The Albany Times Union calculated that the New York State Police were forced to spend nearly $100,000 on overtime pay for troopers, to essentially run a baby sitting service for Occupy Albany protesters. The report came about through a FOIA request and an estimation of the average cost of an hour of overtime in the department.
Superintendent Joseph D’Amico explains that he was unwilling to compromise the safety of other areas by pulling officers over to the state-controlled Lafayette Park, where protesters were intentionally seeking arrest by remaining past curfew.
Amusingly, one of the movement’s more prominent protesters, Bradley Russell, a local professor at the college of St. Rose and the State University of New York, feigned disbelief and predictably placed the blame on the police:
“Holy cow,” said Bradley Russell, 40, an anthropology professor who led protesters to tempt arrest in Lafayette Park. “As the vast majority of any arrests that came from any of our actions inside or outside the Capitol were dismissed, the entire police effort amounted to the governor trying to stifle our First Amendment rights, and that was clearly a massive waste of taxpayer dollars.”
The charges were dismissed for no other reason than David Soares, Albany County District Attorney, acted purely in the interest of politics as opposed to upholding the law, stating that he would not prosecute the protesters.
Albany County Republican Chairman Don Clarey explains that Soares is the crux of the problem:
“Soares is the root of the problem, because he refused to enforce the law he swore to uphold. It was catch and release, so the State Police had to protect state property at the behest of the governor. The state should make David Soares pay the overtime.”
The Occupy Albany movement simply went out of their way to get arrested, violating curfew on state property and knowing full-well that the DA would not prosecute them for trespassing and disorderly conduct- as he should have.
Even the Times Union acknowledged that the protesters “could have held drum circles to their hearts’ content in Academy Park” where they were undisturbed for over two months, but instead went to Lafayette Park, “daring the police to arrest them”.
Bottom line, the police did what they had to do to babysit a group of petulant media whores, while DA David Soares enabled the troublemakers by refusing to do his job.
Thus far, the DA’s office has no comment.
Unreal – In Response to Supreme Court Decision, Obama Administration Punishes Arizona Law Enforcement
How can an alleged law scholar respond to the Supreme Court of our nation by ignoring their rulings, or essentially finding other ways around what they have decreed as legal?
The court struck down three of the four provisions in Arizona’s SB 1070 immigration law, but upheld a key provision which allows police officers to check the immigration status of people they stop. Clearly, the Obama administration was not pleased with the Supreme Court ruling, which makes me believe it may have been more of a victory than was assumed at first glance. And being not pleased, the administration does what it tends to do when they don’t get their own way – they reverted to a child-like petulant nature.
The Department of Homeland Security has announced that they are discontinuing agreements made with Arizona police to enforce federal immigration laws. In other words, they pouted, stomped their feet, took their ball and went home.
The Department of Homeland Security is suspending the program it uses to deputize local, county and state law enforcement officers in Arizona so they can double up as immigration agents.
The move affects only Arizona and it was made in direct reaction to the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on Monday regarding Arizona’s controversial immigration laws.
Further, DHS has issued a directive telling federal authorities to decline many of the calls reporting illegal immigrants that the Homeland Security Department may get from Arizona police.
Read that again.
HOMELAND SECURITY will be IGNORING PHONE CALLS regarding individuals who are IN OUR COUNTRY ILLEGALLY. Doesn’t that defy the very definition of ‘homeland security’?
Can you just imagine?
“Excuse me Ms. Napolitano, we’d like to report an individual who has crossed our border illegally, ignoring the sovereignty of our nation, someone who may represent a threat to our security…”
Napolitano, with fingers inserted firmly in ears responds with, “La, la, la, la, I can’t hear you…”
Additionally, the DHS is limiting resources to a state police force trying to enforce a federal law that the federal government wasn’t enforcing in the first place. Presumably, they would be continuing this program had the Supreme Court struck down the entire law, leaving only one interpretation – Obama is only willing to enforce a law if he agrees with it.
This is a stunningly amateurish temper tantrum of a response to the Supreme Court’s decree that police officer’s can check the immigration status of people in the process of breaking the law. And it leads to the question, with this and the administration’s adamant opposition to voter ID laws, why is President Obama so protective of people that are willing to break the law?
Oh yes – votes. Democrats have the market cornered when it comes to illegal votes.
Meanwhile, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer crushed the President with this statement:
“As though we needed any more evidence, President Obama has demonstrated anew his utter disregard for the safety and security of the Arizona people. Within the last two hours, I have been notified the Obama administration has revoked the 287(g) agreement under the authority of which Arizona law enforcement officers have partnered with the federal government in the enforcement of immigration law.
“Of course, it is no coincidence that this announcement comes immediately on the heels of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling upholding the constitutionality of the heart of Arizona’s anti-illegal immigration law: SB 1070. It’s worth noting that 68 law enforcement entities in 24 states have functioning 287(g) agreements with the federal government. But it appears the only agreements eliminated today were those in Arizona, the state that happens to be on the front lines of America’s fight against illegal immigration. We are on our own, apparently.
“I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised. The Obama administration has fought the people of Arizona at every turn – downplaying the threat that a porous border poses to our citizens, filing suit in order to block our State from protecting itself, unilaterally granting immunity to tens of thousands of illegal aliens living in our midst, and now this. Still, the disarmament of Arizona’s 287(g) agreements is a new low, even for this administration.
It seems like on a nearly daily basis, we are discussing how the Obama administration has managed to hit a new low. At some point, you’d think the President would hit the bottom of the barrel, but he simply keeps breaking through and digging even deeper.
Will the President find a way to circumvent the law again if the Supreme Court strikes down his signature achievement on Thursday?
Brewer points out why the actions of this President need to be taken very seriously:
“The President’s action should be of concern to all Americans. This fight is not over. President Obama may disregard Congress. He may target individual states like Arizona. He may generally act with impunity. But he is not above judgment – and the American people will have theirs very soon.”
Will you continue to stand for this America? Four more years of this imperial Presidency?
The Supreme Court has upheld a provision in the Arizona Immigration Law known as SB 1070, which allows police officers to check the immigration status of people they stop.
A majority of other provisions in the law were struck down, cited as an intrusion on the federal governments enforcement of immigration.
The Wall Street Journal explains the other provisions which were overturned.
The others make it a crime for immigrants without work permits to seek employment, make it a crime for immigrants to fail to carry registration documents, and authorize the police to arrest any immigrant they believe has committed a deportable offense. Those other three provisions were struck down.
Shane at Caffeinated Thoughts has a copy of the decision, and states in regards to the immigration check victory, the reason the police immigration status check was upheld is because the Court didn’t believe it interfered with the “federal immigration scheme.”
This gives the decision an even greater feeling of being a hollow victory of sorts. What good is checking the immigration status of those stopped for breaking the law, if it is only reported to the federal government who just recently were instructed to halt deportations of some 800,000 illegal immigrants?
On the plus side, the “show me your papers” provision was the most controversial, as well as the most widely debated and generally understood aspect of the law.
Both sides will likely come away from this claiming victory.
The Supreme Court is expected to rule on Obamacare on Thursday.
Muslim Files Discrimination Lawsuit Against NYPD, Claim They Won’t Hire Him Because He Discriminates Against Gays, Which is Discriminatory
Got all that right?
In a lawsuit recently filed against the New York Police Department, a man only identified as “Farhan Doe”, claims it is discriminatory for him not to be considered for hiring on the force just because he openly discriminates against homosexuals.
On an application for the job, Doe responded in the affirmative to the following question:
“Do you believe that homosexuals should be locked up?”
The fascinating part here is that Doe currently works as an auxiliary cop in Brooklyn. Perhaps they should be reviewing his application for signs of trouble now?
The New York Post reports that Doe magically changed his mind the following year when he re-applied, and was startled to learn that the Department wasn’t buying it (emphasis mine).
“They pro forma denied him again — saying he couldn’t possibly be a police officer,” the lawyer said. “The First Amendment is very clear, saying that you can’t discriminate against someone because they have a view you do not like,” he said.
While the NYPD could take action if he acted out in an anti-gay manner, they can’t bar Doe from the force for anti-gay thoughts, the lawyer said.
And yet, Doe would like to lock up gays because they have a view he does not like.
First, this sounds like he intentionally went back to apply the following year knowing full-well he’d be denied, but also knowing full-well his intent to file suit.
Second, it will be interesting to see if CAIR or the ACLU jumps aboard this lawsuit. Imagine the outrage had the NYPD hired someone who answered yes to the above question if the word ‘homosexuals’ was replaced by ‘Muslims’.
On Friday, a 26-year veteran of the Troy police force was arrested for having sexually suggestive internet chats with an undercover NYPD officer he thought was a 14-year-old girl. Sgt. Pat Rosney was detained and charged with endangering the welfare of a child, as well as disseminating indecent material to a minor.
The arrest was swift, with the NYPD citing safety concerns for their undercover officers as well as the public. Rosney had allegedly also arranged to meet the faux 14-year-old in a public place, and those involved in the case had concerns that this particular suspect could and would be armed.
On Saturday, the veteran officer was released on $30,000 bail and is due in court again on June 15th.
Details of the depostion have been provided by the Times Union:
In his deposition, Ryan stated that at 3:35 p.m. on May 15, he received a message from an email address which he later traced to Rosney at his East Greenbush home
“The defendant asked what I looked like,” Ryan stated.
Ryan responded that he was a 14-year-old girl who lived in Queens, and “Within 15 minutes of initiating the instant message conversation, (the defendant) wrote: ‘Ever been with an older guy? LOL …What have you done with guys.’ The defendant wrote that he wanted to meet to have sex.”
The Internet conversations, most of them too lurid for publication in the newspaper, allegedly continued on May 17 when, according to Ryan, Rosney allegedly messaged “wanna look at my cam.”
Five hours later, Ryan stated, he received an image of Rosney.
“I was able to see his face as well as his penis,” Ryan wrote. “He was wearing a ‘Crabby Dicks’ T-shirt (a Delaware seafood restaurant) and blue pajama pants.”
The sexually explicit comments continued, and Rosney then set up a meeting for Tuesday, June 5, according to records. Police have not revealed where that meeting was to take place.
According to the deposition, Rosney’s messages were sent from his private computer.
Seeing a trusted member of the local police can be a shock to the system, and the community of Troy is currently struggling with trust issues involving individuals in authoritarian positions. There has been the famous voter fraud case, a recent plan in which police officers would be given the power to enter a vehicle if they identify valuable items, and several shootings which have people questioning the power of the police force to provide a reasonable level of safety.
Obviously, Rosney’s actions do not represent the whole of the police unit. But they are concerning nonetheless.
For a city struggling to find comfort, this adds more apprehension to an already nervous public.
The police force in Troy, New York, has introduced a new initiative aimed at reducing thefts from parked cars – permitting officers to enter your vehicle in the event it is unlocked, and locking the doors for you.
Via the Troy Record:
With a recent spike in thefts from parked cars, the Troy Police Department is looking to roll out some preventive measures it thinks will not only reduce the amount of thefts but also make some residents more aware of what they’re leaving in their cars.
In this effort, if a police officer does notice a valuable item laying out in plain view in a parked car, the officer will then check its plate numbers, and if the address comes back locally, the officer will go to the registered owner’s place of residence and leave a blue card in the entrance way of the building. If the car does not belong to a local address, the officer will then leave the card on its windshield.
If a car is found to be unlocked, according to Police Chief John Tedesco, the officer will lock the vehicle.
Tedesco said the plan was developed over the last several months and has been approved by Mayor Lou Rosamilia.
No word on whether the officers will fill up your gas tank if your fuel level becomes too low, reducing the number of disabled vehicles on city streets, or if they will actually drive people around town in an effort to reduce car accidents as well.
Honestly, we were disappointed that a police officer didn’t personally type up this blog post in an effort to reduce carpal tunnel.
There is a basic comparison here that should immediately identify this action as flat-wrong. Would any police force in America ever, ever, allow their officers to enter a home if the doors were unlocked, so they could lock them in an effort to deter theft? A vehicle is private property, and quite frankly people have a right to defend and protect it – even from the well-intentioned police force.
There are clearly defined problems with this new initiative other than common sense, however:
- It allows a police officer into your vehicle and creates a slippery slope on what he/she can look around for. For that matter, what exactly can be defined as valuable? Does every car with a GPS on the dashboard now contain a ‘valuable’ item, opening it up for police scrutiny? A custom car stereo?
- It essentially puts a sign on one’s vehicle that says “Hey, there are valuable items in here.” So if a would-be criminal wasn’t thinking about taking any action, he/she will certainly be tempted now that they know the vehicle has an iPod inside.
- If something has already been stolen from the vehicle by the time an officer arrives, or if it is stolen after the officer places a blue card on the windshield, you’ve just provided the criminal with reasonable doubt if he/she is charged. At that point, you have two people who may have been in the car against the owner’s wishes – the thief, and the officer – creating a problem in investigating who may have committed the crime. The criminal may now claim that perhaps it was the officer who stole the item, and it causes a headache for the officer who may have to prove he didn’t touch anything.
What, exactly, are they trying to accomplish? Do they think that theives won’t just find something else to steal instead? If cars are locked and they don’t want to risk breaking a window, will they try door knobs instead? Won’t that be riskier for the public? What will they do then – start a door knob checking program?
She adds, “…the ‘unintended consequences’ can be problematic.”
Normally here, we are of the belief that if you’re not doing anything illegal, then you have nothing to worry about. But the police initiative in Troy is foolish, and quite possibly illegal itself.
In an e-mail conversation with a friend who specializes in Criminal Law, the issue of whether or not this policy is legal was addressed. He broke it down into two parts, one explaining why looking into a vehicle in a public space is justified, and another explaining that once the door is opened the action constitutes an illegal search under the 4th Amendment.
The issue is two-fold. Observing items within plain sight albeit within the vehicle is legitimate only if the cop has the right to be in the place from which he observes. This is why the underlying reason for a traffic stop is so important. In the situation you pose, the cop has the right to be in a public place – a parking lot – and observe the contents of a stationary vehicle.Opening the door, however, changes everything. Opening the door begins a “search” under the 4th Amendment. The cop cannot do that. The inside of a vehicle is personal space the same as if it were your home. The rules are a bit different, but the bottom line is the same – with no evidence of a crime and no owner permission, a vehicle can only be searched with a Warrant.
ABC News has been caught in a clear-cut case of journalistic malpractice this past week. No matter your feelings on the Trayvon Martin case, this is indisputable evidence of the media trying to advance a narrative – and failing miserably.
ABC was apparently so excited about having obtained exclusive police surveillance video last week, that they posted it and subsequently came to their own conclusions. The headline blasted, “Trayvon Martin Video Shows No Blood or Bruises on George Zimmerman.”
Other media lapdogs ran with it, to the point where the lawyer for Trayvon Martin’s parents referred to the video as “the smoking gun“.
You know who actually went out of their way to perform research and produce actual journalism regarding the video? Conservative blogs.
The Daily Caller posted a still image the following day which appeared to show a laceration on the back of George Zimmerman’s head. Liberal’s such as Mediaite’s Tommy Christopher mocked the Caller’s attempt at video analysis, while posting the original ABC video yet again.
But then, Dan Riehl over at Big Journalism followed up on the video report, finding further evidence that ABC had falsely presented the clip as evidence that Zimmerman had lied about being assaulted.
Riehl’s report read:
A new High Definition clip from the same video appears to make clear that Zimmerman had a gash or wound of some kind on the back of his head. That would be totally consistent with his version of events on the night in question and opposite the impression ABC News gave its viewers.
Big Journalism called the ABC video-based report reckless and revealing of nothing after it first aired. ABC’s presumed ability to enhance and review video before airing only makes their report all the more outrageous. Given analysis by Breitbart Media and the Daily Caller already performed, the ABC video appeared to be inconclusive, at best.
The new High Defintion clip from the police video Breitbart TV is releasing means that any determination beyond that the video is inconclusive is shoddy, if not intentionally unethical, journalism. To date, ABC has offered no official response to the broad and convincing criticism of the disingenuous nature of their aired report.
And now the DC and Big Journalism have had their vindication, with ABC News having to issue a ‘clarified’ version of the video, showing gashes and welts on Zimmerman’s head.
From the Orlando Sentinel:
ABC News has re-digitized video of George Zimmerman taken shortly after Trayvon Martin’s shooting.
The video was unveiled as an exclusive this morning on “Good Morning America.” ABC was the first news organization to show the original tape.
Reporter Matt Gutman said the clearer video shows “what appear to be a pair of gashes or welts on George Zimmerman’s head.”
Neighborhood Watch volunteer Zimmerman has said he shot 17-year-old Trayvon in self-defense. The video shows Zimmerman arriving at the Sanford Police Department within an hour after the shooting.
Gutman said the video had been “clarified” by Forensic Protection Inc. Former FBI Special Agent Brad Garrett told ABC that the clearer video shows “marks on the back of Mr. Zimmerman’s head.”
I’m glad ABC finally took the time to have the video reviewed by experts and clarified, but perhaps they should have done that in the first place.
Whether or not the clarified video will receive as much coverage as the original remains to be seen. But one thing is for certain – none of the hard working journalists at the Daily Caller and Big Journalism will receive any credit for revealing the failed media narrative pushed by ABC. ABC alone will receive praise, none of it deserved.
Who wouldn’t want to spend their weekend watching a drunk guy singing Bohemian Rhapsody in the back of a police car? I say, count me in!
To cleanse the palate, via NBC, this one’s burning up Twitter and will be mega-viral by tomorrow so get in on the ground floor now. Apparently there does exist a rare twilight state of drunkenness in which you’re bombed enough to get arrested yet not so bombed that you can’t perform “Bohemian Rhapsody” in its entirety. The most magical moment: At 1:30 when he re-creates the tinkling piano and then launches into an impassioned “mamaaaaaaaaaa.” You’re going to be famous, kid. For something you don’t even remember doing.
When that movement of ‘mostly peaceful’ protesters at Occupy aren’t busy demanding Syria-like violent protests, or celebrating books written by the Weather Underground, or supporting cop-killers in general, it seems they’re using their spare time to make death threats via the Twitter.
Police are investigating an apparent Occupy Wall St. protester’s online threat to kill cops.
Someone with the Twitter handle “smackema1” tweeted this message at 11:39 p.m. Saturday, following a clash at Zuccotti Park.: “we wont make a difference if we dont kill a cop or 2.”
The tweet was directed to a page on Ustream showing live footage of the protests.
The writer was had tweeted several comments about the protests Saturday night.
The NYPD is seeking a subpoena to find out who’s behind the Twitter account, according to Paul Browne, the department’s top spokesman.
Occupiers had tried to stay in Zuccoti Park on St. Patrick’s Day in an attempt to reclaim the area after their eviction back in November.
In addition to the Twitter threat, two police officers and their families received phone threats, and during the melee itself a protester elbowed a cop repeatedly in the face, while another separate activist was charged with assault. Not to mention another individual who was charged with attempted robbery and sexual abuse when he apparently tried to capitalize on the chaos in a way that only an Occupier can. In all, 73 people were arrested.
The Other McCain laments the difficult task being assigned to the NYPD:
St. Patrick’s Day, like New Year’s Eve, is one of those occasions when I carefully avoid alcohol because I refuse to drink with amateurs. But for many Americans, St. Patrick’s Day is a festive occasion celebrated with drunken revelry. Now imagine you’re a New York cop, looking forward to a Saturday night of green beer with your buddies, and you find out instead you’ve been assigned weekend overtime duty because a bunch of Commie freaks have decided to have a protest:
He adds, rather humorously:
That’s the way to do it, NYPD! Give ‘em a sweet taste of the nightstick!
But doesn’t NYPD have tasers? Jack ‘em up with some high voltage!
Billy clubs, tasers, pepper spray, whatever it takes to keep Marxist scum off the streets of New York, do it. These whiny deadbeats are a menace to public safety — scabies! tuberculosis! rape! — and if they refuse to disperse peacefully, they have thereby declared war on the law-abiding citizens of New York, whom the NYPD are sworn to protect and serve.
The goons out at Occupy Denver are back at it, demonstrating an extreme lack of intelligence and decorum, all behind the guise of free speech. Free speech to this bunch seems to mean that ‘we don’t possess the multi-syllabic ability to form coherent thoughts or sentences, so we sink to the lowest common denominator of speech’.
That’s just a rough translation that I pulled from my Moron-English dictionary. Pocket version.
Via Marathon Pundit:
For the third straight day, I am reporting on an Occupy Denver occtrocity. Last week a Fox 31 reporter, Eli Stokols, had his live report from Denver’s Civic Center Parkruined by Occupy protesters. One was holding a ‘F*ck the Police’ sign and other held one declaring that the ‘Police Are the Army of the Rich’ while barking “freedom of speech.”
“If you want to act like grownups,” Stokols told the adult adolescents, “then we can have a conversation.” Unfortunately the reporter uses the “F” word as he vainly attempts to educate the leftists.
It’s hard to blame the movement for being all kinds of disheveled, not having a clear message, and randomly attacking newsmen on the street. They did after all, elect Shelby the border collie as their leader. Please click on the link if you think I’m kidding. I had a chance to interview Shelby over the phone for comment on the incident. She simply yelled “Bacon!” and proceeded to lick herself.