Mr. Scorpio
Mr. Scorpio's Journal
Do you know why I never trust the police? It's because they lie...
Yes. Police can, will, and often do lie -- especially if it helps them make arrests. One obvious example of this is when undercover officers claim not to be police. The rules regarding entrapment usually tip in favor of law-enforcement, so police won't hesitate to trick you into incriminating yourself or others. This is particularly common during interrogations in which officers might tell you that "your friend already gave you up, so you might as well come clean."
The best defense against these manipulative tactics is to avoid saying anything to police without first speaking with an attorney.
http://www.knowmyrights.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=58:are-police-allowed-to-lie&catid=21:police-encounters&Itemid=118
By Shaun King
Friday Sep 18, 2015 · 2:02 PM EDT
On February 16, 2014, Yvette Smith, a 47-year-old mother beloved by her family and community, was shot twice by an AR-15 assault rifle and killed on the spot by local police as she opened the front door of her home. A full 18 months later, as her case finally came before a jury, it's disturbingly clear that the police lied, repeatedly, in an attempt to cover up their murder of Smith.
First off, Smith called 911 for help because two men in her home were arguing over a financial dispute and she felt it was getting out of hand. She had nothing to do with the dispute and was an innocent bystander—a victim, even. When the police showed up, both men were already in the front yard and it appeared that the dispute was settled. This should've been case closed, but it wasn't.
When Smith opened the front door of her home, she was shot twice with a high-powered .223 caliber rifle in less than two seconds by Officer Daniel Willis of Bastrop County, Texas, outside of Austin.
The lies and the coverup began immediately. The entire department was involved.
Below, see the initial statement from Sheriff Terry Pickering, issued just hours after Smith died.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/09/18/1422588/-Texas-police-caught-in-an-enormous-lie-about-their-murder-of-an-unarmed-mother-Yvette-Smith#
By MICHELLE ALEXANDERFEB. 2, 2013
THOUSANDS of people plead guilty to crimes every year in the United States because they know that the odds of a jury’s believing their word over a police officer’s are slim to none. As a juror, whom are you likely to believe: the alleged criminal in an orange jumpsuit or two well-groomed police officers in uniforms who just swore to God they’re telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but? As one of my colleagues recently put it, “Everyone knows you have to be crazy to accuse the police of lying.”
But are police officers necessarily more trustworthy than alleged criminals? I think not. Not just because the police have a special inclination toward confabulation, but because, disturbingly, they have an incentive to lie. In this era of mass incarceration, the police shouldn’t be trusted any more than any other witness, perhaps less so.
That may sound harsh, but numerous law enforcement officials have put the matter more bluntly. Peter Keane, a former San Francisco Police commissioner, wrote an article in The San Francisco Chronicle decrying a police culture that treats lying as the norm: “Police officer perjury in court to justify illegal dope searches is commonplace. One of the dirty little not-so-secret secrets of the criminal justice system is undercover narcotics officers intentionally lying under oath. It is a perversion of the American justice system that strikes directly at the rule of law. Yet it is the routine way of doing business in courtrooms everywhere in America.”
The New York City Police Department is not exempt from this critique. In 2011, hundreds of drug cases were dismissed after several police officers were accused of mishandling evidence. That year, Justice Gustin L. Reichbach of the State Supreme Court in Brooklyn condemned a widespread culture of lying and corruption in the department’s drug enforcement units. “I thought I was not naïve,” he said when announcing a guilty verdict involving a police detective who had planted crack cocaine on a pair of suspects. “But even this court was shocked, not only by the seeming pervasive scope of misconduct but even more distressingly by the seeming casualness by which such conduct is employed.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/03/opinion/sunday/why-police-officers-lie-under-oath.html?_r=0
BY HERSCHEL SMITH
We’ve previously discussed why you should never, ever talk to the police. Unfortunately, we must add to the list of things not to do with the police.
However, Durham Police Chief Jose Lopez says the 911 tactic was never a part of official policy. Last month, the department officially banned the practice, according to a memo from Lopez.
The tactic came to light at a court hearing on May 27, when a Durham Police officer testified it was part of official departmental policy. The hearing involved a defendant who had been charged with marijuana possession. (The INDY is not naming the defendant because the charges against her were dropped.)
In February, Officer A.B. Beck knocked on the door of the defendant’s home in South-Central Durham. When the defendant answered the door, Beck told her—falsely—that someone in her home had called 911 and hung up, and that he wanted to make sure everyone was safe. The defendant permitted Beck to enter her home, where he discovered two marijuana blunts and a marijuana grinder.
When Beck took the witness stand, he admitted to fabricating the 911 story in order to enter the house. Beck testified that his true intent was to serve a warrant, though he never produced the warrant in the courtroom."
http://www.captainsjournal.com/2014/07/13/never-believe-the-police/
Matt Agorist February 16, 2014
REASON #1: Talking to the police CANNOT help you.
If the police are talking to you, it’s because they suspect you have committed a crime. If they have detained you, it’s because they already have enough evidence to arrest you and they want to see if you will admit it and thus, give them an even stronger case against you.If they have evidence to arrest you for a crime, they will. If they don’t, they won’t. It’s as simple as that.Talking to them or not talking to them won’t make a difference! No one has ever “talked his way out of” an arrest. If the police have enough evidence to arrest, they will. If you deny that you committed the crime, they will not believe you. They already have evidence suggesting that you committed the crime. They’ll assume you’re just doing what every criminal does in denying the offense. It will not prevent you from getting arrested.This is completely contrary to popular belief. For some reason, many people think that they are savvy enough or eloquent enough or well educated enough to be able to talk to the police and convince the police not to arrest them. But ask any police officer if because of the eloquence and convincing story of the suspect, they have ever been convinced not to arrest somebody whom they had originally intended to arrest, and they will tell you no. They will tell you that in their experience, no one has ever talked themselves out of getting arrested. Talking to the police cannot help you. It cannot prevent you from getting arrested. It can only hurt.
REASON #2: Even if you’re guilty, and you want to confess and get it off your chest, you still shouldn’t talk to the police.
People plead guilty in America every day. Probably over 90% of defendants in state court plead guilty at some point during their case. There is plenty of time to confess and admit guilt at a later stage of the proceedings. What’s the rush? Get a lawyer first. Let the lawyer set up a deal whereby you get something in exchange for accepting responsibility for the offense. A better plea bargain, or maybe even immunity. If you confess to the police, you get nothing in return. Zero. In fact, you probably get a harsher prosecution because the state’s case is now airtight, now that you have confessed.
Read more at http://thefreethoughtproject.com/top-ten-reasons-talk-police/#Vc4gzHMjegDL48BL.99
On the outside, it appears as if DT is throwing his own race for the presidency...
In a way, this is true, but not intentionally so. His problem is that he's allowing his own ego to self-sabotage his campaign.
He tells everyone that only her can do this or that, he forces the Republican Party into becoming a cult of his own personality rather than a major political party, his thin-skinned responses to hit many critics and his annoyance on times when the spot light doesn't focus exclusively on himself, these are choices that he himself has made without ever regarding the consequences to his own words and actions.
Most voters want the candidate the vote for to inspire them, to at least have the feeling that such a candidate speaks for their concerns and they one one that they believe is looking out for themselves. As Trump makes EVERYTHING all about himself, more and more people are realizing that he doesn't care about anyone else.
Practically everything that DT say has some potentially negative impact for himself. Criticizing Gold Star families earns the ire of veterans groups. His pledge to repeal the ACA earns the fear of people who have benefitted from the program that he's going to take their health insurance away. Those who are concerned with America's place in the world are rightly afraid that a DT presidency will destroy our reputation and put the lives of Americans at unnecessary risk. People who are not white, Christian males anticipate a DT controlled government to engage in a process of systematic oppression against people who are not white, Christian males.
In response, his surrogates are alleging that the proper response to DT's rhetoric is that no one should take anything he says seriously. That any concern about his outrageous and utterly self-destructive statements is merely blowing things out of proportion. The point of this is to inoculate the voters into becoming more numb to DT than what people already are. Don't pay any attention to that, they say, besides rather than attacking, they're only defending. Again, this is self-sabotage. But just as long as the attention on on himself, however negatively, nothing else matters to himself.
DT, in doing all of this, is performing a type of political distillation. The heat of his rhetoric is burning off the voter base who one routinely vote for Republicans, leaving a greatly reduced, yet highly fervent cult of followers who would support him, no matter what. In an election where the popular vote determines the victor, this is nothing less that political suicide.
The approach here is crystal clear: Target his ego and his ego will do your work for you. He knows what his own Achilles Heel, so it's not like he's completely self-unaware. His protection of his ego has manifested itself in two recent statements: His assertion that he'll lose the election from his "belief" that the election is "rigged," and most notably, his efforts to skip participating in televised debates with Hillary Clinton. He doesn't want to face the consequences of allowing his own ego to sabotage his election to the White House.
End the end, he's doomed to failure... Once that anticipated failure happens, that's when his ego will force him to do anything. The most dangerous part of this game. No one expects him to go away quietly, as his ego will never allow him to let things go.
Denouncing anti-science: How Jill Stein lost my vote for good - See more at: http://www.patheos.com/
Anyone who reads this blog knows I have supported Jill Stein’s candidacy for president for a while now. She was my original choice until Bernie Sanders came along, and I moved back to Stein when Sanders didn’t clinch the nomination.
I even tried very hard to defend not only Stein’s but the Green Party’s anti-science beliefs. I can deal with some candidacy issues because not everyone is perfect, but there is a limit to how much a science advocate can take. That limit for me is downright lying about science, and over pandering to fear mongers.
I can no longer do that. I must speak out and I must abandon my endorsement of Stein and leave the Green Party.
Vaccines
First, she seemed wishy-washy on vaccines. She says they work, but then says they contain “toxins” and makes them sound as if they need more testing. I defended her original comments, but I denounced her latest. Since I already wrote about that at length, I won’t do so again here, but you can read my thoughts about her and vaccines here.
Now, she has posted a tweet that says “there is no evidence vaccines cause autism,” deleted it, and reposted it saying she doesn’t “know” of any evidence.
Her comments about vaccines are irresponsible and reprehensible. She should be ashamed.
- See more at: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danthropology/2016/08/denouncing-anti-science-how-jill-stein-lost-my-vote-for-good/#sthash.bboCky1R.fGYe7aKy.dpuf
Why is Clinton the Only Presidential Candidate Who Isn't Pandering to Anti-Vaxxers?
Uhhh... 'Cause she's freaking SANE?
There is no medical evidence that links the ingredients in vaccines to autism. Period. Full stop.
Though the causes of autism itself remain shrouded in mystery, the belief that vaccinations play a role in its incidence, despite being widespread, is demonstrably false.
But in spite of this, three out of the four people running for president in 2016 — Donald Trump of the Republican party, Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party and Gary Johnson of the Libertarian party — have alluded to the fact that they buy into the bunk science.
Stein, an actual licensed medical doctor, gave an interview to the Washington Post on Friday in which she said that concerns about the role that corporate interests play in pharmaceutical companies' approval of vaccines warranted skepticism about them — language that, the Post notes, is common among the anti-vaxxer crowd.
"As a medical doctor, there was a time where I looked very closely at those issues, and not all those issues were completely resolved," she said. "There were concerns among physicians about what the vaccination schedule meant [and] the toxic substances like mercury, which used to be rampant in vaccines. There were real questions that needed to be addressed. I think some of them at least have been addressed. I don't know if all of them have been addressed."
Johnson, for his part, was openly disavowing mandatory vaccinations on Twitter as recently as 2011.
https://mic.com/articles/150182/why-is-clinton-the-only-presidential-candidate-who-isn-t-pandering-to-anti-vaxxers?utm_source=policymicTBLR&utm_medium=main&utm_campaign=social#.uxDO2hIVy
Donald Trump is attacking a Gold Star Mom
He as no honor. And a man without honor should never be president.
That's your straightforward narrative right there.
Profile Information
Member since: 2002Number of posts: 73,631
