ALL LIVES MATTER

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.

525

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”.

Martin_Luther_King,_Jr._Montgomery_arrest_1958

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.

black-american-teenager-police-arrest

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.

casket

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.

Police-militarization

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.

brian-moore-funeral

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”.

coppies

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.

StudentServices_CampusPolice_1

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

Video Taping the Police – Know your Rights

filmingcops

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.

policebeating

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-brutality-america

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.”

KHORASAN – Deadlier Threat than ISIS

While we are concentrating ALL our efforts and views on ISIS, intelligence emerged that will leave the United States and its allies blind sided by terrorist attacks with even more upcoming confrontation than being witnessed with the Islamic State. It is far more sinister and a direct threat from a much lesser known terrorist group that has arisen from the ashes of the Syrian war.
This splinter group calling itself Khorasan may be laying in wake with concrete plans for striking targets in the United States and Europe as a chosen modus operandi – more so than ISIS. The inside information in Washington who have had the information for years will not deny that Khorasan may pose as much of a danger as the Islamic State.

According to the New York Times, some US officials have gone as far as saying that, while the Islamic State is undoubtedly more prominent in its show of force in the Middle East, it is Khorasan who’s intent on oversees campaigns in a way Al Qaeda usually is.

islamists-treat-muslims.si

In this sense, the US air strike campaign and the coming actions by the anti-IS coalition might just be what coaxes IS into larger-scale attacks on American and European soil – what Khorasan is essentially all about which brings up another issue that blinds Washington’s stance on terrorism. It is so focused on the terror spread by IS that it’s beginning to forget that the destruction and mayhem of civil war across the Middle East is spawning a number of hard-to-track terrorist factions and sleep cells with distinct missions.

Khorasan – a splinter group from Al-Qaeda (a growing body of extremists from around the world) are coming in and taking advantage of the ungoverned areas and creating informal ad hoc groups that are not directly aligned with ISIS or Nusra of which our government and intelligence are ignoring.

This Al-Qaeda offshoot group is led by a former senior operative Muhsin al-Fadhli. He had reportedly fled to Iran during the US-led invasion of Afghanistan with other Operatives moving to and from Pakistan, Syria, Iran and other countries after the campaign, forming splinter groups.

Al-Fadhli was identified as leading the Iranian branch of Al-Qaeda, controlling the movement of funds and operatives in the region and working closely with wealthy “jihadist donors” in his native Kuwait to raise money for the Syrian terrorist resistance.

Although American intelligence is said to have been tracking it for over a decade, Khorasan itself is shrouded in mystery. Little is known publicly and it is said to favor concealed explosives as a terror method and like other groups taking power in war-torn provinces like Syria, Khorasan has on occasion shifted its alliances.

khorasancell

Al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri at one point ordered the former ISIS to fight only in Iraq, but cut all ties with it when it disobeyed and branched out. The result was that the Nusra Front became Al-Qaeda’s official branch in Syria. It’s said that Khorasan is to Al Nusra Front what the latter was to Al-Qaeda.

They see their mission in recruiting European and American Muslim militants who have traveled to Syria to fight alongside Islamist extremist groups that form part of the rebel coalition fighting Syria’s Assad regime. In return, the Khorasan group hopes to train and deploy these recruits, who hold American and European passports, for attacks against Western targets. The belief here is that Khorasan will be Al-Qaeda’s new arm in carrying our terrorist attacks against the United States.

The group reportedly has the services of Al-Qaeda bomb maker, Ibrahim al-Asiri, whose devices previously ended up on three US-bound planes. He is known to be a true pioneer of hard-to-detect bombs. The next step most likely in their agenda will be taking those bombs and pairing them with US-born and other foreign jihadist returning home.

zohani4

In this respect, Khorasan threats to the US to be much more directly compared to the Islamic State’s more regional ambitions and since POTUS anti ISIS strategy does not include Al Nusra, which then frees up Khorasan’s hands.

Al Nusra is set apart from many other groups is that it’s now the only faction with active branches throughout Syria.

The volatile conflict zone that is Syria, with its lax borders and an increasing number of distinct, armed Islamist groups, the US may be surprised by how difficult it soon may be to pinpoint the origin of the next threat.

Does the Insanity Defense justify the means?

With cases like Julie Schenecher who put a bullet through her son in his head while driving and another in his mouth and then returned home to do the exact same things to her daughter while she was doing her homework because she stated “they were mean to me”.

How about Megan Huntsman who was charged with killing 7 infants in her home and put them in cardboard boxes. Sometimes there is no justice where criminal defense attorneys do not even use the insanity defense where the evidence is so overwhelming and the defendant is acquitted of all charges such in the Casey Anthony case and in our system cannot be tried again. Where is the justice for these innocent souls?

Andrea Yates was legally insane when she drowned her five children in a bathtub, allegedly to save them from being tormented forever in hell.

schenchker

Many scientists and legal scholars have complained that tests like these, used by the law to determine criminal responsibility, are unscientific. Given recent advances in our understanding of human behavior and of the brain, these critics argue, the legal test for insanity is a quaint relic of a bygone era.

These criticisms misunderstand the nature of criminal responsibility, which is moral, not scientific. On the other hand, legislation that has eliminated or unduly constrained the insanity defense, often in response to unpopular verdicts of not guilty by reason of insanity, is likewise off the mark. Between these two attacks, the concept of the morally responsible individual seems to be disappearing.

In an effort to hold most people accountable, and recognizing both the difficulty of establishing what was in the defendant’s mind at the time of the crime and the defendant’s incentive to lie about it, the law sought to establish strict standards for responsibility. As a result, legal insanity tests were drawn quite narrowly. They did not excuse most defendants whose intentional conduct broke the law, even if they might have suffered from mental disorders or other problems at the time of the crime.

The rise of various materialistic and deterministic explanations of human behavior, including psychiatry, psychology, sociology and, more recently, neuroscience, has posed a particular challenge to the criminal law’s relatively simple central assumption that with few exceptions we act intentionally and can be held responsible. With perceptions of insanity, they have no control. People are not responsible for their crimes: it’s their poverty, their addictions or, ultimately, their neurons.

insanity

If we agree that there may be some percentage of people whose moral cognition is seriously disordered, how can the law identify those people in a way that will not allow the materialism of science to expand the definitions of excusing conditions to include all criminals? That is, if paranoid schizophrenia can provide part of the basis to excuse some criminal acts, why not bipolar disorder, or being angry, or having a bad day, or just being a jerk? After all, a large number of factors over which we have no rational control cause each of us to be the way we are.

The short answer is that we should recognize that the criteria for responsibility. Most people are responsible, but some are not.

Convicting and punishing a defendant who genuinely believed that God commanded him to kill is not unscientific, it is immoral and unjust.

We should be skeptical about claims of non-responsibility. But, if insanity-defense tests are interpreted sensibly to excuse people who genuinely lacked the ability to reason morally at the time of the crime, and expert testimony is treated with appropriate caution, can the criminal justice system reasonably decide whom to blame and punish?

minds5

 

In the 1950’s came the abolishment of the Mental Institutions where souls were left to squalor. Now the decision makers have to make a judgment that is never based on fact. Mental illness is not an exact science. Law is not a science.

The Atrocities of the Catholic Church

Most think and believe in recent years hundreds, if not thousands, of individuals have come forward claiming sexual abuse from priests in the Roman Catholic Church. That is valid. However, history for these crimes dates back much further with abuses from the Catholic church.

Numerous “pedophile priests” have been identified. Sadly, rather than defrocking the priests (removing from the priesthood), the Catholic Church has in most instances attempted to cover up the sexual abuse by transferring the offending priest(s) to different parishes or ‘re-locating’ them. In the spectrum of the law, aiding and abetting these crimes, is a crime in itself.

priest

The scandal and attempted cover-up continues to ever expand which reaching the papacy wants you to believe is current but this at The Vatican has been a cover-up for some time and a shared secret.

The Vatican faced blistering criticism from a United Nations committee recently over allegations it protected pedophile priests at the expense of victims in what constituted a worldwide sex abuse scandal.

vatican

 

It now appears with the over surmounting pressure from the UN and sub-committees that given the zero tolerance policy of the Vatican do we hear the Pope taking a stance.

Will we start to see methods to protect our children from sexual abuse? Will there be accountability? Should priests by treated any differently than other criminal offenders and will anyone from the Catholic church be brought to justice for their SINS? Better pray….your child could be next.

CHILD RECOVERY INTERNATIONAL – WHERE LIVES ARE AT STAKE!

missingpersons

Why Child Recovery International?

Old school and old methodologies standards have no merit and you never want to gamble with a child’s life. What do you do when your child goes missing? Probably what every parent does; run to the police who most likely just takes an incident not a missing person report and then you call NCMEC. So, whether or not the police report to your home which is proper procedure, the police will most likely advise you that your child will return home due to childhood ANGST and acting out. This is them telling you their disinterest. The hate domestic calls. Also, the police are far specialists in missing persons.

PredatorCertainly there are good detectives but most will admit they did not receive the high level of training at the police academy for this type of expertise. The main factor of course is that that are confined to their own jurisdiction and unless your child is blond haired and blue eyes or has powerful political or corporate connections, you will catch the media eye and in turn get federal attention and the eye of the public.

The private sector as most know is always more proficient and dedicated. Child Recovery International has recovered over 650 missing and endangered children in just 17 years. Statistics speak volumes. We have the knowledge, skills, tools, techniques and abilities to focal point each given assignment and quickly disseminate the factual nature on each case assignment with an accurate profile in a proficient time element. Time is essential. Each case requires an accurate profile with strategic thinking and assessments. Each minute is a mile that potentially separates you from your child . We respond immediately and can process the nature of a child’s disappearance by developing an accurate profile through proven analysis and human behavior. We do not post flyers nor hold candle light vigils.

Our Theorem

We do not just immerse ourselves in today’s tasks. We think big picture. We step back fromstrategy the dance floor from time to time and take the balcony view. We review systems. Set priorities aligned with the major goals. We learn new sets of strategies for the leads we develop and move quickly. We take our innovative and creative knowledge and possessive qualities by backing it by taking smart risks. We overcome barriers with collaboration methodology applications. We stay on radar. We do not work on assumption but on clear and evident facts and evidence. We understand the value of direction and perseverance in our roles within our organization.

Leading by Example

We understand that being a role model is effectively networking by showing the value of spanning old boundaries and busting out old silos. That is how we are effective working hand in hand with local, state and federal authorities whenever necessary. Your IQ alone can’t fuel one’s success. Emotional intelligence is critical. We build and brand our self-awareness, self- management, social awareness and relationship management.

We recognize that as a leader, you can be contagious. We you need to be a source of energy, empatRUNAWAYhy and earned trust, proving optimism and reality with proven results. We understand that resilience is the key to leadership especially in stressful times. Critical thinkers question conventional wisdom. Here, we are vigilant about identifying and challenging assumptions that underlie actions and inaction. We are automatically wary of generalizations and unproven theories. We strive to be independent thinkers, careful to check how others base their colorful decisions and try not ask “how do you know that?” Avoiding this, we are able to speed up good decision-making and not cause paralysis by analysis.

Effectiveness

As the private sector leader, we have recovered over 650 missing and endangered children and approximately 1500 adults.

expertWe understand that you have to communicate effectively in order to be efficient in one’s mission statement. Listening is the goal and the most powerful interpersonal form of communication with the members of the immediate family with one-to-one or small group circles.

Fear is not an exception for us. The Client is always the Child and the ONLY priority. We fear not the consequences of our work. because the tunnel of our objective is always clear and precise that we will not fail. There is always a pathway to a missing child. We know that we will have to find it! Closure is key!

VISIT OUR WEBSITE