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.

bank

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.

stocktonpolice

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.

helicopter

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.

misty

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.

The Militarization of U.S. Police Departments  

Do you remember the ‘Posse Comitatus Act’ in 1878. “The purpose of the act… (was) to limit the powers of the Federal government in using its military personnel to enforce the state laws“

The Posse Comitatus Act is a United States federal law enacted by Rutherford B Hayes in which the purpose of the act is to limit the powers of the federal government is using its military personnel to enforce state laws. They set as a priority legislation to prohibit any future President or Congress from directing, by military order or federal legislation, the imposition of federal troops in any U.S. state.

Since the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, therefore, the U.S. government has been constrained overall in the use of military force domestically in any of the U.S. states.

This constraint, though, has never been the case in U.S. international policies and, therefore, the U.S. has engaged in militarizing the domestic arenas of other countries that fall under U.S. areas of interest (such as the Philippines, South American countries, the Middle East, etc.).

Low-Intensity Conflict (LIC) is a “Policing/Militarization of the U.S. Empire”

What is “Low-Intensity Conflict”? There are seemingly many definitions of the term. Regarding the impact of the U.S., however, I refer to it as “low-intensity” only for the U.S. military. In other words, the U.S. military does not get its hands dirty nor is it violently impacted but instead trains others for this insidious work. This is in contrast to those who are the recipients of it.

“Low Intensity Conflict” is simultaneously “high intensity” for those outside the U.S. who are victims of these U.S. international LIC policies. These victims are often under intimidating surveillance, sometimes suffer or are killed by summary execution, torture, displacement etc. by military or police in their own country who are trained philosophically and militarily by the U.S. In other words, it is a method employed to “police/militarize” the U.S. political and economic interests. This could also be referred to as war capitalism.

When militarizing the domestic arena of its areas of influence in the world, it pays no attention to its own domestic laws that do not easily allow for this militarization in its own domestic sphere.

militarized cops

So instead of the United States military goes into about 70 countries such as Iraq, Afghanistan, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Columbia, Argentina, etc. to train troops from these countries which is to serve the interests of the United States and the friendly elite of these countries. Again, it is a “policing” or “militarization” of countries in what the United States considers its empire of interests. The reality is, these countries are not friendly nor allies of the U.S. Once trained and given military grade weapons, they are later used against our own troops.

As with the international structural adjustment policies that are now being implemented in the United States, as mentioned above, I have always assumed that the U.S. would also want to implement the LIC (Low Intensity Conflict) strategies or increased domestic militarization in the U.S. as well. The Posse-Comitatus Act has invariably prevented this from happening to any significant degree. One way around this, as in by not being able to send in the federal troops to cities and states, is to militarize the local police forces and this is happening to a significant degree in the United States.

As the ACLU has reported:

All across the country, heavily armed SWAT teams are raiding people’s homes in the middle of the night, often just to search for drugs. It should enrage us that people have needlessly died during these raids, that pets have been shot, and that homes have been ravaged.

milpolice

Our neighborhoods are not warzones, and police officers should not be treating us like wartime enemies. Any yet, every year, billions of dollars’ worth of military equipment flows from the federal government to state and local police departments. Departments use these wartime weapons in everyday policing, especially to fight the wasteful and failed drug war, which has unfairly targeted people of color.

As our new report makes clear, it’s time for American police to remember that they are supposed to protect and serve our communities, not wage war on the people who live in them.

cop-soldiersThe “war on terror” has come home–and it’s wreaking havoc on innocent American lives. The culprit is the militarization of the police….

A recent New York Times article by Matt Apuzzo reported that in the Obama era, “police departments have received tens of thousands of machine guns; nearly 200,000 ammunition magazines; thousands of pieces of camouflage and night-vision equipment; and hundreds of silencers, armored cars and aircraft.”  The result is that police agencies around the nation possess military-grade equipment, turning officers who are supposed to fight crime and protect communities into what look like invading forces from an army. And military-style police raids have increased in recent years, with one count putting the number at 80,000 such raids last year.

According to Alex Kane’s “11 shocking facts about the militarization of the U.S. police” are:

  1. It harms, and sometimes kills, innocent people.
  2. Children are impacted.
  3. The use of SWAT teams is unnecessary.
  4. The “war on terror” is fueling militarization.
  5. It’s a boom to contractor profits.
  6. Border militarization and police militarization go hand in hand.
  7. Police are cracking down on dissent.
  8. Asset forfeitures are funding police militarization.
  9. Dubious informants are used for raids.
  10. There’s been little debate and oversight.
  11. Communities of color bear the brunt.

There is a rampant and systematic abuses by police to beat and kill innocent unarmed American citizens. Police officers excessive use of force is observed on a daily basis in the United States in direct view of the public.These are barbaric and savage crimes. It is also corruption by the very judicial system that is also established to protect us by failing to prosecute these officers for obvious crimes.

This is collusion in that it promotes dishonesty and fraud, which, in turn,undermines the integrity of the entire judicial system.We know that law enforcement and prosecutors are married at the hip. Therefore when law enforcement commit the assaults and murder are generally never charged. In turn, from their respective departments suspended from duty nor disposed from duty. Most of their actions are legitimized by their departments and swept under the carpet of the code of silence.

Some of these abuses and murder of citizens are carried out when the oppressed is in custody and restrained with handcuffs. There is anywhere from 4-16 officers on hand to control one individual who is at times begging for their lives. Some never get the chance as they are killed within a minute.

Kelly-Thomas-Police-Beating

There should be no escalation of lethal force with anyone that is not carrying any weapon and can be controlled with ANY non-lethal weapon.  If not, the police academy do not have proper standards and training. The golden rule is to use one more ounce of force that is used against you. If you cannot accomplish this and control any given situation, you should not be an officer of the law that is sworn “to protect and serve”. The problem initiates with the foundation of training. However, any citizen that endeavors to become an officer of the law needs to have rigorous psychological assessments before moving ahead with training and re-evaluated on a steady basis.

Scott Bernstein  – International Tactical Law Enforcement & Military Trainer. ‘Global Security International|Bounty Hunter Training Academy’

Quote

Private sector Supervision of Parole and Probation Violators

One out of 40 Adults free on the streets today is a convicted criminal released on probation or parole. That is approximately 5 million people under government supervision, and a majority are convicted felons. Some 60,000 government bureaucrats supervise these probationers an parolees.

The probation and parole systems have MANY problems, especially the fact that many of those released commit loathsome/heinous crimes.

• Criminals under government supervision commit over 14 murders a dayprison
• Approximately half (50%) of those arrested for a felony crime are already out on probation, parole or pretrial release from a prior conviction or arrest.
• One in 10 probationers and parolees “abscond’ or run.

In the upcoming year, state and federal prisons will release approximately 700,000 convicts, 40% more than in the previous year because of the enormous increase in the prison population and the pressure of the legislation imposed by the government who are control freaks.

The probation and the parole systems could be made more effective and efficient be enlisting the private sector. Those released on probation (no-incarceration) Or released early from prison could be required to post a financial bond guaranteeing behavior in accord with terms of the release. If individual accountability is the answer to crime, then it must include the most powerful kind of accountability: financial responsibility.

How would this work? It would simply transfer the successful commercial principals of our bail system to the probation and parole systems. In accord with our civil liberties, the criminal justice system allows most people who are arrested and charged with a crime to be released on bail pending trial. Bail operates on the principle that the accused can go free once he guarantees his presence in

court on a certain date by posting a significant sum of money. If he shows up, he gets his money back; if he does not, he suffers a major financial loss.  prisongang

Since many defendants do not have the money, the market provides the professional bail bondsmen or bail agent. If the bail agent is willing, he posts the entire bond in exchange for a fee, customarily 10% percent of the total bond. The bail agent loses the entire bond amount if the defendant fails to show up in court.

The private bail system works well, especially compared to public pretrial release programs (“free bonds”) which have twice the failure to appear (FTA) in court rates, fugitive rates and arrests rates of surety bond releases. Bail improves release behavior at no expense to the taxpayers, and thus plays a pivotal role in seeing that justice is done.

A bonding system promises to do the same for post conviction behavior. The idea that financially secured post conviction release programs supervised by bail agents that unsecured release works far greater and hold far less liability and a lower crime rate.

Some will argue that it is a great burden for the poor that afford to pay into the private sector. How do they pay off their fines and restitution to the courts in the public sector then?

 

The only active opposition to the relevance and remedy of this program is the parole and probation agencies who fear an invasion of their turf and of course their jobs. The bottom line is we should always be seeking out remedies for the greater good of the people and not for those who serve the people.

 

“For to be free is not merely to cast off one’s chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others.”

Nelson Mandela