The LAPDs murder of 13 year old Devin Brown is....typical, for poor working blacks and browns of LA. The LAPD isn't exactly going any further than typical procedure except for the fact that it has been getting decent media coverage and this time the black man wasn't a a man at all, but a child. The problem isn't some tactical error that the department will look into, review and fix, but rather a systematic problem. Most of the Blacks and Browns in LA know this (not necessarily from a political stand point, they just know the cops are fucked, and it isn't just a few bad apples) the problem is that progressives, radicals and revolutionaries around southern CA aren't recognizing that they should be aligning themselves with these people, these families, who are suffering and begin organizing anti police programs within neighborhoods. The cameras are pointed on the LAPD and south LA right now, and there is a chance to get in touch with gangs, families, community members, etc., and start to do some serious anti police work within the next couple weeks. Cop Watch programs, a militant cop killer march, self defense trainings. Show that we are ready to get down with the cops just as much as anyone who has to deal with police harassment, raids, murders, and fear that comes with the LAPD rolling around their neighborhoods.

Wake up, it's time to organize. "Self Defense, by any means necessary."

Yeah, but if you push out the cops, you're still going to have the gangs.

That's the paradox. What people want is for cops to do the right thing, and not shoot joyriders up, while ignoring some crooks who harrass residents.

I went to a community outreach meeting of the Long Beach PD. I don't live there, so I *will* talk some shit. A woman in the poorer part of town was complaining about how some hoods were selling drugs in her alley, and they killed someone's dog or something. The cops just brushed her off with some pablum.

Then, some other person was complaining about jaywalkers in the downtown shopping area. This was not even a police issue -- it's a planning issue -- but they said they'd look into it.

That's why there's crime in some parts of town -- the cops allow it. I'm not taking this from some leftist newspaper. This is what I heard in the school auditorium during a police community outreach meeting.

And just so conservative assholes don't peg me as someone griping from the ghetto - I'm a middle class suburbanite. I just know bull when I smell it.

I have one other thing to think about. Think about if the Mafia or other organized crime is involved. They're rich guys. They dominate over the little street gangs. They want to control their markets. I could see organized crime pushing politicians to cause ghettos to be created, so the Mafiosi can operate their businesses and live in nice neighborhoods and be clean cut underworld capitalists.

more rational, I've read some of your posts before and you seem to have anarchist or revolutionary tendencies...so you can't honestly be advocating that we need police to keep us safe from kids on our streets? I think we can agree that capitalism and things like police are what pin us against each other...fighting the cops is the first step in eliminating all the madness.

When communities are tight enough, they don't have to worry about thugs in their neighborhoods because people are looking out for one another. This has happened before and can happen on a much larger scale today.

Community not Cops

What you're describing is a vigilante situation, where the community are the cops. That's an idealized situation, but even then, you're talking about a situation that will be policed: everyone is a cop, so nobody is a cop. There will necessarily be some kind of "official" police, because you need to deal with rape, murder, assault, and all the other things that are scary. Only the community "psycho security guys" will want to deal with that stuff.

My suggestion is that if police actually *do* what the community most desperately *needs*, then that's better than neglect. This is at odds with anarchism, because it's a reformist idea. I guess I contradict myself.

I feel weird advocating for community vigilance when I'm in no position to do much about it. I can, however, relate that bad, dissapointing experience I had in LBC.

Also, I think that if you create a power vacuum for security, you're going to see street gangs fill the void. That's not good. I've read stuff here and there praising gangs, but it doesn't ring true for me. I grew up around gangs, and live in a slightly ganged-out area, and I don't want them to be my community security. I want them to disband! They kill people.

Communities *can* protect themselves, but it's a lot harder when you're up against gangs, crooks that might pay off police, police that ignore your area because it's mostly low-income renters, a city-hall that wants your area to gentrify, and a city that uses your area as a drug market and red-light district.

What's the vigilante group going to do? Shoot all the gangsters, cops, johns, druggies from other parts of town, and politicians?

I guess I'm going afield here. My rant was about fixating strictly on the cops as the source of all problems. There are a lot of problems, and they're pretty interrelated.

You are obviously not getting me here. I'm talking about a whole transformation of what our communities look like. I don't believe cops will be eliminated over night and I believe in the process of struggling for independence from the police, not only will the community come together but they will organize programs that work to fit their needs: food programs, housing, education, healthcare. It is the lack of our basic needs that drives people to join gangs, become criminal, put us in violent situations where murder happens (I believe all these are based on nurture and NOT nature). As far as the Mafia, they're just another part of the ruling and capitalist class and we will need to fight (in an appropriate fashion) them just the same as we need to fight against our bosses and politicians.

Valuing the Lives of the People vs. Wanton Police Murder

When the Proletariat Rules

by Bob Avakian

Revolutionary Worker #1255, October 17, 2004, posted at http://rwor.org

Let's take the question of police brutality and murder.. it seems like every time you open the RW there is at least one and often more than one article about another one of these outrages--basically the same story of how the police go in and wantonly murder someone, especially basic Black and Latino youth. And in this [one] particular article I believe it was a Latino youth who was involved, it was one of these things where he, you know, lost it a bit and had a gun or something, and was out in a public place, and there was sort of a standoff and I guess the police shot him and wounded him, if I have all the facts right, and his girlfriend was there with him, and she at one point told the police that she would get his gun away from him and then the police said if you touch the gun, you'll be shot! And his mother came up and begged the police to let her go get the gun away from him, and they told her the same thing.

This article was really very compelling, and by the time you were through reading it, both the anger at what had gone on and also the fact that with these police, this is not some accidental thing, they want to shoot down these masses, and this is an integral part of what they do--what their social role is, what their political role is--this was brought out very powerfully in this article. You know, I finished reading it and I just had this restless anger where you can't sit still, plus this really strong feeling that, as the article brought out, not once but twice there was a solution there, but the police specifically rejected it and threatened the people with being shot themselves. I mean this shows, once again, that they're not out there "doing a difficult job and faced with difficult choices" and they couldn't find any way out of this other than shooting this person.

Or you can take the [police murder] of Tyisha Miller..one of the things that really needs to be driven home is-- here's the scene where she is passed out in the car and they come up to the car, the police, they surround the car, and there's a whole bunch of them, they're all armed, they're surrounding the car, and they just shoot her--execute her basically. And it seems to me that one basic point to be made is this: if you can't handle this situation differently than this, then get the fuck out of the way. Not only out of the way of this situation but get off the earth--get out of the way of the masses of people. Because, you know, we could have handled that situation any number of ways that would have resulted in a much better outcome, and frankly if we had state power and we were faced with a similar situation, we would sooner have one of our own people's police killed than go wantonly murder one of the masses. That's what you're supposed to do if you're actually trying to be a servant of the people. You go there and put your own life on the line, rather than just wantonly murder one of the people.

It seems to me that this kind of point can be brought out very powerfully to people. What were they there to do? You know, fuck all this "serve and protect" bullshit. If they were there to serve and protect, they would have found any way but the way they did it to handle this scene, they could have and would have found a solution that was much better than this. This is the way the proletariat, when it's been in power, has handled and would again handle this kind of thing--valuing the lives of the masses of people- -as opposed to the bourgeoisie in power, where the role of their police is to terrorize the masses, including wantonly murdering them, murdering them without provocation, without necessity, because exactly the more arbitrary the terror is, the more broadly it affects the masses. And that's one of the reasons why they like to engage in--and have as one of their main functions to engage in--wanton and arbitrary terror against the masses of people.

From "Putting Forward Our Line-In a Bold, Moving, Compelling Way"

---

This article is posted in English and Spanish on Revolutionary Worker Online
http://rwor.org/
Write: Box 3486, Merchandise Mart, Chicago, IL 60654
Phone: 773-227-4066 Fax: 773-227-4497

I think the struggle for community control definitely would lead to people taking control of their own security. Feeling safe against violence is such a basic need. It's just difficult (which must be why they call it a struggle).

I don't think we disagree about the goal, or even how to get there. We're disagreeing about short-term prospects. We can agree to disagree. I'm trying to have a politics I can live with.

How come people can't just cooperate with the cops instead of assaulting them and then carrying on about their paranoid delusions of victimization? Seems pretty simple, really....don't point guns at people or try to run them over. But then, I guess some people must have a cause to champion to feel good about themselves, even if it means making one up.

The cops rule by force, ie violence. How can one just get along with someone who intrudes on their friends and family?

The cops use force, where needed. there will always be examples of abuse, but do you think that they can do their job without ever using force? aren't they supposed to be the ones who use force to subdue those who use force unlawfully on others? ultimately, might does make right, in a sense, because if someone where stronger than the cops then they could do as they please and run amok. the cops use their strength in a generally judicious manner, and with checks and balances, but must be able to overcome the violence of others, wouldnt you agree?

Well, the use of necessary force is having a fallout effect here. This kid shouldn't have been shot up this way. If he were another color, in another neighborhood, he'd be alive today.

There are more situations where force is necessary in the urban core and periphery of Los Angeles. This is due, IMNSHO, to higher concentrations of organized crime and gang activity. The main reason for this concentration is prohibition of drugs, combined with high local unemployment. Operating a drive-through market in drugs is feasible. Gangs take up the business, take over (by force), and monopolize their territories through force, turning the neighborhoods into militarized zones.

There are other things that net them money, like theft, extortion, and prostitution, but I think that drugs are the real money maker. They are a commodity in demand, and leaving no trace, not constrained by labor, and mobile. And these drugs come from wealthier organized crime, and sometimes, from government-connected sources (CIA-crack in the 80s, CIA-heroin in the 60s, and now, this Israeli ecstasy thing today).

LJ, you've obviously never lived in a poor neighborhood

Are you kidding? The OC is rough!!! Ok, not quite, and you are very correct in your observation about me never having lived in a poor neighborhood. Of course, that begs the question that more rational got into above about why is there that difference in the poor areas. It seems there is a feeling among those in certain areas that the cops are out to get them, and that feeling is problem reciprocated by the cops. a bad cycle...but to say that if that 13 year old were of another color in another area, he'd be alive today, seems pretty unsupportable to me. Is that because the cops in other areas are nicer, or because they don't feel threatened like those in the inner city do?

People in poor areas are more often victimized by the cops than in the affluent areas. It's called "getting caught in the net."

Suppose there's a 1 square mile area, and there are 200 criminals in it. Mostly organized, mainly in gangs.

Compare that to another area the same size with 50 criminals in it. Mostly disorganized, with few gangs.

Cops in the more criminal area will police the area more aggressively. There will be more cops. The cops will find more crime. With more enforcement, and more aggressive enforcement, you get more accidental shootings, more arrests of innocents, and more police abuse.

It's not just "mutual bad attitude" that you, LJ, seem to think it is.

The bad attitude from the cops comes from elevated levels of crime. The bad attitude from the people comes from the fact that they're victims of cop violence. The attitudes aren't just poses -- they're based in real problems.

The solution I proposed is to help reduce the amount of crime by making two common activities legal. (Drug sales and prostitution.) These activities can then move OUT of the residential neighborhoods, and into business districts, closer to the customers in the suburbs.

That would leave extortion and fencing stolen goods as the remaining businesses that could concentrate in the area. Extortion is geographically constrained, so, that's not going to be affected. Fencing goods can happen anywhere, and there's no reason it has to happen in the working-class areas.

Well, consider this: if people in the "bad" areas cooperated fully with the police, then the police could focus on the real criminals instead of getting complaints because some idiot doesn't know his rights from a hole in the ground and files a complaint because "the officer was rude." yeah, no duh. they're people like any others and respond to "what the fuck did you pull me over for?" the same way any of us would.
It's because there's a prevailing belief among the urban community, especially blacks, that anytime they're accused of something, they're poor victims of the corrupt system. what a sorry excuse for poor performance within a system where even the worst off can succeed beyond their wildest dreams, and not just on a basketball scholarship. one of the saddest effects of this as far as police brutality goes is to nullify veritable complaints of real abuse. i for one no longer believe either side off the bat, as there have been plenty of cases where cops have been accused of something and then the video showed the complaint was an out and out lie.
this, of course, is the petty stuff. when it comes to killing children, there's a lot more to it than just "he tried to kill the cops" or "they just shot him for fun." every case is different, and something that serious needs incredible scrutiny. but so much of what we hear about abuse is stupid stuff where the person, who's probably not what we'd call a criminal, refuses to cooperate because they dont know their own rights and demand that the cops explain them to them, which they dont have the time to do, and so on and so forth until they're wrestling around on the ground with the cops. stupid. i say screw them, if they (the cops) are in the wrong on something minor, that's what court is for. i have no sympathy for the people who demand the issue be settled right there and then at the scene and, since they've decided they're innocent, they decide to walk away. then, to them, the cops are the bad guys, and when there's a questionable shooting they say "the cops killed him to keep us in place, it's oppression, and they just lie to cover it up." wow. what a cogent, objective, inside view of the situation. and they think the cops are judgemental? no wonder the rest of suburban America looks at that and quietly says "what a bunch of bigoted wierdos". but of course, the attitude is supposed to be "perfectly understandable after what they've been through." give me a break.
as for legalizing prostitution, there is such a thing if you're willing to drive far enough. as a rather libertarian-leaning individual when it comes to economics, but conservative on crime, i'm not sure how well that would work. possibly could, i'm not disagreeing with you, but i sure as hell dont want it in my backyard. or city, for that matter. or county, come to think of it.....as for drugs, i think they should legalize marijuana and keep the hard stuff a crime. i've seen way too many lives screwed up, and the issue of one's freedom to do those drugs conflicts with my freedom to live my life without hypes trying to take my stuff to pawn for their next high. a correlation between the two (hard drug use and other crimes, such as thievery) is pretty well founded, in my opinion. of course, this is just from personal experience, not official statistics, so i may be wrong.

sorry for the lengthy post, just got on a tirade. but hey, that's what this is for, right?

not only is more rational correct about legalizing drugs and hooking, there is one more thing to do to restore order.

BRING BACK THE SECOND AMENDMENT.

An armed society is a polite society,...when the gang cowards don't know who's packin' and who isn't, they' won't be nearly so bold.

CONCEALED CARRY FOR ALL LAW ABIDING CITIZENS.

DEATH FOR CRIMINALS.

more guns = less crime

People in the city already have guns. There are gun stores all over LA.

That said, the only city I've been in where I've seen people passing hand guns around, somewhat openly, was Philly.

Not sure if there's a correlation between guns and crime with those two cities. I think people are just making the best of a bad situation in Philly.

-----------------------

LJ, I think you're wrong about cooperation. People do cooperate with the police. You just get a limited perspective from the media. It looks like it's only reinforcing your bigotry.

One fallacy people have is the idea that police actually affect the crime rate in subtle ways. Police, by their existence as an organization that can use violence to enforce laws, cause the crime rate to plummet, but more than anything, people are self-policing.

You could probably get the same effect by having the Mafia operate the local police department. In fact, if you look at the LAPD history, there was a time when it operated brothels and alcohol (drug) businesses on the side. Here's something from Wikipedia about the origins of the LAPD:

"The first specific Los Angeles police force was founded in 1853 as the Los Angeles Rangers, a volunteer force that assisted the existing County forces. The Rangers were soon succeeded by the Los Angeles City Guards, another volunteer group. Neither force was particularly efficient and Los Angeles became known for its violence, gambling and "vice".

"The first paid force was not created until 1869 when a force of six officers under City Marshal William C. Warren were hired. Warren was shot by one of his officers in 1876 and to replace him the newly created Board of Police commissioners selected Jacob T. Gerkins, he was replaced within a year by saloon-owner Emil Harris, the second of fifteen police chiefs from 1876-89."

The reason why there's relatively little crime in America is because most people are self-policing. More importantly, most people don't have a compelling reason to do anything "criminal".

(Actually, I need to digress again. One of the main reasons why the drug business operates in poor neighborhoods, in addition to other reasons mentioned, is that there's more unemployed people there. It's easier to find people to do the work necessary to operate a network of drug sellers. Someone who deals on the side, and has regular job (like most drug sellers, probably), can't make on-call deliveries and can't hang out on the street for hours. Sure, it sells itself, but there's a lot of risk. It's easier to sell socks and batteries at the flea market.)

As for blacks being the victims of a corrupt system... they don't say it enough! Yes, some of them complain, but look at history. Back in the 1950s, a system that would segregate you by race, give you second class status, and let you get beat up and burned out in riots, and would let your people get hanged, while the terrorist mob didn't even get arrestes... wasn't called "corrupt." It was called "the way things work." It was, to some people, considered very American.

There are still thousands of people alive today who have seen the body of a black man hung from a tree. There are still people alive who remember when the KKK were in city and county government.

There are still a lot of people who get convicted of crimes they didn't do, and they're getting fingered because of their race. They're getting caught up in "blame it on the Black guy," where someone who did something wrong blames it on a person of color.

"as for legalizing prostitution, there is such a thing if you're willing to drive far enough."

Most people are only willing to drive a short distance, which is why it exists in every city in the world. Most people aren't even willing to drive more than a few miles, from the looks of it. I've seen streetwalkers in Pasadena, near San Marino.

Prostitution often exists in any area where people lack the political clout to demand that it be removed from the sidewalks. The police practially allow it in those areas, by being more aggressive about enforcement in other (richer) areas. They really *do* allow it to exist in the back pages of the LA Weekly and other papers.

So, they should just formalize it. Create some red-light districts in the middle of industrial areas, away from families. Maybe integrate it with the strip club business, because, I think it already is connected.

As for drugs, they should just legalize everything. Contrary to popular belief, it's not that hard to get off drugs, physically. The hard part is building up the self-esteem, or inner strength, to stay clean. Someone who abuses drugs is likely to do a lot of other bad things, like abuse other people. Remove the drugs, and that other bad behavior remains.

If you want to reduce crime from addicts, just give them the drugs for free. The net cost is relatively low. If someone does $100 of damage to your car to get a $150 stereo, that's sold for $20, to buy coke that wholesaled for $10, and cost $1 to make and package... that's a $249 cost for $1 worth of cocaine.

That doesn't include the $50+ it costs to have the cops fill out a police report... that won't do anything for you. It won't fix your window or get your stereo back.

It also doesn't include the intangible cost of seeing police everywhere, seeing gangs get rich, or having a relative or acquainance arrested for selling drugs. That's basically arresting someone for selling something that people are driving in from far away to buy. People want the drugs.

When I was living in Oakland, there was a little 'drive thru' drug stop around the corner selling, I heard, pretty much everything. People would drive by on the weekends, and it was a mess. They weren't locals. Some were in old hoopties, but more were in regular cars, and some were in really nice cars. I lived in a 20+ unit apartment that didn't even have a garage!

We had a lot of people in the building, mostly black and white people, many were young, and some had kids. Those dealers messed up the neighborhood. I think the liquor store was dealing too. I don't blame them alone, because, I just saw the people driving around looking for drugs to party with. (There were a couple dudes who I knew were buying from them, too, and one lived in a nice house down the street -- so it's not just people from elsewhere. They were white hippies. I had a 20 bag of pot too, so I'm not a total innocent here... but I bought it from someone else. lol.)

The area was actually pretty nice. It wasn't a vast ghetto, and was pretty close to a fairly wealthy city. It was within walking distance of a couple co-workers, who were professionals. Plenty of prettty rich folks lived near there too. It was just the low-income area next to the freeway, near the on and offramps. (We're thankful we didn't have a streetwaker! The whores mainly operated near the BART station, probably to get the bridge-and-tunnel office workers coming back from San Francisco.)

I had one major shooting experience there. One night, a guy was all high and crazy, standing on the roof of the apartment where the drug drive thru was operated, and had a lot of coke on him. He got paranoid and started waving a gun around. (I saw someone squeeze off a round in that apartment once, and it might have been the same nut.)

We were scared. Most people were hiding inside. There wasn't any of this "non-cooperation" you're talking about. People were afraid this guy was going to lose it and shoot someone. He wouldn't put the gun down, so the OPD blew his ass away. I think they said 11 shots. He was totally blown away.

That's one more bullet than they put into this kid who didn't do anything to merit it.

(Even after all this, people still came around to score drugs!)

more rational: " People in the city already have guns. There are gun stores all over LA."

But in LA and many places, citizens are barred from carrying handguns, concealed or otherwise, on their person. They are also barred from having guns loaded and ready in their vehicles.

There are also lots of other bullshit laws and taxes hampering gun owners, and futhermore, the corrupt socialists openly decalre their contampt for gun-owners.

If it's against the law to have a gun at the ready for self-defense, the 2nd amendment is defiled and useless.

My 88 milimeter flack gun is going to be next.

I can't believe this uneducated, ridiculous person.
"The blacks and browns"
Don't you think it's the "blacks and browns" that are finding themselves in these situations?
Aren't these the same "blacks and browns" killing each other on a daily basis in record numbers?
Here are two recent incidents involving these "poor, blacks and browns". (theres a million more stories just open your eyes)

http://www.yakima-herald.com/?storyid=282698663572633

http://www.presstelegram.com/Stories/0%2C1413%2C204~21474~2731308%2C00.html

Now according to the author "let's start self defense" against the Police.

If it wasn't for the Police this aspect of the population would exterminate each other in a matter of months.

Then who would be around to be the inocent victim of the Police? By the way, what was this sweet, young, inocent victim doing out at 4am in a stolen car, running from the Police anyway?

You need to get your head out of your ass!!

I never got the impression that the gun issue was a left-right issue. It's more of a center-fringe issue or a "mother's group" issue. People in the center tend to dislike guns because they are used to commit crimes, accidentally go off, and so forth.

People on the far left and far right tend to like guns, because their heroes are often involved in war. Pacifists are a notable exception.

Look at Castro. They have those parades in Cuba, and they all have rifles. The Black Panthers were big into guns. MOVE had guns (tthough I don't know if they're really "left"). The Zapatistas have guns. Interestingly enough, the "Peace and Freedom" party support the 2nd amendment.

I never got the impression that the gun issue was a left-right issue. It's more of a center-fringe issue or a "mother's group" issue. People in the center tend to dislike guns because they are used to commit crimes, accidentally go off, and so forth.

>>>> there are 200 million gun owners in the US and many are indeed liberal.

>>>> However, the elected officials on the Democrat side are mostly anti-gun, so much so that you can count pro-2nd Amendment Democrats on one hand.

>>> People who call themselves "centrist" are fucking dopes.

The true "centrists" are libertarians, with their live and let live philosophy....you're free to own a gun, or not own a gun, drug or not drug, etc. the old "I'm pro-choice....on everything"

>>>>> You just can't be middle-of-the-road over freedom, taxes and the free market.

Centrists are between the Dems and Reps, who are the big parties that define the basic political split.

Libertarians are rich right-wing anti-authoritarians.

Anarchists, in contrast, are working-class leftist anti-authoritarians.

Greens are petit-bougeois, mostly leftist, and grassroots. They're in between the above two.

These three political groupings are not centrist. Arguments to that effect are just delusional conceits.

Centrists are between the Dems and Reps, who are the big parties that define the basic political split.

>>> true. but they are also too "middle of the road" for my blood.

Libertarians are rich right-wing anti-authoritarians.

>>>> I don't know too many authoritarians who want to see drugs, guns, porn, hooking and TAXATION minimally regulated.

Anarchists, in contrast, are working-class leftist anti-authoritarians.

>>>> maybe so. but anarchism will never work. a "successful" anarchic society would look like Mad Max....briefly that is.

Greens are petit-bougeois, mostly leftist, and grassroots. They're in between the above two.

>>> I prefer to think of them as the most uninformed politically and insualted from their actions and the results of what they vote for.. think trustafarians and naivety.

These three political groupings are not centrist. Arguments to that effect are just delusional conceits.

delusion = the world of politics. seacrest out

Let me get this straight.....even though you saw a guy high on drugs wave a gun around threatening people, you think we should pay for him and others to have all the drugs they want, at our expense?

That's EXACTLY what he said. Read it again yerself.

you are a moron.

by BBC News Sunday, Feb. 27, 2005 at 2:36 AM

The woman known as Britain's "cannabis gran" explains why she eats marijuana five times a day - and why she'll keep on doing it despite the threat of a jail term.

Patricia Tabram takes a sip of hot chocolate after a long day.

She has just delivered a letter to Downing Street telling Tony Blair why she no longer trusts medicines prescribed on the NHS, having spent half the day travelling from near Hexham, Northumberland, to do so.

This is not, however, your average hot chocolate. Mrs Tabram, 66, has added a quarter of a teaspoon of cannabis powder.

"This will keep me covered from pain for five hours now," she says as she takes another sip.

The old age pensioner began taking cannabis in February last year to combat intense pain in her neck and back, as well as other complaints such as tinnitus.

She says the drug had an almost immediate impact.

"I had a walking stick, I was in constant pain. Now, through ingesting cannabis in my food five times a day, five times a week - minute amounts - I feel great."

She is writing a book about her experiences called Grandma Eats Cannabis, which she hopes to be in print soon.

In a perfect world people would think independently rather than being a product of the media in their area. It's a shame that people in Europe, Boston, and Los Angeles vote the way their biased newspapers tell them to vote.

>>> Agreed.

It's also important to know not only where people stand on the issues but how important they think each issue is in the bigger picture.

>>> People will naturally be inclined to be more passionate about some issues over others.

For instance, I don't think citizens should own guns regardless of what the Constitution says. But on the other hand it's not an issue that I consider real important.

>>> ALL citizens should own guns and should be as comfortable around them as they are with eating utensils. Gun control = death of freedom


I'm also for freedom of choice on the abortion issue but it's an issue that I can see both sides of. Thats not an issue that has a clear cut right or wrong answer. Therefore I don't consider it a very high priority issue for our government to try and manage.

>>>> Gummint needs to get out of the abortion game, period. No laws and/or funding either for or against.


And there's the immigration issue. I agree with Bush on this one. We should have some sort of work permit for immigrants. This is another issue that has two sides to it. I don't think it's real important for the government to try and solve because I don't think there is one completely preferable scenario. There is a very high demand for guest workers and a a strong supply of workers. The border is too long and too porous to be sealed at a reasonable cost anyway.


>>>>> Totally disagree. Bush is fucking this one up just liike Reagan did. Any step towards "guest worker" bullshit equals amnesty. Americans should be furious that another country has willingly sent an invasion force acrtoss the borders, who once here undermine American workers' wages and also gobble up "social services." Illegal immigrants are not assmimilating and all the $$$ they make goes back to Mexico.

>>>>>> Few people (yet) will admit the solution is to destroy Mexico's corrupt narco-terrorist government and replace it with a U.S. puppet government until such time as the border can be brought under control.


The Death Penalty is a much more clear cut issue. I'm strongly for it and would like to see it accelerated rather than eliminated.

>>>>> Agreed. All States should act as swiftly as Texas in ridding our society of vermin. Send 'em to the Recycling Bin.

I'd like to see a clean separation between Church and State. That means no law based on a particular religion (example: No law in Texas prohibiting the sale of wine before noon on Sunday). I'd like to see an end to the tax exemption for Churches. They use the same public services as every else -- let them pay their share. However, energy and fight necessary to change any of that doesn't seem worth the effort. That's why Religion is another weak issue for me.

>>> As supposedly "benficial" as it would be to tax churches, it's a bad idea wherein both gummint and religion lose.

>>> I'm sick to death of ACLU-holes trying to eliminate religion from the national memory too.


Tax reform is another biggie. I feel very strongly that those folks who create an income for themselves deserve to keep more of it. There are too many taxing authorities taking too big a collective bite. We need to give people back their own money. I also find the whole idea of income redistribution by government to be especially repugnant. The idea that politicians can confiscate funds from one group of citizens to fund programs benefitting anther group (especially a special interest group that votes for those particular politicians) is entirely odious.

>>>> Agreed.


And I'm for an agressive war on terrorism and in favor of taking the fight to fudamentaiist Islam rather than fighting it out here. So far Iraq and Afghanistan both look like great success stories for the people of those countries and for stability in the region. In the last 100 years we've seen many examples, especially in Europe, of weak governments trying to solve significant problems with 'Appeasement.' That never has worked and never will. It's kind of like Socialism in that regard.

>>>> Agreed. And while we're on the subject of war, it sure would be great to see the bullshit "Drug War" ended. No matter how good its intentions when begun, it has grown into a faulure many times the size of the original Prohibition., corrupting police and the courts, making gang scum wealthy and the average citizen a permanent suspect.

FUCK THE DRUG WAR.

Please call LA Animal Services Commander David Delaberto at 213-473-8340 and demand that his office investigate and file criminal charges for animal cruelty Calif Penal Code 597 against all four LAPD officers and their supervising officers.

I"m copying my letter to LAPD Chief W J Bratton:
2/28/05

TO LAPD CHIEF W J Bratton:

RE: 2/16/05 LAPD Shooting of Teri the Pit-bull AND officers' cruel and illegal actions after said shooting.

You recently deplored the shooting of two LAPD officers as "sociopathic." I call your attention to the sociopathic and disturbing actions of four+ of your Newton Station's officers and their supervising officers UNDER YOUR COMMAND in their illegal and cruel actions in the 2/16/05 shooting of Teri the dog.

LAPD's actions in this incident indicate that no one should live, own a pet, work, own a business or patronize any of the businesses in that area because LAPD's "community policing" includes drawing weapons and firing shots at a sleeping dog with reckless disregard to the law, animal life, animal cruelty, and public safety.

1. Unwarranted shooting -- licensed, vaccinated dog in front of residence address he was licensed to, did not attack or bite any of the four bicycle officers -- witness Manuel Maldonado, DHL driver, saw dog sleeping, then heard shot, not even a bark, and dog after being shot was lying in the exact spot he saw her lying sleeping just moments before.

In fact, no officer was bitten or "attacked" in any way shape or form.

Josephs said male officer riding tandem with another LAPD rider indicated that he had fired the shot because, "The one officer said he thought the dog was going to do something to the lady" riding at the rear of the group, that he was "fearful for his partner." = no actual attack = insufficient probable cause for shooting the dog.

LAPD states that 10-year veteran Gina Iglesias "fired the fatal shot fearing for her safety" = no actual attack, insufficient probable cause for shooting the dog.

2. Use of Excessive Force, LAPD officers' failure to follow the "REASONABLE" LEGAL STANDARD.
If any of the four officers was scared of the dog, they had other REASONABLE OPTIONS, and law requires LAPD and every other person to act in a REASONABLE MANNER: they could have ridden clear of the dog, or turned around and taken another route, but they chose instead to continue toward the dog they "feared" and to shoot it.
In case of actual attack, which did not occur -- any of the four officers could have and should have used MACE instead of pulling out a gun and using deadly force, constituting not only unwarranted shooting of the dog (illegal animal cruelty CA P.C. 597) but also use of excessive force in reckless disregard for public safety: firing in a downtown area where the bullet or bullets fired did hit someone's private vehicle, and also could have hit a person or persons -- a resident, a shopper, a business owner, etc.

Encounters with dogs by LAPD bicycle officers are legally foreseeable, thus LAPD must have policies and training and also equip every bicycle officer with MACE, which is the non-lethal option legally employed by the US Postal Service, and EVERYONE ELSE UNDER LAW IN THE UNITED STATES.

No one in this country is legally allowed to pull a gun and shoot a dog except in situations of extreme actual attack and self-defense -- especially in a downtown area. LAPD is not above the law.

3. Sociopathic, cruel and illegal actions following the shooting:
The officers' actions following the shooting constitute violation of multiple California laws issuing from LAPD officers threatening owner Josephs with arrest or force if he came to comfort or medical aid of his injured dog; extreme animal cruelty in refusing their legal obligation to immediately allow treatment, comfort, care or transport of dog to vet or to call Animal Control to transport dog to vet, intentional infliction of extreme pain and suffering on the dog, the owner and everyone else on the scene begging the officers to allow comfort, medical aid or transport to a vet -- while the officers threatened THEM with arrest or force.
Just two Relevant Calif Penal Codes (there are more):

597. (a) Except as provided in subdivision (c) of this section or Section 599c, every person who maliciously and intentionally maims, mutilates, tortures, or wounds a living animal, or maliciously and intentionally kills an animal, is guilty of an offense punishable by imprisonment in the state prison, or by a fine of not more than twenty thousand dollars ($20,000), or by both the fine and imprisonment, or, alternatively, by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year, or by a fine of not more than twenty thousand dollars ($20,000), or by both the fine and imprisonment.
(b) Except as otherwise provided in subdivision (a) or (c), every person who overdrives, overloads, drives when overloaded, overworks, tortures, torments, deprives of necessary sustenance, drink, or shelter, cruelly beats, mutilates, or cruelly kills any animal, or causes or procures any animal to be so overdriven, overloaded, driven when overloaded, overworked, tortured, tormented, deprived of necessary sustenance, drink, shelter, or to be cruelly beaten, mutilated, or cruelly killed; and whoever, having the charge or custody of any animal, either as owner or otherwise, subjects any animal to needless suffering, or inflicts unnecessary cruelty upon the animal, or in any manner abuses any animal, or fails to provide the animal with proper food, drink, or shelter or protection from the weather, or who drives, rides, or otherwise uses the animal when unfit for labor, is, for every such offense, guilty of a crime punishable as a misdemeanor or as a felony or alternatively punishable as a misdemeanor or a felony and by a fine of not more than twenty thousand dollars ($20,000).

597.1. (a) Every owner, driver, or keeper of any animal who permits the animal to be in any building, enclosure, lane, street, square, or lot of any city, county, city and county, or judicial district without proper care and attention is guilty of a misdemeanor.

Additionally, every law enforcement officer in California is required by code, statute, regulations, etc. to immediately either transport an injured animal to a vet or clinic him/herself or to immediately call Animal Control or a vet or animal hospital to respond.

4. SOCIOPATHIC AND DISTURBING
The LAPD officers' actions were not only illegal but also sociopathic and disturbing -- the link between cruelty to animals and violence toward human beings is well established.
The officers illegally, cruelly and sociopathically shot the dog without probable cause; they illegally, cruelly and sociopathically threatened the dog's owner and other witnesses with force or arrest if he/they comforted the suffering pet; they illegally, cruelly and sociopathically refused medical attention, comfort or transport to a vet by the owner or anyone else on the scene for two hours -- unconscionably and illegally inflicting not only horrible suffering on the animal for two hours, but also on the owner and every other human being who stood there begging the officers to let the dog be comforted or medically aided.
In general, animal cruelty includes every act, omission, or neglect whereby unnecessary or unjustifiable physical pain or suffering is caused or permitted. Animal cruelty may be the result of the failure to provide some necessary item for an animal, such as food, water, shelter, or veterinary care, or it may be caused by an intentional act of inflicting something harmful or painful to an animal. Both can be illegal acts punishable by imprisonment or fine.
Active cruelty implies malicious intent, where a person has deliberately and intentionally caused harm to an animal. Acts of active cruelty are often some of the most disturbing and should be considered signs of serious psychological problems. This type of behavior is often associated with sociopathic behavior and should be taken very seriously.

Passive cruelty is typified by cases of neglect, where the crime is a lack of action rather than the action itself - however do not let the terminology fool you. Severe animal neglect can cause incredible pain and suffering to an animal.
Examples of neglect are starvation, dehydration, parasite infestations, allowing a collar to grow into an animal’s skin, inadequate shelter in extreme weather conditions, and failure to seek veterinary care when an animal needs medical attention.
5. DISCRIMINATORY, SOCIOPATHIC DISREGARD FOR LAW, SIMPLE DECENCY AND COMPASSION ONLY BECAUSE THIS OCCURED IN A POOR DISTRICT TO A DOG OWNED BY A POOR MAN
None of this ever has happened, or ever would happen in an economically advantaged area, or to a dog or dog owner the officers perceived as economically advantaged, educated or powerful. Which brings in issues of discrimination and civil rights violations.
I challenge you to prove me wrong -- provide me with incident reports from Hancock Park, or your own neighborhoods or your own pets, where LAPD shot the pets, or your own pets, then threatened to shoot or arrest the owners or yourselves if you comforted or medically aided the injured pets.
6. UNFIT FOR POLICING OF ANY NATURE
If these officers, described as "veteran officers" were in fact doing their job of "community policing" they would have known Mr. Josephs, known Teri, taken reasonable options to avoid the dog if they were "scared" of her, and after such shooting, they also would have acted as decent human beings rather than as abusers with guns.
These officers demonstrated clear sociopathic attitudes and actions toward the animal, toward the owner, toward the community, residents and the public they are being paid to "protect and serve." They have proven themselves unfit for policing of any kind and also a danger to the community.
I understand that the female officer who fired the shot, Iglesias, has been taken off "field duty" -- with pay.
I call for all four bicycle officers and any supervising officers to be suspended without pay, investigated, fired and criminally prosecuted.
They have amply demonstrated that they are a foreseeable danger to animals, the community and to public safety.
The LA TIMES 2/19/05 article:
Police Shooting of Dog Sparks Anger
LAPD says the pit bull, licensed to a man living off an alley, menaced a bike patrol. Those who knew the animal say she was not aggressive.


Times Headlines

'News' Video Extols Gov.'s Plan


The Mayor's Race Is L.A.'s Traveling Circus


Inland Empire Sees Rise in Hate Crimes, Bucking Trend in State


Opening Statements in Jackson Trial Today


Burglars Striking It Rich in Bel-Air


more >


Most E-mailed

Tight Inventory May Send Region's Home Prices Surging Again


Treating hot flashes naturally


A spiritual treatment?


> more e-mailed stories








DOWNTOWN DOG RESCUE ANIMAL DEATHS POLICE SHOOTINGS

POLICE SHOOTINGS

ANIMAL DEATHS

DOWNTOWN DOG RESCUE









By Bob Pool, Times Staff Writer


Slow-moving and heavy-set, Teri the pit bull was the pride of animal lovers who find homes for stray dogs roaming the streets of downtown Los Angeles.

Leaders of the Downtown Dog Rescue would take those curious about their organization to an alley off 7th Place, where Teri lived with her master, Benny Josephs. Teri's photo even appears with Josephs' in the group's 2005 calendar, representing April.







But Teri won't be around to see the calendar page when it's flipped over at Josephs' alley alcove. On Wednesday, a Los Angeles police officer shot the animal in front of the gate to the pair's makeshift home. A city animal control officer said Teri died on the way to a clinic.

Police assert that the 70-pound dog attacked a column of four bicycle patrol officers riding through the alley west of Mateo Street.

The last officer in line, 10-year-veteran Gina Iglesias, fired the fatal shot "fearing for her safety," police said Friday.

"The apparently startled dog bared its teeth and attacked," officials said in a statement. None of the officers was injured; Iglesias, who is assigned to the Newton station, has been temporarily taken off field duty while a routine investigation into the shooting takes place, police said.

Angry dog-rescue volunteers and workers in the industrial neighborhood on the eastern edge of downtown condemned the shooting as unnecessary and officers' actions afterward as unconscionable.

A private security guard stationed in the alley was apparently the only witness to the shooting. On Friday he declined to comment.

Manuel Maldonado, a DHL delivery driver who works from a warehouse next to the shooting site, said he encountered Teri moments before the bicycle patrol pedaled up.

"I'd pulled into the alley and the dog was sleeping. I got out to tell her to move — you pet her and she'll move out of the way. A little later I heard a gunshot and went back to look and she was lying there in the same spot," Maldonado said.

"I don't think she even barked," he added. "This was unnecessary."

Driver Rollee Salgado said the bullet fired at Teri ricocheted into a green car parked in the alley.

"That dog was like a daughter to Benny. We'd give him food, and he'd turn around and give it to her," Salgado said.

Others who work nearby also said they doubted that the 10-year-old pit bull posed a serious threat to the officers.

"She was never aggressive. I never even heard her growl. There's no way she would attack," said Michael Faye, a photographer whose studio is nearby and who had known the dog for three years.

Mark Helf, an art director working at the studio on a sportswear advertising photo shoot, described the scene as heart-wrenching.

"They wouldn't let Benny go to his dog, even to put a compress on the wound. He had to basically watch his dog bleed to death and die over a two-hour period.

"I heard Benny plead, 'Please, please shoot my dog, put it out of its misery.' They wouldn't even do that," Helf said.

Josephs, who heard the gunshot but did not see the shooting, said he tried to aid his wounded dog but was blocked by police.

"Teri tried to get up and kept falling down. They wouldn't let me help her," he said.

The 58-year-old Josephs, who does odd jobs in exchange for permission to live in a small shed in a fenced-in alcove off the alley, was one of Downtown Dog Rescue's first clients when it was created in 1998.

Rescue workers had found him overwhelmed with strays that he had taken in. Eventually, volunteers found new homes for 10 adult dogs and 40 puppies he was struggling to feed. Josephs kept Teri and two other older dogs after the rescue group spayed and neutered them and helped him license them.

On Friday, Josephs used cans of dog food to illustrate where the officers were positioned as they rode through the alley. He said a male officer riding tandem with another rider indicated that he had fired the shot.

"The one officer said he thought the dog was going to do something to the lady" riding at the rear of the group, Josephs said. "He said he was fearful for his partner."

Josephs said police closely inspected the green car that he said was punctured by the ricocheting bullet. He said it belongs to a woman whose name he did not know but who works in the area.

Detectives investigating the shooting would not comment. An LAPD spokeswoman said the report filed after the incident did not indicate that a vehicle had been struck by a bullet. The department's Force Investigation Division is probing the incident.

Organizers of Downtown Dog Rescue, meantime, were calling Friday for a wider investigation.

Rescue founders Lori Weise and Richard Tuttlemondo said Josephs was essentially dismissed as a homeless transient by authorities, even though Teri was licensed to him at the 7th Place address.

She believes the officer's actions were excessive and dangerous to the entire neighborhood.

"If they felt threatened, why didn't they just Mace her?" Weise said. "Postmen do it every day."

:"f you want to reduce crime from addicts, just give them the drugs for free. The net cost is relatively low. If someone does $100 of damage to your car to get a $150 stereo, that's sold for $20, to buy coke that wholesaled for $10, and cost $1 to make and package... that's a $249 cost for $1 worth of cocaine"

what did i fail to get?

...unless, of course, they're republican...in which case we promptly run them for high office....

You are all a pack of raving dorks. Good night.

Interesting site though views that I don't agree with ( most) .

My thoughts on the Devon Brown case are at my own blog but as far as the community taking care of themselves....umm, most can't take care of their own kids or even themselves.

http://behindthebadge.blogspot.com/