Criminal Justice

Cop Shoots Fleeing Teen For Not Having A Bicycle Light

Cop Shoots Fleeing Teen For Not Having A Bicycle Light

In the land of the free, police can and will detain and extort you for improper bicycle lighting. If you try to escape this extortion, you can be mowed down by a police cruiser, mauled by a police K9, or, as the following incident illustrates, you may even die. On the night Anthony Bernal Cano, he had harmed no one yet he became the target of a Chandler Police Department cop. Moments later, Cano would have two bullet holes in his back.

High school student Lorenzo Soria, says his buddy Anthony was likely on his way to his house that fateful night last month when he was targeted by police for improper bicycle lighting. Anthony would never make it to Lorenzo’s house however, because the officer with the Chandler police department decided he needed to deprive Anthony of his right to freely travel—because Anthony didn’t have a light on his bicycle.

“I take care of Anthony, he’s always with me and stuff, he’s like a little brother to me,” Soria told The Arizona Republic, adding that they’d both grown up in the neighborhood where the shooting occurred.

On the night of January 2, Anthony was riding his bicycle down the road when the officer decided he needed to stop the teen because he did not have the proper lighting.

When the officer turned on his lights to pull Anthony over, Anthony made the decision to flee. This would cost him his life. Anthony likely fled the scene because he was carrying a gun and didn’t want to get into trouble over it.

As the graphic body cam shows, Anthony attempted to flee on the bicycle before dropping it and taking off on foot.

“He’s fleeing on foot,” said the officer in the footage.

Body camera footage shows the officer in pursuit of the boy just before Anthony drops his gun. For some reason, Anthony didn’t simply leave the gun and stop running. Instead, he attempted to pick it up.

“As Cano stopped to retrieve his gun, the officer drew his duty weapon,” said Commander Chris Perez with the Chandler Police Department.

At no time in the video does Anthony ever appear to turn toward the officer or point the gun in the officer’s direction. It appears from the video that he was merely attempting to grab it to keep running, thinking he would get away. He would not.

“Drop it! Get on the ground!” the officer shouts.

Seconds later, the cop shoots Anthony in the back causing the boy to drop to the ground. At this point, the child is clearly incapacitated—not even moving—and the threat is neutralized. However, for good measure, as the teen lies dying on the ground, the cop puts another round in his back in a seeming attempt to finish him off.

Amazingly enough, the two bullets in the boy’s back did not immediately kill him. He would fight for his life for weeks, undergoing several surgeries before succumbing to his injuries earlier this month.

After the shooting, the officer—who is reportedly a 5-year veteran of the department—was placed on administrative leave, where he currently remains.

Anthony’s friend, Lorenzo Soria said he’s never known him to be in trouble with police in the past and said the idea of Cano having a gun seemed “a little off.”

Independent Investigation Finds Police in the Wrong for Killing Elijah McClain

Independent Investigation Finds Police in the Wrong for Killing Elijah McClain

As TFTP reported, Elijah McClain was killed by police after he was put in a chokehold and given the sedative ketamine. The incident began when someone in the neighborhood called the police because McClain was walking down the street with groceries while wearing a mask. McClain reportedly always wore the mask because he was anemic, and often got cold, and he was an introvert.

Now, more than a year and a half later, an independent investigation, commissioned by the city, has found that police had no legal basis to stop McClain that night as he had broken absolutely no law.

According to the Denver Post, the investigation also found that the department’s own investigation conducted by detectives in the Major Crimes Unit—was deeply flawed—and deliberately steered to exonerate the officers involved.

The detectives failed to ask basic, critical questions of the officers involved in McClain’s death and instead “the questions frequently appeared designed to elicit specific exonerating ‘magic language’ found in court rulings,” the report states.

“In addition, the report of the Major Crime Unit stretched the record to exonerate the officers rather than present a neutral version of the facts,” the investigators wrote.

“It is hard to imagine any other persons involved in a fatal incident being interviewed as these officers were,” the investigators continued.

“The body worn camera audio, limited video, and Major Crime’s interviews with the officers tell two contrasting stories,” the report states. “The officers’ statements on the scene and in subsequent recorded interviews suggest a violent and relentless struggle. The limited video, and the audio from the body worn cameras, reveal Mr. McClain surrounded by officers, all larger than he, crying out in pain, apologizing, explaining himself, and pleading with the officers.”

The investigation also implicated the EMTs who showed up and injected McClain with ketamine at the request of the officers. Aside from blindly following cops’ orders to inject someone with ketamine, EMTs also failed to accurately determine McClain’s weight, leading to the 140 pound innocent man receiving a dose for a 190 pound man.

“Aurora Fire appears to have accepted the officers’ impression that Mr. McClain had excited delirium without corroborating that impression through meaningful observation or diagnostic examination of Mr. McClain,” the investigators wrote.

McClain’s mother, Sheneen McClain, “is relieved that the truth surrounding the death of her son is finally coming to light,” according to a statement issued by her attorneys, the post reported.

“The Aurora officials who contributed to Elijah’s death must be immediately terminated,” according to the statement from the Rathod Mohamedbhai law firm. “Ms. McClain continues to call for the criminal prosecution of those responsible for Elijah’s death. Elijah committed no crime on the day of his death, but those who are responsible for Elijah’s death certainly did.”

At the time of his death, McClain had never gotten so much as a speeding ticket in his life.

Moments after police approached McClain claiming that he fit the description of a suspect. They claim that he resisted arrest and needed to be subdued. McClain had committed no crime when police initiated force against him. He was merely walking home from the store after purchasing some tea.

At the time, police claimed body camera footage showed McClain reaching for a gun, but this was unsubstantiated.

At a press conference after police killed him, police chief Metz told reporters that “Elijah grabbed the grip of an officer’s holstered gun. A struggle ensued to the ground where three body-worn cameras did become dislodged.”

But this was simply not true.

“He is laying on the ground vomiting, he is begging, he is saying, ‘I can’t breathe.’ One of the officers says, ‘Don’t move again. If you move again, I’m calling in a dog to bite you,’” said Mari Newman, the McClain’s lawyer, completely dismantling the official story.

During the altercation, McClain was placed in a carotid restraint, a technique that was recently banned by the Aurora Police Department. While McClain was restrained, The Aurora Fire Department was called to the scene to give him ketamine, a strong sedative. After being choked out and forcibly drugged for committing no crime, McClain went into cardiac arrest twice while on the way to the hospital.

In his last few words on this planet, McClain could be heard saying, “I’m an introvert. I’m just different. That’s all. I’m so sorry. I have no gun. I don’t do that stuff. I don’t do any fighting. Why are you attacking me? I don’t even kill flies! I don’t eat meat! But I don’t judge people, I don’t judge people who do eat meat. Forgive me…I’m so sorry.”

He was innocent, successful, and a light in this often dark world, and police killed him for being different. Then, after they killed him, they went back to the scene of the crime and reenacted it for fun.

According to city officials, they will decide this week on how to move forward with this new information.

This article was originally featured at The Free Thought Project and is republished with permission.

How Malcolm X Predicted Our Modern Police State

How Malcolm X Predicted Our Modern Police State

“They think they are living in a police state, and they become hostile toward the policemen. They think that the policeman is there to be against them rather than to protect them. And these thoughts, these frustrations, these apparitions, automatically are sufficient to make these Negroes begin to form means and ways to protect themselves in case the police themselves get too far out of line.”- Malcolm X—assassinated on Feb. 21, 1965, in New York City.

The “justice” system in America is set up in such a way as to punish the African-American more than the Caucasian, to deny this racism is to deny reality.

Outspoken libertarian and anti-drug war advocate, Ron Paul, summed up this point accurately,

“True racism in this country is in the judicial system. The percentage of people who use drugs are about the same with blacks and whites. And yet the blacks are arrested way disproportionately. They’re prosecuted and imprisoned way disproportionately, they get the death penalty way disproportionately. How many times have you seen a white rich person get the electric chair or get, you know, execution? If we truly want to be concerned about racism, you ought to look at a few of those issues and look at the drug laws, which are being so unfairly enforced.”

That was taken from a 2012 debate that aired on ABC News. Coincidentally, after Paul said this during the debate, he was not allowed more than 1-2 minutes of speaking time in the debates thereafter.

Sadly, it seems, that if we look back over the past decades, there are far too many similarities to be found between the plight of one specific socioeconomic class of the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s, and that same socioeconomic class of today.

Little has changed for the poor in America in the last 50 years, especially for the poor people who happen to have higher levels of melanin in their skin than their neighbor.

Racism is a huge part of the problem, but it is important that we point out that it is only part of the problem. The other part of this problem is the color blue, and the violent unaccountable leviathan that it represents in America today.

A racist idiot without a badge and uniform is simply a racist idiot, add the power of the state and that racist idiot lays waste to civil rights, initiates violence, and extorts the populace; all of this, with impunity.

On June 8, 1964, Mike Wallace interviewed Malcolm X and they discussed the African American Harlem environment and the community’s hostility against policemen. During this interview, Malcolm X outlines this disproportionate targeting of the African American community by police, and why they do it.

The interview starts out as Wallace asks Malcolm X about potential resistance against police oppression within the black community. “Mr. Malcolm, you have suggested that there are all kinds of movements in Harlem that you or I don’t know about?”

Malcolm X eloquently and prophetically sums up the perplexity of this situation, not only during the 60’s, but in the 21st century as well.

“The police commissioner feeds the type of statistics to the white public to make them think that Harlem is a complete criminal area where everyone is prone towards violence. This gives the police the impression that they can then go and brutalize the Negroes, or suppress the Negroes, or even frighten the Negroes.”

Sound familiar? Malcolm X continues:

“This force that is so visible in the Harlem community, creates a spirit of resentment in every Negro. They think they are living in a police state, and they become hostile toward the policemen. They think that the policeman is there to be against them rather than to protect them. And these thoughts, these frustrations, these apprehensions, automatically are sufficient to make these Negroes begin to form means and ways to protect themselves in case the police themselves get too far out of line.”

Forty-six police NYPD officers were killed in the line of duty in the 1970s, and 41 more in the 1980s.

The last thing we need is a further increase in animosity between police and the citizens. Hopefully, police lighten their antagonistic stance and proceed with a more diplomatic approach. And hopefully, the next person on the verge of a killing spree realizes that violence only begets more violence. 

We’ve seen time and again that violently bashing heads together produces no desirable result. It’s time for a different approach.

“One day we must come to see that peace is not merely a distant goal that we seek, but a means by which we arrive at that goal.”- Martin Luther King, Jr.

This article was originally featured at The Free Thought Project and is republished with permission.

Idaho Cop Arrested For Repeatedly Raping Immobile Cancer Patient

Idaho Cop Arrested For Repeatedly Raping Immobile Cancer Patient

In one of the most disturbing instances of police sexual misconduct we’ve reported here at the Free Thought Project a retired police corporal was arrested this week for repeatedly raping a woman so sick with cancer that she couldn’t fight back.

Scott Wayne McMikle, 58, turned himself at the Ada County Jail Wednesday night and has been charged with nine counts of rape.

The alleged rapes happened over ten years ago, when McMikle was still gainfully employed as a police officer, according to prosecutor Brittany Ford. Ford explained that police launched an investigation in December after McMikle himself called dispatchers to report that the woman had told him that their sexual contact in 2008 was not consensual.

According to police, McMikle even admitted to prosecutors that the victim “did not want to have sex with him in those instances.” Ford explained the rapes happened when the woman was undergoing treatment for breast cancer and was bedridden.

“Due to her aggressive cancer treatment, she had been bedridden and extremely weak. She was so weak that she could not even move,” the prosecutor said.

According to Ford, the rapes happened on multiple occasions even though she begged him to stop. He also allegedly threatened to use his police authority against her if she told anyone.

“She reported that she didn’t tell anybody because the defendant would yell at her constantly saying that because he was a retired police officer, no one would believe her, and that if anything happened to her, she would no longer have his health insurance, which was paying for her life-saving cancer treatment,” Ford said. “He also threatened legal trouble for her if she reported.”

When McMikle was arrested, a search of his phone revealed a potential impetus for why he would rape a sickly cancer patient. He apparently had an affinity for sex with sick or injured people—which makes his post-retirement job as a hospital security guard extremely suspect.

According to KTVB 7, Ford urged the judge to view McMikle as a danger to the community, despite his lack of criminal history. The defendant, who lives in Louisiana and traveled back to Idaho to surrender after the warrants were issued, currently works as a security guard at a hospital. The prosecutor also noted that investigators found pornography of “amputees or other unwell people” on his phone, raising concerns about his access to vulnerable patients.

Despite McMikle, himself, telling prosecutors that his victim was not willing at the time they had sex — the de facto definition of rape — an attorney for the cop told the court the alleged rape is a case of “mistaken memory.”

“It seems that she was basically convinced by her therapist that she was a victim and that [McMikle] violated her,” Ryan Tatum, McMikle’s attorney said.

“Mr. McMikle was an honorable servant to the community until his retirement after 32 years of service,” he said. “During that time, it’s believed there was never even a single complaint of anything involving an ethical issue or criminal activity.”

Judge Michael Lojek set bond in the case at $250,000, noting that a no-contact order was already in place between McMikle and the victim.

At the time of the alleged rapes, McMikle was working at the Boise police department. Haley Williams, a spokeswoman for the department told reporters on Thursday they are launching their own investigation.

“The charges against Scott McMikle are serious and concerning. When we learned of the investigation and subsequent warrant being issued, we opened an internal inquiry to review any past complaints involving Mr. McMikle to determine if there are any that require further investigation in light of these allegations. McMikle retired from the Boise Police Department in 2015,” Williams told KTVB in a statement.”The Boise Police Department holds its employees to the highest standards and will investigate all allegations of misconduct. We make every effort to ensure our employees display professionalism and meet the high standards the public has come to expect from members of our department.”

McMikle is due back in court Feb. 24, and in Idaho, rape is punishable by up to life in prison.

This article was originally featured at The Free Thought Project and is republished with permission.

Prepare: The Supreme Court Might Legalize Warrantless Gun Seizures

Prepare: The Supreme Court Might Legalize Warrantless Gun Seizures

Last week, the Free Thought Project reported on HR 127, the most tyrannical gun bill ever proposed. The bill would target the poor by forcing citizens to pay $800 per year to possess firearms that they are required to register. It also bans multiple legal guns and ammo types, turning tens of millions of Americans into felons over night. While this bill is, without a doubt, the worst gun bill in history, it didn’t lay out any guidelines for violating a citizen’s Fourth Amendment right. Next month, however, the Supreme Court will be considering exactly that—can cops enter a home to seize guns without a warrant?

That escalated quickly.

In March, the Supreme Court will hear the case of Caniglia v. Strom, which asks the question of whether the “community caretaking” exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement extends to the home.

The community caretaker exception, has already been recognized as an exception to the Fourth Amendment by the United States Supreme Court. In Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433 (1973), the United States Supreme Court held that police officers did not violate the Fourth Amendment when they searched the trunk of a car that had been towed after an accident.

The Court acknowledged that, “except in certain carefully defined classes of cases,” police cannot search private property without consent or a warrant. It emphasized, however, that “there is a constitutional difference between houses and cars.” Since Cady, there has been a whole host of cases that took this holding and created the doctrine of “community caretaking.” Cady defined community caretaking activities as those “totally divorced from the detection, investigation, or acquisition of evidence relating to the violation of a criminal statute.”

In other words, as long as an officer might reasonably think that a warrantless search will alleviate a danger to the community, the search is considered constitutional. This was in vehicles, not homes.

While the caretaker exception has long been applied to vehicles, the idea of applying it to homes and allowing cops to seize guns without a warrant is worrisome. In an article from Forbes, the case of Caniglia v. Strom, is explained:

Mr. Caniglia was arguing with his wife and melodramatically put an unloaded gun on the table and said “shoot me now and get it over with.” His wife called a non-emergency number for the police who arrived shortly thereafter. The police disagreed about whether Mr. Caniglia was acting “normal” or “agitated” but they convinced him to take an ambulance to the local hospital for evaluation. The police did not accompany him.

While he was on his way to the hospital, Mrs. Caniglia told the police that her husband kept two handguns in the home. The police decided to search his home for the guns without obtaining a warrant. (Mrs. Caniglia’s consent to have the police search their home was legally negated because the police untruthfully told her that her husband had consented to the seizure of any guns.) The police located and seized the two guns. Mr. Caniglia sued for the violation of his 4th Amendment right to privacy and his 2nd Amendment right to keep handguns in the home for self-protection.

The case has been making its way through the courts, with the courts ruling in favor of warrantless searches. The federal court just below the Supreme Court, the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that it is fine and dandy for cops to warrantlessly search your home and take your guns because they need “elbow room” to provide safety.

“At its core, the community caretaking doctrine is designed to give police elbow room to take appropriate action when unforeseen circumstances present some transient hazard that requires immediate attention. Understanding the core purpose of the doctrine leads inexorably to the conclusion that it should not be limited to the motor vehicle context. Threats to individual and community safety are not confined to the highways,” the court wrote.

As Forbes points out, unlike the “exigent circumstances” and “emergency aid” exceptions, the community caretaking exception is not limited to circumstances where there is no time to apply for a warrant. And the question of what sort of caretaking falls under this exception is extremely vague. Will the police be able to use it to, for example, conduct warrantless searches of political protesters’ homes to make sure they aren’t planning on violent behavior at their next political rally?

We have already seen tech giants like Facebook hand over the private messages of those who talked about the events of January 6. If this ruling is upheld, it could pave the way for cops to raid the home of those who engage in peaceful discourse based solely on the premise that violence might happen.

President Biden has already labeled tens of millions of Americans who supported the pro-Trump rally in DC as “terrorists.”

Just a few weeks later and a DHS terror alert was issued for beliefs held by tens of millions of Americans like those who oppose lockdowns or who were upset over the outcome of the election. With the slippery slope of this case, these views could easily be included in the “elbow room” granted to police to carry out their “community caretaking” and subsequently raid homes and seize guns with no warrant.

Hopefully SCOTUS knocks down this ruling and cooler heads prevail. However, at the rate this tyranny is unfolding in 2021, that is not very likely.

This article was originally featured at The Free Thought Project and is republished with permission.

Does Oregon’s Decriminalization Signal An End to the War on Drugs?

Does Oregon’s Decriminalization Signal An End to the War on Drugs?

Oregon became the first state to decriminalize possession of otherwise illegal drugs. According to this Feb. 1 Associated Press article, “Police in Oregon can no longer arrest someone for possession of small amounts of heroin, methamphetamine, LSD, oxycodone and other drugs as a ballot measure that decriminalized them took effect on Monday.”

Instead of being arrested, those found in possession “would face a $100 fine or a health assessment that could lead to addiction counseling.”

That such a measure was approved by Oregon voters is an encouraging sign that more people are waking up to the illiberal and destructive War on Drugs.

“Today, the first domino of our cruel and inhumane war on drugs has fallen, setting off what we expect to be a cascade of other efforts centering health over criminalization,” executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance Kassandra Frederique was quoted as saying.

Amen.

Turning drug users into criminals destroys people’s lives—people who otherwise did not aggress against anybody else.

The War on Drugs has torn families apart by incarcerating people (mostly men) whose only “crime” is using or possessing a chemical that the government deemed illegal. Millions of children have had to grow up without a father stuck behind bars for a noncrime.

Vices are not crimes

As 19th century natural-rights theorist Lysander Spooner spelled out in his 1875 essay “Vices are Not Crimes,” self-harming activities should not come under purview of any government law.

“Vices are those acts by which a man harms himself or his property,” begins Spooner. Contrast that with his description of actual crimes as “those acts by which one man harms the person or property of another.”

The distinction is clear. “In vices, the very essence of crime—that is, the design to injure the person or property of another—is wanting,” Spooner explained.

If the proper aim of government is restricted to merely “secure these rights” of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, clearly the criminalization of vices such as drug use not only  exceeds allowable state action, it amounts to an erosion of liberty.

Indeed, for those conservatives who claim to support a “limited government” whose proper role is restricted to protecting its citizens from violations of their rights, a question they will be unable to answer is: “when two people voluntarily agree to exchange money for drugs, whose rights has been violated?”

Instead of making it criminal behavior, drug possession and use should be treated as a health issue, an addiction that needs treatment rather than punishment. Individuals using drugs should not be discarded from society, rather, a just and compassionate society would emphasize rehabilitation of drug users so they can become productive members of the community. Throwing them in a cage for drug possession puts a permanent stain on their record, making it virtually impossible to join the job market once they are released back into the public.

Drug criminalization causes violence, enriches drug lords

Moreover, drug prohibition serves to enrich the drug cartels, as prohibition places a high premium on the commodity due to it being illegal.

Just as alcohol prohibition gave rise to gangsters in the 1920’s, such as the notorious and deadly Al Capone, the war against drugs has given rise to violent drug cartels, making multi-billionaires out of drug kingpins like El Chapo.

Government criminalization of drugs creates violence in the drug trade because, being illegal, drug dealers have no option to appeal to the criminal justice system if they’ve been wronged, so they need to enforce their own system of justice.

Given the dangerous nature of the black market drug trade, it tends to attract people more prone to violence with little else to lose. Violent gang turf wars and cartel rivalries result. Cities and communities are torn apart, often times with innocents getting caught in the crossfire.

Will Legalization Lead To More Drug Addiction and Overdoses? 

Supporters of the drug war insist that prohibition, in spite of its downsides, is still a necessary stop against massive widespread drug addiction that would lead to societal rot and despair.

But there’s little evidence this would be the case. Illegal drugs are already readily available in most areas, those interested know where to go, or know a guy who “knows a guy.”

Indeed, according to the AP article, “Portugal’s 2000 decriminalization brought no surge in drug use. Drug deaths fell while the number of people treated for drug addiction in the country rose 20% from 2001 to 2008 then stabilized.”

Legalizing drugs would also provide a higher level of confidence in the ingredients in the drugs being sold. Companies selling drugs could be held liable if they sell tainted drugs that poison their customers—an option not available under the current system.

Conclusion

The war on drugs is a war on freedom. The freedom for human beings to inquire and experiment in order to learn for himself what constitutes vice or virtue to him. If government is to exist, its functions should be strictly limited to protecting citizens against others violating their rights, not to protect us against our own judgment and actions that don’t aggress against anybody else.

Let’s hope the voters in Oregon have taken a critical first step in ushering in the end of the government’s vicious, immoral and disastrous war on drugs.

Bradley Thomas is creator of the website Erasethestate.com and author of the book “Tweeting Liberty: Libertarian Tweets to Smash Statists and Socialists.” He is a libertarian activist who enjoys researching and writing on the freedom philosophy and Austrian economics. Follow him on Twitter: @erasestate.

Joe Biden’s Phony Limits on Police Militarization

Joe Biden’s Phony Limits on Police Militarization

According to a CNN report, President Joe Biden plans to reinstate Obama-era limits on a federal police militarization program.  While this sounds like progress toward ending the militarization of local police departments, the Obama limits were little more than window-dressing.

Through the federal grant programs such as the 1033 program, local police departments procure military-grade weapons. Police can also get military equipment through the Department of Homeland Security via the (DHS) “Homeland Security Grant Program.”

The DHS doles out over $1 billion in counterterrorism funds to state and local police each year. According to a 2012 Senate report, this money has been used to purchase tactical vehicles, drones, and even tanks with little obvious benefit to public safety. And, according to ProPublica, “In 1994, the Justice Department and the Pentagon-funded a five-year program to adapt military security and surveillance technology for local police departments that they would otherwise not be able to afford.”

In the wake of the Ferguson protests, Pres. Obama signed an executive order limiting some types of surplus military equipment available through federal programs or funding. A prohibited equipment list developed based on the Obama EO included tracked armored vehicles; weaponized aircraft, vessels, and vehicles of any kind with weapons installed; firearms of .50-caliber or higher; ammunition of .50-caliber or higher; grenade launchers; bayonets; and camouflage uniforms. It also placed limits on other equipment, including aircraft, wheeled tactical vehicles, mobile command units, battering rams, and riot gear. Local agencies were required to develop a use plan and get federal approval before they could obtain these items.

The Obama executive order was largely window dressing and left the 1033 program effectively intact. Most of the items on the prohibited list had been previously banned or were rarely transferred through federal surplus programs. Even with the Obama limits, police continued to have access to military surplus equipment, including high powered “assault” rifles, mine-resistant vehicles (MRAPs) and armored Humvees, aircraft, drones, night vision equipment, battering rams, and other military-grade items.

In practice, the Obama EO did little to stem the flow of military equipment to state and local law enforcement agencies. It was largely symbolic. In fact, the banned list was clearly intended to serve as a psychological bandaid. It made the public feel better about police militarization without actually changing the militarization policy in any substantive way. Obama even said he wanted to remove some of the intimidation factor inherent in militarized police forces.

In August 2017, President Donald Trump pulled the Obama bandaid off with an executive order reversing Obama’s EO, reopening the door for police departments to obtain items the Obama administration had banned.

Apparently, Biden wants to slap the bandaid back on and put the Obama-era window dressing back in place.

Congress took a small step toward limiting militarization in the 2020 Defense Authorization Act. A provision in that law bans grenades, bayonets, weaponized combat vehicles and weaponized drones from being transferred from the military to local police departments. But as was the case when Obama signed the original EO, this limited congressional tinkering and Biden’s orders won’t change much. The 1033 program will remain essentially intact. Military gear will continue to flow into local police agencies, just as it did when Obama was in the White House.

Even if you see the Obama/Biden limits as a positive, the multiple federal flip-flops underscore the importance of putting limits on police militarization at the state and local level. Federal policy tends to change depending on the party in power. Whatever limits Biden imposes through executive order can be undone with a stroke of the next president’s pen. The only way to effectively end police militarization for good is permanently withdrawing the state from these federal programs.

Arming ‘peace officers’ like they’re ready to occupy an enemy city is totally contrary to the society envisioned by the founders. They’ve turned ‘protect and serve’ into ‘command and control.’

In the 1980s, the federal government began arming, funding and training local police forces, turning peace officers into soldiers to fight in its unconstitutional “War on Drugs.” The militarization went into hyper-drive after 9/11 when a second front opened up – the “War on Terror.”

By taking action at the state and local level, making it more difficult for local police to get this military-grade gear and surveillance technology, and ensuring they can’t do it in secret, it makes them less likely to cooperate with the feds and removes incentives for partnerships.

This article was originally featured at the Tenth Amendment Center and is republished with permission.

New Report Obscures Killing of Duncan Lemp

New Report Obscures Killing of Duncan Lemp

One of the most positive developments from last year’s political strife was a stronger focus on police abuses and no-knock raids. Some states and cities have imposed new restrictions, others are working toward greater transparency when it comes to police shootings. Unfortunately, Maryland, a state that has wrestled with some of the most egregious SWAT and no-knock cases in the country, remains mired in controversy.

The state has a long record of SWAT debacles. After police wrongfully raided a mayor’s house and killed his dogs in 2008, Maryland required police to report every SWAT raid. Between 2010 and 2014, police in Maryland conducted more than 8,000 raids, killing nine people and injuring almost a hundred civilians.

Despite controversies, statistics were no longer collected after 2014. Strong police unions have blocked numerous efforts at legislative reform. As a result, Marylanders continue to be vexed by the same kind of deadly no-knock debacles that killed Breonna Taylor last March in Louisville, Kentucky.

Duncan Lemp is one of Maryland’s latest victims.

Read the rest of this article at USA Today

News Roundup

News Roundup 3/1/21

US News The FBI says it is looking at one person who sprayed an irritant into the face of Capitol police officer Brian Sicknick before he died the next day. The FBI is investigating the incident as an assault. [Link] Minneapolis city council approved $1.18 million in...

Blog

Antiwar Pivot: No Peace in Afrin

From March to June 2017 I was the Team Turkey Commander, having replaced what, until that point, had been a Special Forces Company mission with a company headquarters, three Special Forces teams, and some addition support personal. Once the company moved to Syria, it...

Cops Kill Man

Well he ran out of gas so they electro-shock tortured him to death. Because it was government employees who did it, it is therefore "reasonable." You have no rights they are bound to respect.

More Interviews of Me

The Roots of the War on Terror - Tom Woods The Iraq Fiasco Revisited - Tom Woods Backgrounder on Syria, and Why the US Should Stay Out - Tom Woods War All the Time: The Perpetual War on Terror - Tom Woods The Truth About the Iran Nuclear Program - Tom Woods Further...

The Scott Horton Show

Free Man Beyond the Wall

Conflicts of Interest

Don't Tread on Anyone

Liberty Weekly Podcast

Drew Hancock: Growing Up Libertarian Ep. 155

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_V-1s8PolDI Libertarian content creator Drew Hancock joins me to discuss his YouTube channel and his viral video, "The Problem with Blue-Pilled Libertarians." We discuss our liberty journeys and how Drew ended up following in his dad's...

Year Zero

Is It Too Late To Buy Bitcoin w/Car

Car from Timeline Earth joined Tommy to discuss Bitcoin and the future of separation of currency and state. After Elon Musk and Tesla announced they will be accepting Bitcoin for purchases the price skyrocketed. Is this the peak? or just the beginning?...

Multi-Front War w/Pete Quinones

Tommy invited Pete to discuss his strategies moving forward in combatting the propaganda and demonization coming from the cathedral since Trump losing the election. Free Man Beyond The Wall Pete's Substack The Monopoly On Violence...

Is Iran Close To A Nuke w/Scott Horton

Tommy invited Scott on to discuss the policies of the Biden administration in regards to Iran and the rumors surrounding Iran's nuclear capabilities and ambitions. Buy Enough Already Donate https://traffic.libsyn.com/secure/strangerencounterspodcast/scott_iran.mp3...

Our Books

Shop books published by the Libertarian Institute.

Libertarian Institute Merch from Libertas Bella

Support via Amazon Smile

Enoughalreadyproof

Enough Already: Time to End the War on Terrorism

by Scott Horton

Book Foolssm

No Quarter: The Ravings of William Norman Grigg

by Will Grigg

Book Foolssm

Fool’s Errand: Time to End the War in Afghanistan

by Scott Horton

Book Foolssm

Coming to Palestine

by Sheldon Richman

Book Foolssm

The Great Ron Paul

by Scott Horton

Book Foolssm

What Social Animals Owe to Each Other

by Sheldon Richman

Pin It on Pinterest