My name is Abe Van Dyke. I am a photojournalist who was arrested by the Milwaukee County Sheriffs department for being on Interstate 43 photographing protestors on 12/19/14 in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. This is my story.
Prosecutors said the victim can be seen hunched over in a chair sleeping in the Emergency Room’s waiting area, where he was scheduled to see a doctor later that day. The video shows Lewelling approaching the victim as he is starting to wake up. When the man attempts to walk away, the deputy grabs the back of his collar, pulls him back into the seat and knocks his cane away.
“A few seconds later, he appears to grab the victim’s throat and begins to choke him. The battery continued, and the victim was then placed under arrest,” prosecutors said.
“The victim never raised his cane in a threatening manner,” they added.
Went back through some images taken over the year for a fresh look. I also suggest this music just for the full multimedia experience.
To me one of the most hypocritical aspects of some gun control meansures and their proponents has been how non gun yet still effective tools of self defense are also proscribed almost anywhere but the home. Often with more severe penalties like guns.
For instance if I got caught carrying a pistol absent any confrontation or other law violation I would face a misdemeanor. However if I’m out walking with a good strong cane and a policeman asks me why I carry the cane it’s a trap. If I say “bad knees” I’m fine. If I say bad neighborhood I just incriminated myself with a felony weapon possession charge and likely conviction.
Hat tip to gunssavelives.net for publishing the following important decion that quite logically concludes the second amendment is not just about firearms. It’s about arming oneself against a criminal attacker. “Bear arms” means defensive weapons of various kinds.
That site is a CCW/2nd Amendment advocacy site and may have little some of you would agree with. It might even anger you. Apologies in advance.
Stipulated this might not be a source you like but this particular nugget of legal thinking is worth the effort. So maybe skip those guys and just read the decision.
This widespread acceptance of batons within the law enforcement community also supports the conclusion that they are not so dangerous or unusual as to fall outside the purview of the second amendment. To this end, the fact that police batons are inherently less lethal, and therefore less dangerous and less intrinsically harmful, than handguns, which clearly constitute “arms” within the meaning of the second amendment, provides further reason to conclude that they are entitled to constitutional protection. Cf. People v. Yanna, supra, 297 Mich. App. 145 (“[T]he prosecution also argues that Tasers and stun guns are so dangerous that they are not protected by the [s]econd [a]mendment.
However, it is difficult to see how this is so since Heller concluded that handguns are not sufficiently dangerous to be banned. Tasers and stun guns, while plainly dangerous, are substantially less dangerous than handguns. Therefore, [T]asers and stun guns do not constitute dangerous weapons for purposes of [s]econd [a]mendment inquiries.”); D. Kopel et al., supra, 47 U. Mich. J.L. Reform 184 (“[K]nives are far less dangerous than guns. Any public safety justification for knife regulation is necessarily less persuasive than the public safety justification for firearms regulation.”).
Indeed, expandable batons are intermediate force devices that, when used as intended, are unlikely to cause death or permanent bodily injury. For these reasons, we are persuaded that the police baton that the defendant had in his vehicle is the kind of weapon traditionally used by the state for public safety purposes and is neither so dangerous nor so unusual as to fall outside the purview of the second amendment’s right to keep and bear arms.
[T]he prohibition against transporting a dirk knife and a police baton to a new home constitutes a significant restriction on the right to possess those weapons in that new home. Indeed, aside from an outright ban on possessing those weapons, it is difficult to conceive of a greater abridgement of that right than a restriction that bars the use of a vehicle to transport either of those weapons from one home to another.
Moreover, under § 29-38, it is unlawful for an ordinary citizen, like the defendant, to transport those weapons from the place of purchase to the purchaser’s home. As a consequence, the statute’s complete proscription against using a vehicle to transport the two protected weapons deprives their owner of any realistic opportunity either to bring them home after they have been purchased or to move them from one home to another. In fact, at oral argument before this court, the state acknowledged that, in light of that statutory prohibition, there may be no lawful means of doing either….
Said Sorkin: “Today the U.S. succumbed to an unprecedented attack on our most cherished, bedrock principle of free speech by a group of North Korean terrorists who threatened to kill moviegoers in order to stop the release of a movie. The wishes of the terrorists were fulfilled in part by easily distracted members of the American press who chose gossip and schadenfreude-fueled reporting over a story with immeasurable consequences for the public-a story that was developing right in front of their eyes. My deepest sympathies go out to Sony Pictures, Seth Rogen, Evan Goldberg and everyone who worked on The Interview.”
Kudos, a thousand kudos.
Mayor Eric Garcetti announced that the initial contract will be for 800 Axon cameras, which cost $399 each and are made by Taser. These initial cameras will be deployed in places with high police activity.
$1.5 million in private money has been raised so far to get this camera program rolling. Garcetti also says that his budget next year will include funding for 7,000 cameras in order to provide one for every single officer walking the streets of LA.
“Out on the street, things aren’t always clear cut. These cameras will help law enforcement and the public alike find the truth — and truth is essential to the trust between the LAPD and the community, which has been a key factor in lowering crime to record lows,” Garcetti says.
Police officers encouraged a law firm to monitor three Costa Mesa councilmen and suggested ways to catch the politicians in compromising positions, including tailing them to Las Vegas on a city-sponsored trip, according to emails contained in a criminal complaint.
The emails, which capture police mocking council members, were exchanged in the months leading up to the 2012 city election, when Costa Mesa’s protracted city-union battle was at a full boil.
Steve Mensinger was one of three Costa Mesa City Council members targeted in 2012 by private detectives working for the police association; in emails, police officers discussed trying to catch the three men in compromising positions. (Scott Smeltzer, Daily Pilot)
In one message, the police association’s then-treasurer, Mitch Johnson, suggested the law firm keep an eye on two of the councilmen at a trade convention in Las Vegas in hopes they’d be caught violating California’s open meeting law or behaving improperly.
“I could totally see him sniffing coke [off] a prostitute,” Johnson says of one of the targeted councilmen. “Just a thought.”
All alterations in candidate names were my own alteration just to put a different light on the situation
If Jeb Smith does run, he may face Hillary Jones on the Democratic side. Now, a “Jones vs. Smith” contest doesn’t exactly thrill many people…
Jeb Smith and Hillary Jones are both somewhat tame and moderate politicians, driven more by political consultants and polls than by any burning personal ideology. Both are familiar with the concept of “triangulation” in politics. To put this another way, we might wind up with a 2016 race of “the bland leading the bland.” Still, it’s hard to see either one of them not instantly becoming the frontrunner in their respective party’s field on name recognition alone. How good a candidate will either prove to be, though? It’s worth taking a look at the pros and cons each will bring to the race, in an early look at what their campaigns will likely have to overcome. Today I’ll be weighing Smith’s pros and cons, and later in the week I’ll do the same for Hillary Jones.
Jeb Smith’s Positives
The biggest positiveSmith has as a Republican candidate is his family. No, not his father or his brother or even his mother but his more immediate family. Smith’s voice within the Republican Party on the subject of immigration is pretty unique, because he married a Mexican woman (the mother of his three children) and speaks fluent Spanish. That right there could earn him millions of votes that other Republicans could never even hope to get. There are two prominent Latino Republicans who will also likely run, but both Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz aren’t exactly seen as prominent voices for the Latino community. Both Rubio and Cruz are of Cuban descent, which (because of Cubans’ unique and favored immigration status) doesn’t carry a whole lot of weight with Latinos outside Florida. This is before even touching upon their political positions. Smith actually lives up to his father’s concept of “compassionate conservatism” when it comes to immigration (he married a foreigner who became an immigrant, so this is no surprise), while Cruz and Rubio are fighting to stake out the harshest possible position on the issue. Rubio tried being somewhat reasonable on immigration in the Senate, but when he heard the outcry from the base, he quickly denounced his own immigration bill and decided to take a more absolutist position. To put it another way, Cruz and Rubio aren’t going to manage much in the way of Latino outreach in 2016, but Jeb Smith certainly could.