Burlington Riot Police VS New England Hippies

There is power in our voices, 

There is power in the land, 

Saying yes to the earth 

We say no to tar sand.

In 1968 during the Democratic National Convention police officers in Chicago took unprecedented actions against protesters.  The video footage of violent responses from authority figures against non violent protesters stirred a generation in to action.  In 2012 it seems like every other afternoon we see more and more footage of violent responses from police officers against non violent protesters.  Instead of learning a lesson from 40 years ago we've descended in to a depth of depravity regarding the use of pepper spray, rubber bullets and flash grenades that the flower children from a generation past could have never even fathomed in their worse nightmares.

The last place one would imagine to see police officers dressed like soldiers would be a small ski resort town like Burlington VT.  Sadly this weekend officers dressed ready to fight against the Taliban aimed and shot guns at protesters wearing, to put it kindly, very little.  A woman wearing literally a bikini top and skirt was on the front line staring down the barrel of riot police in bullet proof vests carrying shields, baton and guns.  Is this really necessary?!

According to The Burlington Free Press:

Burlington police in riot gear shot a number of protesters with rubber bullets and pepper-sprayed and hit others as a large, peaceful demonstration turned violent and ugly Sunday afternoon. 

They go on to say:

Demonstrators said police in riot gear, about 25 of them, cleared the driveway forcefully, pushing people into the street. At least two individuals were shot with rubber bullets, and at least two others were sprayed with pepper spray.

“The demonstrators blocked big gigantic buses,” said Bea Bookchin of Burlington, who had attended the earlier demonstration. “so the police slowly pressed against the people. The police moved forward with their shields against people.”

When questioned by a reporter one protester had this to say:

Did the police overreact? 

“Absolutely,”Tokar said. “Their only concern was to get the bus out as quickly as possible, no matter what the consequences.”

The initial tipping point in instigating the violence was, as it so many times seems to be, a complete misunderstanding:

“One policeman tripped,” over a dropped banner, Fernandez said, “and that’s when they began firing. They pepper-sprayed a man who was just standing there. It was a gross overuse of violence,” he said. “It was completely unnecessary.” 

Another protester pondered why the police are so willing to attack their fellow citizens with such little provocation: 

“I want to know why they’re willing to inflict pain,” he continued. “Misunderstanding is met with aggression. It doesn’t make sense. Today we were trying to open up a conversation,” he said. “This is Vermont. We’ve been shut out.”

“The world is messed up, and historically the only thing that has changed things is when people organize,”

Recording the Actions of Police

Any time there is a protest, a violent crime or even just a couple cops on the street harassing a citizen chances are there will be dozens of people within shouting distance with a camera right in their pocket.  In the case of a protest the massive demonstrations almost demand to be captured on film, a violent crime can many times draw out the more depraved individuals who would like to share their disturbing video online and when a police officer is harassing someone unjustly it is not only our right, but our duty to record them and report them to their superiors.

Sadly many MANY individuals have been arrested, beaten, and had their equipment broken or stolen while filming any given police officer.  Washington D.C. Police Chief Cathy Lanier came out July 24th to reiterate the fact that U.S. citizens have every right to film on duty police officers.  Ars Technica reports that:

"A bystander has the same right to take photographs or make recordings as a member of the media," Chief Lanier writes. The First Amendment protects the right to record the activities of police officers, not only in public places such as parks and sidewalks, but also in "an individual’s home or business, common areas of public and private facilities and buildings, and any other public or private facility at which the individual has a legal right to be present."

Lanier says that if an officer sees an individual recording his or her actions, the officer may not use that as a basis to ask the citizen for ID, demand an explanation for the recording, deliberately obstruct the camera, or arrest the citizen. And she stresses that under no circumstances should the citizen be asked to stop recording. 

That applies even in cases where the citizen is recording "from a position that impedes or interferes with the safety of members or their ability to perform their duties." In that situation, she says, the officer may ask the person to move out of the way, but the officer "shall not order the person to stop photographing or recording." 

She also notes that "a person has the right to express criticism of the police activity being
observed.

There is NO reason a cop should take your camera from you unless you specifically allow them to.  

"Consent to take possession of a recording device or medium must be given voluntarily," 

Even if there is deemed to be evidence or contraband inside the camera a superior officer needs to be called in order to circumvent the necessary warrant normally needed to take someones personal possession.  If they do have probable cause to review the contents of your camera:

"photographs or recordings that have been seized as evidence and are not directly related to the exigent purpose shall not be reviewed"

If for any reason the police confiscate your camera they are NOT allowed to delete anything from it.  Chances are what they are attempting to delete is evidence that they were conducting their job inproperly or breaking the law themselves.  The article goes on to say that officers:

"shall not, under any circumstances, erase or delete, or instruct or require any other person to erase or delete, any recorded images or sounds from any camera or other recording device. [Officers] shall maintain cameras and other recording devices that are in Department custody so that they can be returned to the owner intact with all images or recordings undisturbed."

Of course this is all great that the Police Chief announced all of this, so what happens the very next day according to Pixiq:

an undercover cop snatched a cell phone from a man who was recording an investigation in public.

When they finally returned the phone back to Earl Staley later that day, he said his memory card was missing.

Apologist for the police claim that the officer in question may not have known about the "new" rules handed down by the chief.  When in reality these are not new rules at all just her REITERATING the existing laws for ignorant and uneducated police officers who don't care to actually know the laws of their land.  As always this does not reflect on ALL cops, there are many MANY great police officers out there doing their job properly and upholding the laws to the tee.

It's the Steroid Headed Macho Man Dumb Asses who think they can do whatever they want to a U.S. citizen that puts all of their peers in a negative light.  Sadly when things like this happen the officer in question rarely if ever gets even a warning.  The police are allowed to break as many laws as they want in order to make sure no one else even thinks about bending them.  What a truly sad state of affairs we find ourselves in.

Anaheim Police Shooting

"Is Anaheim police really protecting our communities? They're not protecting our communities. They're killing our kids"

 "no justice, no peace" "cops, pigs, murderers"

"The whole system is guilty" "Am I next?"

Facts are still pouring in on this story, but here are the basics according to ABC News as I understand them thus far:

Police were pursuing three suspects into an alley in Anaheim at about 4 p.m. Saturday when they chased 25-year-old Manuel Angel Diaz. The man was confronted by an officer at the front of an apartment complex, where he was shot. Diaz later died in the hospital, while the two other suspects managed to evade the police.

The local community is not happy about how this situation went down.  The fact that the victim was a potential gang member and heroin dealer doesn't deter them from wanting answers as to why this man was shot.  The story goes on to say:

Hours after the shooting, area residents took to the streets, setting a dumpster on fire and tossing rocks and bottles at police officers who were investigating the shooting. As officers attempted to diffuse the unrest, they fired rubber bullets and doused the crowd with pepper spray.

Further instigation of the massive outcry came when:

In the midst of the melee, police released a K-9 dog into the crowd. Video of the scene shows the dog charging at the crowd, which included a woman with a child, before it attacked a man by biting his arm.

The Associated Press reveals more information when they reported:

In the largely Hispanic, working-class neighborhood where 25-year-old Manuel Diaz was killed Saturday afternoon, residents left candles, flowers and posters blasting police and questioned why officers would shoot a man they said was a gang member but didn't have a gun or appear to be committing a crime.

They also added to the story comments from an eye witness:

"He was laying there, dead," Gallardo said, adding that he saw bullet marks in his friend's lower back and neck. "They were searching him — I was like, why are you searching him? He's dead right there."

On Tuesday the protests intensified and according to Christian Science Monitor:

Protesters broke windows of least a half-dozen storefronts in Anaheim on Tuesday and five people were arrested in the second major clash between police and demonstrators since an officer shot dead an apparently unarmed man.

"This is not quite 'The Happiest Place on Earth,' and now the world knows it,"

"If I wore baggy clothes and had a shaved head, would they shoot me, too?"

Backscatter X-Ray Vans

A company called American Science and Engineering is in the news for the recent revelation that they have sold over 500 backscatter x-ray scanners mounted in unmarked vans, the same ones being routinely used in airport security that can see through clothing.  These unidentifiable vans will be and certainly already are roaming American streets and indiscriminately viewing the insides of every vehicle they pass.  Forbes explained the current reach of this invasive technology as such:

“This product is now the largest selling cargo and vehicle inspection system ever”

They also go on to explain the finer details of operations:

The Z Backscatter Vans, or ZBVs, as the company calls them, bounce a narrow stream of x-rays off and through nearby objects, and read which ones come back. Absorbed rays indicate dense material such as steel. Scattered rays indicate less-dense objects that can include explosives, drugs, or human bodies. That capability makes them powerful tools for security, law enforcement, and border control.

Appropriately enough Joe Reiss, president of the company that manufactures the x-ray scanners is so tied up in the money he is making and the promotion of how well his product works that he is incapable of understanding what exactly the word privacy even means.

“From a privacy standpoint, I’m hard-pressed to see what the concern or objection could be,”

Yes it is hard to see what concerns people might have over strangers searching their belongings with an x-ray scanner.  Sounds perfectly normal and acceptable to us all.  As long as there are some strong safeguards and legal framework to keep citizens safe from entrapment and warrant-less searches.  Sadly, American citizens don't have rights anymore, we're all just chattel awaiting our next strip search as the final nail is driven in to the coffin of our privacy:

Just what sort of safeguards might be in place for AS&E’s scanning vans isn’t clear, given that the company won’t reveal just which law enforcement agencies, organizations within the DHS, or foreign governments have purchased the equipment.