From the Washington Post:

A former Philadelphia police officer, once hailed as a hero and given a seat next to the first lady at a 2009 speech by President Obama, has been arrested and charged with rape and other crimes.
Authorities allege that Richard DeCoatsworth left a party with two females early Thursday and took them to another location, where they say that he produced a handgun and “forced the two females to engage in the use of narcotics and sexual acts.”
Read More
Photo courtesy of Evan Vucci / AP

From the Washington Post:

A former Philadelphia police officer, once hailed as a hero and given a seat next to the first lady at a 2009 speech by President Obama, has been arrested and charged with rape and other crimes.

Authorities allege that Richard DeCoatsworth left a party with two females early Thursday and took them to another location, where they say that he produced a handgun and “forced the two females to engage in the use of narcotics and sexual acts.”

Read More

Photo courtesy of Evan Vucci / AP

The most objectionable aspect of the regulatory change is the inclusion of vague language that permits military intervention in the event of “civil disturbances.” According to the rule: “Federal military commanders have the authority, in extraordinary emergency circumstances where prior authorization by the President is impossible and duly constituted local authorities are unable to control the situation, to engage temporarily in activities that are necessary to quell large-scale, unexpected civil disturbances.”

Bruce Afran, a civil liberties attorney and constitutional law professor at Rutgers University, calls the rule, “a wanton power grab by the military.” He says, “It’s quite shocking actually because it violates the long-standing presumption that the military is under civilian control.”

A defense official who declined to be named takes a different view of the rule, claiming, “The authorization has been around over 100 years; it’s not a new authority. It’s been there but it hasn’t been exercised. This is a carryover of domestic policy.” Moreover, he insists the Pentagon doesn’t “want to get involved in civilian law enforcement. It’s one of those red lines that the military hasn’t signed up for.” Nevertheless, he says, “every person in the military swears an oath of allegiance to the Constitution of the United States to defend that Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.”

Yeah, that’s worked out so well for police. They practically hate that document. They enforce whatever law is written, regardless if it contradicts an amendment. We’ve heard them say “I’m just doing my job”.

One of the more disturbing aspects of the new procedures that govern military command on the ground in the event of a civil disturbance relates to authority. Not only does it fail to define what circumstances would be so severe that the president’s authorization is “impossible,” it grants full presidential authority to “Federal military commanders.” According to the defense official, a commander is defined as follows: “Somebody who’s in the position of command, has the title commander. And most of the time they are centrally selected by a board, they’ve gone through additional schooling to exercise command authority.”

As it is written, this “commander” has the same power to authorize military force as the president in the event the president is somehow unable to access a telephone. (The rule doesn’t address the statutory chain of authority that already exists in the event a sitting president is unavailable.) In doing so, this commander must exercise judgment in determining what constitutes, “wanton destruction of property,” “adequate protection for Federal property,” “domestic violence,” or “conspiracy that hinders the execution of State or Federal law,” as these are the circumstances that might be considered an “emergency.”

“These phrases don’t have any legal meaning,” says Afran. “It’s no different than the emergency powers clause in the Weimar constitution [of the German Reich]. It’s a grant of emergency power to the military to rule over parts of the country at their own discretion.”

Read More

thefreelioness:

This is in regards to the California father who was beat to death by six cops as he begged for his life.  

A good start towards educating yourself is to read Know Your Rights and Guidelines For Saying No To Police Searches. The sections What A Policeman Can Not Order You To Do and How To Say No are especially informative.

back to top