Title :
link :
http://ift.tt/2onj0IO
Wed. July 19, 2017
Charley V Strikes again…
Time is like a river. You cannot touch the water twice, because the flow that has passed will never pass again.
Enjoy every moment of life. As a bagpiper, I play many gigs. Recently I was asked by a funeral director to play at a graveside service for a homeless man. He had no family or friends, so the service was to be at a pauper's
cemetery in the Nova Scotia back country.
As I was not familiar with the backwoods, I got lost and, being a typical man, I didn't stop for directions.
I finally arrived an hour late and saw the funeral guy had evidently gone and the hearse was nowhere in sight.
There were only the diggers and crew left and they were eating lunch. I felt badly and apologized to the men for being late.
There were only the diggers and crew left and they were eating lunch. I felt badly and apologized to the men for being late.
I went to the side of the grave and looked down and the vault lid was already in place. I didn't know what else to do,
so I started to play.
The workers put down their lunches and began to gather around. I played out my heart and soul for this man with no
family and friends. I played like I've never played before for this homeless man.
And as I played "Amazing Grace", the workers began to weep. They wept, I wept, we all wept together. When I finished, I packed up my bagpipes and started for my car. Though my head was hung low, my heart was full.
As I opened the door to my car, I heard one of the workers say, "I never seen anything like that before, and I've been putting in septic tanks for twenty years."
Apparently, I'm still lost...it's a man thing.
Dogwalker Hospitalised After Attack By Somalian Migrant Who Said ‘Dogs are Unclean’
Karen Arnold/Creative Commons
by VIRGINIA HALE
A middle aged woman had to be hospitalised in Vienna following a brutal beating in broad daylight by a veiled Somali asylum seeker offended by her pet dogs.
The victim, named only as Ingrid T., described how she was talking with neighbours at the gate of her garden, accompanied by dogs — her deaf, almost-blind, three-legged Collie mix “sitting peacefully” alongside while 10-month-old ‘Poco’ meandered along an alleyway towards her parents’ house — when she “saw a pretty, veiled woman approaching slowly.”
“I knew some people from these countries do not like dogs, so I went to Poco and wanted to pull him back,” the 54-year-old told Krone from her hospital bed in the Austrian capital.
The 18-year-old Somali asserted, “The animals are unclean,” Ingrid recalled, stating that her attacker then “grabbed me, spun me around and scratched me” until both women fell to the floor.
Chuck Schumer Just Got The Worst News Of His Life
Chuck Schumer thought he had it made.
He was counting on the American people rebelling against Trump and handing power back to the Democrats in 2018.
But one expert just delivered the worst news of his life.
Former Bill Clinton strategist James Carville was asked in a recent radio interview about the Democrats chances to win back control of the Senate in 2018.
His answer painted a bleak picture for the minority party.
Breitbart reports:
“DEMOCRATIC OPERATIVE JAMES CARVILLE SAID SATURDAY THAT DEMOCRATS FACE AN UPHILL BATTLE IF THEY WANT TO WIN BACK THE SENATE IN 2018.
“I THINK RIGHT NOW MOST DEMOCRATS ARE TRYING TO FOCUS ON THE 2018 ELECTIONS AND TRYING TO RECRUIT PEOPLE AND KEEP INCUMBENTS, AND YOU KNOW I WOULD SAY WE HAVE A PRETTY GOOD CHANCE OF TAKING THE HOUSE BACK. THE SENATE IS VERY, VERY DIFFICULT,” CARVILLE TOLD JOHN CATSIMATIDIS ON AM 970 IN NEW YORK.
“THE PROBLEM IN THE SENATE IS WE HAVE A LARGE NUMBER OF SEATS WE HAVE TO HOLD IN STATES THAT DONALD TRUMP CARRIED. INDIANA, MISSOURI, YOU KNOW, PLACES LIKE THAT WE HAVE TO HOLD SEATS,” CARVILLE ADDED.
CARVILLE REMAINED DOUBTFUL THAT DEMOCRATS WOULD BE ABLE TO PICK UP NEW SEATS TYPICALLY IN REPUBLICAN STRONGHOLDS.
“THE ONLY PLACES WHERE WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR PICK UP ARE, YOU KNOW, NEVADA IS PRETTY GOOD. AFTER THAT ARIZONA IS LESS GOOD, THEN YOU’RE DOWN TO TEXAS AND ALABAMA, AND FOR DEMOCRATS TO WIN THE SENATE BACK, THEY HAVE TO PICK UP THREE SEATS,” CARVILLE SAID.”
A new ABC/Washington Post poll points to a sign that the Democrats may have a tougher 2018 midterm election than they previously thought:
“WHATEVER TRUMP’S STRUGGLES, THE POLL SHOWS CLEAR RISKS OF DEMOCRATS’ OPPOSITION TO TRUMP. SOME 37 PERCENT SAY THE PARTY CURRENTLY STANDS FOR SOMETHING, WHILE 52 PERCENT SAY IT MAINLY STANDS AGAINST TRUMP. EVEN AMONG DEMOCRATS, OVER ONE-QUARTER SAY THEIR PARTY PRIMARILY STANDS IN OPPOSITION TO TRUMP RATHER THAN FOR THEIR OWN AGENDA.”
Being “not Trump” was Hillary Clinton’s message in 2016.
It was a loser.
If the Democrats repeat this strategy in 2018 they will lose again.
You can’t beat something with nothing.
And while the press and the Democrats hate Trump’s message, his call to Make America Great Again resonated with voters in states that normally went blue.
Trump offered people hope for a better life and these voters handed Republicans united government.
Democrats will not be able to break that grip just by being the “resistance.”
But their rabid left-wing base is demanding nothing but hatred for Trump from their elected officials.
Their number one demand is to impeach the President.
If that is what the Democrats hitch their wagon to, 2018 will be another disastrous election and Chuck Schumer will spend another cycle relegated to Minority Leaders.
Newly Released Email Shows Bill Clinton Paid $500,000 for Moscow Speech While Hillary Opposed Russia Sanctions
A previously leaked e-mail and a suspect coincidence show that Hillary Clinton and the Russian lawyer who met with Donald Trump Jr. had very similar interests back in 2010.
The reports are leading to further speculation about the former First Lady’s willingness to adopt her political platforms depending on who was willing to pay.
A new Fox News report indicates that Mrs. Clinton and the lawyer, Natalia Veselnitskaya, shared mutual opposition to sanctions against Russia in 2010.
Veselnitskaya’s opposition seems self-explanatory, as her interests clearly were in benefiting her country.
But Clinton’s became a curiosity based on the fact that her husband, former president Bill Clinton, had given a paid speech in Moscow around that time – to the tune of $500,000.
Via Fox News:
The Russian lawyer who landed a meeting with Donald Trump Jr. during last year’s presidential campaign with the promise of dirt on Hillary Clinton had one big thing in common with the Democratic candidate: Both had opposed Russia sanctions targeting human-rights abusers.
Further, former Secretary of State Clinton’s initial opposition coincided with a $500,000 speech her husband gave in Moscow – a link her 2016 campaign fought to downplay in the press, according to WikiLeaks-released documents.
Trump White House officials now are trying to draw attention to that speech and the Clintons’ ties to Russia in a bid to counter criticism over Trump Jr.’s now-infamous meeting.
An e-mail from a Clinton campaign staffer bragged about being able to spike the story in the mainstream media.
The message, titled “May 21st Nightly Press Traffic Summary,” ran off a list of key points for Clinton’s rapid response group.
“With the help of the research team, we killed a Bloomberg story trying to link HRC’s opposition to the Magnitsky bill to a $500,000 speech that WJC gave in Moscow,” the e-mail read.
At a press briefing last week, Deputy Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders pointed out that “Bill Clinton was paid half a million dollars to give a speech to a Russian bank, personally thanked by President Putin.”
“If you want to talk about having relationships with Russia, I’d look no further than the Clintons,” she added.
Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton points out that the $500,000 speech only came to light through a leaked campaign e-mail, openly wondered what other Clinton-Russia connections have yet to be revealed.
“You have to wonder how many other donations were made by Russian connection entities we don’t know about,” he said.
Fitton also made this very important statement – while Don Jr. was meeting with a Russian lawyer as a private citizen, the Clintons were involved in a very real conflict of interest.
“Her husband (was) getting a half a million dollars directly from the Russians while she was secretary of state,” he explained.
“I can’t imagine if the spouse of Rex Tillerson or the spouse of any other cabinet official got a half a million dollars from a foreign government while that official was in office.”
Judicial Watch: New Abedin Emails Reveal Additional Instances of Clinton Donors Receiving Special Treatment from Clinton Department of State
(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch today released 448 pages of documents from the U.S. Department of State revealing new incidents of Huma Abedin, deputy chief of staff to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, providing special State Department treatment to major donors to the Clinton Foundation and political campaigns.
The heavily redacted documents from Abedin’s non-government account include an email from Hillary Clinton’s brother, Tony Rodham, to Abedin revealing that he acted as a go-between for a Clinton Foundation donor, Richard Park. And they reveal Clinton Foundation executive Doug Band instructing Abedin to “show love” to Clinton donor Andrew Liveris.
The documents included six Clinton email exchanges not previously turned over to the State Department, bringing the known total to date to at least 439 emails that were not part of the 55,000 pages of emails that Clinton turned over to the State Department, and further contradicting a statement by Clinton that, “as far as she knew,” all of her government emails had been turned over to the State Department.
The documents are in response to a court order from a May 5, 2015, lawsuit filed against the State Department (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:15-cv-00684)) for: “All emails of official State Department business received or sent by former Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin from January 1, 2009 through February 1, 2013 using a non-‘state.gov’ email address.”
A number of emails show the free flow of information and requests for favors between Clinton’s State Department and the Clinton Foundation.
In July 2009, in reference to the US-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue, Clinton Global Initiative head Doug Band told Abedin that she “Need[s] to show love” to Andrew Liveris, the CEO of Dow Chemical. Band also asked for Liveris to be introduced to Hillary, “and have her mention both me and wjc”. Dow gave between $1 million and $5 million to the Clinton Foundation and Clinton Global Initiative. Band also pushes for Clinton to do a favor for Karlheinz Koegel, a major Clinton Foundation contributor, who wanted Hillary Clinton to give the “honor speech” for his media prize to “Merkel.”
The emails reveal that on June 19, 2009, Clinton’s brother, Tony Rodham, passed a long a letter for Hillary Clinton for Clinton donor Richard Park. Park donated $100,000 to Bill Clinton as far back as 1993 and is listed by the Clinton Foundation as a $100,000 to $250,000 donor.
In March 2012, Bill Clinton received an invitation to speak at the Kaesong Industrial Complex in North Korea…. Richard Park’s friendship with Tony Rodham earned him a direct line to Hillary Clinton while she served as secretary of state. In January 2013, the Korean businessman sent Rodham an email and asked him to “forward this to your sister.”
On November 14, 2009, Clinton donor Ben Ringel, who has appeared in numerous prior emails asking for favors, emailed Abedin to get help in getting an Iranian woman a visa to come to the United States. He writes: “We need to get her clearance even only temporary to be with her granddaughter.” Abedin forwarded the request to Lauren Jiloty, asking her “Can U help Monday with consular affairs?” Jiloty replies, “Sure. Will look into it.” Ringel donated between $10,000 and $25,000 to the Clinton Foundation. In May, Band, working through Abedin, attempts to help Canadian concert promoter and Foundation donor Michael Cohl with the processing of a visa. Abedin passes the request to Monica Hanley, Clinton’s “confidential assistant.”
The emails show that the Clinton Foundation operative Band was involved in personnel matters at the Clinton State Department. In a May 2009 email exchange between Band and Abedin, a “career post” to East Timor for someone is discussed. Abedin explains to Band that Cheryl Mills, Hillary Clinton’s then-chief of staff, was working on the situation “under the radar.”
In August 2009, Band tells Abedin of someone who wants to be the ambassador to Barbados. Abedin replies: “I know, he’s emailed a few times. But she wants to give to someone else.”
The emails also show that Abedin received advice from her mother, Saleha Abedin (a controversial Islamist activist), on whom the Obama administration should appoint as the US Envoy to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation. She notes that she has obtained a recommendation from “Hassan” (NFI), and that she’d reached out to “Ishanoglu”. This is presumably Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, a Turkish academic and the former Secretary-General of the OIC. Ihsanoglu famously called on the West to enact anti-Islamic blasphemy laws.
On Monday, June 8, Clinton emails her aide Lona Valmoro and Abedin asking to attend a cabinet meeting: “I heard on the radio that there is a Cabinet mtg this am. Is there? Can I go? If not, who are you sending?” Valmoro answers: “It is actually not a full cabinet meeting today – those agencies that received recovery money were invited to attend/participate. We were welcome to send a representative though, not sure if we have anyone going.”
Other emails found in Abedin’s unsecure email account appear to show additional instances of the Clinton State Department’s lax approach to protecting national security.
On July 4, 2009, U.S. Ambassador to Kenya Jonathan “Scott” Gration sent Abedin an email that the State Department has classified in part and redacted because the information deals with “foreign governments” and “national defense or foreign policy.” Abedin forwarded Gration’s email to her personal, unsecure email account. In his email, Gration related his meeting with Libyan president Muammar Qadafi, saying: “I conveyed our appreciation for Libya’s role to improve relations between Chad and Sudan … Leader al-Qadafi promised to continue his nation’s close collaboration with the United States … and is eager to meet you and President Obama.…” Gration would later be fired for, among other things, using personal email accounts to send government information.
A document titled “HRC PRIVATE LINE BLOCK” gives the planned whereabouts for President Obama for Thursday, June 4, 2009: “Attend POTUS Foreign Policy Speech at Cairo University.” In another example of lax concern for security, Valmoro forwarded Clinton’s detailed daily schedule for July 15, 2009, to officers of the Clinton Foundation, including Doug Band and Justin Cooper. Again, on July 26 Valmoro forwarded Hillary’s detailed, sensitive daily schedule to numerous Clinton Foundation officials.
In other examples of lax concern for security, on June 11, there is a reference to testing the “Federal preparedness and response for an international terrorist threat to the United States. [Principal-Level Exercise] will be a scenario-driven discussion for Cabinet Secretaries, agency Directors and Administrators, senior officials in the Executive Office of the President, or their approved representatives.” A document in Abedin’s unsecure email account dated May 2009 is titled “The Secretary’s Phone Call with Chinese Foreign Minister Yang” is marked sensitive but unclassified and fully redacted, as is a document titled “The Secretary’s Phone Call with Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov.”
“I’m not sure how much more evidence of pay for play, classified information mishandling, and influence peddling from Clinton’s email server one would need to show a serious criminal investigation is required,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.
Chuck Schumer Just Got The Worst News Of His Life
Chuck Schumer thought he had it made.
He was counting on the American people rebelling against Trump and handing power back to the Democrats in 2018.
But one expert just delivered the worst news of his life.
Former Bill Clinton strategist James Carville was asked in a recent radio interview about the Democrats chances to win back control of the Senate in 2018.
His answer painted a bleak picture for the minority party.
Breitbart reports:
“DEMOCRATIC OPERATIVE JAMES CARVILLE SAID SATURDAY THAT DEMOCRATS FACE AN UPHILL BATTLE IF THEY WANT TO WIN BACK THE SENATE IN 2018.
“I THINK RIGHT NOW MOST DEMOCRATS ARE TRYING TO FOCUS ON THE 2018 ELECTIONS AND TRYING TO RECRUIT PEOPLE AND KEEP INCUMBENTS, AND YOU KNOW I WOULD SAY WE HAVE A PRETTY GOOD CHANCE OF TAKING THE HOUSE BACK. THE SENATE IS VERY, VERY DIFFICULT,” CARVILLE TOLD JOHN CATSIMATIDIS ON AM 970 IN NEW YORK.
“THE PROBLEM IN THE SENATE IS WE HAVE A LARGE NUMBER OF SEATS WE HAVE TO HOLD IN STATES THAT DONALD TRUMP CARRIED. INDIANA, MISSOURI, YOU KNOW, PLACES LIKE THAT WE HAVE TO HOLD SEATS,” CARVILLE ADDED.
CARVILLE REMAINED DOUBTFUL THAT DEMOCRATS WOULD BE ABLE TO PICK UP NEW SEATS TYPICALLY IN REPUBLICAN STRONGHOLDS.
“THE ONLY PLACES WHERE WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR PICK UP ARE, YOU KNOW, NEVADA IS PRETTY GOOD. AFTER THAT ARIZONA IS LESS GOOD, THEN YOU’RE DOWN TO TEXAS AND ALABAMA, AND FOR DEMOCRATS TO WIN THE SENATE BACK, THEY HAVE TO PICK UP THREE SEATS,” CARVILLE SAID.”
A new ABC/Washington Post poll points to a sign that the Democrats may have a tougher 2018 midterm election than they previously thought:
“WHATEVER TRUMP’S STRUGGLES, THE POLL SHOWS CLEAR RISKS OF DEMOCRATS’ OPPOSITION TO TRUMP. SOME 37 PERCENT SAY THE PARTY CURRENTLY STANDS FOR SOMETHING, WHILE 52 PERCENT SAY IT MAINLY STANDS AGAINST TRUMP. EVEN AMONG DEMOCRATS, OVER ONE-QUARTER SAY THEIR PARTY PRIMARILY STANDS IN OPPOSITION TO TRUMP RATHER THAN FOR THEIR OWN AGENDA.”
Being “not Trump” was Hillary Clinton’s message in 2016.
It was a loser.
If the Democrats repeat this strategy in 2018 they will lose again.
You can’t beat something with nothing.
And while the press and the Democrats hate Trump’s message, his call to Make America Great Again resonated with voters in states that normally went blue.
Trump offered people hope for a better life and these voters handed Republicans united government.
Democrats will not be able to break that grip just by being the “resistance.”
But their rabid left-wing base is demanding nothing but hatred for Trump from their elected officials.
Their number one demand is to impeach the President.
If that is what the Democrats hitch their wagon to, 2018 will be another disastrous election and Chuck Schumer will spend another cycle relegated to Minority Leaders.
Clinton is still apparently more unpopular than Trump
Mark Moore
Hillary Clinton lost to Donald Trump in the presidential election, but she’s winning the unpopularity contest, according to a new poll.
Clinton is viewed favorably by just 39 percent of Americans, two percentage points lower than the president, a Bloomberg National Poll released Tuesday shows.
Hillary Clinton lost to Donald Trump in the presidential election, but she’s winning the unpopularity contest, according to a new poll.
Clinton is viewed favorably by just 39 percent of Americans, two percentage points lower than the president, a Bloomberg National Poll released Tuesday shows.
The survey also says that 58 percent of Americans have an unfavorable view of the former Democratic presidential candidate compared to the 55 percent who have an unfavorable view of Trump.
Clinton’s favorability rating was the second lowest since the poll began tracking her in 2009.
“There’s growing discontent with Hillary Clinton even as she has largely stayed out of the spotlight,” said J. Ann Selzer, who oversaw the Bloomberg survey. “It’s not a pox on the Democratic house because numbers for other Democrats are good.”
Former President Obama has a 61 percent favorability rating – up 5 percentage points since December – and the highest since the poll began tracking him in September 2009.
His vice president, Joe Biden, is also enjoying high favorability ratings at 60 percent, the poll shows.
But the former secretary of state even lost popularity among people who voted for her in November, with more than a fifth saying they have an unfavorable view of her. Just 8 percent said that before the election.
In follow-up interviews, the pollsters found some Clinton supporters voted for her because she was the lesser of two evils.
“She did not feel authentic or genuine to me,” Chris Leininger, 29, an insurance agent from Fountain Valley, Calif. , told Bloomberg. “She was hard to like.”
Robert Taylor told the poll he would have rather seen Sen. Bernie Sanders be the Democratic nominee.
“I felt like there was a smugness and that she was just a politician who was called a Democrat, but could have been a Republican,” said Taylor, 46, a second-grade teacher from suburban Chicago.
Still, some voters aren’t pleased with either.
Asked who he would rather have a beer with – Clinton or Trump – Ray Cowart, 75, said neither.
“I wouldn’t go, even if I was thirsty,” said the retired owner of a software company in Elk Park, N.C.
The survey of 1,0001 adults was conducted by telephone between July 8-12 and has a plus or minus 3.1 percentage point margin of error.
LIARS: 'Moderate' Republicans Reject Obamacare Repeal Outright — After Voting For It When Obama Was President
Just hours after Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) announced that he would attempt to bring a plain repeal of Obamacare to the floor of the Senate, the so-called “moderates” in the Senate moved to kill such a move. Senator Rob Portman (R-OH), who voted for repeal in 2015, said, “If it is a bill that simply repeals, I believe that will add to more uncertainty.”
Senator Susan Collins (R-ME), who opposed the Trumpcare Senate bill, said she wouldn’t vote to advance a pure repeal. Senator Shelly Moore Capito (R-WV) also says she won’t vote for such a bill; she voted for precisely such a bill in 2015. She issued this statement:
As I have said before, I did not come to Washington to hurt people. For months, I have expressed reservations about the direction of the bill to repeal and replace Obamacare. I have serious concerns about how we continue to provide affordable care to those who have benefited from West Virginia’s decision to expand Medicaid, especially in light of the growing opioid crisis. All of the Senate health care discussions drafts have failed to address these concerns adequately. My position on this issue is driven by its impact on West Virginians. With that in mind, I cannot vote to repeal Obamacare without a replacement plan that addresses my concerns and the needs of West Virginians.
They won’t be the only ones.
This is an excellent opportunity for conservatives to find out who was serious about Obamacare repeal, and who wasn’t. This should be a litmus test for conservative primary challengers. While President Trump is focusing, laserlike, on offing Senator Jeff Flake (R-AZ) for the crime of not being sufficiently deferential to Trump himself, Republicans should focus on whether they need Senators who vote to keep in place bad Democratic legislation out of a desire to expand government.
So, where is President Trump?
This would be the time for him to exert some pressure. But so far, it’s just been Vice President Pence, stating that “inaction is not an option.” Except that it is obviously, most assuredly an option. For most senators, it may be the most useful option. This is the problem with a president who seems to care only when his ego is slighted, not about his policy prescriptions.
A New Poll Shows That a Majority of American Believe Democrats Only Stand for Resisting Trump
The media is relentless in publicizing the negative approval ratings that Donald Trump has been receiving, which are largely due to his personality, not policies. But what about the media’s own approval? Based on a poll conducted with around 2,000 adults by Morning Consult, a larger percentage of Americans trust Donald Trump’s White House as a news source than the mainstream media.
That aside, it’s not just the media that the public has a negative view of. Given that the Democratic Party lost 1,042 seats at the state and federal levels of government during Obama’s tenure, and lost every single special election in the Trump Era, clearly they have an image problem too. In just a few years they want from presenting themselves as the party of the working class to catering to the delusions of college social justice warriors. Democrats alienated their base, and are paying the price for it.
In the Trump Era, the strategy thus far has been to rally troops around the mantra of being the “resistance,” to Trump. Unfortunately for them, “resisting” the man who won the election hasn’t been an effective strategy. That tactic has been leading people to view Democrats as simply the “anti-Trump” party, not a party with any ideas of their own.
According to a new poll by The Washington Post and ABC, over half of Americans believe the current Democratic Party doesn’t stand for anything besides resisting President Trump.
The poll asked 1,001 Americans, “Do you think the Democratic Party currently stands for something, or just stands against Trump?”
Only 37 percent of respondents believed that the Democratic Party “stands for something,” while 52 percent of respondents said the party “just stands against Trump.”
The apparent messaging problem was even starker among registered voters, of which only 35 percent felt the Democrats stand for something while 54 percent felt they only stand against Trump.
H/T The Daily Caller
Serves them right. Democrats know they can’t oppose Trump on specific policy issues like immigration and healthcare, because most Americans do believe in strong borders, and have been harmed by ObamaCare. That’s why it’s Democrats in Congress acting like chicken little, screaming “racist” at anyone who wants to enforce our immigration laws, and making the erroneous claim that “people will die” without ObamaCare.
It isn’t working – and for our sake, I hope the Democrats keep the scaremongering up. The more they do, the better chance President Trump has of winning in 2020.
Share this story if you love watching Democrats lose!
“Astounding”: Why Didn’t Minneapolis Police Officers Turn Body Cams On Even After Shooting?
ED MORRISSEY
After a series of controversial police shootings, public outrage and pressure from elected officials resulted in the widespread adoption of body cameras for patrol officers. The intention was to allow for an objective review of the circumstances for all complaints about police, and in some cases the policies have worked as intended. It helps, however, to have the cameras turned on — and no one’s quite sure why the body cams for two police officers in a Minneapolis shooting stayed off even after the shooting that took an unarmed woman’s life. Three days later, everyone — even the police — are still searching for answers to that question:
[A]ccording to experts, there’s no reason the officers’ body cameras should not have been switched on when they approached Damond’s home.
“The policy requires [Minneapolis police officers] to turn the camera on prior to use of force, and it goes on to say if it’s not turned on prior to force, it should be activated as soon as it is safe to do so,” said Teresa Nelson, interim executive director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota.
“The policy requires [Minneapolis police officers] to turn the camera on prior to use of force, and it goes on to say if it’s not turned on prior to force, it should be activated as soon as it is safe to do so,” said Teresa Nelson, interim executive director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota.
“So we have two officers who, after using deadly force — taking someone’s life — didn’t activate their cameras,” Nelson told NBC News. “That’s astounding to me.”
The department’s policy states that a body camera should be turned on for situations as minimal as traffic stops and for incidents as serious as use of force as long as it is safe to do so. The policy also states that if cameras are not turned on before an incident use of force, they should be turned on afterward.
While that may seem like a classic case of asking to close the barn door after the horse has bolted, it makes a difference with police body cams. The devices are never turned entirely off; they record a continuous 30-second loop until activated. This allows for an immediate activation to capture at least some of what preceded it. Had one or both officers activated the cameras immediately after the shooting, there may have been some record of what led to the decision to use deadly force.
The department’s policy states that a body camera should be turned on for situations as minimal as traffic stops and for incidents as serious as use of force as long as it is safe to do so. The policy also states that if cameras are not turned on before an incident use of force, they should be turned on afterward.
While that may seem like a classic case of asking to close the barn door after the horse has bolted, it makes a difference with police body cams. The devices are never turned entirely off; they record a continuous 30-second loop until activated. This allows for an immediate activation to capture at least some of what preceded it. Had one or both officers activated the cameras immediately after the shooting, there may have been some record of what led to the decision to use deadly force.
Sadly, a Minneapolis city council subcommittee had planned to look into police compliance with body-cam policies soon after the local ABC affiliate had reported that officers often neglected to properly activate them:
Blong Yang, chairman of the Minneapolis City Council’s Public Safety Committee, said that it would likely take a closer look at the department’s body camera program at its meeting next week.
Members’ attention was drawn by a KSTP report last week that said Minneapolis officers don’t turn on their cameras as often as they should. The lack of bodycam footage of Saturday’s shooting was also troubling, Yang said.
“It’s concerning that the bodycams weren’t on,” he said.
Media reports identified the shooting officer as Mohammed Noor, a second-year member of the force, and at one time a celebrated addition to the Minneapolis PD as one of the few Somalis on the force. His partner on Saturday night was Matthew Harrity, who had even less experience:
Sources identified Noor’s partner on the scene, who did not fire any shots, as officer Matthew Harrity, 25, who earned his peace officer’s license last year. A spokeswoman for the BCA confirmed there was no weapon found at the scene, creating even more mystery about how Damond’s call to police ended in one of the responding officers fatally shooting her. …
Just before 11:30 p.m. Saturday, Damond, 40, called 911 to report a possible assault occurring in an alley near her home between Washburn and Xerxes avenues S., in the Fulton neighborhood.
Damond, in her pajamas, went to the driver’s side door of the responding squad and was talking to the officer, according to three sources with direct knowledge of the case.
Moments later, Noor shot across his partner from the passenger’s seat, killing Damond.
Is it normal practice to partner a rookie (or close to it) with an officer with just a couple of years of experience on patrol? Maybe it is, but it seems curious; it would be interesting to hear from LEOs as to what their own experience in partnering has been. This might be a lesser question in relation to the body-cam compliance, perhaps even more so because it was the more experienced officer who fired the shot at the unarmed woman. Still, the pairing of two officers with lower levels of experience seems like a decision worth reviewing, too.
The state’s Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, which is investigating the shooting itself, has referred questions about body-cam policies and compliance to the Minneapolis PD. The latter’s Internal Affairs division will conduct a separate review of the actions of Noor and Harrity in regard to their body cams, unless public pressure forces the MPD to ask for an independent investigation. The BCA will almost certainly have to delve into it as well, because that mystery is almost certainly tied to the mystery of why Justine Damond was shot at all. Technology offers us amazing capabilities for transparency in law enforcement, but it only works when officers turn on the equipment — and the failure to do so seems very suspicious in that context.
G’ day…Ciao…….
Helen & Moe Lauzier
G’ day…Ciao…….Helen & Moe Lauzier
Thus Article
That's an article
This time, hopefully can give benefits to all of you. well, see you in posting other articles.
You are now reading the article with the link address https://capitalstories.blogspot.com/2017/07/httpift_18.html
0 Response to " "
Post a Comment