Categories
Arizona Assist border Florida Intelwars Law Enforcement Ron DeSantis Texas

Gov. DeSantis sending Florida law enforcement to assist Arizona, Texas at border

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) announced Wednesday that law enforcement agencies from across his state are stepping up and will deploy officers to Texas and Arizona, answering the border states’ calls for assistance as they struggle with a bombardment of illegal immigrants crossing into the U.S. from Mexico.

What are the details?

Last week, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) and Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey (R) sent a joint letter to their fellow governors calling for “manpower” to assist in arresting migrants illegally crossing into the U.S. under the Emergency Management Assistance Compact, which allows them to “call in reinforcements” from other states during crisis.

Ducey has declared an emergency in Arizona over the border surge, while Abbott has declared a disaster and vowed to begin building Texas’ own border wall. Both governors have deployed national guard troops to their southern borders, and both have pleaded for the Biden administration to take action.

DeSantis says Florida is ready to help.

“America’s border security crisis impacts every state and every American,” DeSantis said in a statement. “The Biden Administration ended policies implemented by President Trump that were curbing illegal immigration, securing our border, and keeping Americans safe. Governors Abbott and Ducey recently sent out a call for help to every state in the nation, needing additional law enforcement manpower and other resources to aid with border security. I’m proud to announce today that the state of Florida is answering the call. Florida has your back.”

The Florida governor held a news conference along with state Attorney General Ashley Moody (R) and several sheriffs from throughout Florida to discuss the plan.

WPTV-TV reported that “in making his case for why the issue is one that impacts the safety of all Florida residents, DeSantis referenced a May incident in Martin County in which an 82-year-old woman was “raped by a criminal illegal alien.”

“I mean, how disgusting?” DeSantis said of the case during the presser. “This guy had been arrested. (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement) had never — was not willing to take him and remove him — and so he ends up committing a dastardly act against an elderly resident in Martin County.”

The South Florida Sun Sentinel reported that DeSantis reiterated, “We believe securing the Southern border is important for our country. Where the federal government has failed, the states are stepping up.”


DeSantis: Florida officers to respond to ‘border security crisis’ in Texas and Arizona

www.youtube.com

Share
Categories
Australia backdoors Encryption FBI Intelwars Law Enforcement Trust

FBI/AFP-Run Encrypted Phone

For three years, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Australian Federal Police owned and operated a commercial encrypted phone app, called AN0M, that was used by organized crime around the world. Of course, the police were able to read everything — I don’t even know if this qualifies as a backdoor. This week, the world’s police organizations announced 800 arrests based on text messages sent over the app. We’ve seen law enforcement take over encrypted apps before: for example, EncroChat. This operation, code-named Trojan Shield, is the first time law enforcement managed an app from the beginning.

If there is any moral to this, it’s one that all of my blog readers should already know: trust is essential to security. And the number of people you need to trust is larger than you might originally think. For an app to be secure, you need to trust the hardware, the operating system, the software, the update mechanism, the login mechanism, and on and on and on. If one of those is untrustworthy, the whole system is insecure.

It’s the same reason blockchain-based currencies are so insecure, even if the cryptography is sound.

Share
Categories
23 and me cold cases databases DNA extended family family guilt by association Headline News illegitimate Intelwars Law Enforcement Police State Rapists Serial Killers technological age testing used against you

The War Over Genetic Privacy Is Just Beginning

This article was originally published by John W. Whitehead and Nisha Whitehead. 

When you upload your DNA, you’re potentially becoming a genetic informant on the rest of your family.”— Law professor Elizabeth Joh

“Guilt by association” has taken on new connotations in the technological age.

All of those fascinating, genealogical searches that allow you to trace your family tree by way of a DNA sample can now be used against you and those you love.

As of 2019, more than 26 million people had added their DNA to ancestry databases. It’s estimated those databases could top 100 million profiles within the year, thanks to the aggressive marketing of companies such as Ancestry and 23andMe.

It’s a tempting proposition: provide some mega-corporation with a spit sample or a cheek swab, and in return, you get to learn everything about who you are, where you came from, and who is part of your extended family.

The possibilities are endless.

You could be the fourth cousin once removed of Queen Elizabeth II of England. Or the illegitimate grandchild of an oil tycoon. Or the sibling of a serial killer.

Without even realizing it, by submitting your DNA to an ancestry database, you’re giving the police access to the genetic makeup, relationships, and health profiles of every relative—past, present, and future—in your family, whether or not they ever agreed to be part of such a database.

After all, a DNA print reveals everything about “who we are, where we come from, and who we will be.”

It’s what police like to refer to as a “modern fingerprint.”

Whereas fingerprint technology created a watershed moment for police in their ability to “crack” a case, DNA technology is now being hailed by law enforcement agencies as the magic bullet in crime-solving.

Indeed, police have begun using ancestry databases to solve cold cases that have remained unsolved for decades.

For instance, in 2018, former police officer Joseph DeAngelo was flagged as the notorious “Golden State Killer” through the use of genetic genealogy, which allows police to match up an unknown suspect’s crime scene DNA with that of any family members in a genealogy database. Police were able to identify DeAngelo using the DNA of a distant cousin found in a public DNA database. Once police narrowed the suspect list to DeAngelo, they tracked him—snatched up a tissue he had tossed in a trash can—and used his DNA on the tissue to connect him to a rash of rapes and murders from the 1970s and ‘80s.

Although DeAngelo was the first public arrest made using forensic genealogy, police have identified more than 150 suspects since then. Most recently, police relied on genetic genealogy to nab the killer of a 15-year-old girl who was stabbed to death nearly 50 years ago.

Who wouldn’t want to get psychopaths and serial rapists off the streets and safely behind bars, right? At least, that’s the argument being used by law enforcement to support their unrestricted access to these genealogy databases.

“In the interest of public safety, don’t you want to make it easy for people to be caught? Police really want to do their job. They’re not after you. They just want to make you safe,” insists Colleen Fitzpatrick, a co-founder of the DNA Doe Project, which identifies unknown bodies and helps find suspects in old crimes.

Except it’s not just psychopaths and serial rapists who get caught up in the investigative dragnet.

Anyone who comes up as a possible DNA match—including distant family members—suddenly becomes part of a circle of suspects that must be tracked, investigated and ruled out.

Although a number of states had forbidden police from using government databases to track family members of suspects, the genealogy websites provided a loophole that proved irresistible to law enforcement.

Hoping to close that loophole, a few states have started introducing legislation to restrict when and how police use these genealogical databases, with Maryland requiring that they can only be used for serious violent crimes such as murder and rape, only after they exhaust other investigatory methods, and only under the supervision of a judge.

Yet the debate over genetic privacy—and when one’s DNA becomes a public commodity outside the protection of the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on warrantless searches and seizures—is really only beginning.

Certainly, it’s just a matter of time before the government gets hold of our DNA, either through mandatory programs carried out in connection with law enforcement and corporate America, by warrantlessly accessing our familial DNA shared with genealogical services such as Ancestry and 23andMe, or through the collection of our “shed” or “touch” DNA.

According to research published in the journal Science, more than 60 percent of Americans who have some European ancestry can be identified using DNA databases, even if they have not submitted their own DNA. According to law professor Natalie Ram, one genealogy profile can lead to as many as 300 other people.

That’s just on the commercial side.

All 50 states now maintain their own DNA databases, although the protocols for collection differ from state to state. Increasingly, many of the data from local databanks are being uploaded to CODIS (Combined DNA Index System), the FBI’s massive DNA database, which has become a de facto way to identify and track the American people from birth to death.

Even hospitals have gotten in on the game by taking and storing newborn babies’ DNA, often without their parents’ knowledge or consent. It’s part of the government’s mandatory genetic screening of newborns. In many states, the DNA is stored indefinitely.

What this means for those being born today is inclusion in a government database that contains intimate information about who they are, their ancestry, and what awaits them in the future, including their inclinations to be followers, leaders, or troublemakers.

Get ready, folks, because the government— helped along by Congress (which adopted legislation allowing police to collect and test DNA immediately following arrests), President Trump (who signed the Rapid DNA Act into law), the courts (which have ruled that police can routinely take DNA samples from people who are arrested but not yet convicted of a crime), and local police agencies (which are chomping at the bit to acquire this new crime-fighting gadget)—has embarked on a diabolical campaign to create a nation of suspects predicated on a massive national DNA database.

Referred to as “magic boxes,” Rapid DNA machines—portable, about the size of a desktop printer, highly unregulated, far from fool-proof, and so fast that they can produce DNA profiles in less than two hours—allow police to go on fishing expeditions for any hint of possible misconduct using DNA samples.

Journalist Heather Murphy explains: “As police agencies build out their local DNA databases, they are collecting DNA not only from people who have been charged with major crimes but also, increasingly, from people who are merely deemed suspicious, permanently linking their genetic identities to criminal databases.”

The ramifications of these DNA databases are far-reaching.

At a minimum, they will do away with any semblance of privacy or anonymity. The lucrative possibilities for hackers and commercial entities looking to profit off one’s biological record are endless.

Moreover, while much of the public debate, legislative efforts, and legal challenges in recent years have focused on the protocols surrounding when police can legally collect a suspect’s DNA (with or without a search warrant and whether upon arrest or conviction), the question of how to handle “shed” or “touch” DNA has largely slipped through without much debate or opposition.

As scientist Leslie A. Pray notes:

We all shed DNA, leaving traces of our identity practically everywhere we go. Forensic scientists use DNA left behind on cigarette butts, phones, handles, keyboards, cups, and numerous other objects, not to mention the genetic content found in drops of bodily fluid, like blood and semen. In fact, the garbage you leave for curbside pickup is a potential gold mine of this sort of material. All of this shed or so-called abandoned DNA is free for the taking by local police investigators hoping to crack unsolvable cases. Or, if the future scenario depicted at the beginning of this article is any indication, shed DNA is also free for inclusion in a secret universal DNA databank.

What this means is that if you have the misfortune to leave your DNA traces anywhere a crime has been committed, you’ve already got a file somewhere in some state or federal database—albeit it may be a file without a name. As Heather Murphy warns in the New York Times: “The science-fiction future, in which police can swiftly identify robbers and murderers from discarded soda cans and cigarette butts, has arrived…  Genetic fingerprinting is set to become as routine as the old-fashioned kind.

Even old samples taken from crime scenes and “cold” cases are being unearthed and mined for their DNA profiles.

Today, helped along by robotics and automation, DNA processing, analysis, and reporting takes far less time and can bring forth all manner of information, right down to a person’s eye color and relatives. Incredibly, one company specializes in creating “mug shots” for police based on DNA samples from unknown “suspects” which are then compared to individuals with similar genetic profiles.

If you haven’t yet connected the dots, let me point the way.

Having already used surveillance technology to render the entire American populace potential suspects, DNA technology in the hands of government will complete our transition to a suspect society in which we are all merely waiting to be matched up with a crime.

No longer can we consider ourselves innocent until proven guilty.

Now we are all suspects in a DNA lineup until circumstances and science say otherwise.

Suspect Society, meet the American police state.

Every dystopian sci-fi film we’ve ever seen is suddenly converging into this present moment in a dangerous trifecta between science, technology and a government that wants to be all-seeing, all-knowing and all-powerful.

By tapping into your phone lines and cell phone communications, the government knows what you say. By uploading all of your emails, opening your mail, and reading your Facebook posts and text messages, the government knows what you write. By monitoring your movements with the use of license plate readers, surveillance cameras and other tracking devices, the government knows where you go.

By churning through all of the detritus of your life—what you read, where you go, what you say—the government can predict what you will do. By mapping the synapses in your brain, scientists—and in turn, the government—will soon know what you remember.

And by accessing your DNA, the government will soon know everything else about you that they don’t already know: your family chart, your ancestry, what you look like, your health history, your inclination to follow orders, or chart your own course, etc.

Of course, none of these technologies are foolproof.

Nor are they immune from tampering, hacking, or user bias.

Nevertheless, they have become a convenient tool in the hands of government agents to render null and void the Constitution’s requirements of privacy and its prohibitions against unreasonable searches and seizures.

What this amounts to is a scenario in which we have little to no defense against charges of wrongdoing, especially when “convicted” by technology, and even less protection against the government sweeping up our DNA in much the same way it sweeps up our phone calls, emails, and text messages.

With the entire governmental system shifting into a pre-crime mode aimed at detecting and pursuing those who “might” commit a crime before they have an inkling, let alone an opportunity, to do so, it’s not so far-fetched to imagine a scenario in which government agents (FBI, local police, etc.) target potential criminals based on their genetic disposition to be a “troublemaker” or their relationship to past dissenters.

Equally disconcerting: if scientists can, using DNA, track salmon across hundreds of square miles of streams and rivers, how easy will it be for government agents to not only know everywhere we’ve been and how long we were at each place but collect our easily shed DNA and add it to the government’s already burgeoning database?

Not to be overlooked, DNA evidence is not infallible: it can be wrong, either through human error, tampering, or even outright fabrication, and it happens more often than we are told. The danger, warns scientist Dan Frumkin, is that crime scenes can be engineered with fabricated DNA.

Now if you happen to be the kind of person who trusts the government implicitly and refuses to believe it would ever do anything illegal or immoral, then the prospect of government officials—police, especially—using fake DNA samples to influence the outcome of a case might seem outlandish.

Yet as history shows, the probability of our government acting in a way that is not only illegal but immoral becomes less a question of “if” and more a question of “when.”

With technology, the courts, the corporations, and Congress conspiring to invade our privacy on a cellular level, suddenly the landscape becomes that much more dystopian.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, this is the slippery slope toward a dystopian world in which there is nowhere to run and nowhere to hide.

The post The War Over Genetic Privacy Is Just Beginning first appeared on SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don’t Say We Didn’t Warn You.

Share
Categories
cops democide detainment freedom government is slavery HARASSMENT Headline News Intelwars Law Enforcement liberty LIES Murder no good cops Police State Threats Violence wake up

Drivers Beware: The Deadly Perils of Blank Check Traffic Stops

This article was originally published by John W. Whitehead and Nisha Whitehead at The Rutherford Institute.

“The Fourth Amendment was designed to stand between us and arbitrary governmental authority. For all practical purposes, that shield has been shattered, leaving our liberty and personal integrity subject to the whim of every cop on the beat, trooper on the highway and jail official. The framers would be appalled.”—Herman Schwartz, The Nation

We’ve all been there before.

You’re driving along and you see a pair of flashing blue lights in your rearview mirror. Whether or not you’ve done anything wrong, you get a sinking feeling in your stomach.

You’ve read enough news stories, seen enough headlines, and lived in the American police state long enough to be anxious about any encounter with a cop that takes place on the side of the road.

For better or worse, from the moment you’re pulled over, you’re at the mercy of law enforcement officers who have almost absolute discretion to decide who is a threat, what constitutes resistance, and how harshly they can deal with the citizens they were appointed to “serve and protect.”

This is what I call “blank check policing,” in which the police get to call all of the shots.

So if you’re nervous about traffic stops, you have every reason to be.

Trying to predict the outcome of any encounter with the police is a bit like playing Russian roulette: most of the time you will emerge relatively unscathed, although decidedly poorer and less secure about your rights, but there’s always the chance that an encounter will turn deadly.

Try to assert your right to merely ask a question during a traffic stop and see how far it gets you.

Juanisha Brooks—black, 34 years old, and on her way home at 2:20 am—was pulled over, handcuffed, arrested, and charged with resisting arrest, eluding the police, reckless driving, and failure to use headlights after repeatedly asking police why she had been stopped. When Brooks—a Department of Defense employee—filed a complaint, prosecutors conceded that the traffic stop had been carried out without “proper legal basis” and dropped all charges.

Caron Nazario, a uniformed Army officer returning home from his duty station, was stopped for not having a rear license plate (his temporary plates were taped to the rear window of his new SUV). Nazario, who is Black and Latino, pulled over at a well-lit gas station only to be pepper-sprayed, held at gunpoint, beaten, and threatened with execution.

Zachary Noel was tasered by police and charged with resisting arrest after he questioned why he was being ordered out of his truck during a traffic stop. “Because I’m telling you to,” the officer replied before repeating his order for Noel to get out of the vehicle and then, without warning, shooting him with a taser through the open window.

Despite complying with all police orders when ordered to show his identification and exit his parked vehicle, Jeriel Edwards was subjected to excessive force and brutality, including being thrown to the ground, tasered, and placed in a chokehold that rendered him unconscious and required his hospitalization for three days. Although dashcam video of the arrest confirms that Edwards was peaceful, did not defy police orders, and did nothing to provoke police, a federal court ruled that Edwards’ trouble understanding police directions during the encounter constituted “resistance” that justified the force used by the four police officers involved in the violent arrest. Edwards is African-American.

Gregory Tucker, also black, was stopped by police for a broken taillight, only to be thrown to the ground, beaten and punched in the face and body more than 20 times, then arrested and hospitalized for severe injuries to his face and arm, all for allegedly “resisting arrest” by driving to a safe, well-lit area in front of his cousin’s house before stopping.

No wonder Americans are afraid of getting pulled over by police.

Mind you, all of these individuals complied with the police. They just didn’t do it fast enough to suit their purposes.

At a time when police can do no wrong—at least in the eyes of the courts, police unions and politicians dependent on their votes—and a “fear” for officer safety is used to justify all manner of police misconduct, “we the people” are at a severe disadvantage.

Add a traffic stop to the mix, and that disadvantage increases dramatically.

According to the Justice Department, the most common reason for a citizen to come into contact with the police is being a driver in a traffic stop.

On average, one in 10 Americans gets pulled over by police.

According to data collected under Virginia’s new Community Policing Act, black drivers are almost two times more likely than white drivers to be pulled over by police and three times more likely to have their vehicles searched. As the Washington Post concludes, “‘Driving while black’ is, indeed, a measurable phenomenon.”

Historically, police officers have been given free range to pull anyone over for a variety of reasons.

This free-handed approach to traffic stops has resulted in drivers being stopped for windows that are too heavily tinted, for driving too fast, driving too slow, failing to maintain speed, following too closely, improper lane changes, distracted driving, screeching a car’s tires, and leaving a parked car door open for too long.

Motorists can also be stopped by police for driving near a bar or on a road that has large amounts of drunk driving, driving a certain make of car (Mercedes, Grand Prix, and Hummers are among the most ticketed vehicles), having anything dangling from the rearview mirror (air fresheners, handicap parking permits, toll transponders or rosaries), and displaying pro-police bumper stickers.

Incredibly, a federal appeals court actually ruled unanimously in 2014 that acne scars and driving with a stiff upright posture are reasonable grounds for being pulled over. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that driving a vehicle that has a couple air fresheners, rosaries, and pro-police bumper stickers at 2 MPH over the speed limit is suspicious, meriting a traffic stop.

Equally appalling, in Heien v. North Carolina, the U.S. Supreme Court—which has largely paved the way for the police and other government agents to probe, poke, pinch, taser, search, seize, strip, and generally manhandle anyone they see fit in almost any circumstance—allowed police officers to stop drivers who appear nervous, provided they provide a palatable pretext for doing so.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor was the lone objector in the case. Dissenting in Heien, Sotomayor warned, “Giving officers license to effect seizures so long as they can attach to their reasonable view of the facts some reasonable legal interpretation (or misinterpretation) that suggests a law has been violated significantly expands this authority… One wonders how a citizen seeking to be law-abiding and to structure his or her behavior to avoid these invasive, frightening, and humiliating encounters could do so.”

In other words, drivers beware.

Traffic stops aren’t just dangerous. They can be downright deadly.

Remember Walter L. Scott? Reportedly pulled over for a broken taillight, Scott—unarmed—ran away from the police officer, who pursued and shot him from behind, first with a Taser, then with a gun. Scott was struck five times, “three times in the back, once in the upper buttocks and once in the ear — with at least one bullet entering his heart.”

Samuel Dubose, also unarmed, was pulled over for a missing front license plate. He was reportedly shot in the head after a brief struggle in which his car began rolling forward.

Levar Jones was stopped for a seatbelt offense, just as he was getting out of his car to enter a convenience store. Directed to show his license, Jones leaned into his car to get his wallet, only to be shot four times by the “fearful” officer. Jones was also unarmed.

Bobby Canipe was pulled over for having an expired registration. When the 70-year-old reached into the back of his truck for his walking cane, the officer fired several shots at him, hitting him once in the abdomen.

Dontrell Stevens was stopped “for not bicycling properly.” The officer pursuing him “thought the way Stephens rode his bike was suspicious. He thought the way Stephens got off his bike was suspicious.” Four seconds later, sheriff’s deputy Adams Lin shot Stephens four times as he pulled out a black object from his waistband. The object was his cell phone. Stephens was unarmed.

Sandra Bland, pulled over for allegedly failing to use her turn signal, was arrested after refusing to comply with the police officer’s order to extinguish her cigarette and exit her vehicle. The encounter escalated, with the officer threatening to “light” Bland up with his taser. Three days later, Bland was found dead in her jail cell. “You’re doing all of this for a failure to signal?” Bland asked as she got out of her car, after having been yelled at and threatened repeatedly.

Keep in mind, from the moment those lights start flashing and that siren goes off, we’re all in the same boat. However, it’s what happens after you’ve been pulled over that’s critical.

Survival is key.

Technically, you have the right to remain silent (beyond the basic requirement to identify yourself and show your registration). You have the right to refuse to have your vehicle searched. You have the right to film your interaction with police. You have the right to ask to leave. You also have the right to resist an unlawful order such as a police officer directing you to extinguish your cigarette, put away your phone or stop recording them.

However, there is a price for asserting one’s rights. That price grows more costly with every passing day.

If you ask cops and their enablers what Americans should do to stay alive during encounters with police, they will tell you to comply, cooperate, obey, not resist, not argue, not make threatening gestures or statements, avoid sudden movements, and submit to a search of their person and belongings.

Unfortunately, there are no longer any fail-safe rules of engagement for interacting with the police.

In the American police state, compliance is no guarantee that you will survive an encounter with the police with your life and liberties intact.

Every day we hear about situations in which unarmed Americans complied and still died during an encounter with the police simply because they appeared to be standing in a “shooting stance” or held a cell phone or a garden hose or carried around a baseball bat or answered the front door or held a spoon in a threatening manner or ran in an aggressive manner holding a tree branch or wandered around naked or hunched over in a defensive posture or made the mistake of wearing the same clothes as a carjacking suspect (dark pants and a basketball jersey) or dared to leave an area at the same time that a police officer showed up or had a car break down by the side of the road or were deaf or homeless or old.

More often than not, it seems as if all you have to do to be shot and killed by police is stand a certain way, or move a certain way, or hold something—anything—that police could misinterpret to be a gun or ignite some trigger-centric fear in a police officer’s mind that has nothing to do with an actual threat to their safety.

Now you can make all kinds of excuses to justify these shootings, and in fact, that’s exactly what you’ll hear from politicians, police unions, law enforcement officials, and individuals who are more than happy to march in lockstep with the police.

However, to suggest that a good citizen is a compliant citizen and that obedience will save us from the police state is not only recklessly irresponsible but it is also deluded and out of touch with reality.

To begin with, and most importantly, Americans need to know their rights when it comes to interactions with the police, bearing in mind that many law enforcement officials are largely ignorant of the law themselves.

A good resource is The Rutherford Institute’s “Constitutional Q&A: Rules of Engagement for Interacting with Police.”

In a nutshell, the following are your basic rights when it comes to interactions with the police as outlined in the Bill of Rights:

You have the right under the First Amendment to ask questions and express yourself. You have the right under the Fourth Amendment to not have your person or your property searched by police or any government agent unless they have a search warrant authorizing them to do so.  You have the right under the Fifth Amendment to remain silent, to not incriminate yourself and to request an attorney. Depending on which state you live in and whether your encounter with police is consensual as opposed to your being temporarily detained or arrested, you may have the right to refuse to identify yourself. Not all states require citizens to show their ID to an officer (although drivers in all states must do so).

As a rule of thumb, you should always be sure to clarify in any police encounter whether or not you are being detained, i.e., whether you have the right to walk away. That holds true whether it’s a casual “show your ID” request on a boardwalk, a stop-and-frisk search on a city street, or a traffic stop for speeding or just to check your insurance. If you feel like you can’t walk away from a police encounter of your own volition—and more often than not you can’t, especially when you’re being confronted by someone armed to the hilt with all manner of militarized weaponry and gear—then for all intents and purposes, you’re essentially under arrest from the moment a cop stops you. Still, it doesn’t hurt to clarify that distinction.

While technology is always going to be a double-edged sword, with the gadgets that are the most useful to us in our daily lives—GPS devices, cell phones, the internet—being the very tools used by the government to track us, monitor our activities, and generally spy on us, cell phones are particularly useful for recording encounters with the police and have proven to be increasingly powerful reminders to police that they are not all-powerful.

Knowing your rights is only part of the battle, unfortunately.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the hard part comes in when you have to exercise those rights in order to hold government officials accountable to respecting those rights.

The post Drivers Beware: The Deadly Perils of Blank Check Traffic Stops first appeared on SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don’t Say We Didn’t Warn You.

Share
Categories
Intelwars Law Enforcement Malware ransomware Russia

Adding a Russian Keyboard to Protect against Ransomware

A lot of Russian malware — the malware that targeted the Colonial Pipeline, for example — won’t install on computers with a Cyrillic keyboard installed. Brian Krebs wonders if this could be a useful defense:

In Russia, for example, authorities there generally will not initiate a cybercrime investigation against one of their own unless a company or individual within the country’s borders files an official complaint as a victim. Ensuring that no affiliates can produce victims in their own countries is the easiest way for these criminals to stay off the radar of domestic law enforcement agencies.

[…]

DarkSide, like a great many other malware strains, has a hard-coded do-not-install list of countries which are the principal members of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) — former Soviet satellites that mostly have favorable relations with the Kremlin.

[…]

Simply put, countless malware strains will check for the presence of one of these languages on the system, and if they’re detected the malware will exit and fail to install.

[…]

Will installing one of these languages keep your Windows computer safe from all malware? Absolutely not. There is plenty of malware that doesn’t care where in the world you are. And there is no substitute for adopting a defense-in-depth posture, and avoiding risky behaviors online.

But is there really a downside to taking this simple, free, prophylactic approach? None that I can see, other than perhaps a sinking feeling of capitulation. The worst that could happen is that you accidentally toggle the language settings and all your menu options are in Russian.

Share
Categories
Black Lives Matter deadly force Intelwars Law Enforcement Ma'khia bryant Ma'khia bryant shooting police shooting

Law enforcement experts say shooting of 16-year-old Ma’Khia Bryant was legally justified, no other options to ‘de-escalate’ were available

Law enforcement experts asked to weigh in on the deadly police shooting of a 16-year-old girl who was attacking another person with a knife say that the police officer’s use of force was legally justified and that it appears he had no other options to de-escalate the situation.

The fatal shooting occurred Tuesday in Columbus, Ohio. Police were called to respond to a physical threat of violence at a house in the southeast area of the city. Bodycam footage released by the Columbus Division of Police after the incident shows the teen girl, Ma’Khia Bryant, attempting to stab two people with a knife. The video is from the perspective of Officer Nicholas Reardon, who arrived on the scene and shortly thereafter fired his weapon and shot Bryant before she could stab someone.

Bryant was taken to the hospital and later died of her injuries. Her death led many prominent leftists and celebrities to denounce “police terror” and the “injustice” of another death of a black person at the hands of the police.

White House press secretary Jen Psaki told reporters Wednesday that the death was “tragic,” saying, “she was a child.”

“We’re thinking of her friends and family in the communities that are hurting and grieving her loss. We know that police violence disproportionately impacts black and Latino people in communities and that black women and girls, like black men and boys, experience higher rates of police violence. We also know that there are particular vulnerabilities that children in foster care, like Ma’Khia, face,” Psaki said.

Experts point out, however, that the shooting appears justified and note that Officer Reardon likely saved the lives of one or more people.

After reviewing the video footage, Bowling Green State University professor Philip Stinson, who specializes in criminal justice and researches fatal shootings, told the Columbus Dispatch that Officer Reardon appears to have been “legally justified in using deadly force.”

“It’s a terribly tragic situation, and my heart goes out to the girl and her family and friends,” he said Wednesday. “But from looking at the video, it appears to me that a reasonable police officer would have had a reasonable apprehension of an imminent threat of serious bodily injury or death being imposed against an officer or someone else. That’s the legal standard.”

Another expert with 33 years of experience training police officers and serving as an expert witness at trials in use-of-force cases agreed after seeing the video.

“An officer is justified in using deadly force if his life or the life of someone else is at risk,” retired Columbus Division of Police SWAT Officer James Scanlon said. “Few would argue that there weren’t at least two lives there that were at serious risk.”

He explained that Officer Reardon took action “to save the life of someone he doesn’t even know. … It’s a shame that no one has recognized that that officer, in all likelihood, saved one or more lives.”

Stinson added that the shooting is “a good reminder that officers sometimes have to make split-second, life-or-death decisions in violent street encounters. … These situations can escalate in a matter of milliseconds, as we saw here.”

Both experts agreed that Reardon did not appear to have any means of de-escalating the situation, whether by using a Taser or by shooting the knife-wielding assailant in the leg.

“I don’t know what the officer could have done differently,” Stinson said. “Based on what I saw, there was no opportunity for the officer to de-escalate.”

He explained that use of a non-lethal weapon like a Taser isn’t appropriate for “a lethal-force situation.” He also told the Dispatch that police officers are trained to shoot at “center mass” of the person they’re trying to stop, so as to protect themselves or others.

Officers are taught “to shoot until the threat is neutralized,” he said.

Scanlon further described the incident as “a textbook scenario” of when officers are trained to use deadly force in a shoot/don’t shoot scenario.

“That’s exactly the kind of film you’d see in training rooms where you have to react to a deadly situation,” he said.

Scanlon added that officers “are trained and they’re re-trained in use-of-force situations. One problem we see is officers who react in ways that are inconsistent with their training. I did not see that in this video.”

“In this situation, inaction by the officer, I believe, would likely have resulted in serious bodily injury or death to one or more persons,” Scanlon said.

Share
Categories
Disarm americans Intelwars Law Enforcement Maxine waters’ call for protesters to 'get more confrontational' racial injustice

Mark Levin slams the Left’s hypocrisy over Maxine Waters’ ‘get more confrontational’ remarks

George Floyd’s death was the fuse that lit the fires engulfing our nation in protests. The Marxist left has seized this opportunity to tear our country apart, claiming the U.S. is “systemically racist” and protests are “mostly peaceful” even as our cities burn.

Now, in the wake of Daunte Wright’s shooting and the George Floyd murder trial, California left-wing Rep. Maxine Waters (D) enters the fray. Filled with disregard for the rule of law, she sought to intimidate the George Floyd jury to secure a guilty verdict by encouraging the crowd to “get more confrontational” if they didn’t get their way.

On this episode of “LevinTV,” Mark contended that Rep. Waters and the Democrat Party aren’t motivated by racial injustice or equality. It’s all a conspiracy to tear down the country, destroy support for law enforcement, disarm Americans, and take total control, he argued.

Watch the video below for more from Mark Levin:

Want more from Mark Levin?

To enjoy more of “the Great One” — Mark Levin as you’ve never seen him before — subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

Share
Categories
Black lives matter riots Florida Florida anti riot bill Florida politics Intelwars Law Enforcement Ron DeSantis Sheriff Grady Judd

Florida sheriff tells new residents don’t ‘vote the stupid way you did up north’ as Gov. DeSantis signs anti-rioting law

A Florida sheriff on Monday advised new residents of the state who moved south from liberal states against “voting the stupid way you did up north.”

The remarks were made by Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd during a news conference held by Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) at the signing ceremony of a new anti-rioting bill passed by the legislature. Judd, who last September grabbed headlines for giving members of the media a visual aid to help them tell the difference between a peaceful protest and a riot, praised the governor and Senate President Wilton Simpson, House Speaker Chris Sprowls, and other lawmakers for prioritizing the safety of Floridians.

“Florida is a unique place and a special place. It’s where we work, where we live, but it’s also where the world comes to play, to bring their children — and their children have a right to be safe,” the sheriff said.

He contrasted DeSantis’ leadership in Florida with the governments of Seattle, Portland, and Minneapolis, where Black Lives Matter protests have devolved into violent riots that have set those communities aflame.

“That’s no way to treat the community. That’s no way to treat those that put their entire life into building their business,” Judd said.

“We saw folks’ businesses around this nation who literally worked their entire life and had every penny in their life savings involved. We’re going to proactive and we’re going to make sure people are safe,” he continued, holding up a picture of a peaceful protest next to a picture of a riot, as seen in video reported by WTVT-TV.

“Pay attention, we got a new law and we’re going to use it if you make us. We’re going to protect the people.”

The new law, “Combating Public Disorder,” would criminalize “mob intimidation” — such as the practices of protesters accosting people at restaurants — and would increase penalties for rioting, looting, and related violence. The bill would also create legal protections for fleeing motorists who cause injury or death to rioters while attempting to drive away to safety.

“We saw unprecedented rioting throughout 2020,” DeSantis said during the news conference. “We wanted to make sure we protect the people of our great state, businesses and property against any type of mob activity. We’re here today being prepared to sign that bill into law.”

Rioting erupted in cities across the nation last year when 36-year-old George Floyd died in police custody. The officer, Derek Chauvin, had knelt on Floyd’s neck for at least eight minutes and is now on trial for Floyd’s murder.

DeSantis proposed the anti-rioting law in response to the nationwide wave of violence last year, warning would-be rioters that there will be consequences for violence in Florida.

“If you are involved in a violent or disorderly assembly and you harm somebody, if you throw a brick and hit a police officer, you’re going to jail, and there’s going to be a mandatory minimum jail sentence of at least six months for anyone who strikes a police officer, either with a weapon or projectile. And we’re also not going to simply let people back out on the street,” DeSantis previously said. “So if you are in custody for one of these offenses relating to a violent or disorderly assembly, you’re not getting bail before your first appearance.

“If you are from another state and you come to participate in one of these violent or disorderly assemblies, you’re going to have extra penalties imposed on you as well,” he added.

The new law also penalizes the destruction of “memorials” by creating a felony crime for defacing, damaging, destroying, or pulling down memorials or historic property if the damage is more than $200. Persons convicted of crimes under this law would be responsible for restoration or replacement of the property.

Judd, speaking after DeSantis Monday, used another visual aid to show the media why people come to Florida, holding up a picture of families vacationing at the beach and at Disney World.

“This is what we enjoy in Florida. This is the Florida we know and love. This is what our governor, our speaker, our president — this what all these law enforcement officers, and administrators, and sheriffs and police chiefs and their officers do every day — they guarantee an environment where you can come here and have fun,” Judd said.

He continued:

This is the Florida we know and love. We’re a special place. And there are millions and millions of people who like to come here. And quite frankly, we like to have them here. So, we only want to share one thing as you move in hundreds a day:

Welcome to Florida! But don’t register to vote and vote the stupid way you did up north, you’ll get what they got!

There’s a reason that this place is fun. There’s a reason why we have a 49-year-low crime rate. And the same people that don’t think we should have an anti-rioting bill, or a rioting bill, are the same ones that think we ought to let more people out of prison. And where they’re doing that … crime goes up. But it’s not just crime that goes up, victimization goes up. The people of those states are hurt and killed and their livelihoods change and their children are changed.

Share
Categories
Barack Obama Defund the police Duante wright Intelwars Law Enforcement Police

Obama wants Americans to ‘reimagine policing’ as Democrats demand abolition of police departments

Former President Barack Obama wants Americans to “reimagine policing” after two new incidents propelled the issue of police tactics and officer-involved fatal shootings back into national headlines.

What is the background?

Over the weekend, news broke that an Army officer had filed a lawsuit against police officers in Windsor, Virginia, after they “drew their guns, pointed them at him and used a slang term to suggest he was facing execution before pepper-spraying him and knocking him to the ground” during a traffic stop in December, the Associated Press reported.

One of those police officers, Joe Gutierrez, was fired Monday.

Meanwhile, 20-year-old Daunte Wright was shot and killed by police on Sunday in Brooklyn Center, Minnesota. Law enforcement said the officer who killed Wright did so accidentally, discharging her firearm when she meant to draw her Taser.

That officer has since resigned.

What did Obama say?

Obama said Wright’s untimely death is the impetus for Americans to “reimagine policing and public safety.”

Our hearts are heavy over yet another shooting of a Black man, Daunte Wright, at the hands of police. The fact that this could happen even as the city of Minneapolis is going through the trial of Derek Chauvin and reliving the heart-wrenching murder of George Floyd indicates not just how important it is to conduct a full and transparent investigation, but also just how badly we need to reimagine policing and public safety in this country.

Michelle and I grieve alongside the Wright family for their loss. We empathize with the pain that Black mothers, fathers, and children are feeling after yet another senseless tragedy. And we will continue to work with all fair-minded Americans to confront historical inequities and bring about nationwide changes that are so long overdue.

What are other Democrats saying?

Far-left Democrats agree with Obama.

Recycling the “defund the police” narrative that gained momentum after George Floyd’s death last year — only to fizzle out when violent crime skyrocketed in major U.S. cities — Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), among others, are calling for radical policing reforms.

“Daunte Wright’s killing was not a random, disconnected ‘accident’ — it was the repeated outcome of an indefensible system that grants impunity for state violence, rewards it w/ endlessly growing budgets at the cost of community investment, & targets those who question that order,” Ocasio-Cortez said. “Cameras, chokehold bans, ‘retraining’ funds, and similar reform measures do not ultimately solve what is a systemic problem. That system will find a way — killings happen on camera, people are killed in other ways, retraining grows $ while often substituting for deeper measures.”

“It wasn’t an accident. Policing in our country is inherently & intentionally racist. Daunte Wright was met with aggression & violence,” Tlaib said. “I am done with those who condone government funded murder. No more policing, incarceration, and militarization. It can’t be reformed.”

Moderate Democrats, however, disagree with their colleagues.

Reps. Scott Peters (D-Calif.) and Abigail Spanberger (D-Va.) specifically attributed anti-police rhetoric for significant losses that Democrats saw in 2020, which almost caused them to lose their majority in the House.

Peters predicted in February that Democrats will lose badly in 2022 if they employ similar campaign messages, and Spanberger, in a post-2020 election conference call, agreed.

“If we run this race again we will get f***ing torn apart again in 2022,” Spanberger predicted last November.

Share
Categories
Campus chicago College Intelwars Law Enforcement Pc police political correctness Uic University of Illinois at Chicago

University will no longer describe suspects’ race in public safety advisories to avoid ‘negative stereotypes’

The University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC) has halted using references to suspects’ race, ethnicity, and national origin in public safety advisories in an effort to avoid “potential negative perpetuation of stereotypes,” according to a report from the Young America’s Foundation.

The shift in policy was put into effect in late January, when it was announced on the Facebook page of the UIC Office of Diversity, and was confirmed this week by a UIC spokesperson.

“Effective January 2021, the university will no longer routinely use race, ethnicity or national origin as a descriptor in public safety advisories,” the University of Illinois at Chicago stated in an email and a public safety advisory.

Sherri McGinnis Gonzalez, senior executive director of Public Affairs at UIC, confirmed the change in policy to YAF.

“The university no longer routinely uses race, ethnicity or national origin as a descriptor in public safety advisories,” Gonzalez said. “This decision was made after consulting with several members of the UIC community, including the UIC Police Department and our recently established Public Safety Board.”

The Public Safety Board, which was formed in August, was established to “review UIC Department policies and procedures especially related to use of force, de-escalation protocols and police training.” The board will also “review of UIC Police Department responses to any major incidents” and “review of UIC Police Department communication practices and policies.”

YAF asked Gonzalez if the new practice of not listing a suspect’s race or ethnicity would affect law enforcement’s ability to apprehend culprits, to which she responded, “It is not expected that this decision will have an impact on UIC Police Department operations and the ability to apprehend perpetrators of criminal acts.”

“The decision is a proactive progressive measure balancing public safety with the potential negative perpetuation of stereotypes,” Gonzalez added. “Our goal is to make everyone feel welcomed and safe on the UIC campus.

“The advisories are designed to inform our community members so they can change their behavior as necessary to be conducive to the recommended safety measures in the UIC campus area,” Gonzalez said, as reported by Fox News. “While we generally will no longer use race or other descriptors, we will include them if, given the totality of the circumstances, they can enhance immediate public safety and/or include differentiating characteristics.”

Share
Categories
Defund the police Hero cops Intelwars Jeffery hazelitt Law Enforcement Oakland airport Police standoff

Quick-thinking cop saves the life of knife-wielding suicidal man by turning up the heat at the airport

In recent times, the decisions of police officers are often questioned, especially during life-or-death scenarios where the cop may only have seconds to assess the situation and take action. A tense standoff at the Oakland International Airport was safely defused thanks to the quick-thinking and resourcefulness of a veteran police officer, who literally turned up the heat to cool down a highly flammable predicament.

At 6 a.m. Tuesday, a man was running between terminals inside the Oakland International Airport. The man then barricaded himself in a baggage carousel in Terminal 1, and threatened to kill himself with a knife. The man placed the 7-inch knife near his own neck and begged deputies to shoot him, which caused the terminal to be closed for hours and the area outside of TSA security was evacuated.

“We got a call from TSA, the man passed a note saying he needed help,” said Alameda County Sheriff’s Deputy Tya Modeste. “When deputies assigned to the airport responded, the man immediately pulled out a knife and put it to his throat.”

Alameda County Sheriff’s Sgt. Jeffery Hazelitt knew that drawing his gun might only escalate the situation that was already distressing for everyone inside the airport. Hazelitt, a 24-year-old veteran, analyzed the emergency and determined that the best course of action would be to ratchet up the heat. The suicidal man was wearing a thick jacket, so Hazelitt instructed the director of airport operations to turn off the air conditioning and crank up the heat.

Soon enough, the distraught man started to sweat. As soon as the suicidal man started to take off his jacket, Hazelitt used a Taser to subdue him, and was able to wrestle the knife from the suicidal man. The man suffered a minor injury to his neck. No other injuries were reported.

The knife-wielding man was taken to John George psychiatric hospital in San Leandro, according to the sheriff’s office. The man was not arrested for the airport incident, but he did have an outstanding warrant from another county.

“Time is your best friend,” Hazelitt said, adding that the standoff lasted four hours, during which a crisis team had been talking to the man and feeding him fruit. “I just saw the opportunity to get him warm and uncomfortable.

“I definitely feared for my life,” Hazelitt told KTVU. “But more importantly, I feared for his life.

“I didn’t want to shoot him or harm him,” said Hazelitt, who is a member of the Special Response Unit. “I was looking to de-escalate the situation.

“Everybody has a story,” the hero cop said. “I don’t know what caused his mental health crisis at the time.”

“My opportunity to give him one more day was all I was thinking about,” he continued. “I wanted to give him the opportunity to see his children. He was talking about his children. So if I was able to get the knife away, get him the mental help that he needed, then that would pretty much give him extra life.”

In a time of the defund the police and abolish the police movements, Hazelitt demonstrated level-headed thinking that was celebrated by his law enforcement peers.

“Sergeant Hazelitt is a trained professional,” an Alameda County Sheriff’s Deputy spokesperson said of the officer’s brilliant unorthodox tactics to de-escalate the situation. “His actions on Tuesday were indicative of who he is as a person and a professional. He’s passionate about his job, and he always puts others before himself.”

“I hope he got the resources he needs,” the officer said of the disturbed man.


EXCLUSIVE: Sheriff’s sergeant defuses Oakland airport standoff by cranking up heat

www.youtube.com

Share
Categories
2nd Amendment Preservation Act Federal Gun Control HB85 Intelwars Law Enforcement Missouri Missouri Sheriffs Association Police State right to keep and bear arms State Bills

Missouri Sheriffs’ Association Working to Kill 2nd Amendment Preservation Act

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (March 29, 2021) – The Missouri Sheriffs’ Association is aggressively lobbying state senators to gut the recently House-passed Second Amendment Preservation Act, rendering it worthless in practice. Read on to learn the 4 ways they’re trying to make this happen.

Last month, the Missouri House passed House Bill 85 (HB85) by a wide margin. Sponsored by Jared Taylor (R) and titled the “Second Amendment Preservation Act,” the legislation would ban any public officer or employee of the state and its political subdivisions from enforcing all past, present or future “federal acts, laws, executive orders, administrative orders, court orders, rules, regulations, statutes, or ordinances” that infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. The bill includes a detailed definition of actions qualifying as “infringement” that would no longer be enforced in Missouri.

You can read more details about the legislation HERE.

But the Missouri Sheriffs’ Association (MSA) has aggressively lobbied state senators to oppose HB85, claiming that banning them from enforcing current federal gun control – and anything new from the Biden administration – will stop them from “catching criminals.” This is a typical law enforcement scare-tactic. In reality, these law enforcement lobby groups are really only concerned with preserving their “federal partnerships” and all of the federal grant money, asset forfeiture money, and power that go along with them.

MSA AMENDMENT

The MSA has proposed changes to the bill (download their recommended amendment here) that would ensure state and local cops will continue enforcing all federal gun control, including any new measures on the way from the Biden Administration.

1. Change all federal gun control to just future
The first change would limit the bill to ending enforcement of future federal gun control, ensuring that Missouri law enforcement agencies will continue helping in the enforcement of all the federal gun laws already on the books.

2. Legal Trick to Continue enforcement of everything
The MSA changes would also limit actions that infringe on the right to keep and bear arms to just those federal gun control measures “without a statutory basis.” But the feds claim every executive order, administrative order, rule and regulation has a statutory basis.

It is almost always unconstitutional, but the statutory basis exists nevertheless. Even Trump’s “bump stock” ban was based (erroneously) on a statutory basis. In effect, this language would establish a law that would block state and local enforcement of literally nothing.

“This is a neat legal trick, and I’m sure it’s intentional,” Tenth Amendment Center executive director Michael Boldin said. “This line is an obvious attempt to make the entire thing worthless.”

3. “Law-abiding citizens”
Another change would further neuter the bill. As passed by the House, HB85 protects “law-abiding citizens” from federal actions that infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.  The legislation defines a “law-abiding citizen” as “a person who is not otherwise precluded under state law from possessing a firearm.”  The MSA wants to change that definition to “a person who is not otherwise committing a crime under state or federal law by possessing a firearm or firearm accessory.”

With this change, state and local police would enforce all federal gun control because any person violating federal law is, by definition, committing a crime under federal law. In practice, if Congress passed an assault rifle ban, any person in possession of an assault rifle would in violation of that federal law. If HB85 passes with this MSA change, state and local police would enforce that ban. Again, the change would make the entire legislation worthless.

4. Fake Legal Remedies for the People
The MSA also proposed changes to water down legal remedies included in HB85. The proposed MSA language takes the cause of action (right to sue) against a Missouri agency that enforces an infringing federal action – and replaces it with a cause of action against the president of the United States. This is totally irrelevant in a bill that dictates what Missouri officials can and cannot do, and would in no way punish state officials who violate the law.

WHAT THIS TELLS US

It is clear from these changes that the MSA has no desire to stop federal gun control. In fact, it appears they want to craft a bill that will empower state and local police to cooperate not only with the enforcement of all existing gun control but every federal gun law that comes down the pike in the future.

When the MSA lobbyists claim to care about the Second Amendment, they are lying. Period.

They are not behaving like people who actually want meaningful protections from a federal gun grab. All they seem to care about is protecting their turf and maintaining cash chow that comes from partnering up with the feds. If there is any doubt about this, read the change to the legislative findings in HB85 proposed by the MSA.

“The general assembly supports all law enforcement activities that are necessary and proper to bring criminals to justice for terrorizing our citizenry. Absent the rule of law and law enforcement there would be only chaos and anarchy. The general assembly supports and encourages law enforcement to work with the federal government to fight crime by way of task forces to seize unlawful substances and property and to bring criminals to justice.” [Emphasis added}

This is federal bootlicking couched in “law and order” language. Meanwhile, the MSA is perfectly happy to toss the “rule of law” into the trash bin when it comes to the Second Amendment and its absolute limits on federal authority.

WHAT’S NEXT

Grassroots pressure will be crucial if we are to overcome these powerful law enforcement lobbyists. Missouri residents should take the following steps.

    1. Contact Missouri Senate President Pro Tem Dave Schatz and firmly but politely tell him we need the strongest Second Amendment Preservation Act possible as a response to Biden’s promise to infringe on our right to bear arms. You can find his contact information HERE.
    2. Contact your own state senator with the same message. You can find your state senator HERE.
    3. Contact your county sheriff and let them know that protecting constitutionally guaranteed rights is more important than partnering with federal enforcement priorities. They should support HB85 and oppose watering it down as MSA is trying to do.

The post Missouri Sheriffs’ Association Working to Kill 2nd Amendment Preservation Act first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Share
Categories
Biden administration DHS Illegal Immigration Immigration and Customs Enforcement Intelwars Law Enforcement President joe biden

Report: ICE arrests and deportations drop 60% after Biden limits immigration enforcement

New data suggests that President Joe Biden’s determination to undo, reverse, and otherwise erase former President Donald Trump’s immigration enforcement policies led to fewer arrests and deportations in February.

According to an analysis of data from Immigration and Customs Enforcement conducted by the Washington Post, the number of illegal immigrants taken into custody by ICE agents fell more than 60% in February compared to the last three months of the Trump administration. Deportations fell at a similar rate.

The drop in arrests and deportations is a direct result of Biden’s orders. Among the president’s first actions after assuming office was an executive order freezing deportations for 100 days and ordering ICE to conduct a review of its law enforcement policies. The White House issued guidance to ICE, ordering agents to “stop all removals” and release detainees.

Biden’s deportation moratorium was indefinitely blocked by a federal judge after the state of Texas sued the federal government, claiming the order violated the Constitution and a contractural agreement between Texas and the Department of Homeland Security. Although deportations continued, the Biden administration shifted law enforcement priorities with new guidance.

On Feb. 22, ICE released an official statement explaining that the agency would “focus the agency’s civil immigration enforcement and removal resources on threats to national security, border security and public safety.” The guidance limits ICE to enforcing the law against aliens considered to be national security threats, recent border-crossers, or violent criminals considered a threat to public safety. ICE agents must obtain written permission from senior staff before attempting to arrest fugitive aliens that do not fall into one of those categories.

“By focusing our limited resources on cases that present threats to national security, border security, and public safety, our agency will more ably and effectively execute its law enforcement mission,” ICE Acting Director Tae Johnson said. “Like every law enforcement agency at the local, state and federal level, we must prioritize our efforts to achieve the greatest security and safety impact.”

As a result of these policies, the Washington Post reports that ICE made 2,600 deportations in February, down from 5,583 in January. At the end of the Trump administration, ICE averaged nearly 6,800 arrests in October, November, and December. In February, ICE only made 2,500 arrests.

On Tuesday, the states of Arizona and Montana filed a lawsuit against the Biden administration seeking to undo Biden’s ICE enforcement policies. The attorneys general of these states claim their states will be harmed if aliens with criminal charges or convictions that are not covered by Biden’s guidelines are not deported and instead are released into their communities.

“Despite a clear mandate of federal statutory law, Defendants believe that there are literally no constraints whatsoever on their authority, and they may release individuals, including those charged with or convicted of crimes, even when immigration courts have already ordered their removal from the United States,” the states argued in their complaint.

Share
Categories
COVID-!9 Fear freedom French GLobal government is slavery great awakening Headline News Humanity Intelwars Law Enforcement liberty live free lockdowns Masters no masters no rulers no slaves panicking Police Police State restriction ruling class ruling class is scared slaves wake up

France’s Ruling Class Calls Up Law Enforcement As The People Have Decided to Live Freely

Against the dictate of the French ruling class, many have decided to live freely in the wake of more draconian COVID-19 restrictions. Because of this, the masters of the country have called on their “enforcers” to make sure the slaves continue to comply with their edicts.

Members of the French ruling class have vowed to increase their enforcement presence on the streets this weekend as they struggle to enforce a 6 pm-6 am curfew on those willing to live freely during attempts at further enslavement. The masters claim they need the slaves to comply amid soaring Covid-19 infections across the country and in the capital, according to a  report by RT. 

“If the police find groups of people in which respect for social distancing cannot be guaranteed, in particular on the banks of the Seine and in public parks and gardens, they are instructed to proceed with their evacuation,” the Paris police department confirmed on Friday, as it announced the mobilization of 4,400 officers this weekend. The police also urged people to ensure they reduce their social contacts to a maximum of six people and avoid any travel outside the Paris metropolitan area in order to prevent spreading the virus to other regions exert control and keep those pesky slaves that want to be free in line.

After Brainwashing People For Decades, MSM and Governments Are Losing Control of People

Since mid-January, the country has been under a nighttime curfew running from 6 pm until 6 am, but that’s only for the slaves who are supposed to be serving the ruling class. The rulers can do as they wish. However, the good news, is that this ruling class’s effectiveness at controlling the public is waning. Not only that, but the curfew hoax (used only as a method of control)  has been called into question in recent weeks with 23 regions of France placed under reinforced surveillance” over a rise in Covid-19 infection rates. Stricter measures have been brought in at weekends for Nice and Dunkirk already and will be imposed in the northern area of Pas-de-Calais as of Saturday.

People worldwide are beginning to figure out the truth about government. Government is slavery, and now that people know, they also know they have no obligation to obey or be enslaved just as the ruling class has no real authority, only that perceived by those they rule over. People all over the globe are waking up and ruling classes are panicking.

The post France’s Ruling Class Calls Up Law Enforcement As The People Have Decided to Live Freely first appeared on SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don’t Say We Didn’t Warn You.

Share
Categories
Alexandria ocasio-cortez Intelwars Law Enforcement NYPD Nypd digidog Police Robotics Structural racism

AOC slams NYPD’s expenditure of $75,000 on a robotic dog as wasteful and possibly racist

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) slammed the New York Police Department for deploying its new robotic dog in the Bronx, suggesting that the $75,000 new crime-fighting tech is wasteful and its existence racist.

The democratic socialist “Squad” leader criticized the NYPD’s “Digidog” after it was deployed to respond to a home invasion last week, saying that the resources spent to build the robot should have been allocated to serve other community needs.

“Shout out to everyone who fought against community advocates who demanded these resources go to investments like school counseling instead,” Ocasio-Cortez tweeted. “Now robotic surveillance ground drones are being deployed for testing on low-income communities of color with under-resourced schools.”

According to the New York Post, the NYPD’s “Digidog” is still in its test phase. The 70-pound robot is equipped with lights and cameras that allow the police to view “its surroundings in real-time.” The robot also is equipped with two-way communication, can run up to 3.5 miles per hour, can see in the dark, and can climb stairs.

“Digidog” uses artificial intelligence to navigate and was designed to allow police to respond in emergency situations that are too dangerous for human officers.

“This dog is going to save lives, protect people, and protect officers and that’s our goal,” NYPD Technical Assistance Response Unit Inspector Frank Digiacomo said.

The Daily Mail reported that “Digidog” was deployed to a home invasion and barricade situation on East 227th Street near White Plains Road in Wakefield on Tuedsay.

Two men were reportedly being held hostage in a Bronx apartment. They had been threatened at gun point, tied up and tortured for hours by two male assailants who pretended to be plumbers to gain access to the home.

One of the victims managed to escape and called the police.

Digidog was deployed and helped officers determine that the armed suspects were no longer inside the home.

The police said they were still searching for the two men, who stole a cellphone and $2,000 in cash and used a hot iron to burn one of the victims.

Though the police are confident that the new technology can help save officer’s lives in dangerous situations, Ocasio-Cortez believes money spent on crime fighting would be better reallocated for education or health care in “underserved communities.”

“Please ask yourself: when was the last time you saw next-generation, world class technology for education, healthcare, housing, etc consistently prioritized for underserved communities like this?” she asked in a follow-up tweet.

More on NYPD’s Digidog from WNYW:

Share
Categories
Copyright hacking Intelwars Law Enforcement Police

Deliberately Playing Copyrighted Music to Avoid Being Live-Streamed

Vice is reporting on a new police hack: playing copyrighted music when being filmed by citizens, trying to provoke social media sites into taking the videos down and maybe even banning the filmers:

In a separate part of the video, which Devermont says was filmed later that same afternoon, Devermont approaches [BHPD Sgt. Billy] Fair outside. The interaction plays out almost exactly like it did in the department — when Devermont starts asking questions, Fair turns on the music.

Devermont backs away, and asks him to stop playing music. Fair says “I can’t hear you” — again, despite holding a phone that is blasting tunes.

Later, Fair starts berating Devermont’s livestreaming account, saying “I read the comments [on your account], they talk about how fake you are.” He then holds out his phone, which is still on full blast, and walks toward Devermont, saying “Listen to the music”.

In a statement emailed to VICE News, Beverly Hills PD said that “the playing of music while accepting a complaint or answering questions is not a procedure that has been recommended by Beverly Hills Police command staff,” and that the videos of Fair were “currently under review.”

However, this is not the first time that a Beverly Hills police officer has done this, nor is Fair the only one.

In an archived clip from a livestream shared privately to VICE Media that Devermont has not publicly reposted but he says was taken weeks ago, another officer can be seen quickly swiping through his phone as Devermont approaches. By the time Devermont is close enough to speak to him, the officer’s phone is already blasting “In My Life” by the Beatles — a group whose rightsholders have notoriously sued Apple numerous times. If you want to get someone in trouble for copyright infringement, the Beatles are quite possibly your best bet.

As Devermont asks about the music, the officer points the phone at him, asking, “Do you like it?”

Clever, really, and an illustration of the problem with context-free copyright enforcement.

Share
Categories
algorithms Anveshak Big Brother bleak camera feeds government is slavery Headline News hindi words individual Intelwars Law Enforcement loss of all freedom mass surveillance Police State political parasites surveilled technocracy traced tracked wake up

Police To Use A Network Of 1,000 “Anveshak” AI Cameras To “Spotlight” A Person’s Every Movement

This article was originally published by Mass Private I at Activist Post. 

The future of total police surveillance just got a whole lot bleaker, thanks to researchers at the Indian Institute of Science (IISc). IISc researchers have figured out a way to turn a vast network of CCTV cameras into one massive surveillance network, which can target a specific vehicle or person.

As VentureBeat reported, police can use Anveshak’s artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms to track an individual’s movements by using multiple surveillance cameras from various sources.

Anveshak, the Hindi word for “investigator” gives law enforcement the ability to overlap the camera feeds from a thousand CCTV cameras to track an individual person[s].

Anveshak has the big-picture ability to know the locations and overlap points of 1,000 camera feeds, as well as possible paths an object (such as a stolen car) or person could take through those feeds, critical details in limiting what would otherwise be an unfathomably large quantity of video data coming from multiple cameras.

The Anveshak platform will let police use CCTV cameras to track or “spotlight” a person through blindspots.

The system creates a spotlight on the tracked subject, dynamically adjusting the size of that spotlight based on known gaps in camera coverage; for example, four cameras might be monitored for the subject’s arrival in situations of ambiguity, decreasing to only two cameras where their coverage is better and the subject’s route more obvious.

The IISc’s attempt at explaining how law enforcement can use it to track missing people is really just a veiled attempt at showing governments how police could use the Anveshak platform to ID and track people of interest.

The spotlight algorithm narrows the search space for analyzing video feeds if the missing person is found within a camera’s field of view. It gradually expands the set of video feeds analyzed when the person falls in a blindspot between cameras. This intelligence helps reduce the computation required for analyzing videos from thousands of cameras while not sacrificing accuracy.

The “spotlight” AI algorithm is unlike anything we have seen before.

Anveshak will allow law enforcement to use a vast network of public and private surveillance cameras to track an individual persons movement’s between blindspots.

The IISc calls Anveshak “a software platform for smart video tracking”.

Researchers at the IISc have developed a novel software platform from which apps and algorithms can intelligently track and analyze video feeds from cameras spread across cities. Such analysis is not only useful for tracking missing persons or objects, but also for “smart city” initiatives such as automated traffic control.

Don’t be fooled by IISc’s claims that law enforcement will only use Anveshak to track stolen cars or missing persons.

As history has shown, police have used smart AI to identify and track people of interest like Occupy Wall St. and Black Lives Matter protesters.

As The Verge revealed law enforcement used police video teams to ID peaceful protesters more than 400 times.

NYPD police camera teams were deployed to hundreds of Black Lives Matter and Occupy Wall Street protests from 2011–2013 and 2016. Originally acquired through a Freedom of Information Law request by New York attorney David Thompson of Stecklow & Thompson, the records are job reports from the NYPD’s Technical Assistance Response Unit (TARU) that document over 400 instances in which the unit’s video team attended, and sometimes filmed, demonstrations.

The New York Times revealed how police Fusion Centers used CCTV surveillance and police videos to ID and track peaceful protesters.

Peter Swire, a law and ethics professor at Georgia Tech who recently served on President Obama’s Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technologies, said that as the government concentrated on fighting terrorism, guidelines that had restricted the monitoring of political activity were relaxed. As a result, he said, even minor offenses like trespassing can be enough to trigger surveillance of political groups.

Both The Verge and the New York Times did a great job of revealing what happens when police are given access to public surveillance devices, like facial recognition and CCTV cameras.

Anveshak does for police surveillance what digital electronics (4K) did for old tube-style televisions. It totally changed the way people view things.

In a recently published paper, the researchers show how Anveshak can be used to track an object (like a stolen car) across a 1,000-camera network. A key feature of the platform is that it allows a tracking model or algorithm to focus only on feeds from certain cameras along an expected route, and tune out other feeds. It can also automatically increase or decrease the search radius or “spotlight” based on the object’s last known position.

The quality of police surveillance cameras can be likened to 4K television’s clarity.  Just like 4K changed the way we come to view TVs with its amazing quality, Anveshak will change the way police view the public’s privacy forever.

A network of a hundred, five hundred, or a thousand Anveshak-connected surveillance cameras means that once a person enters a business like a Walmart, Rite Aid, Home Depot, or a Lowe’s; they can be ID’d and tracked in real-time with no lapses (blindspot) in coverage. The same can be said for public transportation with their DHS-funded public surveillance cameras being installed in buses, trains, and public platforms throughout the country.

Anveshak gives law enforcement the ability to “spotlight” anyone, for any reason, no matter where they are. Anveshak’s platform will transform police surveillance as we know it, soon Big Brother’s gaze will be omnipresent.

The post Police To Use A Network Of 1,000 “Anveshak” AI Cameras To “Spotlight” A Person’s Every Movement first appeared on SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don’t Say We Didn’t Warn You.

Share
Categories
Blue Lives Matter Crimes against children Deadly shooting FBI Fbi shooting Florida Intelwars Law Enforcement

Two FBI agents fatally shot, three wounded, while serving warrant in Sunrise, Florida

Two FBI agents were shot and killed and three more wounded while serving a warrant at a home in Sunrise, Florida, officials said Tuesday. The suspected gunman barricaded himself in his home for several hours before taking his own life, the Miami Herald reported.

“Tragically, the FBI lost two of our own today. Special Agent Daniel Alfin and Special Agent Laura Schwartzenberger were shot and killed this morning in the line of duty while executing a federal court-ordered search warrant in a crimes against children investigation in Sunrise, Florida,” FBI Director Christopher Wray said in a statement. “Three other agents were shot and wounded; two suffered injuries requiring hospital care, but both are now in stable condition. The third injured agent did not require hospitalization.”

The shooting took place around 6 a.m. Tuesday at the Water Terrace apartment complex in an area near Fort Lauderdale, according to CNN. Police officials said that the gunman, a man suspected of child pornography possession by FBI investigators, had barricaded himself inside the apartment before opening fire on the agents.

Law enforcement sources that spoke to the Miami Herald said the FBI was conducting a routine search warrant to seize the suspect’s computer and other evidence. The FBI reportedly obtained the IPA address for the suspect’s computer from an internet service provider and matched that with the suspect’s physical address.

“In accordance with FBI policy, the shooting incident is under investigation by the FBI’s Inspection Division,” the bureau said in a statement. “The review process is thorough and objective and is conducted as expeditiously as possible under the circumstances. Because this is an ongoing investigation, no further information will be released at this time.”

“Every day, FBI special agents put themselves in harm’s way to keep the American people safe. Special Agent Alfin and Special Agent Schwartzenberger exemplified heroism today in defense of their country. The FBI will always honor their ultimate sacrifice and will be forever grateful for their bravery. We continue to stand by our FBI Family, and the families of these special agents, in the days to come, bringing every resource we can to get through this together,” Wray said.

The FBI Agents Association also offered condolences to the families of the deceased and injured agents.

“These Agents were working to protect the most vulnerable in our society. FBIAA stands with the Agents’ families and pledges our support to them during this difficult time,” FBIAA President Brian O’Hare said in a statement.

Share
Categories
backdoors Botnets Cybercrime Intelwars Law Enforcement Malware Phishing ransomware

Police Have Disrupted the Emotet Botnet

A coordinated effort has captured the command-and-control servers of the Emotet botnet:

Emotet establishes a backdoor onto Windows computer systems via automated phishing emails that distribute Word documents compromised with malware. Subjects of emails and documents in Emotet campaigns are regularly altered to provide the best chance of luring victims into opening emails and installing malware ­ regular themes include invoices, shipping notices and information about COVID-19.

Those behind the Emotet lease their army of infected machines out to other cyber criminals as a gateway for additional malware attacks, including remote access tools (RATs) and ransomware.

[…]

A week of action by law enforcement agencies around the world gained control of Emotet’s infrastructure of hundreds of servers around the world and disrupted it from the inside.

Machines infected by Emotet are now directed to infrastructure controlled by law enforcement, meaning cyber criminals can no longer exploit machines compromised and the malware can no longer spread to new targets, something which will cause significant disruption to cyber-criminal operations.

[…]

The Emotet takedown is the result of over two years of coordinated work by law enforcement operations around the world, including the Dutch National Police, Germany’s Federal Crime Police, France’s National Police, the Lithuanian Criminal Police Bureau, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the US Federal Bureau of Investigation, the UK’s National Crime Agency, and the National Police of Ukraine.

Share
Categories
Crime Intelwars Law Enforcement Police Skyrocketing crime Violence Violent america violent leftists

Horowitz: America’s most violent year

We have domestic terrorism in this country, all right. It’s just that it emanates almost exclusively from the left and violent career criminals. When will our focus shift to those people? And if not, what’s the purpose of having law enforcement other than to empower a tyrannical government?

Every last person involved in the Capitol riot will be brought to justice … and then some. But when will the people responsible for the most violent year be brought to justice?

It’s not just the widespread arson, looting, vandalism, and blocking of roads we continue to see from Antifa and Black Lives Matter even now, into 2021. It’s the widespread effects of the lawlessness and deterrent against policing (rather than against criminals) that has led to the sharpest one-year increase in crime in recent history.

Earlier this week, Manhattan Institute scholar Heather Mac Donald penned an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal revealing some startling crime statistics from 2020:

  • “Murder was up nearly 37% in a sample of 57 large and medium-size cities.” Some cities experienced sharper increases: 95% in Milwaukee, 78% in Louisville, Ky., 74% in Seattle, 72% in Minneapolis, 62% in New Orleans, and 58% in Atlanta, for example.
  • In total, at least 2,000 more Americans were killed in 2020 than in 2019.
  • This year, we witnessed brazen attacks on black children through gang warfare and drive-by shootings. “Fifty-five children were killed in Chicago in 2020, 17 in St. Louis, and 11 in Philadelphia. In South Los Angeles alone, 40 children were shot, some non-lethally, through September.”

Mac Donald points out that most media figures and politicians blame the spike in violence on the stress of the pandemic. To the extent that this is not an indictment of their lockdown policies, Mac Donald observes the obvious fact that crime actually fell for the first few months of the pandemic and only rose at the end of May with the rise of BLM, the rioting, and the attacks on police.

It’s not just the war on cops, but the war on incarceration. Virginia Democrats, for example, are debating SB 1370, a bill that will enable judges to retroactively shorten life sentences for some of the state’s worst murderers. Many county jails have been emptied of their criminals thanks to endless rounds of de-incarceration “reforms.” It’s taking its toll on the streets.

The tragic irony is that as politicians abolish bail, shorten sentences, and drop prosecution of career violent criminals or rioters, the entire force of the federal law enforcement apparatus and some state law enforcements are being harnessed against conservative activists and Trump supporters, even those who did not engage in violence at the Capitol. Thus, we are now confronted with even more street violence as law enforcement stands down against the mayhem staring them in the face and leaves no stone unturned in persecuting Trump supporters.

In lower Manhattan this week, a flash mob ruthlessly beat a man on the street, leaving him bloodied and naked. Do you think for a minute those “youths” will be brought to justice? Do you think law enforcement will use technology to track down and prosecute even those who were in the vicinity of the attack, like they are doing with Capitol Hill?

The reality is that politicians only protect their own. You can beat civilians and destroy private property, because those are not sacred to our government. Then again, even public property, if demolished by the left, is not that sacred. The man who pleaded guilty to burning down the third precinct police station of the Minneapolis PD last May faces, at most, four years in prison before the early release programs likely trim the sentence down further. Hundreds of people were involved in the burning, but no more than four perpetrators will be charged at all. I’m sure the man caught moving Nancy Pelosi’s lectern in the Capitol will serve more time in federal prison.

As the media and government obsessively focus on “right-wing terrorism,” it’s not like the violence they are ignoring is ancient history. It’s still happening. The violence in 2021 looks to be getting even worse. Shootings in south Los Angeles are up 742%. Eleven people have already been killed in Oakland, as compared to just one at the same date in 2020. Antifa continues to riot and block streets with impunity in places like Tacoma, Seattle, and Portland every single day. There is no safety net or backstop to the lawlessness as the entire law enforcement apparatus of the federal government trains its fire on Trump supporters.

Which raises the uncomfortable question: Should conservatives join with the left and support abolishing the police, at least the urban police departments (as opposed to rural sheriffs)? Throw in the FBI and the federal law enforcement agencies while we’re are at it. If ordered liberty is no longer an option on the menu because the government refuses to do its core job and deter crime and violence, why should we have law enforcement around to be used as a blunt instrument against us and as an enforcement for tyranny? Why should we have law enforcement standing at the ready to arrest single moms like Larvita McFarquhar for opening her restaurant in Minnesota as violence pervades the streets of their cities uncontrollably?

What good is law enforcement if the only time they are effective is in enforcing COVID fascism, hampering us from defending ourselves against Antifa, clamping down on the First Amendment, and generally empowering despotic regimes to supplant our Constitution? I’d rather suffer from plain anarchy than a dystopian mix of anarchy for the fringe left and tyranny for the rest of us.

Share
Categories
Capitol pipe bombs Department of Justice FBI Intelwars Law Enforcement Storming of the capitol Us capitol riots

DOJ: ‘Hundreds’ to be charged after Capitol riots, number of crimes is ‘mind-blowing’ and includes ‘sedition and conspiracy’

The U.S. Department of Justice held a news conference Tuesday with acting U.S. Attorney Michael Sherwin and FBI Washington Field Office ADIC Steven D’Antuono discussing charges and arrests made in connection with last Wednesday’s riot at the U.S. Capitol by Trump supporters.

According to the DOJ officials, there are more than 170 active subject files seeking individuals identified as potential persons that committed crimes, a number that is expected to swell into the “hundreds” in coming weeks. The DOJ has launched investigations into serious felony charges of “sedition and conspiracy,” as well as a “mind-blowing” number of crimes related to the events that transpired last week.

“That’s just the tip of the iceberg,” D’Antuono said in his statement.

He revealed that the FBI has collected more than 100,000 pieces of digital media from the public that authorities are using to investigate an extraordinarily broad range of crimes committed by the pro-Trump mob.

“I want to stress that the FBI has a long memory and a broad reach. Agents and our partners are on the streets investigating leads not only here in the D.C. area, but also across the country through the FBI’s 56 field offices,” D’Antuono added.

“Even if you’ve left D.C., agents from our local field offices will be knocking on your door if we find out you were a part of the criminal activity at the Capitol,” he said.

Last Wednesday, tens of thousands of President Donald Trump’s supporters gathered in Washington, D.C., in protest of the congressional certification of the Electoral College. Having been told by the president and his allies for months that the November election was fraudulent, and after news broke that Vice President Mike Pence would not attempt to reject slates of electors from disputed battleground states, some protesters led a mob to storm the Capitol, succeeding in infiltrating the building as lawmakers were assembled for debate.

In the ensuing violence, several police officers were assaulted by rioters, congressional offices were raided, various crimes ranging from trespass to felony murder were committed, and five people lost their lives in what the media proclaimed was an insurrection attempt. Additionally, two pipe bombs were discovered near the Capitol at the headquarters of the RNC and the DNC, though both were safely detonated by law enforcement and no one was injured.

The DOJ officials confirmed Tuesday that the pipe bombs were real explosive devices with igniters and timers. Investigators do not know why the bombs didn’t go off, they said. The FBI is offering a $50,000 reward for any information leading to the arrest of the individual(s) who planted the bombs.

Federal and local law enforcement has come under intense scrutiny as critics accuse Capitol Police of having been woefully unprepared to prevent the events that transpired.

According to D’Antuono, the FBI knew that the rally last Wednesday would take place and sought information about potential violence that might occur. Intelligence gathered through social media and through sources indicated that “a number of individuals were planning to travel to the D.C. area with intentions to cause violence.”

“We immediately shared that information and action was taken,” D’Antuono claimed, citing the Metropolitan Police Department arrest of Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio the night before the rally on destruction of property and weapons charges.

D’Antuono took pains to clarify that the FBI can’t open a criminal investigation into social media posts, which fall under First Amendment protections, without a threat of violence or alleged criminal activity.

The DOJ has launched multiple investigations into the criminal activity that did take place, acting U.S. attorney Sherwin told reporters.

“The scope and scale of this investigation into these cases are really unprecedented, not only in FBI history but probably DOJ history,” he said, describing the Capitol grounds on the inside and outside as “essentially a crime scene” with “literally thousands of potential witnesses” and “hundreds of criminal cases” that will be filed at all levels of the court system.

“This is going to be a long-term investigation,” Sherwin emphasized. He referred to the growing list of crimes to be investigated as “mind-blowing.”

So far, the DOJ has filed charges in over 70 cases, a number he expects will “grow into the hundreds.” The types of cases being investigated include simple trespass, theft of mail, theft of digital devices, assaults on police officers, theft of potential national security or defense information, felony murder, and even civil rights excessive force investigations.

Law enforcement officials are making it a priority to file simple charges against as many people as they can as quickly as possible to catch criminals. Most of these are misdemeanors or trespass cases, Sherwin explained. Some of them may be related to firearms charges.

“This is only the beginning, so after these criminal charges are filed via criminal complaints, that allows us, that allows law enforcement across the United States to arrest people,” Sherwin elaborated. “After those charges are filed, then we have the ability to then indict these individuals on more significant charges.”

“We’re looking at significant felony cases tied to sedition and conspiracy,” he revealed.

Sherwin also announced the organization of a “strike force” of national security and public corruption prosecutors to build seditious and conspiracy charges “related to the most heinous acts that occurred in the Capitol” with potential sentences of up to 20 years in jail for those convicted.

“Regardless of if it was just a trespass in the Capitol or if someone planted a pipe bomb, you will be charged and you will be found,” he warned the perpetrators.

The DOJ is also focusing on prosecuting assaults on police officers.

“In some instances, MPD and Capitol Police were in open-handed combat with some of these persons inside the Capitol, where tear gas was used on the Capitol Police and federal officers and they were also used against some of these rioters,” Sherwin said.

“People are going to be shocked with some of the egregious conduct that happened within the Capitol.”

Share
Categories
Americans armed protests break free certify election results Congress COVID-19 democracy is mob rule Donald Trump elections are selections FBI geo political government is slavery Headline News Hoax human rights Insurrection Intelwars Joe Biden Kamala Harris Law Enforcement scamdemic security officials Stop the steal Storm capitol

FBI Warns: Armed Protests Planned For All 50 State Capitols

According to the FBI, armed protests are planned for all 50 state capitols as the inauguration of Joe Biden approaches.  The FBI said in a statement: “The FBI is supporting our state, local, and federal law enforcement partners with maintaining public safety in the communities we serve.”

Supporters of President Donald Trump will descend upon the capital cities of all 50 states in advance of the inauguration if the FBI’s warning is correct. Biden and Vice-President-elect Kamala Harris are expected to be sworn in at a ceremony at the Capitol. The Biden team has already urged Americans to avoid traveling to the capital because of the Covid-19 hoax. But now, “authorities” are urging people to stay home.

Security officials have said there will be no repeat of the breach seen on 6 January, when thousands of pro-Trump supporters were able to break into the building where members of Congress were voting to certify the election result.- BBC

Not to be the ones to attempt unity, house Democrats say a vote to impeach the president will happen on Wednesday. They are accusing President Trump of “incitement of insurrection” and say the vote will be held unless Vice-President Mike Pence invokes constitutional powers to remove Trump from office. There is no sign that Pence is willing to do so.

Because Democrats hold a majority in the house, Trump is expected to become the first president to be impeached twice. This could have an impact on planned protests and it will also solidify the division the government is using to make sure the New World Order’s Great Reset is ushered in.

An internal FBI bulletin, reported by ABC News and other outlets, is also warning that one group is calling for the “storming” of state, local, and federal courthouses around the country if Trump is removed from office early and on inauguration day if he is not.

Democrats Plan To Pressure Pence To Remove Donald Trump

Violence and a show of force will only amplify the situation and cause a crackdown on the public. The best thing to do right now is to stay out of all of this.  Help others if you can, and try to do the right thing.  Stay out of this fray, stay prepared, and make sure you’re alert and use discernment. In the coming weeks, cooler heads will prevail.

The Gray Man Concept: Tips To Improve This Important Survival Skill

The solution is to leave the system and stop supporting it.

The post FBI Warns: Armed Protests Planned For All 50 State Capitols first appeared on SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don’t Say We Didn’t Warn You.

Share
Categories
Capitol building Capitol siege Dc riot Department of Justice FBI Intelwars Law Enforcement

DOJ announces federal charges will be filed against some who laid siege to Capitol building

The U.S. Department of Justice and its federal law enforcement authorities will file charges against some individuals who participated in the mob violence at the U.S. Capitol, the acting attorney general said in a statement Thursday.

According to ABC News, federal prosecutors worked through the night Wednesday evening and into Thursday to identify perpetrators involved in the storming of the Capitol after attending a protest rally near the White House in support of President Donald Trump. At least four people died and dozens of Trump supporters were arrested in Wednesday’s events.

“Yesterday, our Nation watched in disbelief as a mob breached the Capitol Building and required federal and local law enforcement to help restore order. The Department of Justice is committed to ensuring that those responsible for this attack on our Government and the rule of law face the full consequences of their actions under the law,” acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen said in a statement.

“Some participants in yesterday’s violence will be charged today, and we will continue to methodically assess evidence, charge crimes and make arrests in the coming days and weeks to ensure that those responsible are held accountable under the law,” he added.

The FBI announced on social media it is accepting tips and digital media depicting rioting or violence in or around the U.S. Capitol to identify the perpetrators.

The Washington, D.C., Police Department is also asking for help identifying lawbreakers.

Some of the rioters have been identified by the news media.

One man seen in several photos with a painted face, fur hat, and a helmet with horns was identified by CNN as Jake Angeli, an Arizona resident known by his followers as the QAnon Shaman. Angeli’s social media accounts reportedly make several references to the QAnon conspiracy theory, which holds as its major tenet that a secret cabal of Satan-worshipping pedophiles are leading America’s highest institutions of business and government and have orchestrated deep state opposition to President Trump. He’s been previously spotted at other pro-Trump rallies in various parts of the country.

Another identified rioter is Nick Ochs, the founder of Proud Boys Hawaii, a chapter of the far-right “male chauvinist” fraternal organization. Ochs tweeted a selfie from inside the Capitol building Wednesday and gave an interview to CNN in which he said the protesters met little to no resistance from Capitol Police as they trespassed in the building.

“We didn’t have to break in, I just walked in and filmed,” Ochs said. “There were thousands of people in there — they had no control of the situation. I didn’t get stopped or questioned.”

Another far-right activist, Tim Gionet, who goes by the internet pseudonym “Baked Alaska,” livestreamed himself from inside the Capitol building. Screenshots from that livestream were shared on social media.

Richard “Bigo” Barnett, 60, gave an interview to the New York Times in which he identified himself and admitted to trespassing in House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office and taking materials from her desk.

ABC News’ Alexander Mallin reported that at least a dozen individuals involved in the riot will face charges, with more charges to come as more rioters are identified by authorities.

Share
Categories
2020 Election Black Lives Matter BLM Defund the police election Intelwars Law Enforcement Police

Black Lives Matter leaders blast Democrats for not supporting ‘defund the police’ movement

There have been numerous internal discussions by Democratic politicians on attempting to find out why their party underperformed in the 2020 general election. Some Democrats have blamed the party’s support of defunding the police as one of the reasons the DNC’s blue wave flopped as nothing more than a ripple.

Black Lives Matter leaders have responded to the criticisms of the defund the police movement by castigating Democrats who are not fully supporting the far-left policy.

During a DNC conference call earlier this month, some Democrats allegedly lambasted the party’s embrace of progressive ideas.

If the Democrats “are going to run on Medicare for All, defund the police, socialized medicine, we’re not going to win,” House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.) reportedly said on the call.

Rep. Abigail Spanberger (D-Va.) blasted fellow Democrats for espousing a far-left agenda.

“We need to be pretty clear, it was a failure. It was not a success,” Spanberger allegedly said during the call. “We lost incredible members of Congress.

“We have to commit to not saying the words ‘defund the police’ ever again,” she reportedly declared. “We need to not ever use the words socialist or socialism ever again. It does matter, and we have lost good members because of that.”

In another conference call this month, Rep. Vincente Gonzalez (D-Texas) allegedly said, “Defund police, open borders, socialism — it’s killing us. I had to fight to explain all that.”

Black Lives Matter activists across the country are incensed that some Democrats have abandoned the defund the police movement. In a report from Politico, numerous Black Lives Matter activists slammed Democratic politicians who jumped from the anti-law enforcement position.

“A half-dozen Black Lives Matter leaders said in interviews that they felt disrespected and frustrated by the debate over the slogan ‘defund the police,’ instead of the fundamental policy pushed by protesters for systemic changes to policing,” the Politico report stated.

The BLM leaders are now considering “counteroffensives to push back on the criticism,” and an “official rebuttal” on the controversial defund the police strategy.

“There needs to be a response,” said Cliff Albright, co-founder of the group Black Voters Matter. “We got to control the narrative because it’ll become a narrative that keeps us from being able to move further and faster on these issues.”

DeRay Mckesson, co-founder of the police reform organization Campaign Zero, said criticism of “defund the police” is a “smoke screen.”

“If people are confused about something, part of our responsibility is to make people less confused — forget the [Democratic] Party,” Mckesson said.

Rashad Robinson, president of the nonprofit civil rights group Color of Change, which is a partner organization in the Black Lives Matter movement, said he has “not seen the data sets to support” the idea of the defunding the police messaging causing the unforeseen losses in the House and Senate in the 2020 election.

“Which means that it’s reflective because it’s always easier to blame Black people,” Robinson added.

Domingo Garcia, president of the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), disagreed with the notion that defund the police strategy didn’t scare away voters.

“It went from Hillary to Trump. Why? Because the issues of law and order are impacting Latinos quite a bit,” Garcia told NPR. “For example, a lot of the border patrol, law enforcement are heavily Latino in the Rio Grande Valley. So when you are talking about defunding the police, and you don’t stand up to those types of rhetoric, then it leaves an opening for Republicans to come in and take advantage of that.”

Share