The hero warrior cop is ready to get roided up, rape, and drink and drive
12-03-2014, 11:51 AM
#3343
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,490
Total Cats: 4,079
Viral Video Sparks Debate Over Failure to Identify, Officer Disciplined | Corpus Christi, TX | KRISTV.com |
Corpus Christi PD Chief Simpson released a statement adding, "Based on the news stories aired locally and on the internet, it was brought to our attention that an Officer had requested Ms. Espinosa to delete the video that was recorded. We viewed the entire dashcam video and found the conversation between Officer Lockhart and Ms. Espinosa. It was discovered that Officer Lockhart did request that the video be deleted. Officer Lockhart took full responsibility for his statement on the video and was formally disciplined for those actions. A memo, to the entire department, will follow on Wednesday regarding Texas Penal Code Sec. 38.02 'Failure to Identify' and our commitment to transparency by allowing citizens who wish to photograph or record our officers in a public space."
There were no specifics provided on how the officer was disciplined.
There were no specifics provided on how the officer was disciplined.
Reply
0
0
12-03-2014, 03:20 PM
#3344
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,019
Total Cats: 6,587
In other news, a grand jury has decided that it's ok for NYPD officers to murder people guilty of minor crimes by strangling them to death.
Grand jury declines to indict officer in chokehold death of Eric Garner: sources | New York's PIX11 / WPIX-TV
Oddly, no looting and rioting here in NYC. I guess we're ok with it.
Grand jury declines to indict officer in chokehold death of Eric Garner: sources | New York's PIX11 / WPIX-TV
Oddly, no looting and rioting here in NYC. I guess we're ok with it.
Reply
0
0
12-05-2014, 08:10 AM
#3347
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,490
Total Cats: 4,079
the problem with police: this officer is going to be fired for NOT using enough force on a suicidal student, who hurt no one; not even himself.
Calif. cop may be fired for giving suicidal student water instead of Tasing him
Calif. cop may be fired for giving suicidal student water instead of Tasing him
The Salinas Californian reported that Soloman said the Monterey Bay officer managed to calm the student and get him to sit down before his colleagues from Marina reached the scene.
But the other officers used their Tasers on the student after their college colleague left the room to fulfill the student’s request for a glass of water. The campus officer subsequently refused to follow an order to use his own Taser on the student. The student was treated at a local hospital for superficial cuts but was not seriously injured.
Rodriguez’s department later issued a “failure to act” complaint against the campus officer, accusing him of not engaging in a “highly agitated situation.”
But the other officers used their Tasers on the student after their college colleague left the room to fulfill the student’s request for a glass of water. The campus officer subsequently refused to follow an order to use his own Taser on the student. The student was treated at a local hospital for superficial cuts but was not seriously injured.
Rodriguez’s department later issued a “failure to act” complaint against the campus officer, accusing him of not engaging in a “highly agitated situation.”
Reply
0
0
12-05-2014, 08:53 AM
#3349
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,019
Total Cats: 6,587
Protesters attempt to block Times Square.
We don't tolerate that ****.
Protesters clash with NYPD in Times Square | New York's PIX11 / WPIX-TV
We don't tolerate that ****.
Protesters clash with NYPD in Times Square | New York's PIX11 / WPIX-TV
Reply
0
0
12-05-2014, 10:50 AM
#3351
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,019
Total Cats: 6,587
Cops hate it when you point bananas at them:
FOLLOWUP: Also Don't Point Anything at an Officer. Even a Banana.
With remarkable timing, someone sent me this item just as I was publishing a post about what to do and not do when encountering officers at internal checkpoints. I did mention that you should "not do anything crazy," and just to clarify, that includes pointing anything—anything at all—at a police officer.
Because they plainly could mistake anything at all for a weapon.
According to FOX31 in Colorado, 27-year-old Nathen Channing was arrested Sunday night "for pointing a banana at a pair of Mesa County Sheriff’s deputies, both of whom initially believed the piece of fruit was a handgun." The deputies were driving (in separate cars) and the man was walking on the sidewalk. This is what happened next—
—I'm sorry, I just noticed the first officer's name is "Bunch" so I had to contemplate that for a second.
Okay, here's what happened next:
Let's start with Channing, who admitted he did this as a "trial run" for a YouTube video somewhat similar to the kind I just mentioned (at the link above). As Deputy Bunch wrote in his arrest affidavit, Channing's "only explanation for pointing the banana at law enforcement was [that] it was a joke. He thought it would 'lighten the holiday spirit.'" It would have, and I guess it has anyway, for different reasons. But it could also have lightened the officers' guns by several grams. That's the problem.
Then of course there are the deputies who claim to have mistaken a banana for a gun. I actually think it's hard to criticize them too much here, given that somebody pointed something at them while they were driving by and couldn't observe too closely. At the very least, they'd have been justified in stopping to read this guy the riot act if only to deter him from pointing anything at police officers. But it does seem a little ridiculous to actually arrest a man and charge him with "felony menacing" because he pointed a banana at you.
According to Bunch, at least, a banana could resemble a handgun. "Based on training and experience," he wrote, "I have seen handguns in many shapes and colors and perceived this [yellow tube with a black center] to be a handgun." Are there curved yellow handguns? Maybe so. [Update: there are yellow ones, at least.] Bunch continued, describing the Banana Incident in typical police-report manner: the suspect, "by physical action, knowingly placed Deputy Love and I in imminent fear by use of an article fashioned in the manner to cause us to reasonably believe it was a deadly weapon." Well, he didn't fashion it that way himself, as Deputy Bunch of all people should know, but he did take it out and point it at police officers. Don't do that. With anything.
Monty Python explained this decades ago, but it's worth a refresher.
FOLLOWUP: Also Don't Point Anything at an Officer. Even a Banana. - Lowering the Bar
FOLLOWUP: Also Don't Point Anything at an Officer. Even a Banana.
With remarkable timing, someone sent me this item just as I was publishing a post about what to do and not do when encountering officers at internal checkpoints. I did mention that you should "not do anything crazy," and just to clarify, that includes pointing anything—anything at all—at a police officer.
Because they plainly could mistake anything at all for a weapon.
According to FOX31 in Colorado, 27-year-old Nathen Channing was arrested Sunday night "for pointing a banana at a pair of Mesa County Sheriff’s deputies, both of whom initially believed the piece of fruit was a handgun." The deputies were driving (in separate cars) and the man was walking on the sidewalk. This is what happened next—
—I'm sorry, I just noticed the first officer's name is "Bunch" so I had to contemplate that for a second.
Okay, here's what happened next:
Eventually, [Deputy] Bunch wrote, Channing "reached into the left side of his coat and pulled out a yellow object, pointing it into the air then in my direction as I approached him."
"Fearing it was a weapon," Bunch wrote that he sped off. And knowing [Deputy] Love was traveling behind him, Bunch said he radioed his fellow deputy to warn him. As he returned to the area, Bunch wrote he witnessed Channing point the same object at Love.
As Love got out of his vehicle and approached Channing, Bunch wrote, his fellow deputy said he "observed what appeared to be a yellow tube with a black center" and also stated he "thought it was a gun."
"Deputy Love stated he was in fear for his life at this point and was in the process of pulling out his handgun when Nathen yelled, 'It's a banana!'" Bunch wrote.
Where to start?"Fearing it was a weapon," Bunch wrote that he sped off. And knowing [Deputy] Love was traveling behind him, Bunch said he radioed his fellow deputy to warn him. As he returned to the area, Bunch wrote he witnessed Channing point the same object at Love.
As Love got out of his vehicle and approached Channing, Bunch wrote, his fellow deputy said he "observed what appeared to be a yellow tube with a black center" and also stated he "thought it was a gun."
"Deputy Love stated he was in fear for his life at this point and was in the process of pulling out his handgun when Nathen yelled, 'It's a banana!'" Bunch wrote.
Let's start with Channing, who admitted he did this as a "trial run" for a YouTube video somewhat similar to the kind I just mentioned (at the link above). As Deputy Bunch wrote in his arrest affidavit, Channing's "only explanation for pointing the banana at law enforcement was [that] it was a joke. He thought it would 'lighten the holiday spirit.'" It would have, and I guess it has anyway, for different reasons. But it could also have lightened the officers' guns by several grams. That's the problem.
Then of course there are the deputies who claim to have mistaken a banana for a gun. I actually think it's hard to criticize them too much here, given that somebody pointed something at them while they were driving by and couldn't observe too closely. At the very least, they'd have been justified in stopping to read this guy the riot act if only to deter him from pointing anything at police officers. But it does seem a little ridiculous to actually arrest a man and charge him with "felony menacing" because he pointed a banana at you.
According to Bunch, at least, a banana could resemble a handgun. "Based on training and experience," he wrote, "I have seen handguns in many shapes and colors and perceived this [yellow tube with a black center] to be a handgun." Are there curved yellow handguns? Maybe so. [Update: there are yellow ones, at least.] Bunch continued, describing the Banana Incident in typical police-report manner: the suspect, "by physical action, knowingly placed Deputy Love and I in imminent fear by use of an article fashioned in the manner to cause us to reasonably believe it was a deadly weapon." Well, he didn't fashion it that way himself, as Deputy Bunch of all people should know, but he did take it out and point it at police officers. Don't do that. With anything.
Monty Python explained this decades ago, but it's worth a refresher.
FOLLOWUP: Also Don't Point Anything at an Officer. Even a Banana. - Lowering the Bar
Reply
0
0
12-05-2014, 12:11 PM
#3352
Elite Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,420
Total Cats: 84
Here's an excellent article:
Why It?s Impossible to Indict a Cop | The Nation
Why It?s Impossible to Indict a Cop | The Nation
Police shootings are only one function of living in one of the most heavily policed societies in the world. Any movement to roll back this creeping overcriminalization is going to have to look beyond criminal prosecutions of individual police and take in the big picture.
The first step to controlling the police is to get rid of the fantasy, once and for all, that the law is on our side. The law is firmly on the side of police who open fire on unarmed civilians.
The lethal use of police force typically sets off an internal police investigation to determine if departmental regulations were violated. The regs and the law are not the same thing. Case in point: the chokehold that NYPD officer Daniel Pantaleo used to strangle Eric Garner, suspected of selling loose cigarettes, on Staten Island last July. (The grand jury bill on that case has still not been decided.) The chokehold is not prohibited by law, but it is by departmental rules. The violation might earn a departmental censure of some kind, from loss of vacation days to getting fired, but they tend to be radically mild, when not nonexistent.
What about internal affairs investigations? On television they are aggressive, dogged, uncompromising. In real life they tend to insulate the police from serious external sanction.
Civil suits for monetary damages require a lower standard of proof than criminal cases, but these suits are not a slam-dunk for victims of cop violence, either. The same jurisprudence that grants wide leeway to law enforcement still holds. Last March, one victim’s family lost a federal civil suit for wrongful death and civil rights violations brought against police officer Nicholas Bennallack for fatally shooting a fleeing and unarmed drug suspect. The jury believed the cop’s claim that he opened fire out of fear for his life.
What about all the times when excessive force suits get settled out of court? It turns out that massive payouts don’t deter police misconduct for one straightforward reason: neither individual officers nor police departments are responsible for coughing up the cash. The union covers the officer’s lawyer, and research from Joanna Schwartz of UCLA Law School found that governments, not individual officers, paid out 99.98 percent of the damages. Settlements and damages aren’t paid by the police department, whose budget will waltz by untouched, but typically out of the general municipal budget.
The first step to controlling the police is to get rid of the fantasy, once and for all, that the law is on our side. The law is firmly on the side of police who open fire on unarmed civilians.
The lethal use of police force typically sets off an internal police investigation to determine if departmental regulations were violated. The regs and the law are not the same thing. Case in point: the chokehold that NYPD officer Daniel Pantaleo used to strangle Eric Garner, suspected of selling loose cigarettes, on Staten Island last July. (The grand jury bill on that case has still not been decided.) The chokehold is not prohibited by law, but it is by departmental rules. The violation might earn a departmental censure of some kind, from loss of vacation days to getting fired, but they tend to be radically mild, when not nonexistent.
What about internal affairs investigations? On television they are aggressive, dogged, uncompromising. In real life they tend to insulate the police from serious external sanction.
Civil suits for monetary damages require a lower standard of proof than criminal cases, but these suits are not a slam-dunk for victims of cop violence, either. The same jurisprudence that grants wide leeway to law enforcement still holds. Last March, one victim’s family lost a federal civil suit for wrongful death and civil rights violations brought against police officer Nicholas Bennallack for fatally shooting a fleeing and unarmed drug suspect. The jury believed the cop’s claim that he opened fire out of fear for his life.
What about all the times when excessive force suits get settled out of court? It turns out that massive payouts don’t deter police misconduct for one straightforward reason: neither individual officers nor police departments are responsible for coughing up the cash. The union covers the officer’s lawyer, and research from Joanna Schwartz of UCLA Law School found that governments, not individual officers, paid out 99.98 percent of the damages. Settlements and damages aren’t paid by the police department, whose budget will waltz by untouched, but typically out of the general municipal budget.
Reply
0
0
12-05-2014, 12:20 PM
#3353
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,490
Total Cats: 4,079
It's really this simple:
Typically when you are in front of the GJ, the prosecutor is presenting state's evidence to show there's a case to go forward with charges.
When an officer is involved, the prosecutor is presenting state's evidence to show there's NO case to go forward with charges.
So if you or I was to go before a GJ, they'd try to prove with everything they got that I'm guilty of a crime.
If a cop is in the same boat, the state uses only what they need to use to prove there's no guilt.
plus people who serve on GJs are typically semi-MR.
Payouts settled out of court will never stop certain behaviors. The city pays; it doesn't even affect the department whatsoever. So if the worst that happens when a cop is found guilty of a crime while on duty is that he gets fired and someone else pays for the crime, why would you ever direct your officers to behave better at the ultimate cost at not getting as many arrests on record to get increased funding next year?
Typically when you are in front of the GJ, the prosecutor is presenting state's evidence to show there's a case to go forward with charges.
When an officer is involved, the prosecutor is presenting state's evidence to show there's NO case to go forward with charges.
So if you or I was to go before a GJ, they'd try to prove with everything they got that I'm guilty of a crime.
If a cop is in the same boat, the state uses only what they need to use to prove there's no guilt.
plus people who serve on GJs are typically semi-MR.
Payouts settled out of court will never stop certain behaviors. The city pays; it doesn't even affect the department whatsoever. So if the worst that happens when a cop is found guilty of a crime while on duty is that he gets fired and someone else pays for the crime, why would you ever direct your officers to behave better at the ultimate cost at not getting as many arrests on record to get increased funding next year?
Reply
0
0
12-05-2014, 01:58 PM
#3354
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,019
Total Cats: 6,587
Most of us have heard the term "reading the riot act," and I expect that among such an august crowd as this, a few of us have actually taken it upon ourselves to track down and read the full text of the act itself.
For those unaware, The Riot Act is a piece of law issued in 1714 in Great Britain during the reign of King George I. This was a time of considerable civil unrest in England, during which lots of white people who wanted to make sure that nobody was allowed to worship God in a manner different from their own spent quite a lot of time detroying things and acting in a manner broadly incompatible with the teachings of Christ. Parliament felt that allowing their citizens to run around burning each other's churches to the ground and generally making life unpleasant for all involved probably needed to stop, and as lawmakers are apt to do, they passed a law authorizing the police to do unpleasant things to people who rioted.
Section III of the Riot Act, in particular, is of interest:
In simple terms, this says that if you are behaving unlawfully, and we (LEOs) have given you a warning to stop, then we cannot be held liable for any harm which subsequently comes to you as a result of our using force to obtain your compliance.
Or, in even simpler terms: If you riot, then it's your ***.
In practice, it is a system which worked reasonably well. So well, in fact, that the fundamental concept of the Riot Act was subsequently incorporated into the laws of a number of other nations.
Including the US.
In 1792.
By The Founders.
They called it The Militia Act.
Trivia: the powers authorized under the Militia Act were first used in 1794 by _______________, who ordered the Militia to attack and suppress protesters who were assembled to petition the government for a redress of grievances concerning the tax on Whiskey.
Answer: President George Washington.
For those unaware, The Riot Act is a piece of law issued in 1714 in Great Britain during the reign of King George I. This was a time of considerable civil unrest in England, during which lots of white people who wanted to make sure that nobody was allowed to worship God in a manner different from their own spent quite a lot of time detroying things and acting in a manner broadly incompatible with the teachings of Christ. Parliament felt that allowing their citizens to run around burning each other's churches to the ground and generally making life unpleasant for all involved probably needed to stop, and as lawmakers are apt to do, they passed a law authorizing the police to do unpleasant things to people who rioted.
Section III of the Riot Act, in particular, is of interest:
...and that if the persons so unlawfully, riotously and tumultuously assembled, or any of them, shall happen to be killed, maimed or hurt, in the dispersing, seizing or apprehending, or endeavouring to disperse, seize or apprehend them, that then every such justice of the peace, sheriff, under-sheriff, mayor, bailiff, head-officer, high or petty constable, or other peace-officer, and all and singular persons, being aiding and assisting to them, or any of them, shall be free, discharged and indemnified, as well against the King's Majesty, his heirs and successors, as against all and every other person or persons so unlawfully, riotously and tumultuously assembled, that shall happen to be so killed, maimed or hurt, as aforesaid.
Or, in even simpler terms: If you riot, then it's your ***.
In practice, it is a system which worked reasonably well. So well, in fact, that the fundamental concept of the Riot Act was subsequently incorporated into the laws of a number of other nations.
Including the US.
In 1792.
By The Founders.
They called it The Militia Act.
That whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed or the execution thereof obstructed, in any state, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, (...) it shall be lawful for the President of the United States to call forth the militia of such state to suppress such combinations, and to cause the laws to be duly executed.
Trivia: the powers authorized under the Militia Act were first used in 1794 by _______________, who ordered the Militia to attack and suppress protesters who were assembled to petition the government for a redress of grievances concerning the tax on Whiskey.
Answer: President George Washington.
Last edited by Joe Perez; 12-05-2014 at 02:49 PM. Reason: Added explanation of origin of Riot Act
Reply
0
0
12-05-2014, 10:26 PM
#3356
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,019
Total Cats: 6,587
Cops hate it when you beg for their help while you are being killed to death:
Transgender woman shot to death while pounding on door for help
POSTED 1:07 PM, DECEMBER 5, 2014, BY JEREMY TANNER, UPDATED AT 01:44PM, DECEMBER 5, 2014
LOS ANGELES (PIX11) - A young transgender woman was pounding on the door of a South Los Angeles home, begging for help, when a car pulled up and someone shot her to death, police say.
Deshawnda Sanchez, 21, ran up to the home on South Wilton Place and West 62nd Street around 4 a.m.
“She was definitely at that door, pounding on that door seeking help,” LAPD Detective Christopher Barling told KTLA.
By the time the occupants got to the door, however it was too late. Gunshots rang out and Sanchez, known as “Tata” to her friends, was fatally injured.
Sanchez was gunned down in front of a South L.A. home. Detectives say she was pounding on the door for help when she was shot.
It’s not clear what connection, if any, Sanchez might have had with the residents of the home.
The incident was recorded by a neighbor’s personal surveillance camera. A car can be seen pulling up to the front of the house, one person gets out and runs up to the porch, and then, seconds later, runs back to the car and drives off.
“The footage, it was heartbreaking,” Sanchez’ sister Diana Williams told reporters.
No arrests have been made and police are not ruling out the possibility of a hate crime, although detectives say they believe she may have been running from a robber.
Transgender woman shot to death while pounding on door for help | New York's PIX11 / WPIX-TV
Transgender woman shot to death while pounding on door for help
POSTED 1:07 PM, DECEMBER 5, 2014, BY JEREMY TANNER, UPDATED AT 01:44PM, DECEMBER 5, 2014
LOS ANGELES (PIX11) - A young transgender woman was pounding on the door of a South Los Angeles home, begging for help, when a car pulled up and someone shot her to death, police say.
Deshawnda Sanchez, 21, ran up to the home on South Wilton Place and West 62nd Street around 4 a.m.
“She was definitely at that door, pounding on that door seeking help,” LAPD Detective Christopher Barling told KTLA.
By the time the occupants got to the door, however it was too late. Gunshots rang out and Sanchez, known as “Tata” to her friends, was fatally injured.
Sanchez was gunned down in front of a South L.A. home. Detectives say she was pounding on the door for help when she was shot.
It’s not clear what connection, if any, Sanchez might have had with the residents of the home.
The incident was recorded by a neighbor’s personal surveillance camera. A car can be seen pulling up to the front of the house, one person gets out and runs up to the porch, and then, seconds later, runs back to the car and drives off.
“The footage, it was heartbreaking,” Sanchez’ sister Diana Williams told reporters.
No arrests have been made and police are not ruling out the possibility of a hate crime, although detectives say they believe she may have been running from a robber.
Transgender woman shot to death while pounding on door for help | New York's PIX11 / WPIX-TV
Reply
0
0
12-07-2014, 11:13 AM
#3357
Elite Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,420
Total Cats: 84
What I've Learned from Two Years Collecting Data on Police Killings
Nowhere could I find out how many people died during interactions with police in the United States. Try as I might, I just couldn't wrap my head around that idea. How was it that, in the 21st century, this data wasn't being tracked, compiled, and made available to the public? ..How could cops possibly know "best practices" for dealing with any fluid situation? They couldn't."
The biggest thing I've taken away from this project is something I'll never be able to prove, but I'm convinced to my core: The lack of such a database is intentional. No government—not the federal government, and not the thousands of municipalities that give their police forces license to use deadly force—wants you to know how many people it kills and why.
It's the only conclusion that can be drawn from the evidence. What evidence? In attempting to collect this information, I was lied to and delayed by the FBI, even when I was only trying to find out the addresses of police departments to make public records requests. The government collects millions of bits of data annually about law enforcement in its Uniform Crime Report, but it doesn't collect information about the most consequential act a law enforcer can do.
I've been lied to and delayed by state, county and local law enforcement agencies—almost every time. They've blatantly broken public records laws, and then thumbed their authoritarian noses at the temerity of a citizen asking for information that might embarrass the agency. And these are the people in charge of enforcing the law.
The second biggest thing I learned is that bad journalism colludes with police to hide this information. The primary reason for this is that police will cut off information to reporters who tell tales. And a reporter can't work if he or she can't talk to sources.
The biggest thing I've taken away from this project is something I'll never be able to prove, but I'm convinced to my core: The lack of such a database is intentional. No government—not the federal government, and not the thousands of municipalities that give their police forces license to use deadly force—wants you to know how many people it kills and why.
It's the only conclusion that can be drawn from the evidence. What evidence? In attempting to collect this information, I was lied to and delayed by the FBI, even when I was only trying to find out the addresses of police departments to make public records requests. The government collects millions of bits of data annually about law enforcement in its Uniform Crime Report, but it doesn't collect information about the most consequential act a law enforcer can do.
I've been lied to and delayed by state, county and local law enforcement agencies—almost every time. They've blatantly broken public records laws, and then thumbed their authoritarian noses at the temerity of a citizen asking for information that might embarrass the agency. And these are the people in charge of enforcing the law.
The second biggest thing I learned is that bad journalism colludes with police to hide this information. The primary reason for this is that police will cut off information to reporters who tell tales. And a reporter can't work if he or she can't talk to sources.
Reply
0
0
12-07-2014, 02:03 PM
#3358
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,019
Total Cats: 6,587
Most of the time, Jason seems to be a staunch supporter of free-market capitalism, and yet here he is again re-posting someone else's opinion of why the natural outcome of a free press operating in a free market is evidence of some sort of presumed conspiracy.
Reply
0
0
12-08-2014, 01:38 PM
#3359
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,490
Total Cats: 4,079
lol
Beloit Police Ask Residents To Volunteer To Have Their Homes Searched For Guns | Wisconsin Public Radio
Beloit Police Ask Residents To Volunteer To Have Their Homes Searched For Guns | Wisconsin Public Radio
Police in Beloit are launching a new effort to reduce gun violence in which they're asking city residents to volunteer to have police search their homes for guns.
...
"Gun violence is as serious as the Ebola virus is being represented in the media, and we should fight it using the tools that we've learned from our health providers,” he said.
Jacobs said he hopes some searches will result in the discovery of guns they didn't know were in their own homes. He said that there’s also a chance they’ll find guns linked to crimes.
“That's really what we're looking for,” he said. “Maybe we'll find a toy gun that's been altered by a youngster in the house — and we know the tragedies that can occur there on occasion.”
...
"Gun violence is as serious as the Ebola virus is being represented in the media, and we should fight it using the tools that we've learned from our health providers,” he said.
Jacobs said he hopes some searches will result in the discovery of guns they didn't know were in their own homes. He said that there’s also a chance they’ll find guns linked to crimes.
“That's really what we're looking for,” he said. “Maybe we'll find a toy gun that's been altered by a youngster in the house — and we know the tragedies that can occur there on occasion.”
Reply
0
0
