and
the European Nations were beginning to feel the pinch from this rampant
banditry.
To deal with this threat, the British dispatched
seven war ships to Nassau with a new Governor to oversee a return to
British rule and restore peace to the region. In addition to the small
Fleet of Man-O-Wars, Woodes Rogers was armed with blanket pardons, to
forgive anyone who accepted of all crimes and give them a way to return
to a “normal” life.
At first, it seemed this plan was doomed to
failure. Although Rogers was able to capture Nassau with barely any
fight, most of the Pirates of the Republic fled to the wind in his wake
thanks to Charles Vane (Who used a French Vessel as a Fire Ship to break
through the Blockade). However, Benjamin Hornigold, who had refused to
attack British Shipping in his career as a Pirate, accepted the Pardon
and was contracted as a Pirate Hunter, turning on his former comrades
and seeking a life under the crown once more.
The Beginning of the End
Outnumbered and vastly outgunned, the former self-proclaimed rulers
in the New World eventually gave in and were either captured or accepted
the King’s Pardon. Charles Vane would prove the die hard and continued
to defy the crown. After escaping Nassau and attempting to emulate
Blackbeard’s famous Blockade of Charleston earlier in 1718, he began to
formulate a plan to retake Nassau from the British and recreate the
Republic he held so dear.
His plan called for a last gathering
of some of the most notorious pirates of the Republic, including their
former Magistrate, Edward Teach. Unfortunately for the Republic,
Blackbeard had accepted the King’s Pardon and retired to a semi-peaceful
life after losing his prize ship, the Queen Anne’s Revenge, to a
sandbar.
Undaunted, Vane, in spirit the last of the Republic,
with Rackham as his second mate (with Mary Read and Anne Bonny in his
crew), sailed towards New York to plunder the rich shipping there. On
their voyage northwards they encountered a small Brig and decided to
attack. Unfortunately, the Brig wasn’t simply a merchant vessel, but a
French Warship, forcing Vane to break off his attack and run.
This would prove Vane’s downfall. Jack Rackham used this failed attack
as leverage to launch his own mutiny against Charles, casting his adrift
with fifteen of his loyal crewmen and stealing his vessel. Vane would
end up marooned and eventually captured by the British, while Rackham
would be surprised and captured as well.
Simultaneously,
Blackbeard would exit his semi-retirement and be killed after a
shortened reign of terror off the Carolina Coast. It wouldn’t be the
noose for Teach however, and by all accounts it took five gunshots and
twenty saber wounds to finally bring him down.
Stede Bonnet,
who had apprenticed under Teach, would be captured that same year as
well. Although he had taken the pardon as well, he found the life he had
come to adopt as his own was too profitable (By trade, Bonnet was a
plantation owner). During his trial, many of his victims had pleaded for
mercy, as among all the pirates of his time, he was by far the most
polite towards captured crews, never killing unless it was absolutely
necessary. The Gentleman’s Pirate met his fate to the hangman’s noose in
Charleston.
Even Benjamin Hornigold, who had turned against
his former comrades, would not live to see the decade turn. While
hunting Stede Bonnet and Jack Rackham, his ship was caught in one of the
Bahamas notorious hurricanes, and his vessel was lost with all hands.
In fact, he didn’t make it more than a few months as a Pirate Hunter
before finding a new home at the bottom of the ocean.
With all
of their fates sealed, the Pirate’s Republic, bereft of a home and no
members alive, ended. Although Piracy would continue to be a thorn in
the side of the ruling powers for decades to come, the Captains who
chose this life were confined to small safe havens spread throughout the
Americas, never again uniting under a single banner.
It would
be over half a century until another attempt to bring freedom and
liberty to the Americas was attempted, and this one was much more
successful than the first. The founding fathers of the United States can
claim to be the creators of the first successful cry of independence;
they were not the only ones. The Pirates of New Providence Island set
the template that others would follow, and paid for their attempt with
their lives.
History has both demonized and romanticized the
bandits of the Pirates Republic, painting conflicting pictures of who
they truly were. But above all, aside from thieves and murderers, they
were ordinary men and women, who threw off their shackles (In some cases
literally) and declared themselves free of foreign rule. And although
separated by race, creed or even sex, they were all united in their
desire to be free men and women of the Americas, decades before the
Founding Fathers were even born.
“If you believe in
freedom of speech, you believe in freedom of speech for views you don’t
like. Goebbels was in favor of free speech for views he liked. So was
Stalin. If you’re really in favor of free speech, then you’re in favor
of freedom of speech for precisely the views you despise. Otherwise,
you’re not in favor of free speech.” ― Noam Chomsky
image:
http://tftppull.freethoughtllc.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Cop-Turned-Lawmaker-Just-Proposed-Making-the-Teasing-of-Cops-ILLEGAL.jpg
Harrisburg, PA — Earlier this week, at the PA state capitol,
lawmakers, police officers and their supporters gathered. This gathering
was held to give themselves a collective pat on the back for the insane
and brutal police state they are complicit in creating. This mass of
government force was aptly called, Law Enforcement Appreciation Day.
Among the festivities, there was the praising of the state’s
immoral war on drugs and a felicitation of the police state and revenue
collection in general.
At such a gathering, this type of self-aggrandizing encouragement of
the police state is to be expected. State Sen. John Rafferty (R), even
came out with his resolution to recognize 2015 as the “Year of the Law Enforcement Officer.”
All fine and dandy, no harm, no foul.
However, one former cop turned Pennsylvania lawmaker, went above and
beyond any rational expectations of tyrannical public speaking when he
called for the termination of free speech.
State Representative and former chief of police of the Pittsburgh
Police Department, Dom Costa (D), came out swinging when he suggested
that he would introduce legislation to protect cops from having their
feelings hurt.
“This nonsense that is going today on where police
officers are being taunted by people and being provoked, let’s face it
we’re all human beings, and eventually that emotion will break. And
that’s what they’re trying to do,” he said, according to Raging Chicken Press.
Costa then suggests that the laws in place that protect police dogs from being taunted should be expanded to officers as well.
“So, what I’ve talked to some of my colleagues and the
senator [Senator Rafferty] is that we have a bill about taunting a
police dog. It’s illegal. There should be out that you can’t taunt a
police officer because you’re going to get those emotions up. I myself
and Representative Vereb are looking at that bill to put it forward in
the House, and I am sure the Senate will follow. Or at least support
that bill.”
Costa wants to use government force to stop people from speaking out
about the use of government force, to protect those who abuse their
monopoly of government force.
In other words, “Shut up and take this tyranny, slave!”
Can you imagine the resultant ridiculousness from police officers being able to arrest someone who hurts their widdle feewings?
We already see cops violate the constitutionally protected act of
raising one’s middle finger by detaining, arresting, kidnapping and
caging folks for giving the bird.
This legislation would not only legalize such tyrannical practices, but it would outlaw speaking out against them.
Being an asshole will not get you any friends, but neither will
forcing assholes to remain silent. In fact, even the most vitriolic and
hate-filled speech must be protected if society is to have any semblance
of freedom.
Dom Costa has crossed a line, and he deserves to know it. While we
still have a little free speech left, let’s use it to let tyrants like
Costa know, that we the people will never be silenced.
Share this article with your friends and then Tweet it at him @RepDomCosta Or leave him some feedback on his Facebook Profile.
I’ll start.
Read more at http://thefreethoughtproject.com/cop-turned-lawmaker-proposed-making-teasing-cops-illegal-no/#KquygwguscM5P7Me.99
Can you imagine the resultant ridiculousness from police officers being able to arrest someone who hurts their widdle feewings?
This is SEROUSLY ridiculous: http://goo.gl/xyjr2L
Former
cop turned State Senator, John Rafferty, wants to limit your freedom of
speech by making it illegal to talk to cops in any way other than with
complete and total respect. This is not a joke. Instead of protecting
our freedoms, this cop wants to make sure you don't have freedom. Make
this guy famous!
Full report: http://bit.ly/1IRxmG6
Via - The Free Thought Project.com
