Teen Bullying – Awareness

There is no quick question or answer on this topic. I have been asked many of which is starts off the same. Why? As an expert in the field of child behavior, bullying has been around since I was a child  and adults are not much different and are in the workplace. There are many questions and many answers.

Having extensive knowledge of cyber bullying, there are many issues, statistics and indeed resolutions. The percent of teens who have reported being bullied while at school  is 37%  of teens  who bully others. Overall in this nation, 1 out of 4 children get bullied while 95% never report it bulliesslapping and are simply bystanders due to peer pressure or fear they will be bullied themselves. Bullying threaten students’ physical and emotional security at school and can negatively impact their ability to learn.

The best way to address bullying like anything else is to stop it before it starts. There are a number of things school staff can do to make schools safer and prevent bullying. However, there are only about 15% of schools effectively promoting a policy and implementing strategies to curb bullying.

There needs to be an aggressive school preventative policy instituted and intervention efforts around students behavior, including substance use and violence. You may be able to build upon them or integrate bullying prevention strategies.

Conduct assessments in your school to determine how often bullying occurs, where it happens, how students and adults intervene, and whether your prevention efforts and methods are working. I believe that surveillance monitoring is an important solution which documents the bullying behavior and actions.

As evidence, it can be directly addressed to the student and family. It is important for everyone in the community to work together to send a unified message against bullying.

Launching an awareness campaign including social media make the objectives known to the school, parents and community members. Establish a school safety committee to plan, implement, and evaluate your school’s bullying prevention program.

I would suggest hiring a security expert like CRI to install and promote this endeavor. Create a mission statement, code of conduct, rules and a bullying system. These establish a climate in which bullying is not acceptable. disseminate and communicate widely. Establish a school culture of acceptance, tolerance and respect.

Use staff meetings, assemblies, class and parent meetings, newsletters to families, the school website to establish a positive climate at school. Reinforce social interactions and inclusiveness. Enforce and train teachers and staff on the school’s rules and policies. Give them the skills to intervene consistently and appropriately.

Current anti-bullying programs are limited and mostly ineffective. There is no correlation to other teenlaptopprograms like drug abuse and unprotected sex. These programs were established decades ago in school programs whilst anti-bullying was overlooked. Due to the severity of bullying, policies need to be implemented on all school programs in middle school and high school. They also need to be aggressive. In most states, cyber-bullying is considered a crime up to a class C felony.

Parents, teachers, and students learn the dangers of bullying and help students who may be at risk of committing sucasketicide.
In recent years, a series of bullying-related suicides in the US and across the globe have drawn attention to the connection between bullying and suicide. Though too many adults still see bullying as “just part of being a kid,” it is a serious problem that leads to many negative effects for victims, including suicide. Many people may not realize that there is also a link between being a bully and committing suicide.
The statistics on bullying and suicide are alarming:

  • Suicide is the third leading cause of death among young people, resulting in about 4,400 deaths per year, according to the CDC. For every suicide among young people, there are at least 100 suicide attempts. Over 14 percent of high school students have considered suicide, and almost 7 percent have attempted it.
  • Bully victims are between 2 to 9 times more likely to consider suicide than non-victims, according to studies by Yale University
  • A study in Britain found that at least half of suicides among young people are related to bullying
  • 10 to 14 year old girls may be at even higher risk for suicide, according to the study above
  • According to statistics reported by ABC News, nearly 30 percent of students are either bullies or victims of bullying, and 160,000 kids stay home from school every day because of fear of bullying

Bully-related suicide can be connected to any type of bullying, including physical bullying, emotional bullying, cyberbullying, and sexting, or circulating suggestive or nude photos or messages about a person. Some schools or regions have more serious problems with bullying and suicide related to bullying. This may abc newsbe due to an excessive problem with bullying at the school. It could also be related to the tendency of students who are exposed to suicide to consider suicide themselves.

Some of the warning signs of suicide can include:

  • Showing signs of depression, like ongoing sadness, withdrawal from others, losing interest in favorite activities, or trouble sleeping or eating
  • Talking about or showing an interest in death or dying
  • Engaging in dangerous or harmful activities, including reckless behavior, substance abuse, or self injury
  • Giving away favorite possessions and saying goodbye to people
  • Saying or expressing that they can’t handle things anymore
  • Making comments that things would be better without them

If a person is displaying these symptoms, talk to them about your concerns and get them help right away, such as from a counselor, doctor, or at the emergency room. In some cases, it may not be obvious that a teen is thinking about suicide, such as when the suicide seems to be triggered by a particularly bad episode of bullying. In several cases where bullying victims killed themselves, bullies had told the teen that he or she should kill him or herself or that the world would be better without them. Others who hear these types of statements should be quick to stop them and explain to the victim that the bully is wrong.

Other ways to help people who may be considering suicide include:

  • Take all talk or threats of suicide seriously. Don’t tell the person they are wrong or that they have a lot to live for. Instead, get them immediate medical help.
  • Keep weapons and medications away from anyone who is at risk for suicide. Get these items out of the house or at least securely locked up.
  • Parents should encourage their teens to talk about bullying that takes place. It may be embarrassing for kids to admit they are the victims of bullying, and most kids don’t want to admit they have been involved in bullying. Tell victims that it’s not their fault that they are being bullied and show them love and support. Get them professional help if the bullying is serious.
  • It is a good idea for parents to insist on being included in their children’s friends on social networking sites so they can see if someone has posted mean messages about them online. Text messages may be more difficult to know about, so parents should try to keep open communications with their children about bullying.
  • Parents who see a serious bullying problem should talk to school authorities about it, and perhaps arrange a meeting with the bully’s parents. More states are implementing laws against bullying, and recent lawsuits against schools and criminal charges against bullies show that there are legal avenues to take to deal with bullies. If school authorities don’t help with an ongoing bullying problem, local police or attorneys may be able to.

Friends and relatives of suicide victims also need to find someone to talk to as they grieve, especially if they are suffering from depression or suicidal thoughts themselves.

If interested in using my information and/or desire more details and have a speaker come to as school , please contact me through this blog or call directly to 845-362-3433. What makes me part of being an expert? I was bullied most of my child life and survived. There are thousands of children, ages 6-18 they did not survive bullying and committed suicide. You read about them almost everyday. This needs to stop! http://www.thelost.net


Putin is taking center Stage in the Middle East but what is his real agenda?

Moscow’s military campaign in Syria is relying on supply lines that require air corridors through both Iranian and Iraqi air space. The only alternatives are naval supply lines running from Crimea, requiring a passage of up to 10 days round-trip. How long that can be sustained is unclear.

Early on the morning of Sept. 30, a Russian three-star general approached the American embassy in Baghdad, walked past a wall of well-armed Marines, to deliver face-to-face a diplomatic demarche to the United States. His statement was blunt: The Russia military would begin air strikes in neighboring Syria within the hour — and the American military should clear the area immediately.

It was a bout of brinksmanship between two nuclear-armed giants that the world has not seen in decades, and it has revived Cold War levels of suspicion, antagonism and gamesmanship.

With the launch of airstrikes in Syria, Russian President Vladimir Putin instigated a proxy war with the U.S., putting those nation’s powerful militaries in support of opposing sides of the multi-polar conflict. And it’s a huge gamble for Moscow and quite difficult and logistically complex. The Russians don’t have much in the way of long-range power projection capability.

That and other questions about Russian military capabilities and objectives are taking center stage as Putin shows a relentless willingness to use military force in a heavy-handed foreign policy aimed at restoring his nation’s stature as a world power. In that quest, he has raised the specter of resurgent Russian military might — from Ukraine to the Baltics, from Syria to the broader Middle East.

VLADIMIR Putin is preparing to send 150,000 troops to Syria in a bid to wipe out the evil Islamic State once and for all.

The Russian leader is reportedly mounting an enormous military mission to take control of the terror group’s stronghold of Raqqa.

The city is the self-declared capital of ISIS in Syria and is patrolled by as many as 5,000 jihadi members.

Putin is set to mobilize 150,000 reservists who he conscripted into the military earlier this week.


It is very clear that Russia wants to sweep up the west of the country, taking Raqqa and all the oil and gas resources around Palmyra. Putin knows that this is fast becoming a race to Raqqa – to secure the oil fields they need to cleanse the region of insurgents, and the IS capital is vital to do that while Obama stance and strategy is to .

It comes a day after Russian jets obliterated nine ISIS outposts in just 24 hours using bunker-busting bombs.

Russian jets pounded terrorist targets and blew up a command center, potentially killing dozens of fighters.

Confirming the successful raids, Andrei Kartapolov from the Russian army vowed to ramp up the pressure, saying: “We will not only continue strikes… We will also increase their intensity.”

And Russian Defense Ministry spokesman Igor Konashenkov said: “Over the past 24 hours, Sukhoi Su-34 and Su-24M fighter jets have performed 20 sorties and hit nine Islamic State installations.

A bunker-busting BETAB-500 air bomb dropped from a Sukhoi Su-34 bomber near Raqqa has eliminated the command post of one of the terror groups, together with an underground storage facility for explosives and munitions.


These and other highly exact means of attack in recent days have been used to target objects of Islamic State terrorists. It is reported that these command posts, stores of weapons and oil products, workshops where weapons of suicide bombers are made.

Meanwhile a terrorism expert revealed that ISIS have vastly exaggerated their military strength and called on Western leaders to launch a coordinated fightback which would obliterate the hate group.

Has ISIS become its own worst enemy with its campaign of terror against the West, which has prompted an international backlash?

Islamic-State-troops-358823 (1)

Other reports from those strategists say it won’t take very long at all to drive them, if not out of all of Iraq or Syria, then certainly the majority of their territories.

“They will hide in towns, but I would say do not to follow them as they would use innocent civilians as human shields.”

David Cameron initially gave the Russian air strikes a cautious welcome and said the UK would need to look very carefully at Putin’s operations. David Cameron said Russia was targeting anti-Assad rebels over Daesh militants.

David Cameron Has said Russian President Vladimir Putin is making a terrible mistake by sending jets to prop up Syrian tyrant Bashar al-Assad.


The Prime Minister said most of the Russian airstrikes in Syria appeared to have been in areas not controlled by Islamic State but by other opponents of the regime.

He told the BBC the Russians were “backing the butcher Assad, which is a terrible mistake for them and for the world. It is going to make the region more unstable. It will lead to further radicalization and increase terrorism.asaadputin

“I would say to them: ‘Change direction, join us in attacking Isil, but recognize that if we want to have a secure region, we need an alternative leader to Assad’.”

But yesterday he warned the intervention is making the situation worse and helping to support the “butcher” president Bashar Assad.

Separately Mr. Cameron pledged to “beef up” the SAS and double the number of British drones to combat ISIS militants in an interview ahead of today’s Conservative conference.

The Prime Minister said investment in Special Forces and surveillance was essential to meeting the terrorist threat facing the UK.

He revealed that the UK will buy a fleet of 20 new Protector Drones capable of targeting IS extremists in Iraq and Syria.

The Russians called it Center 2015: a series of military exercises they carried out in mid-September involving some 95,000 troops. In contrast to common practice, Moscow outlined publicly with great specificity what type of exercises its troops conducted. Its Hind attack helicopters, for example, practiced rocket and bombing runs against ground targets and provided air cover at very low altitude to ground forces. They fired unguided rockets against military columns below. They practiced flying with one engine off—simulating engine failure—at just 650 feet above the ground.


Whether Russia’s incursion into the increasingly deadly Syrian civil war was foreseeable or not—and if it was, whether it was deterrable—is now moot. Russian President Vladimir Putin has in an instant changed markedly the course of a conflict that has claimed at least 250,000 lives and displaced millions—numbers that may yet grow much higher. Moscow and Iran, Damascus’s heretofore primary benefactor, are now making it clear that they are all-in when it comes to defending the current regime. On September 21, Iran began dispatching hundreds of elite Quds Force soldiers—the expeditionary arm of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard—as well as its leader, Qassem Suleimani, to lead ground assaults backed by Russian airpower against the forces opposing Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. They have since been joined, according to intelligence reports, by deployments of Iranian and Iraqi Shiite militias.

They are there for a very specific reason, which is not simply to combat ISIS. By October 5, in fact, the Pentagon had become convinced that the majority of Russian air strikes thus far had targeted not ISIS units, but U.S. trained rebel groups in various parts of the country. The Russian troops are there to combat anyone and everyone who might fight against Assad, who the U.S. and its coalition partners still insist has to go. Indeed, on September 29, at the United Nations, Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir could not have been clearer: “Assad has no future in Syria. Any attempt to whitewash him or make him acceptable is a nonstarter,” he told reporters.

The Russian intervention, as President Barack Obama, al-Jubeir and everyone else involved understands, comes at a critical moment. Despite the relative passivity and ineptness of the United States in funding and training anti-Assad rebels, the dictator’s position was slowly eroding as he attempted to fight off multiple rebel groups of varying sectarian and ethnic stripes (everything from hard-core ISIS fighters to more “moderate” Sunnis to Syrian Kurds). For Putin, a man who says repeatedly—because he believes it—that the greatest “geopolitical catastrophe” of the 20th century was the demise of the Soviet Union.

But from Moscow’s perspective, there likely was more to it than that—much more. The move provides a foothold in a part of the world that the Soviet Union was kicked out of four decades ago. At a moment when the United States appears to be washing its hands of the increasingly bloody and chaotic region, it gives Russia an expanding military presence in the Mediterranean on the doorstep of a NATO ally (its newly established airfield at Latakia in eastern Syria sits just 75 miles from the border with Turkey), and the gambit may yet serve as leverage with the West as Putin seeks to get out from under economic sanctions imposed as a result of Moscow’s annexation of Crimea in Ukraine.


Is Putin’s actions game-changing? Obama seemed less impressed—or less willing to congratulate the Kremlin on its cunning, at least in public. All this was done out of a position not of strength but of “weakness,” he said at a White House news conference in early October. “This is not a smart strategic move on Russia’s part.”

Throughout much of the Middle East, that declaration was met with howls of derision (for reasons that we will get to); at home, it was dismissed by many as petulant spin from a president who had been badly wrong-footed in this war. But whether Obama had been wrong-footed or not, the logic behind what he said is not obviously wrong. That Syria’s a snake pit couldn’t be more obvious. And it’s true, as sources in Moscow and the Middle East acknowledge, that if Russia decides more troops are needed to bolster its position, it may be drawn into a quagmire it can ill afford.

Despite a still-grim economy in Russia, Putin remains popular in his country. Most of what he does to show that Moscow is a serious player on the world stage only buttresses that good opinion. But the public appetite for a war against anti-Assad rebels in Syria appears limited, to say the least.

In Sunni Arab capitals around the Middle East, one word is being uttered with increasing frequency: “Afghanistan.” Not the ongoing post-9/11 U.S. war there, but the one before it: when the mighty Soviet army was driven out by jihadi rebels (who were funded by Saudi Arabia and other Gulf Arab states) and armed by the United States. As a student of what is known in Russia as the “catastrophe,” Putin knows that the humiliating Soviet withdrawal came in 1989, after a decade of war.

By 1992, his beloved Soviet Union ceased to exist. He also knows that the same countries that aided the Afghan rebels in the 1980s are now funding anti-Assad rebel groups.

So should the United States just say, “After you, Vladimir Vladimirovich? Be our guest! Syria’s all yours,” as GOP presidential front-runner Donald Trump, among others, has advocated? If at least part of Putin’s plan is to combat ISIS—which, after all, the U.S. seeks to “degrade and destroy”—shouldn’t we welcome Moscow’s intervention, as Secretary of State John Kerry indicated Washington might?

The reasons why that’s probably a terrible idea are numerous. The deployment of the Russian military and increased Iranian ground forces means Assad can stay in power for as long as his two patrons desire. At the same time, there is also little evidence that the axis supporting Assad has the wherewithal to crush the Sunni-backed rebel groups.

It’s hard, therefore, to draw anything but the grimmest of conclusions. Syria—already a “geopolitical Chernobyl,” as former CIA chief David Petraeus recently put it—is about to get worse. Is it possible that the advent of Russian reinforcements is likely only to cement a brutal stalemate that has driven millions of people from their homes, radicalized the region, cause a humanitarian apocalypse, and turn Syria into a magnet for global jihadists?


The Russian move into Syria will only deepen concern among Washington’s traditional allies in the Middle East about U.S. goals in the region. Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf monarchies have all watched, with varying degrees of alarm over the last five years, as the Obama administration zealously pursued a nuclear deal with Iran, an archenemy to all of those countries. Obama did so over their strenuous objections. Many suspect—indeed, some are convinced—that his overarching goal in the region was to legitimize Iran, integrate it into the international system so as to, as his stance was back in 2014 to create an “equilibrium” between “Sunni, or predominantly Sunni, Gulf states and Iran in which there’s competition, perhaps suspicion, but not an active or proxy warfare.”

If Obama’s goal was to get Iran to that place, starting with a nuclear deal, how likely was it that he was going to attack Syria in the wake of its chemical attacks, even having drawn a “red line” in 2012? Similarly, Tehran didn’t want a more aggressively funded and trained Western-backed rebel force in Syria, and Obama hasn’t done much to provide one. Had there been some firm action, we would not be in the place we are in.

This relative inaction has bred toxic suspicions throughout Washington’s traditional allies in the region—suspicions that are rarely voiced publicly but have hardened over the past 18 months. Simply put, they believe the Obama administration has not just pulled away from the Middle East but rather switched horses—backing Iran in search of that equilibrium the president spoke of last year. The White House has consistently and furiously denied this.


Now, with Putin in Syria and Obama just 15 months from his White House retirement, the likelihood that the U.S. will do anything of consequence to change the status quo on the ground is slim. It seems extremely unlikely that Obama will risk a direct conflict with Putin. Any hope of a no-fly zone in Syria, or even an intensification of U.S. airstrikes, is likely gone as well. Indeed, with Europe under tremendous pressure from the crush of Syrian refugees, the fear among Sunni Arabs is that the West will latch on to Putin and Iran as the only hope for reining in Assad.

But that’s not why Russian troops are now fighting in Syria. They are there to prop up Assad by helping him destroy “terrorists”—defined as anyone fighting against his regime. It’s been about four and a half years since Syria’s civil war commenced—since it became a “geopolitical Chernobyl.” The meltdown may have only just begun.


A man raises his arms at a rally during the National Action Network National March Against Police Violence in Washington December 13, 2014. Thousands of demonstrators gathered in Washington on Saturday for a march to protest the killings of unarmed black men by law enforcement officers and to urge Congress to do more to protect African-Americans from unjustified police violence. REUTERS/Joshua Roberts (UNITED STATES - Tags: POLITICS CRIME LAW CIVIL UNREST) - RTR4HWG2

Harris County Texas Sheriif Ron Hickman is not quite sure why suspect Shannon J. Miles allegedly shot and killed his deputy, Darren Goiforth, last week. Police investigating the homicide have not been able to identify a motive but Hickman has a theory and it involves Black Live Matter.

“I think that’s something that we have to keep an eye on,” he commented. “The general climate of that kind of rhetoric can be influential on people to do things like this. We’re still searching to find out if that’s actually a motive.”

Then he took more direct aim.

“We’ve heard black lives matter, all lives matter,” Hickman said. “Well, cops’ lives matter, too. So how about we drop the qualifier and just say lives matter?”

Fox News than took this rhethoric and ran with it. Hasselbeck from ‘Fox & Friends’ asked conservative writer Kevin Jackson why the Black Lives Matter movement hasn’t been classified as a “hate group”, and an onscreen banner the network ran labeled ‘Black Lives Matter’ a “Murder Movement.” Bill O’Reilly later piled on

This past Wednesday, Hickman appeared on Fox News and said he isn’t quite sure if Black Lives Matter is to blame, but he still has his hunch. “You can’t help but wonder if there are people who are susceptible to the message that someone should lash out and make targets of police officers,” he said. “You can’t help but wonder.”

Wondering is fine, but directly accusing Black Lives Matter of promoting violence against police without any evidence is stereotyping at its finest. A black man allegedly killed a police officer, and now all black people involved in the movement are being indicted for the crime.

Black Lives Matter is an easy target because of its high-profile media presence and its ability to galvanize. Miles is held up as a representative of a group, rather than viewed as an individual — which frequently happens when it comes to race, for better or for worse. As Shaun King wrote for The Daily Kos “Just because this man who killed Officer Goforth was black, doesn’t make him a part of this movement any more than being white qualifies you as a member of the Ku Klux Klan.”

The argument that the Black Lives Matter movement is driving individuals to kill cops is specious, and if someone brings it up, here are five things you can tell them.

  1. Nobody doubts that being a cop can be hard and dangerous. But statistics show this is not any more true today than it was last year or the year before that.

mike brown

Police officers in Ferguson monitoring protests one year after 18-year-old Michael Brown was shot and killed by officer Darren Wilson.

And if statistics are any indicator, being a police officer may actually be less dangerous in 2015 than it was in 2014. According to numbers from Officer Down Memorial Page, an independent nonprofit that tracks cop killings, 24 officers were shot and killed in the line of duty so far this year, but 29 were killed during the same time period in 2014.

And while those 24 deaths are obviously tragic, 2015 has actually seen fewer year-to-date shooting deaths of police officers than nearly every other year in the past two decades. The lone exception was 2013, when the FBI says killings of police overall hit a 50-year low.

And to those who say the race of the officer matters in these targeted killings, half of the police shot and killed this year were black.

The Counted: number of people killed by police this in June alone this year reached 500 which will keep the US on track for the civilian death toll to reach over 1,000 by the end of the year.


Resentment toward police officers who abuse their authority existed before Black Lives Matter.

Anyone who points to the “rhetoric” of Black Lives Matter as a root cause of violence doesn’t know anything about black history. In 1988, N.W.A released “Fuck tha Police” to protest police violence and racial profiling of the black community. The song, like hip-hop in general, and now Black Lives Matter, has often been blamed for the resentment black folks feel toward law enforcement. But this aggressive criticism of police, like the concerns voiced by Black Lives Matter, is a response to mistreatment at the hands of police officers. And it’s that mistreatment, not “rhetoric,” that continues to fuel this resentment.

Back in 2012, a CNN commentator by the name of LZ Granderson summed up why he and many black folks distrusted about law enforcement:

“when you’ve been pulled over for no good reason as many times as I have; when you’ve been in handcuffs for no good reason as many times as I have; when you run out to buy some allergy medication and upon returning home, find yourself surrounded by four squad cars with flashing lights and all you can think about is how not to get shot, you learn not to trust cops”.


And to anyone who says Martin Luther King Jr. was more thoughtful with his rhetoric, remember that he was also blamed for inciting violence against the police. Simply put, when a movement is countering the dominant narrative with truth — and particularly, unapologetic truth — that movement is blamed for inciting violence. It’s a tired, old argument.

  1. The idea that Black Lives Matter and the idea that the lives of cops (or anyone else) matter are not mutually exclusive.

When people say “Black lives matter,” it is because this nation has made it clear that it often doesn’t agree. The phrase “black lives matter” does not — and has never meant — that the lives of police officers, or anyone else, don’t matter. As Janell Ross pointed out in The Washington Post.

To Hickman and more than a few law enforcement union leaders and public spokesmen around the country, it seems that in a world in which Black Lives Matter, police lives accordingly do not. That sounds a lot like saying that effective policing and law enforcement where officers feel and remain safe cannot happen unless those same public officials are free to do their work without regard for the civil rights and liberties of people of color in the communities they police.

A cop getting murdered is awful. Their lives do matter. But to place blame on the Black Lives Matter movement and claim it promotes the idea that only black lives have meaning is false, divisive and especially misguided. The movement’s premise is that all lives are important, but every life isn’t treated as such.

  1. The Black Lives Matter movement doesn’t promote violence against police officers or anyone else.


No one who claims to speak for the Black Lives Matter movement has promoted violence as a means to achieve an end. The message the movement spreads has nothing to do with inflicting violence or pain against police officers — or anyone else, for that matter. It is simply a call to end the police brutality and misconduct that disproportionately take a toll on black bodies.

It’s entirely possible to simultaneously want to reduce police shootings and want to keep police officers safe. In this regards, the goals are mutually beneficial. Black Lives Matter activists have proposed at least 10 policies that aim to hold law enforcement accountable without putting them in harm’s way, ranging from ending aggressive low-level policing and instituting better police training to limiting standards for use of force and equipping cops with body cameras.

Furthermore, if Black Lives Matter is a movement committed to enacting reform through systemic change to policing priorities and tactics, how, exactly, would killing a cop help them in that goal?

That’s not to say that people haven’t said inappropriate things at protests against police violence, but the actions of a few, again, do not represent the majority. The fact that critics of Black Lives Matter seize upon one impolitic act while ignoring the rest of the movement’s message, again, speaks to a broader disconnect in this debate.

  1. Cop killers face the full punishment of the law, and everyone thinks that’s how it should be.


CREDIT: Jewel Samad. Officers carry the casket of Wenjian Liu, a NYPD officer killed along with his partner, Rafael Ramos, in December 2014.

When a civilian kills a cop, justice is swift. Lamont Price, Christopher Monfort and Myles Webster, who all killed cops, were punished to the full extent of the law. Cops, on the other hand, are less likely to be convicted for killing a civilian.

Even over the past year, the cops who killed 18 year-old Michael Brown, 19-year-old Tony Robinson, 22-year-old Rekia Boyd and 43-year-old Eric Garner faced no legal repercussions for their actions. And despite the controversy, many people both in and out of law enforcement saw no problem with those decisions.

There’s a glaring double standard here. Police officers are heavily protected by the legal system: they are authorized to use force in ways civilians are not; their excessive force cases are often investigated by members of their own department; and most people are reluctant to second-guess an officer’s decision to use force — even in courtroom settings.

Granted, at least 41 cops have been indicted on murder or manslaughter charges this year for killing civilians in the line of duty. But a 2015 Washington Post analysis found that of the thousands of fatal shootings by police since 2005, only 54 officers have been charged. Far fewer were actually convicted.


The problem as I see it, is that people have stopped listening to one another a long time ago. There is simply no communication. No leadership. Our streets has become a war zone where hundreds of unchecked fanatical law enforcement officers are out of main street USA not following protocol and carrying out street justice against the very citizens it is sworn to protect and serve. Some as we see every single day are acting as judge and executioner.

We see this is in the military. In most every career but mostly in high risk careers. People develop phobias, psychosis, fears, insecurities and react. Some are racists, troubled, plagued by alcoholism, drugs, relationships that due affect their work in a variety of means. Some have PTSD, anger management, anxiety issues that go unchecked. A great deal of the simply bomb waiting to explode.  An IED lying dormant for the time your ignorance rolls over it. The questions is, who developed that IED?

When a police officer gets killed, entire departments empties out to seek out the killer and will stop at nothing and use whatever faculties and force to get the job done. What happens when an innocent black or white child gets killed non-related to law enforcement?

Everyone needs to take a hard cold look in the mirror. There are a great deal of amazing law enforcement officers out there but we need more out of them. We need them to take a stand against the officers the make this country the most corrupt. To stop turning the blind eye. To being turning in the ‘bad cop’.  To remove these vigilante officers off our streets. To earn the respect and integrity behind the shield they wear.  In turn, we will all hopefully unite and become color blind. Restore to order and regain our constitutional freedoms and rights.


Here are police officers in dress blue giving their respects to a fallen officer. On patrol for a better part of a century, officer’s uniforms varied but were merely non-threatening but commanding button-down grey/blue/black shirts, neckties, slacks, black shoes, navy jackets and peaked hats. In colder months, a leather jacket was worn. This photo along with  the policeman’s oath represented integrity, honor  and pledge to serve his fellow man with “favor, skill, knowledge and no malice or ill-will”.


This photo is something you would find in Kabul, Afghanistan or Mosul but this is police response teams on the Main Street USA.  Why is our police waging war against the very citizens it swore to protect? Do the police consider it’s citizens Terrorists?

ALLLIVESMATTER rich or poor. We the law and the citizens for whom they serve need to respect and honor one another. It is a two-way street. Not one of each other is better than the other. If someone breaks the law, the law-breaker regardless of stature needs to be held accountable for his/her actions. In fact, if a crime is committed by an officer of the law, they should be held to stricter standards like all leaders in our communities and in our administrations.  We need to restore order, eliminate chaos, and focus on our true enemies here and abroad.

Mutual respect is the foundation for honesty, trust and meaningful communication. Right now, we need mutual respect for a new mindset and transition for re-establishing a proper regard for the dignity of the officer and all citizens. In order for relationships to remain healthy, both the public and public servants must be equally respected, appreciated but neither should expect to receive or expect any praise for doing what it is his or her job to do. The truth is that anytime anyone shares their hand or heart, they should be valued and appreciated for it. It is defined as a proper regard for the dignity of another. Policing and the public is a conveyance of a relationship like a marriage that contains value. We as Americans have that capacity to care and love. It is inherent. We have seen that in each other in 9/11 when we become one.


Mutual respect is intentional. Based upon traditional values and acts of appreciation.  Modern men and women have been programmed in part to dislike each other. We are living in an uncivilized world perpetrated by terrorism. We are also living in a corrupt world led by corrupt leadership and blinded by misconceptions, broken policies and agendas.

We need to re-structure our government. Establish new protocols and psychological assessments and review boards before placing those in powerful positions as part of stringent background checks and training. These must be integral for a new set and dimension of strategies and standards of training. We need to re-build our nation from within before we break down the chains of terrorism abroad. If we want our citizens to be accountable for their actions, we have to insist that our police and everyone involved in the legal process be accountable equally. ALLLIVESMATTER – EQUALLY.

Credits; AP

El Salvador gang violence making Latin America murder Capital.

Gang violence is soaring in El Salvador. The country’s murder rate is one of the highest in the world. Now, amid criticism, the government is debating whether it should deploy the military.

El Salvador, one of the poorest and most violent countries in Latin America, saw well over 150 gang-related homicides within the last month alone. Now its constitutional court has classified the gangs as terrorist organizations.

SAN SALVADOR, EL SALVADOR, 2015.05.21: Two policemen study the body of a man murdered at a busy intersection in downtown San Salvador during rush hour. They are part of the 911 response team patrols the streets of the capital. The 'halcones' respond first to crimes involving armed people, homicides and other serious crimes. The first 5 months of 2015 has witnessed a rapid increased in the number of police deaths at the hands of pandillas or gangs.

SAN SALVADOR, EL SALVADOR: Two policemen study the body of a man murdered at a busy intersection in downtown San Salvador during rush hour. They are part of the 911 response team patrols the streets of the capital. The ‘halcones’ respond first to crimes involving armed people, homicides and other serious crimes. The first 5 months of 2015 has witnessed a rapid increased in the number of police deaths at the hands of pandillas or gangs.

Authorities in El Salvador have registered closer to 4,000 homicides in the past year. If the death toll continues to rise at the same pace, one in every thousand of its 6.3 million Salvadorans will have been murdered by the end of the year. Outside war zones, only Honduras has a comparable homicide rate.

In both countries, the murders can mostly be traced back to “Maras”, one of the gangs whose income is derived from hold-ups, extortion, arms trafficking and the illegal drug trade. Their roots go back to gangs in the Latin districts of Los Angeles in the 1980s, when many Salvadorans fled their country during the civil war.

When the conflict was over, the gangs formed criminal organizations in El Salvador. “This process was accelerated after the USA began deporting illegal immigrants to their home countries,” states a study conducted by the research department of the US Congress.

Today, UN drug authorities estimate a total of 54,000 members in “Mara Salvatrucha” (known as MS-13) and the 18th Street gang (also known as Barrio 18) in El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala. El Salvador, the smallest of the three countries, is home to 22,000 of them. In neighboring Nicaragua, many smaller gangs are active.


Gang recruiters target students

Maras’ recruiters often target high school students. The organization offers youngsters what their parents often lack: the prospect of a livelihood and the feeling of being respected. Gang members often cover themselves in tattoos, which are earned through respect and brutality.

As many adolescents are recruited, Maras groups are often referred to as “youth gangs.” Anyone who thinks they are less harmful because of their age has another thing coming. The average age of the gang members is low because their life expectancy is proportionately lower.

Lucrative truce

For years, the gangs fought bloody turf wars. In 2012, Salvatrucha and Barrio 18 agreed to a truce. Homicide figures dropped from over 4,000 in the previous two years to 2,500 in 2012 and 2013. The ceasefire has been maintained because it is more profitable when each Mara can call the shots on its own turf in apparent peace.



But now, the killing is on the rise again: the death toll reached over 3,900 in 2014. If the current daily murder rate stays at 16 homicides per day, then last year’s total will be surpassed by the end of August 2015.

The spiral of violence

Ever since the gang truce was established, the victims of gang activities have been mainly civilians. But the gangs are now fighting each other again. According to El Salvador’s defense minister, David Munguia Payes, 85 percent of last weeks’ victims belonged to gangs.

Furthermore, the feud between the police and gangs has exacerbated: in January 2015, seven officers were killed in two weeks. According to sources in MS-13 circles, these were apparently acts of revenge for police tyranny. The police, for their part, swiftly announced that it would crack down on gang activities.

Organized crime in North and South America is continuing to spiral out of control and resulting in more violence and more deaths. They say, “The retaliatory nature together with the rhetoric is telling.” But this is nothing new, either is the escalation of government corruption.

This evokes reminders of the past: Salvadoran presidents have often stated that they would strike back hard. The gangs have always responded brutally to such declarations: in 2009, for instance, during the rule of former president Antonia Saca, known as “Super Mano Dura” (Super Hard Hand) the homicide rate rose to a historic high of 4,367 killings. This record may just well be broken this year.

Government making efforts

It is obvious that the government is taking the route of confrontation. Several months ago, a business association invited former New York City mayor Rudolph Giuliani to El Salvador to advise the country on security issues. During the Giuliani administration, the crime rate in New York went down drastically. Giuliani practiced a no-tolerance policy against offenders and he has recommended the Salvadoran government do the same.


Classifying Salvatrucha and Barrio 18 as terrorist organizations might demonstrate that the government is probably following the former New York City mayor’s advice and considering deploying the military, although there is little evidence to prove that military measures will reduce the violence. It might mirror what the results we’ve seen with the Cartels in Mexico. Doubts have arisen about the feasibility of Giuliani’s tactics in Central America, where officers are paid much less than in the US and, accordingly, tend to give in to corruption.

It is most likely that the first rehabilitation program for gang members in the history of the country may be established by the government as part of its anti-gang measures. The costs, however, could exceed the governments’ financial means. Approximately 700 police officers have been temporarily suspended for disobeying regulations. Another 200 were expelled from the force. A functioning police force would be the first step towards greater security. Positive changes could attract investors who can offer young people a better perspective than organized crime. Private sector certainly can be a solution.

Operation Greystone

Shortly after the September 11, 2001 attacks, President Bush called an emergency meeting in his cabinet Room, calling together the major defense and CIA officials.


Not much earlier, CIA Director J. Cofer Black and top officials had prepared a plan to take down Al-Qaeda. Black approached President Bush with this plan immediately afterwards. Bush had just given the CIA a very broad approval to enter Afghanistan and carry out operations against the terror group Al-Qaeda in any way it pleased.

CIA Operatives entered at least a dozen different countries, including Afghanistan, and began training locals and government security forces to track down insurgents and terrorists.

Elite CIA Operatives trained northern Alliance soldiers in Afghanistan; the Taliban fell from power within a matter of months.

We now know that Operation Greystone involved, in large part, inaccurate drone strikes and secret prison-based interrogations of high-risk terrorists who simply disappeared during the course of the operation.

Realizing a greater potential threat facing America post 9/11, intelligence agencies became more secretive and cautious. They took on a greater role by phone tapping and tracking emails and created Operation Greystone enacted by President Bush which it sent CIA in front of the military for the first time, in order to go after Al Qaeda in Afghanistan which was the first start of a new covert was style.

Realizing we were facing a far greater potential terrorist threat and whereas most wars are a show of power, Operation Greystone began as an infiltration for information.


CIA operatives entered at least a dozen different countries, including Afghanistan who joined up with the Northern alliance, a resistance force made up of rebels and from the shadows effectively began tracking down insurgents and terrorists who were paid to hunt down, fight and kill.  These operations operated in the shadows effectively dismantling the Taliban which led to numerous victories and dubbed as the “War on Terror”.

Elite CIA operatives trained Northern Alliance soldiers in Afghanistan; the Taliban fell from power within a matter of months.

We now know that Operative Greystone involved, in large part, inaccurate drone strikes and secret prison-based interrogations of high-risk terrorists who simply disappeared during the course of the operation.

One event that raised concerns of the scope of government power was a drone missile that blew up a vehicle occupied by an Al Qaeda leader. Although the government called it a success and celebrated, many were unaware of the power of the government weapons and the ability of the government to kill easily.

The major problem is that because everything is now done in secret, no one truly knows the extent to which the government is performing.

A second occurrence was the enhanced interrogation techniques that ensured, such as water boarding which is considered torture but was labeled as an enhanced technique and approved by the Justice Department.

In addition, the CIA had created a series of “black sites” throughout the world, which are prison camps for people to be tortured in. Again, in complete secrecy.

Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld began a program called Joint Special Operations Command, which singles out terrorist leaders and kills them one by one. They don’t call themselves a covert operation but instead military operation to avoid needing approval of president and effectively doing as they please. JSOC operates with CIA special activities division.


Rumsfeld also created the Office of Special Plans, which created links that the CIA would not release. It was used to create the link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. It has “all source clearance,” the ability to access all information.

The OSP uses unapproved troops, acting independently and with mainly political intent in Iraq such as in summer of 2004 when the CIA led troops to Pakistan with attacks to defeat Al Qaeda and terrorists.

They then attacked Iraq to prevent damage from weapons of mass destruction and Saddam Hussein, and eventually led to the destruction of the NSA at home. It intercepts phone calls and emails without warrant, in all effort of preventing another 9/11.

This was allowed by the Terrorist Surveillance Program, enacted by Bush.

At this time, these new anti-terrorist groups have far more power than they should, being not regulated and also closed off to public knowledge.

In fact, after 8 months, it turned out there was not any “weapons of mass destruction” at all in Iraq, and the CIA took blame for all intelligence failure. It begs the question of just how much they know, and the lack of reason behind their activity.

A few years later, Obama was sworn in and swore to end invading privacy. Yet it turns out he reauthorized many programs including Greystone to find Osama bin Laden. JSOC raids, drone strikes, and essentially every program was kept or increased in order to continue fighting a “War on Terror”.

About 1.5 trillion dollars has been spent so far, and yet the only notable achievement is the death of Osama bin Laden. Perhaps instead of all this need to keep all actions secret, the government updates the public so it can realize if a search such as for WMD’s is hopeless and stop activity on it, and then try to refocus on other good leads on terrorist groups.

Drones are “Unmanned Aerial Vehicles” capable of delivering guided missiles to targets up to 1800 miles away. They are relatively small, equipped with a camera and controlled remotely from an operator on the ground. Since they are unmanned, drones greatly reduce the risk and cost of requiring a pilot and can effectively target key enemy positions.


The CIA uses drones to conduct targeted killings of Taliban members and other militant groups.  In effect, it targets and eliminates insurgents on the ground without the implementation of need of excessive boots on the ground and unnecessary loss of ground troops. In turn, it also saves the lives of thousands of victims at the hands of the very growing numbers of extremists looking to dominate the world.

When it comes to drone strikes, the UN Human Rights Council fears that the United States has not taken proper accountability and precautionary and precautionary measures in conducting these targeted killings. According to Philip Alston, “the UN special Rappaorteurs on extrajudicial summary on arbitrary executions stated, “the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) is running a programme that is killing a significant number of people, and there is absolutely no accountability in terms of the relevant international law.” My query to Mr. Alston is has he been to Iraq, Syria Kobane to see firsthand the thousands of beheading at the hands of ISIS the crimes against humanity of ISIS/ISIL killing hundreds of children and infants and the raping of women as young as 6 years old? Boys given automatic weapons and grenades and sent to suicide school instead of elementary school to kill all “non-believers”.

Since 2004, the Special Activities Division of the CIA had conducted hundreds of drone strikes in northern Pakistan. By the end of Obama’s first term in office, the CIA had conducted 44 drone strikes in Pakistan, killing approximately 400 people. In the years following, the number of strikes increased dramatically, and by 2011, the CIA had conducted over 240 drone strikes in Pakistan. The Obama administration maintains that the drone program is classified, and thus they are unable to reveal specific information about the targeted killings. Consequently, when such a program is classified, serious accountability and human rights dilemmas emerge.

A 2nd Battalion, 27th Infantry Regiment Soldier provides overwatch on an Afghan valley during Operation Verendrye near the Afghan-Pakistan border.

Going into the 21st century, posturing and humane reasoning would dictate that the CIA must recognize the potential dangers of wielding such a powerful network of drones. With such a network, the CIA could hypothetically kill anyone on its “target list” from a remote location halfway across the world, effectively dehumanizing the entire process of assassination. The CIA must be sure to follow UN guidelines, while simultaneously maintaining a level of secrecy that gives it an advantage over terrorist organizations. The CIA must also be cautious of overusing drones also one would posture. The purpose of employing drones in Pakistan is to defeat terrorist organizations operating in the area but excessive use of drones may increase the already growing anti-American sentiment in the region. Will drones make America too powerful for its own good?

If drones are extremely effective is waging the war on terror, we cannot ignore it. We must not only continue the effective campaign but escalate it without mercy and conduct a “search and destroy” ground attack with “boots on the ground” giving us maximum exposure to eliminate any threat.

Video Taping the Police – Know your Rights


Last week the City of Boston agreed to pay Simon Glik $170,000 in damages and legal fees to settle a civil rights lawsuit stemming from his 2007 felony arrest for videotaping police roughing up a suspect. Prior to the settlement, the First Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously ruled that Glik had a “constitutionally protected right to videotape police carrying out their duties in public.” The Boston Police Department now explicitly instructs its officers not to arrest citizens openly recording them in public.

Slowly but surely the courts are recognizing that recording on-duty police is a protected First Amendment activity. But in the meantime, police around the country continue to intimidate and arrest citizens for doing just that. So if you’re an aspiring cop watcher you must be uniquely prepared to deal with hostile cops.

If you choose to record the police you can reduce the risk of terrible legal consequences and video loss by understanding your state’s laws and carefully adhering to the following rules.

Rule #1: Know the Law (Wherever You Are)

Conceived at a time when pocket-sized recording devices were available only to James Bond types, most eavesdropping laws were originally intended to protect people against snoops, spies, and peeping Toms. Now with this technology in the hands of average citizens, police and prosecutors are abusing these outdated laws to punish citizens merely attempting to document on-duty police.

The law in 38 states plainly allows citizens to record police, as long as you don’t physically interfere with their work. Police might still unfairly harass you, detain you, or confiscate your camera. They might even arrest you for some catchall misdemeanor such as obstruction of justice or disorderly conduct. But you will not be charged for illegally recording police.

Twelve states—California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Washington—require the consent of all parties for you to record a conversation.

However, all but 2 of these states—Massachusetts and Illinois—have an “expectation of privacy provision” to their all-party laws that courts have ruled does not apply to on-duty police (or anyone in public). In other words, it’s technically legal in those 48 states to openly record on-duty police.

In most states it’s almost always illegal to record a conversation in which you’re not a party and don’t have consent to record. Massachusetts is the only state to uphold a conviction for recording on-duty police, but that conviction was for a secret recording where the defendant failed to inform police he was recording. (As in the Glik case, Massachusetts courts have ruled that openly recording police is legal, but secretly recording them isn’t.)

Fortunately, judges and juries are soundly rejecting these laws. Illinois, the state with the most notorious anti-recording laws in the land, expressly forbids you from recording on-duty police. Early last month an Illinois judge declared that law unconstitutional, ruling in favor of Chris Drew, a Chicago artist charged with felony eavesdropping for secretly recording his own arrest. Last August a jury acquitted Tiawanda Moore of secretly recording two Chicago Police Internal Affairs investigators who encouraged her to drop a sexual harassment complaint against another officer. (A juror described the case to a reporter as “a waste of time.”) In September, an Illinois state judge dropped felony charges against Michael Allison. After running afoul of local zoning ordinances, he faced up to 75 years in prison for secretly recording police and attempting to tape his own trial.

The lesson for you is this: If you want to limit your legal exposure and present a strong legal case, record police openly if possible. But if you videotape on-duty police from a distance, such an announcement might not be possible or appropriate unless police approach you.

When it comes to police encounters, you don’t get to choose whom you’re dealing with. You might get Officer Friendly, or you might get Officer Psycho. You’ll likely get officers between these extremes. But when you “watch the watchmen,” you must be ready to think on your feet.


In most circumstances, officers will not immediately bull rush you for filming them. But if they aren’t properly trained, they might feel like their authority is being challenged. And all too often police are simply ignorant of the law. Part of your task will be to convince them that you’re not a threat while also standing your ground.

“What are you doing?”

Police aren’t celebrities, so they’re not always used to being photographed in public. So even if you’re recording at a safe distance, they might approach and ask what you are doing. Avoid saying things like “I’m recording you to make sure you’re doing your job right” or “I don’t trust you.”

Instead, say something like “Officer, I’m not interfering. I’m asserting my First Amendment rights. You’re being documented and recorded offsite.”

Saying this while remaining calm and cool will likely put police on their best behavior. They might follow-up by asking, “Who do you work for?” You may, for example, tell them you’re an independent filmmaker or a citizen journalist with a popular website/blog/YouTube show. Whatever you say, don’t lie—but don’t let police trick you into thinking that the First Amendment only applies to mainstream media journalists. It doesn’t.

“Let me see your ID.”

In the United States there’s no law requiring you to carry a government ID. But in 24 states police may require you to identify yourself if they have reasonable suspicion that you’re involved in criminal activity.

But how can you tell if an officer asking for ID has reasonable suspicion? Police need reasonable suspicion to detain you, so one way to tell if they have reasonable suspicion is to determine if you’re free to go. You can do this by saying “Officer, are you detaining me, or am I free to go?”

If the officer says you’re free to go or you’re not being detained, it’s your choice whether to stay or go. But if you’re detained, you might say something like, “I’m not required to show you ID, but my name is [your full name].” It’s up to you if you want to provide your address and date of birth if asked for it, but I’d stop short of giving them your Social Security number.

“Please stop recording me. It’s against the law.”

Rarely is it advisable to educate officers about the law. But in a tense recording situation where the law is clearly on your side, it might help your case to politely present your knowledge of state law.

For example, if an insecure cop tries to tell you that you’re violating his civil liberties, you might respond by saying “Officer, with all due respect, state law only requires permission from one party in a conversation. I don’t need your permission to record so long as I’m not interfering with your work.”

If you live in one of the 12 all party record states, you might say something like “Officer, I’m familiar with the law, but the courts have ruled that it doesn’t apply to recording on-duty police.”

If protective service officers harass you while filming on federal property, you may remind them of a recently issued directive informing them that there’s no prohibition against public photography at federal buildings.

“Stand back.”

If you’re approaching the scene of an investigation or an accident, police will likely order you to move back. Depending on the circumstances, you might become involved in an intense negotiation to determine the “appropriate” distance you need to stand back to avoid “interfering” with their work.

If you feel you’re already standing at a reasonable distance, you may say something like, “Officer, I have a right to be here. I’m filming for documentation purposes and not interfering with your work.” It’s then up to you to decide how far back you’re willing to stand to avoid arrest.

If you capture video of police misconduct or brutality, but otherwise avoid being identified yourself, you can anonymously upload it to YouTube. This seems to be the safest legal option. For example, a Massachusets who videotaped a cop beating a motorist with a flashlight posted the video to the Internet. Afterwards, one of the cops caught at the scene filed criminal wiretapping charges against her. (As usual, the charges against her were later dropped.)

On the other hand, an anonymous videographer uploaded footage of an NYPD officer body-slamming a man on a bicycle to YouTube. Although the videographer was never revealed, the video went viral. Consequently, the manufactured assault charges against the bicyclist were dropped, the officer was fired, and the bicyclist eventually sued the city and won a $65,000 settlement.

Taking photographs and video of things that are plainly visible in public spaces is a constitutional right — and that includes the outside of federal buildings, as well as transportation facilities, and police and other government officials carrying out their duties.

However, there is a widespread, continuing pattern of law enforcement officers ordering people to stop taking photographs or video in public places, and harassing, detaining and arresting those who fail to comply. The ACLU, photographer’s groups, and others have been complaining about such incidents for years — and consistently winning in court. Yet, a continuing stream of incidents of illegal harassment of photographers and videographers makes it clear that the problem is not going away. In the spring of 2011 alone, the list of incidents included these cases:

Photography as a Precursor to Terrorism

A big part of the problem here is “suspicious activity reporting” — the construction of a national system for the collection and distribution of information. Under this system, law enforcement leaders at the federal, state and local level push officers on the ground to investigate and report a broad spectrum of legitimate, everyday activity as potentially “suspicious” — including photography. In fact, many such programs actually suggest that photography is a “precursor behavior” to terrorism, and direct the police to react accordingly. This notion has been dismissed as “nonsense” by security experts — but appears to be disturbingly robust.

A serious question for photographers and videographers who are harassed is whether they are being entered in government suspicious activity databases or watch lists, and whether and how such a listing might come back to haunt them.

Another disturbing trend is police officers and prosecutors using wiretapping statutes in certain states (such as Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Pennsylvania) to arrest and prosecute those who attempt to record police activities using video cameras that include audio. (Unlike photography and silent video, there is no general right to record audio; many state wiretap laws prohibit recording conversations if the parties have a reasonable expectation of privacy — which is never true for a police officer carrying out his or her duties in public.)

Word appears to have circulated within law enforcement circles somehow that using wiretapping statutes is a strategy for preventing public oversight, with some taking the concept to ridiculous.

Taking photographs of things that are plainly visible from public spaces is a constitutional right – and that includes federal buildings, transportation facilities, and police and other government officials carrying out their duties. Unfortunately, there is a widespread, continuing pattern of law enforcement officers ordering people to stop taking photographs from public places, and harassing, detaining and arresting those who fail to comply.

When you are on private property, the property owner may set rules about the taking of photographs. If you disobey the property owner’s rules, they can order you off the property (and have you arrested for trespassing if you do not comply).

Police officers may not confiscate or demand to view your digital photographs or video without a warrant. The Supreme Court has ruled that police may not search your cell phone when they arrest you, unless they get a warrant. Although the court did not specifically rule on whether law enforcement may search other electronic devices such as a standalone camera, the constitution broadly prevents warrantless searches of your digital data. It is possible that courts may approve the temporary warrantless seizure of a camera in certain extreme “exigent” circumstances such as where necessary to save a life, or where police have a reasonable, good-faith belief that doing so is necessary to prevent the destruction of evidence of a crime while they seek a warrant.

Police may not delete your photographs or video under any circumstances. Officers have faced felony charges of evidence tampering as well as obstruction and theft for taking a photographer’s memory card.


Police officers may legitimately order citizens to cease activities that are truly interfering with legitimate law enforcement operations. Professional officers, however, realize that such operations are subject to public scrutiny, including citizens photocopying them.

Note that the right to photograph does not give you a right to break any other laws. For example, if you are trespassing to take photographs, you may still be charged with such.

  • Police should not order you to stop taking pictures or video. Under no circumstances should they demand that you delete your photographs or video.
  • Police officers may order citizens to cease activities that are truly interfering with legitimate law enforcement operations. In general, a court will trust an officer’s judgment about what is “interfering” more than yours. So if an officer orders you to stand back, do so.
  • If the officer says he/she will arrest you if you continue to use your camera, in most circumstances it is better to put the camera away rather than risking arrest.
  • Police officers may not generally confiscate or demand to view your photographs or video or search the contents of your cell phone without a warrant. In addition, it is possible that courts may approve the seizure of a camera in some circumstances if police have a reasonable, good-faith belief that it contains evidence of a crime by someone other than the police themselves. There is a June 2014 US Supreme Court decision in Riley v. California, in which the court held that police need a warrant to search a cell phone.

If you are stopped or detained for taking photographs:

  • Always remain polite and never physically resist an officer
  • If stopped for photography, the right question to ask is, “am I free to go?” If the officer says no, then you are being detained, something that under the law an officer cannot do without reasonable suspicion that you have or are about to commit a crime or are in the process of doing so. Until you ask to leave, your being stopped is considered voluntary under the law and is legal.
  • If you are detained, politely ask what crime you are suspected of committing, and remind the officer that taking photographs is your right under the First Amendment and does not constitute reasonable suspicion of criminal activity

With regards to videotaping, there is an important legal distinction between a visual photographic record (fully protected) and the audio portion of a videotape, which some states have tried to regulate under state wiretapping laws.

  • Such laws are generally intended to accomplish the important privacy-protecting goal of prohibiting audio “bugging” of private conversations. However, in nearly all cases audio recording the police is legal.
  • In states that allow recording with the consent of just one party to the conversation, you can tape your own interactions with officers without violating wiretap statutes (since you are one of the parties).
  • In situations where you are an observer to a conversation must consent to taping, the legality of taping will depend on whether the state’s prohibition on taping applies only when there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. But no state court had held that police officers performing their job in public have a reasonable expectation.
  • This author believes that laws that ban the taping of public officials public statements without their consent violate the First Amendment.

A number of states do bar people from recording private conversations without consent. But as long as the recording is made “openly and not surreptitiously,”  it’s fair game “assuming the position of holding up a camera or phone at arm’s length while looking at the viewing screen should be enough to put someone on notice that they are being photographed or recorded.”

Several high-profile court cases have taken up the issue, and in each case, the judge has either struck down the law or ruled that the police can’t reasonably expect privacy while out in public. In March, for example, the Illinois Supreme Court declared the state’s eavesdropping law constitutional, saying the law criminalized the recording of conversations “that cannot be deemed private.”

So why do so many police officers still act like filming them is a crime?

“Probably because they haven’t been trained otherwise,” said Osterreicher. “I think that there are many officers that believe that the minute they tell somebody to do or not do something, that’s an order. But police can only order somebody to do or not do something based on the law, and there is no law that says you cannot record or photograph out in public.”


Police Accountability & Professionalism

No one should be mistreated or abused, falsely accused or be a victim of police brutality. It should not matter how poor you are or what color you are or what group or “gang” you are in or whether you were born in the U.S. or whether you are an immigrant – all should be treated with respect, all should be treated fairly, and all should be afforded equal protection of the law. Nothing less is acceptable.

No city or community can be truly great unless it upholds these basic principles. It is recognized that any police department or any organization will commit errors and make mistakes. But police departments in particular should have a sound system of public oversight so that mistakes and errors are quickly corrected.

Unfortunately, in this nation today especially in urban areas, our police force has never been afforded a truly workable civilian oversight process. Consequently, over the years, Police Department across the board developed and sustained a well-entrenched culture of corruption and double standards. By culture of corruption and double standards, I do not mean simply one or two corrupt people. Rather, what has emerged is a deeply entrenched way of life and systematic abuse of officers of the law against its very own citizens it sworn to “serve and protect”. It also manifests to the integrity of the officers who follow the code and respect for the color of the law.


There exists a system of corruption and double standards within our law enforcement communities. This has been reflected on a daily occurrence by thousands of officers across the nation as an acceptable for of behavior and condoned by superiors.

These superiors and council members appear to be unfit for duty due to their extent of the culture of corruption and double standards. They neither want to be accountable nor responsible for their actions of the actions of others.

Police Departments and certain officers sworn to uphold has been instrumental in maintaining social order, just as any law enforcement agency across this great nation. However, historically there is evidence to a lack of fairness, and double standards relating to enforcement or non-enforcement actions. The contrasts of police action, between the affluent and the poor, the White and the minority, the passive and the vocal, are astounding and well documented.


The victims of these double standards and lack of professionalism are usually the poor, disenfranchised, minority persons, or anyone who seeks to question the actions of the police. Those that merely question police actions are targeted most often when no crime has been committed.

We need professionalism, accountability and oversight to regain trust. If a crime is committed by an officer of the law, they must be indicted, prosecuted and sentenced to the statutes imposed by law like any other citizen. They do not rise above the law. This change will not come from city administrators, but must come from the citizens.

Many of our leaders must become compliant to the political wheel or the problem will continue to worsen. Administrators use intimidation, retaliation and altered investigations against those citizens who speak out. These tactics can only be successful if the citizenry tolerate and condone such. Only a mass movement, an organized public push, will be strong enough to change the stubborn culture of corruption and double standards.


Murder by Stockton Police Department

Last July 16th three men walked into a Bank of the West Branch in Stockton California , tied up a security guard and robbed a vault at gunpoint. The men then took three women hostage including the bank’s manager.


What unfolded next was a police chase by 34 officers for an hour who had full knowledge that that one of the women left after two escaped was being used a a human shield by the bank robbers.

One of the robbers saw an officer outside the bank and went back inside. The robber and his two accomplices then emerged with three hostages, including Holt-Singh. They stole a bank employee’s car and drove off.


Over the next hour, officers with the California Highway Patrol and Stockton police (by 34 officers) gave chase across three counties. Two hostages were wounded and ejected from the vehicle but Holt-Singh stayed until the chase reached its violent conclusion.

Stockton police fired more than 600 rounds at the car during the chase and struck Holt-Singh 10 times. All ten rounds fired at Singh that killed her came from rounds from the police. Authorities even stated that that Holt-Singh was used as a human shield during the ensuing shootout, which left two of the three bank robbers also dead. 

The department’s protocol requires only two or three cars to give chase and that officers are supposed to go into bank robbery situations “with stealth” so the robbers aren’t alerted and take hostages but officers confronted the robbers immediately after they exited the bank and a slew of cars gave chase when they fled.

It was the exact conduct these policies and procedures are made to prevent. It created a hostage situation. In California and elsewhere, there is POST. Police Officers Standards and Training. For guidelines for deadly force and pursuits

34 officers discharged their weapons. The Police Chief of Stockton in a press conference flatly stated “The city has refused to accept responsibility for their actions…”that he would not take any responsibility nor accountability to the events.

Nevertheless, he defended the officers’ actions that day. He said it was already a hostage situation when the first officers were spotted by the robbers, “who were intent on violence, firing hundreds of rounds from automatic weapons and showing every potential for taking their rampage to any number of locations.”

Another bank employee was also shot, Kelly Huber, an employee at the bank.

Huber said than an officer negligently interrupted the bank robbery and caused the subsequent kidnapping and shooting. Police weren’t prepared to contain the robbers before confronting them and didn’t wait until she and the other two hostages were free before trying to capture the suspects, which only made the situation more dangerous, Huber said. Huber was shot in both legs and broke a bone in the incident.

The police has options during a pursuit, ramming or what is known as a pit maneuver, spike strips, road blocks or blowing out a tire or two to slow down the pursuit.  As per POST training and my training, you do not need a sea of vehicles to conduct a vehicle pursuit while there is air support.


Aircraft Rules; Departments have or should have specific rules governing departmental aircraft in pursuit.

These identical rules, which follow:

When an aircraft is available to assist and has advised ground officers that the suspect vehicle is in view, the following guidelines will be used:

  • Officers in primary vehicles will turn off their emergency lights and slow to a safe operating speed.
  • The aircraft will continue to advise of the suspect vehicle’s location and approximate speed.
  • Support units should attempt to be in a position to apprehend the suspect when the suspect vehicle stops.
  • The aircraft will maintain a safe height to allow the operator to observe the suspect vehicle.

When the officer making this pursuit has knowledge that a hostage is in the vehicle in pursuit, they must take any reasonable methods not to harm the hostage or the general public during that pursuit especially with full knowledge that the perps was using that hostage was a human shield and had taken other hostages with them.


It is the duty of the supervisory on duty to make that call. In that regard, that supervisor is directly responsible and the training of these officers was not met.  Once there is air support, you must terminate that pursuit. Plain and simple.  Once the robbers think they are longer being pursued, they will lower their speed and get to the planned location and the police will have full knowledge and then move in.  No one has an unlimited supply of gasoline.

At that time, a carefully and orchestrated tactical apprehension could be made with limited or no casualties to the assailants, hostage or officers.