New Zealander Receives 14 Years for Sharing Mosque Shooting Video

Between this and the Assange snatch, freedom of speech in the so-called democracies is pretty much over. The guy shared a video available on Youtube online, broke no laws, but they created an ex-post-facto law to take him down. For 14 years.

14 years for watching and uploading a youtube video that was EVERYWHERE. For a day.

Until the tranny PM of that country deemed it illegal to do so and then started arresting anyone who downloaded the video, in their country.

Not for rape, or murder, or selling heroin to kids, but for watching a youtube video, that turned out to be FAKE, of all things.

That's why it was banned. Because it was a fake video and even one viewing reveals the thing to be so obviously fake. I know this because I DOWNLOADED THE VIDEO.

If I lived in the country, I'd be in prison right now for the crime of watching a video.

Let that sink in.

Because they are getting away with this. And what's next? That will make you guilty of something that isn't criminal nor harms no one in the slightest?

BTW, here is the complete video unretouched, if you want it.
https://kiwifarms.net/data/video/694/694847-518a3baf6096388726e4e9ac7ca0336f.mp4

DB

----------
A businessman from Christchurch, New Zealand pleaded guilty to two charges of distributing footage of the Al Noor Mosque attack, according to the New Zealand Herald.

Philip Neville Arps was convicted on both charges, one of which was for sharing raw footage from accused shooter Brenton Tarrant's rampage to approximately 30 people on Facebook.

FROM THE INTERNET

Clare Bronfman might face 27 month in prison for her involvement in the Nxivm-Skandal. Which involved child trafficing, human sacrifice, branding witches with sigils and moving among several countries. At best she might do six months.

In contrast to that slap on the wrist


Germans face a sentence of up to five years in prison for expressing the wrong opinion about 1933-1945.


And sharing a certain video in NZ will be punished by 14 years in prison.

Satanists run this world.
--------------

What they fear: non-cooperation in their fascist reality

A reader comments:

As I drove around yesterday while I worked my mind tried to wrap itself around just how bad things have gotten. For example, the people on the radio reminded me how every holiday has become an excuse to glorify the military rather than just keeping it to Memorial Day. Then I went around a bend and saw several Officer Fascists doing their protect and serve (aka harass and fine) routine.


Further in my travels I saw a Harley gathering and it made me think. Which is the thing you would least like to see behind you when driving because it has the greatest chance of a negative outcome?

1. A very old person who can barely see over the wheel (Been drivin' a fore you were born, boy.)

2. A crusty motorcycle gang (they want to be left alone)

3. A teen girl talking on her cellphone (she's not watching the road)

4. Officer Fascist (bring me a victim...preferably someone young and weak)

I concluded that of those choices, Officer Fascist has the greatest potential to ruin my day if he's behind me while I'm driving.
-------------------------

(Related: Gandhi on Tolstoy)


To Gandhi, Johannesburg, Transvaal, South Africa.

KOCHETY. 7th September 1910.

I received your journal, Indian Opinion, and was glad to see what it says of those who renounce all resistance by force, and I immediately felt a wish to let you know what thoughts its perusal aroused in me.

The longer I live-especially now when I clearly feel the approach of death-the more I feel moved to express what I feel more strongly than anything else, and what in my opinion is of immense importance, namely, what we call the renunciation of all opposition by force, which really simply means the doctrine of the law of love unperverted by sophistries. Love, or in other words the striving of men's souls towards unity and the submissive behaviour to one another that results therefrom, represents the highest and indeed the only law of life, as every man knows and feels in the depths of his heart (and as we see most clearly in children), and knows until he becomes involved in the lying net of worldly thoughts. This law was announced by all the philosophies- Indian as well as Chinese, and Jewish, Greek and Roman. Most clearly, I think, was it announced by Christ, who said explicitly that on it hang all the Law and the Prophets. More than that, foreseeing the distortion that has hindered its recognition and may always hinder it, he specially indicated the danger of a misrepresentation that presents itself to men living by worldly interests- namely, that they may claim a right to defend their interests by force or, as he expressed it, to repay blow by blow and recover stolen property by force, etc., etc. He knew, as all reasonable men must do, that any employment of force is incompatible with love as the highest law of life, and that as soon as the use of force appears permissible even in a single case, the law itself is immediately negatived. The whole of Christian civilization, outwardly so splendid, has grown up on this strange and flagrant- partly intentional but chiefly unconscious-misunderstanding and contradiction. At bottom, however, the law of love is, and can be, no longer valid if defence by force is set up beside it. And if once the law of love is not valid, then there remains no law except the right of might. In that state Christendom has lived for 1,900 years. Certainly men have always let themselves be guided by force as the main principle of their social order. The difference between the Christian and all other nations is only this: that in Christianity the law of love had been more clearly and definitely given than in any other religion, and that its adherents solemnly recognized it. Yet despite this they deemed the use of force to be permissible, and based their lives on violence - so that the life of the Christian nations presents a greater contradiction between what they believe and the principle on which their lives are built: a contradiction between love which should pre scribe the law of conduct, and the employment of force, recognized under various forms-such as governments, courts of justice, and armies, which are accepted as necessary and esteemed. This contradiction increased with the development of the spiritual life of Christianity and in recent years has reached the utmost tension.

The question now is, that we must choose one of two things-either to admit that we recognize no religious ethics at all but let our conduct of life be decided by the right of might; or to demand that all compulsory levying of taxes be discontinued, and all our legal and police institutions, and above all, military institutions, be abolished.

This spring, at a scripture examination in a Moscow girls' school, first their religious teacher and then an archbishop who was also present, questioned the girls on the ten commandments, especially on the sixth. After the commandments had been correctly recited the archbishop sometimes put a question, usually: 'Is it always and in every case forbidden by the law of God to kill?' And the unfortunate girls, misled by their instructor, had to answer and did answer: 'Not always, for it is permissible in war and at executions.' When, however, this customary additional question-whether it is always a sin to kill-was put to one of these unfortunate creatures (what I am telling you is not an anecdote, but actually happened and was told me by an eyewitness) the girl colored up and answered decidedly and with emotion - 'Always!' And despite all the customary sophistries of the archbishop, she held steadfastly to it-that to kill is under all circumstances forbidden even in the Old Testament, and that Christ has not only forbidden us to kill, but in general to do any harm to our neighbor. The archbishop, for all his majesty and verbal dexterity, was silenced, and victory remained with the girl.

Yes, we may write in the papers of our progress in mastery of the air, of complicated diplomatic relation, of various clubs, of discoveries, of all sorts of alliances, and of so-called works of art, and we can pass lightly over what that girl said. But we cannot completely silence her, for every Christian feels the same, however vaguely he may do so. Socialism, Communism, Anarchism' Salvation Armies, the growth of crime, freedom from toil, the increasingly absurd luxury of the rich and increased misery of the poor, the fearfully rising number of suicides-are all indications of that inner contradiction which must and will be resolved. And, of course, resolved in such a manner that the law of love will be recognized and all reliance on force abandoned. Your work in the Transvaal, which to us seems to be at the end of the earth, is yet in the centre of our interest and supplies the most weighty practical proof, in which the world can now share, and not only the Christian but all the peoples of the world can participate.

I think it will please you to hear that here in Russia, too, a similar movement is rapidly attracting attention, and refusals of military service increase year by year. However small as yet is with you the number of those who renounce all resistance by force, and with us the number of men who refuse any military service-both the one and the other can say: God is with us, and God is mightier than man.

In the confession of Christianity-even a Christianity deformed as is that taught among us-and a simultaneous belief in the necessity of armies and preparations to slaughter on an ever-increasing scale, there is an obvious contradiction that cries to heaven, and that sooner or later, but probably quite soon, must appear in the light of day in its complete nakedness. That, however, will either annihilate the Christian religion, which is indispensable for the maintenance of the State, or it will sweep away the military and all the use of force bound up with it-which the State needs no less. All governments are aware of this contradiction, your British as much as our Russian, and therefore its recognition will be more energetically opposed by the governments than any other activity inimical to the State, as we in Russia have experienced and as is shown by the articles in your magazine. The governments know from what direction the greatest danger threatens them, and are on guard with watchful eyes not merely to preserve their interests but actually to fight for their very existence.


Yours etc., LEO TOLSTOY.

PANOPTICON: The documentary about your privacy

Stilll using FACEBOOK and TWITTER? Suckerrrrrr...



spying on citizens



A Sandy Hoax christmas

Cops arrest 5 year-old for wearing wrong shoes to class (Police state condintioning in progress)

In Mississippi, if kindergarteners violate the dress code or act out in class, they may end up in the back of a police car.




A story about one five-year-old particularly stands out. The little boy was required to wear black shoes to school. Because he didn’t have black shoes, his mom used a marker to cover up his white and red sneakers. A bit of red and white were still noticeable, so the child was taken home by the cops.



The child was escorted out of school so he and his mother would be taught a lesson.



Ridiculous? Perhaps. But incidents such as this are happening across Mississippi. A new report, “Handcuffs on Success: The Extreme School Discipline Crisis in Mississippi Public Schools,” exposes just how bad it’s become.

Released on January 17, the report is a joint project between state chapters of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), and the Mississippi Coalition for the Prevention of Schoolhouse to Jailhouse and the Advancement Project.

The report examined more than 100 school districts and claimed that black students are affected by harsh disciplinary actions at a much greater rate than their white peers. It notes that “for every one white student who is given an out-of-school suspension, three black students are suspended, even though black students comprise just half of the student population.”

Carlos McCray, an associate professor at Fordham University Graduate School of Education in the Education Leadership Administration Program, says, “Research has shown that students who are subjected to multiple suspensions and expulsions are more likely to drop out of school. And we all know where this leads.”

http://www.takepart.com/article/2013/01/18/cops-nab-five-year-old-wearing-wrong-color-shoes-school

Police state gone wild: Couple facing 60 days in jail for rescuing injured baby deer

http://www.naturalnews.com/038874_baby_deer_police_state_jail_time.html#ixzz2JTlOfZRt

Barbara Boxer of California

Scratch a "Liberal," find a Fascist: The Case of Barbara Boxer





Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer of California, a bottomless fountain of foolishness, has proposed a measure that would permit governors to deploy National Guard troops to provide "security" at government-run schools.


“Is it not part of the national defense to make sure that your children are safe?” Boxer asked during a Capitol Hill press conference in the misguided belief that this content-free trope somehow constituted compelling wisdom.


She blithely stated that her proposal wouldn’t be a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act (which was supposed to prevent the domestic use of the military for the purpose of law enforcement) because it would allow governors to re-purpose troops who are already being used for drug interdiction operations. That is to say, the militarization of schools wouldn’t constitute a new Posse Comitatus violation, but rather expand on an existing one.



Boxer’s proposal to militarize the schools could have been taken directly from "The Origins of the American Military Coup of 2012,” a terrifyingly prescient essay published twenty years ago in Parameters, the journal of the U.S. Army War College by military historian Charles J. Dunlap. This glimpse of a dystopian future takes the form of a long letter written by an officer awaiting execution as a traitor to the junta that has seized control over the United States in the wake of military disasters abroad and socio-economic turmoil at home.


"It wasn't any single cause that led us to this point," writes the condemned patriot to a friend. "It was instead a combination of several different developments, the beginnings of which were evident in 1992.” Rather than de-mobilizing at the end of the Cold War, the ruling establishment expanded the military’s mission overseas and made it an even more pervasive presence at home.



Military personnel became "an adjunct to all police forces in the country," the officer recalls; social and economic problems were redefined as "national security" issues and brought under the military's area of responsibility. This is how uniformed military personnel became ubiquitous: People became accustomed to the sight of "uniformed military personnel patrolling their neighborhood.... Even the youngest citizens were co-opted.... [We have] an entire generation of young people who have grown up comfortable with the sight of military personnel patrolling their streets and teaching in their classrooms."


There is a sense in which Boxer’s proposal is redundant, since armed “warriors” are already deployed in countless schools nation-wide: They are called “resource officers,” but they are taught to perceive themselves as front-line troops on a combat footing.


"You've got to be a one-man fighting force,” self-styled counter-terrorism “expert” John Giduck exhorted police officers at the 2007 National Conference of School Resource Officers in Orlando, Florida. “You've got to have enough guns, and ammunition and body armor to stay alive.... You should be walking around in schools every day in complete tactical equipment, with semi-automatic weapons.... You can no longer afford to think of yourselves as peace officers.... You must think of yourself [sic] as soldiers in a war because we're going to ask you to act like soldiers." (Emphasis added.)



“Resource Officers” are not present for the protection of children; their mission is to intimidate them, and – with increasing frequency – make criminals out of them. A detailed story published by The Guardian of London points out that in 2010, police deployed in public schools issued roughly 300,000 “class C misdemeanor” citations to school children, most of them for trivial disruptive behavior, such as “inappropriate” dress and excessive use of perfume. Those infractions can result in fines, community service, or even time behind bars – and an arrest record that can ruin the student’s future educational and employment prospects. This is a splendid illustration of the “school-to-prison pipeline” in operation.



Although horrific mass shootings like the one at Sandy Hook Elementary School are vanishingly rare, “lock-down” drills in which SWAT teams conduct training exercises involving hostage or terrorism scenarios are increasingly commonplace. Many of those “hostage rescue" drills are better described as hostage-taking exercises, since they are used as pretexts for warrantless searches of lockers and student property.



Child-killer poses with Sandy Hook Survivors.

Vista Grande High School in Casa Grande, Arizona, held a lock-down drug sweep on October 31. As had happened before in other schools across the country, the students were confined to their classrooms, then led in small groups to another room where they were forced to line up against a wall and be searched with the help of drug-sniffing dogs.



This exercise introduced a new element: Among the four law enforcement agencies involved in the search was a group of prison guards employed by the Corrections Corporation of America, the nation’s largest for-profit prison contractor.


Notes Caroline Isaacs of the Tucson office of the American Friends Service Committee: “To invite for-profit prison guards to conduct law enforcement actions in a high school is perhaps the most direct expression of the `schools-to-prison pipeline’ I’ve ever seen.” Clearly, the similarities between government-run schools and prisons are not limited to architecture. Posting National Guard troops around government indoctrination centers, as Boxer proposes, would destroy any residual pretense that there is a material distinction between "schools" and "prisons" in what is becoming an undisguised garrison state.


Like most contemporary liberals, Boxer is a passionate militarist who swaddles her enthusiasm for lethal force in rhetoric about compassion and equality. She can call for armed troops to patrol “gun-free” school zones without perceiving any contradiction, because she simply assumes that the rest of us exist only to serve the interests of the political class and its enforcement arm. It is their privilege to compel, and our duty to submit to whatever they choose to inflict upon us. This is what Boxer and her comrades have in mind when they invoke “national security.”   http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/

The Anti Federalist Writers Predicted the Tyranny We Live In Today

Treaties are not the law of the land regardless what the politicians may say. The rights of the people cannot be abrogated or changed by a treaty. The President cannot ban all firearms with the UN making the decrees of what is law or not. All treaties have to be in agreement with the Constitution and the bill of rights. But not to the Tyrants who seek to twist the Constitution.




Under Article 2 Sec. 2 clause 2 in the US Constitution states:



He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.



The President with the advice and consent of the Senate seeking to sign the UN Small Arms treaty. The question is about the treaty is. Does is agree with the Constitution?



If you read in the Anti Federalist papers there was a concern about the Senate and the President with the power to make treaties. The writers seen the imbalance of power not having the House of Representatives involved in ratifying treaties. They have seen the possible flaw that can be a threat to all our freedoms expressing their concern in Anti Federalist number 75. Here is what the writer says:



I see nothing to hinder the president and senate, at a convenient crisis, to declare themselves hereditary and supreme, and the lower house altogether useless, and to abolish what shadow of the state constitutions remain by this power alone; and as the president and senate have all that influence which arises from the creating and appointing of all offices and officers, who can doubt but at a proper occasion they will succeed in such an attempt? And who can doubt but that men will arise who will attempt it? Will the doing so be a more flagrant breach of trust, or a greater degree of violence and perfidy, than has already been practiced in order to introduce the proposed plan?



Why Because the people’s house has no say in ratification of treaties that could be a threat to our republican form of government and our God Given Liberties. The author says the congress as a whole ratifying treaties is better on chamber and the President. The writer emphatically makes the point again in Anti Federalist 75 again saying:



Therefore, though the small house of representatives will consist of the natural aristocracy of the country, as well as the senate, yet not being dangerously combined with the executive branch, it has not such certain influential inducements to corruption.



Also the Writer of Anti Federalist 84 says about treaties saying:



This will appear the more necessary, when it is considered, that not only the Constitution and laws made in pursuance thereof, but all treaties made, under the authority of the United States, are the supreme law of the land, and supersede the Constitutions of all the States. The power to make treaties, is vested in the president, by and with the advice and consent of two-thirds of the senate. I do not find any limitation or restriction to the exercise of this power. The most important article in any Constitution may therefore be repealed, even without a legislative act. Ought not a government, vested with such extensive and indefinite authority, to have been restricted by a declaration of rights? It certainly ought.



The writer has seen the potential for corruption with the Senate and the President in the treaty making process and seen the House of Representitives bringing balance of power to the process if Congress as a whole ratified treaties. This is the concern of all the anti Federalist writers of a centralized government seizing power over time. In Anti Federalist number 17 says so eloquently:



It is not meant, by stating this case, to insinuate that the Constitution would warrant a law of this kind! Or unnecessarily to alarm the fears of the people, by suggesting that the Federal legislature would be more likely to pass the limits assigned them by the Constitution, than that of an individual State, further than they are less responsible to the people. But what is meant is, that the legislature of the United States are vested with the great and uncontrollable powers of laying and collecting taxes, duties, imposts, and excises; of regulating trade, raising and supporting armies, organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, instituting courts, and other general powers; and are by this clause invested with the power of making all laws, proper and necessary, for carrying all these into execution; and they may so exercise this power as entirely to annihilate all the State governments, and reduce this country to one single government.



The Writers expressed the concern that without a Bill of Rights, this Constitution has sown the seeds of tyranny as the Anti Federalist Paper #84 makes the point saying:



If we may collect the sentiments of the people of America, from their own most solemn declarations, they hold this truth as self-evident, that all men are by nature free. No one man, therefore, or any class of men, have a right, by the law of nature, or of God, to assume or exercise authority over their fellows. The origin of society, then, is to be sought, not in any natural right which one man has to exercise authority over another, but in the united consent of those who associate.



This is why the Bill of Rights was adopted and ratified as part of the Constitution to restrain government. As expressed in the Preamble to the Bill of Rights which declares:



The Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.



President Obama who is ready to sign the UN Small Arms Treaty and the Law of the Sea treaty is close to being ratified with two thirds of the Senate concurring. These two treaties all are to the Contrary, not withstanding. The two treaties go against our Constitution and the Bill of Rights. They are unconstitutional. They both bring in foreign influence which had the concern of many of the early founders in Anti Federalist Papers #3



The policies of the politicians in Washington with powers not delegated by the Constitution will eventually lead to another civil war by provocation or by design from foreign influence off shore controlling our elected representatives. If Obama comes after everyone’s firearms and to confiscate all private property to satisfy the bankers. This will start a conflict because of government overreach. When civil war happens Anti Federalist writer in article #7 sees into the future says:

Of all the plagues that infest a nation, a civil war is the worst. Famine is severe, pestilence is dreadful; but in these, though men die, they die in peace. The father expires without the guilt of the son; and the son, if he survives, enjoys the inheritance of his father. Cities may be thinned, but they neither plundered nor burnt. But when a civil war is kindled, there is then forth no security of property nor protection from any law. Life and fortune become precarious. And all that is dear to men is at the discretion of profligate soldiery, doubly licentious on such an occasion. Cities are exhausted by heavy contributions, or sacked because they cannot answer exorbitant demand.




In the next paragraph saying something very profound to me about the reality of a civil war we might face again because the flaws in the Constitution again in Anti Federalist Paper #7:



May Heaven avert the dreadful catastrophe! In the most limited governments, what wranglings, animosities, factions, partiality, and all other evils that tend to embroil a nation and weaken a state, are constantly practiced by legislators. What then may we expect if the new constitution be adopted as it now stands? The great will struggle for power, honor and wealth; the poor become a prey to avarice, insolence and oppression. And while some are studying to supplant their neighbors, and others striving to keep their stations, one villain will wink at the oppression of another, the people be fleeced, and the public business neglected. From despotism and tyranny good Lord deliver us.



The Bill of Rights did not stop the Authoritarians. They will use the commerce clause to attack economic liberty which now we call crony capitalism as foreseen in Anti Federalist Papers # 11:



The remaining power for peace and trade might perhaps be safely lodged with Congress under some limitations. Three restrictions appear to me to be essentially necessary to preserve that equality of rights to the states, which it is the object of the state governments to secure to each citizen. 1st. It ought not to be in the power of Congress, either by treaty or otherwise, to alienate part of any state without the consent of the legislature. 2nd. They ought not to be able, by treaty or other law, to give any legal preference to one part above another. 3rd. They ought to be restrained from creating any monopolies….



Now we have a President who is operating outside the Constitution. Ever since President Abraham Lincoln to today seeing the overreach of the chief executive usurping the power of congress and the states. In Federalist #74 writing foreseen the danger :



The writer of these essays has clearly proven, that the President is a King to all intents and purposes, and at the same time one of the most dangerous kind too – an elective King, the commander in chief of a standing army, etc. And to those add, that he has a negative power over the proceedings of both branches of the legislature. And to complete his uncontrolled sway, he is neither restrained nor assisted by a privy council, which is a novelty in government. I challenge the politicians of the whole continent to find in any period of history a monarch more absolute. . . .



The writers of the Anti Federalist Papers seen the tyranny coming to this land, The written extensively about the possible flaws in the Constitution. Will there be changes needed in the Constitution that need to be addressed?



Yes I agree, Some modifications are needed in the Constitution. Do not abolish the Bill of Rights.



Take away the power of Congress to abrogate their Constitutional duties and responsibilities to allow the Private Central Bank to control the currency. No more private Central banks.



With the changes in technology and the increased of mobility we have. There have to be some provisions that have to be modified.



The fact is the Anti Federalist writers seen the abuses a centralized government can bring to the several states. This is why they wanted a Bill of Rights to further restrain the power of government. Even with the Bill of Rights, the Federal government to this day still usurps the power of the states and the individual under the clause “being necessary and proper”



The anti Federalist predicted this tyranny over 200 years ago. The US Constitution is a great document, if followed and honored. We will get our freedom back and our prosperity. We can be a great nation again at peace with the world with no illegal wars.



The truth is there are people who will manipulate and twist the meaning of the Constitution from its original intent. The power of commerce clause is twisted to control economic and personal behavior to attack the Bill of Rights, to restrict the second amendment in our Bill of Rights. The meaning of the word “regulate” now and back in 1787 are now opposite as night and day. The meaning of the word “Regulate” in 1787 meant to keep free flowing and keep regular without restriction.



Today “Regulate” means to restrict or impede. They attack the right to keep and bear arms twisting the definition of a Well Regulated Militia to infringe on the second amendment. Also using the commerce clause to shut down as certain industry like industrial Hemp in favor of another industry like DuPont is making a synthetic rope instead of a rope made of Hemp.



Just remember our rights are God Given with Alienable rights which Blacks Law Dictionary defines as:



Incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred to another; not alienable.



No matter how much corruption has metastasized in our government. Our rights cannot be taken away by treaty or an act of congress. We can only lose them by giving them away or surrendering them by our own free will.



The Anti Federalist writers wrote these papers, so we can be aware when tyranny comes here to oppress us, we can act and take back our liberties by listening to the wisdom of the founders who use historical precedent and good moral judgement to back up what they say. Let their words not be ignored.

In a Police State, walking your dogs can get you tasered, arrested, and jailed.

When park rangers become - as they have become in the last twenty years - militant bullies with badges, then the country is doomed. More and more, when badge bullies get answers they don't like, or they are having a bad day, out comes the taser, whether you are an 8 year-old child, or a guy just walking his dogs. Tasering the population has now become commonplace.

And this story about the guy giving a false name...how did they know at the time it was false? They couldn't have known. That is no reason to electrocute a human being, regardless. Cops lie a dozen times a day, but no one is zapping them for it.

A Montara man walking two lapdogs off leash was hit with an electric-shock gun by a National Park Service ranger after allegedly giving a false name and trying to walk away, authorities said Monday.


The park ranger encountered Gary Hesterberg with his two small dogs Sunday afternoon at Rancho Corral de Tierra, which was recently incorporated into the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, said Howard Levitt, a spokesman for the park service.

Hesterberg, who said he didn't have identification with him, allegedly gave the ranger a false name, Levitt said.

The ranger, who wasn't identified, asked Hesterberg to remain at the scene, Levitt said. He tried several times to leave, and finally the ranger "pursued him a little bit and she did deploy her" electric-shock weapon, Levitt said. "That did stop him."

San Mateo County sheriff's deputies and paramedics then arrived and Hesterberg gave his real name, the park spokesman said.

Hesterberg, whose age was not available, was arrested on suspicion of failing to obey a lawful order, having dogs off-leash and knowingly providing false information, Levitt said.

He was then released. He did not return a phone call seeking comment.

Witnesses said the use of a stun gun and the arrest seemed excessive for someone walking two small dogs off leash.

"It was really scary," said Michelle Babcock, who said she had seen the incident as she and her husband were walking their two border collies. "I just felt so bad for him."

Babcock said Hesterberg had repeatedly asked the ranger why he was being detained. She didn't answer him, Babcock said.

"He just tried to walk away. She never gave him a reason," Babcock said.

The ranger shot Hesterberg in the back with her shock weapon as he walked off, Babcock said.

"We were like in disbelief," she said. "It didn't make any sense."

Rancho Corral de Tierra has long been an off-leash walking spot for local dog owners. In December, the area became part of the national park system, which requires that all dogs be on a leash, Levitt said.



The ranger was trying to educate residents of the rule, Levitt said.



The park service is investigating the incident, he said.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/01/30/MN921N0LQT.DTL
 

Assaulting children for no identification

SPD dash-cam video shows questionable conduct by officers
2 Seattle, WA cops on dashcam dragging passenger from car & tasing him for refusing to give them ID when he legally didn’t have to then arresting his mom for telling them to call their supervisor.




In the blink of an eye, what began as a routine police check turned into a chaotic scene.



The dash cam video, exclusively obtained by KOMO News, shows more questionable conduct by Seattle police.

The footage shows two dock workers waiting for work get handcuffed. One is hit with a Taser, and both are arrested by police just because the passenger "lips off" to police.

KOMO News uncovered what the American Civil Liberties Union calls a classic case of "contempt of cop." This type of contact, which starts off as a minor stop and quickly escalates to use of force and arrests, is at the heart of what critics say is wrong with Seattle police.

Officer Harris was suspicious when he saw two dock workers, a mother and her son, sitting in a parked car for more than ans hour. They were waiting for a work call-out.

Harris and another officer approached the pair, and the situation quickly turned violent when the son appeared to to ignore the officer's demands for ID.

"You're gonna get Tased," an officer is heard saying.

"I'm not doing nothing! I'm getting out! Stop! My ankle," the man is heard yelling.

One officer used his Taser in the touch-stun mode, and the two wrestled the passenger to the ground where he suffered cuts to his forehead. The man's mother is seen getting out of the car, repeatedly asking for the officer's boss to be called.

"You guys are really out of line," the woman says.

"Sit down," says an officer.

"You're out of line, you know," says the mother.

"You are under arrest for obstructing," the officer says.

"I'm not doing anything," says the woman.

The ACLU and two defense attorneys reviewed the footage, and they both agree the use of force was unnecessary.

"Completely unnecessary," said attorney LeGrand Jones.

"Never had to happen," said ACLU Deputy Director Jennifer Shaw. "It appears that it's a training problem. Certainly, it's a supervision problem."

The incident appeared to have started when the passenger failed to provide his identification. But Jones says he didn't have to.

"Clearly, there was no obligation on the son's part to produce identification. He was a passenger. He really didn't even have to speak to police," he said. The only time one must produce an identification is when one is stopped by a police officer while driving.

All three attorneys believe the real reason the situation escalated is clearly defined by the officer himself.

"And from the very start, you were lipping off," the officer is heard saying.

In the wake of a review by the Department of Justice, Seattle Police Chief John Diaz said this type of confrontation was a missed opportunity and the focus of re-training for the entire department.

"They could have handled it better, and they should have handled it better," he said. "We were having burglaries in that area. These were people that could be the eyes and ears of the department. So that was an opportunity that we could have made more friends out in the community."

An internal investigation determined this incident involved a misuse of force, and the primary officer received a letter of reprimand.


The police chief said more than 450 officers have already gone through additional crisis-intervention training, and the department plans to continue adding to that number.

The USA Police State descent into the human rights abyss

The insidious Patriot Act followed by


The Security Enhancement Act of 2003,

the infamous Military Commissions Act 2006,

followed by the John Warner Defense Authorization Act 2007 and,

which called for the suspension of habeas corpus (4th Amendment due process)

all of which gave the president the power to arbitrarily determine on his own, that any one of us was a “domestic terrorist” and going even further to

allow the president to strip us of our citizenship at his discretion with no oversight.

ABUSE OF POWER

Motorcyclist jailed for 26 hours for videotaping gun-wielding cop

http://carlosmiller.com/2010/04/16/maryland-motorcyclist-spends-26-hours-in-jail-on-wiretapping-charge-for-filming-cop-with-gun/

The times, they are a changin'

News Item: The IRS is acquiring shotguns with 14” barrels for its people.

Wow…

The change was slow but sure, in the early 90s. First it was the forest service personnel. You know, those guys and gals that ride around in those green trucks up in the mountains making the national forests nice for the people. All of a sudden, they were sporting side arms and rifles in the cab of their trucks. They were afraid of being killed—not by bears and mountain lions, but by people, one told me about 15 years ago. And now, they have to attend a kind of police academy of sorts to be a ranger.

Okay.

Then, a few years after that, I noticed that dog-catchers and animal control personnel were sporting side-arms and mace. And eventually, TASERS.

Okay.

Then, as the 90s became the 21st century, I noticed that the old friendly forest rangers that knew everything a person could know about the forest under their watch were being replaced by very big, skin-headed guys that looked like they could press 6000 pounds. I spoke with one in 2004, while up in the Angeles National Forest. It was clear he didn’t know a thingy about forestry or animal husbandry. Instead of the old happy parley that I used to get when talking with forest guys, I received cold, one syllable answers with a smirk on his face. The answers to my questions were incorrect. How do you get a job in the forest service and know nothing about forestry?

Okay.

As the years went by, I kept reading one news report after another about this or that public agency arming, including the Internal Revenue Service, basically a paperwork outfit that does most of its work from behind a computer terminal. In 2001, I heard that ALL IRS service people were getting side arms.

And now, shotguns, with illegal (for you and me) 14” barrels. Ever see what a sawd-off shotgun does to a box of Wheaties? It isn’t pretty.

The municipal, state, and federal branches are arming themselves to the teeth. In a time when the idea being put out is to disarm for a safer world.

Okay.

The big lie of why the middle east hates us so very much is because they hate our freedoms. Freedom? In the United States? Really? In the video below you have an 80 year old catholic priest protesting abortion at Notre Dame, which is a chatholic university.

So the police arrest him. Bind him. And strap him down so he cannot move. And they call this freedom?

Still believe the big lies of the politicians and the media?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiz4tfjSuPc