April 19, a female scooter rider killed a man by squeezing his testicles for the packing dispute, in Haikou City, Hainan Province.
It was learned, the woman, 41 years old, rode on her scooter to an elementary school in Meilan District, Haikou City to pick up her child that day. When she wanted to pack her scooter in front of a shop, she was rejected by the shop owner, a 42-year-old male.
The two parties soon fell into a quarrel, and then the physical confrontation. The furious woman called up her husband and brother to come help her, which resulted in a more violent fist fight.
During the fight, the middle aged woman manged to grab the man’s testicles, and squeezed them till he finally collapsed on the ground.
The man was immediately rushed to hospital, but unfortunately died there despite of efforts.
The Dragonater taught Tona how to WIN in traffic court, and she got a letter of apology from a judge.
Tona Monroe will kick off her campaign for State Representative with a free Constitution class and a meet and greet lunch.
Tona has developed a reputation, within the community, for being a strict constitutionalist. During the 2010 campaign season, when she tried to ask a Mayoral candidate a question he quipped, “Tona, if it’s about the Constitution, I agree with you,” before she asked her question.
Come meet Tona, eat some pizza and learn about our great Constitution. Even if you can’t attend the Constitution class, please come for lunch between 12-1 to meet Tona, socialize with your neighbors and enjoy some pizza.
Speakers: Hal Rounds
Tona will speak about constitutional principles which are being violated and how we can restore them.
When: May 19, 2012
Time: 9 AM-5PM
Lunch break from Noon-1 PM with pizza
Location:
Big Springs Community Club Building
802 Kirk Road
Greenback, TN 37742
Would you pay an extra $1,500 for a new motorcycle, in addition to sales taxes, so your bankrupt insurance company can avoid claims, and police can arrest you, and Big Brother can tax you by the mile? Or will you just keep the bike you have, forever? Big Brother has already cut motorcycle sales by 85% in 2012, time to kill that final 15% and give Harley another billion to export factories to Commie China with Govt Motors and Cadillac...
A bill already passed by the Senate and set to be ratified by the House not only mandates black box tracking devices in all new cars, it also orders the deployment of ‘vehicle to infrastructure’ communication systems, in other words your vehicle will become part of ‘the Internet of things’ and will be open to constant real-time tracking, eavesdropping and surveillance.
Although introduced and promoted by Democrats Harry Reid and Barbara Boxer, Senate BIll 1813, entitled ‘Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act’ (MAP-21), is expected to be passed by the Republican-controlled House because of its numerous revenue generating provisions.
However, the bill is stuffed full of nightmare big government regulations, including empowering the IRS to revoke passports of accused tax delinquents(without trial nor conviction) as well as mandating the installation of black box tracking devices, eventually designed to be used in a tax-by-the-mile system, in all new vehicles from 2015.
Yet another Big Brother measure that is contained deep within the bill appears in Section 53006 – the “Vehicle-to-vehicle and vehicle-to-infrastructure communications systems deployment.”
‘(a) In General- Not later than 3 years after the date of enactment of this section, the Secretary shall submit a report to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate, the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives, and the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives that–
‘(1) defines a recommended implementation path for dedicated short-range communications technology and applications;
‘(2) includes guidance on the relationship of the proposed deployment of dedicated short-range communications to the National ITS Architecture and ITS Standards; and
‘(3) ensures competition by not preferencing the use of any particular frequency for vehicle to infrastructure operations.
In simpler terms, this lays the framework for vehicles to be installed with communications systems that constantly beam information about location and other diagnostics both to other vehicles, potentially police cars, as well as infrastructure. Given the fact that light poles are now being fitted with computers that both receive and broadcast wireless Internet signals, this would be the easiest method of connecting all vehicles to the ‘Internet of things’ in the future. Alternatively, 3G or 4G signals would also do the same job.
Not only would this open the door to total surveillance of Americans’ traveling habits as well as constant real time eavesdropping of what is happening inside their vehicle, including audio sensors to record conversations (which are already embedded in the new ‘Intellistreets’ light poles), it would also grease the skids for a carbon tax system whereby drivers are charged by the mile.
As we reported last month, the Internet of things is the process of manufacturing every new product with a system that broadcasts wirelessly via the world wide web, allowing industry and the government to spy ubiquitously on every aspect of your existence.
CIA chief General David "BetrayUS" Petraeus has hailed the “Internet of things” as a transformational boon for “clandestine tradecraft”. In other words, it will soon be easier than ever before to keep tabs on the population since everything they use will be connected to the web, with total disregard for privacy considerations. The spooks won’t have to plant a bug in your home or your vehicle, you will be doing it for them.
The ‘Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act’ represents nothing less than a full frontal assault on the mobility rights of Americans, as well as codifying into law mandatory surveillance technology that will allow the government to both spy on drivers as well as taxing them directly under any future CO2 emissions tax system.
Forbes writer Kashmir Hill responds to our report about black box data recorders becoming mandatory in all new cars under a bill set to be passed by the House by accusing Infowars of engaging in a “freak out” and claiming the legislation is “good for privacy” when in reality it destroys privacy.
“The big news in automotive privacy this week is that Congress is on the verge of passing a transportation bill that will make “big brother” black boxes mandatory in all new cars. InfoWars is encouraging drivers to freak out about the horrific invasion of privacy represented by the government’s insisting that all Americans have event data recorders that reveal exactly what happened before and after a crash. But the truth of the matter is that most Americans already have black boxes in their cars. They’ve been around since 1996, are found in at least 60 million vehicles, and are a feature in 85% of new cars every year,” writes Hill in a piece entitled Hate To Break It To You, But Your Car Likely Has A Black Box ‘Spying’ On You Already.
Hill’s attitude seems to stem from the mind set that the state has already eviscerated our privacy, so why should we bother fighting back to salvage what’s left of it? She brazenly dismisses fourth amendment rights as “roadkill” simply because having a black box in your vehicle might help the authorities work out who was responsible for an accident.
The most chilling aspect of this approach is that Hill bills herself as a privacy expert yet she has no idea about the ‘slippery slope’ principle and has seemingly failed to read the ‘Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act’ (MAP-21), on which her article is based.
The point of our original story was not that the black boxes will merely be in all new cars from 2015 onwards if this bill passes, it’s that it will be mandatory to activate them and anyone who attempts to deactivate them will be hit with civil penalties under section 31406 of the bill. This is about creating the groundwork for a future tax by the mile system which has been aggressively promoted by the Obama administration.
Sinking further into the depths of idiocy, Hill claims that both the mandatory black boxes and the entire bill itself are “actually good for privacy in a few ways,” because the legislation establishes “that the data in the recorder belongs to the owner (or lessee) of a vehicle.”
Just like every other piece of data was originally owned by us – web history, phone calls, library records, until the government demanded ISPs, cell phone companies and libraries turn them over in the name of security.
In addition, the empty-headed notion that the bill is “good for privacy” completely ignores the other sections of it which Hill has obviously failed to read.
Section 53006 of the bill – the “Vehicle-to-vehicle and vehicle-to-infrastructure communications systems deployment,” creates the framework for all vehicles to be connected wirelessly to other vehicles and infrastructure (such as the new street lights which are being installed with “Homeland Security applications” and can listen in on conversations), greasing the skids for constant real-time tracking, eavesdropping and surveillance.
Presumably, Hill thinks that all vehicles being connected to the ‘Internet of things’ – a transformation which CIA chief David Petraeus recently hailed as making it much easier for the government to spy on you – is also “good for privacy”?
The legislation also includes a provision that allows the federal government to revoke passports of Americans accused of owing back taxes, a measure slammed by legal experts as anathema to the constitution.
Presumably Hill thinks the IRS sharing information about your financial situation with the TSA and US Immigration authorities is also “good for privacy” too?
Is it any wonder that people are turing away from the mainstream media in droves when columnists like Hill, who grandstand as privacy experts, praise legislation like MAP-21, a bill that is brimming with horrendous measures that will destroy privacy, as being “good for privacy”?
Not too long ago, a panel of transportation experts convened in Michigan to discuss the emerging controversy involving vehicle data recorders (VDRs). The panel's focus was on yet another "little black box" being installed on most new vehicles made by Ford and General Motors. It's a fairly innocuous thing, about the size of a cigarette pack, that digitally records about five seconds of data when the vehicle's airbag is activated. Information recorded involves recent speed changes, throttle position, braking application and seat belt use.
Sounds fairly sensible, and quite probably it's even a very useful device for determining the cause of an accident. But stop and think for a moment.
Who owns that information? And what about our constitutional protection against self-incrimination? Does the state, or perhaps your insurance company, have the right to use that information against you to raise your insurance rates, or to prosecute you and perhaps even send you to jail? The consensus among the panel was that, legally, the information belongs to the owner of the vehicle and can't be used without his permission, but... read on.
So, what about your right to privacy or freedom from self-incrimination?
First of all, if you're wondering what this has to do with motorcycling, I couldn't find a single expert in the industry who doesn't believe that VDRs will soon be mandatory on every motor vehicle sold in the US, which, of course, will include our motorcycles. Secondly, it is also worth noting that these devices are capable of recording tons more information than what they currently capture. And, I am told that it would be a simple matter for the NHTSA to require the collection of any data from these devices that they might deem useful to them.
The Michigan panel also noted that under some new laws passed recently, the Department of Homeland Security and the Attorney General's office can also access that data. So, what about your right to privacy or freedom from self-incrimination?
According to the National Motorists Association (NMA), even if Homeland Security or the AG isn't interested in your "private" information, you have probably already waived your right to privacy by way of a clause in your insurance policy, promising that you will "cooperate" with your insurance company by granting access to any information that could conceivably help settle a claim....you have probably already waived your right to privacy by way of a clause in your insurance policy, promising that you will "cooperate" with your insurance company by granting access to any information that could conceivably help settle a claim.
You might be able to secure a court order to stop them, but don't bother, because I'm also told that virtually any state agency could still access your data, under the "implied consent" clause that is standard in most states as part of your being issued a driver's license.
You might be thinking at this point that at least you're safe from this invasion unless and until you break the law, or get involved in an accident. Wrong again. Already, certain models of cars with on-board GPS systems can transmit your data to anyone with a receiver and an access code -- hopefully, that would be a legally-recognized law enforcement agency.
But who knows? You won't even know when it's being done. And even if your vehicle isn't equipped with GPS, don't worry, they've got that covered, too. Soon, all the VDRs will be equipped with wireless Internet capability, so that State Trooper following you can simply tap your license plate number into his keyboard, and download your every move for the past several weeks. Not to mention he won't need radar anymore to clock your speed -- your car or bike will do it for him, and even tell him if you were speeding last Tuesday.
If all this sounds futuristic to you -- hang onto your helmets. In Europe, they're working on a similar system, with GPS, to be used for charging road tolls. The tolls vary by the road used and the time of day, and are calculated by a computer that attaches a per-mile fee. Toll meters at gas stops then automatically charge your credit card or bank account for your road-use tolls when you stop for gas.
The computer also knows the speed limit on each road you took, and whether or not you exceeded it, and will automatically add your speeding fines onto your tolls. Isn't technology wonderful?
"It'll never happen!" you say? Surprise! The toll-meter boxes are already a reality in Swiss and German commercial trucks, and Deutsche-Telekom, together with Daimler-Chrysler, have a government contract in hand to install them in all trucks in Germany very soon.
The toll-meter boxes are already a reality in Swiss and German commercial trucks... How much longer before they make their way into private vehicles?How much longer before they make their way into private vehicles? In answer to my own question, Australia seems to think it can't come soon enough. In New South Wales, the Road and Traffic Authority has looked at our VDRs, and Germany's GPS-enabled toll meters, and decided that not only are they a good idea, but they should be taken one step further. The plan being considered there would include another wrinkle -- mandatory engine governors that would make sure that your vehicle could never exceed the posted speed limit of wherever you're driving at the time. The RTA General Manager is promoting this plan, and has the backing of a powerful organization called "Staysafe," which claims the system could reduce traffic accidents by as much as 50%.
Now, I don't believe that Americans will ever stand still for the speed governors, but then again, I don't believe anyone in the US is even considering that option. What they're pushing for here, instead, is the automated fine system, so you can basically speed all you want, so long as you're prepared to pay for it. After all, that is the American Way, isn't it? But don't think you might get away without paying, because our government, though not interested in making the system capable of physically slowing us down, is in favor of adding a "start inhibitor," that would simply immobilize your vehicle if you have unpaid traffic fines.
A neat solution, and one that clearly points out that though the proponents of these systems will beat their collective breasts and cry "safety" when extolling the plan, they are not quite so interested in public safety as they are in "revenue generation." The Federal, State and local governments, and especially the insurance companies, will win big. And we, the motoring public, will lose. They will console us with their mantra that it makes the world a safer place.
Maybe I sound like a wild-eyed conspiracy theorist, but when in our history has our government ever opted for less regulation on our motoring? And the systems I describe here aren't science-fiction, they're already here, and in use in several places. And quite frankly, I doubt that there is a damn thing we can do about it.
Progressive, one of the nation's largest auto insurers, today launches a nationwide ad campaign for its "Snapshot" program, in which drivers can elect to install a small data recorder in their cars that tracks how hard they brake, how far they drive and whether it's day or night driving. Based on the results, drivers can save up to 30% on their insurance. Average savings: $150 a year.
Progressive is one of a growing list of insurers with discounts for monitoring:
Although the programs are voluntary, they've raised the eyebrows of privacy advocates. One worry is that the insurers eventually will make the monitoring mandatory.
And while insurers say they information will only be used for discounts — not punitively — there is little to prevent them from "changing the rules down the line" says Robert Ellis Smith, publisher of Privacy Journal. And, he notes, some states have privacy laws that might ban such programs even if drivers are willing to opt in.
Progressive says it is trying to protect privacy while delivering discounts. It notes that its device, for instance, doesn't have GPS tracking, so it doesn't know where a participant is driving. It also doesn't monitor speed. "We know that privacy is a big issue for consumers," says CEO Glenn Renwick.
He predicts the program, now available in 32 states, will appeal to drivers who feel they aren't getting the discounts that their safe driving habits deserve. Insurance companies typically set rates based on accidents or tickets, but also on such factors as age, gender and ZIP code.
Insurers see the programs as a better way to identify the safest drivers who should get the biggest discounts. "Snapshot provides the first tangible way for you to tell the insurance company 'This is who I am' as a driver," says Renwick. "Now, we have an opportunity to have data we never had before."
NEW HAVEN, CONN. -- An eye-opening state police internal memorandum obtained by News 8 challenges state troopers in one barracks to out-perform their trooper colleagues by writing hundreds of tickets on Friday.
The memo, distributed at Troop I in Bethany and obtained exclusively by News 8, basically lays down the gauntlet and any driver on a state highway is fair game.
According to this document, starting tonight at midnight, patrols will be stepped up. The memo from Lt. Anthony Schirillo says in part;
"...we have to issue at least 60 infractions / Misdemeanors each shift for a total of 180 infractions in order to outperform both Troop F and Troop G.
"...One day Troop F issued 301 tickets. Troop G responded by issuing 345 in one day. We can do better...
"I am asking that everyone, myself included, contribute to this effort...
"NOTE if we happen to issue 350 tickets in one day that would be stellar."
News 8 spoke at length with Lt. Paul Vance, spokesman for the Connecticut state police. In response to the allegation that this is a quota system, which the state police union alleges, Lt. Vance said no one is given a quota, this is not a game, they don't do that, and have never done that.
Another memo obtained by News 8 says "The master sergeant and I will buy pizza for the shift with the highest total."
Update: More reaction from Lt. Vance and state police union president Andrew Matthews posted here.
State police: "This is not a quota" [because that would be a felony]
05 Apr 2012
Bob Wilson
WTNH TV
NEW HAVEN, CONN. -- Connecticut's state police union is angry over a memo, obtained by News 8, that encourages troopers in the Bethany barracks going on a ticketing spree Friday to beat other barracks and win pizza.
The email, from Lt. Anthony Schirillo, challenges troopers to write 350 tickets or more during a 24 hour window starting at 12:01 a.m. Friday. The shift with the most tickets gets pizza, another message said.
"This is not a joke or a game," State police spokesman Lt. J. Paul Vance said. "It's a troop commanders' attempt to stimulate his personnel to enhance highway safety and this goes on all across the state. You will see enhanced enforcement as we continue along in the spring months."
"Troopers are expected to do their job," union president Andrew Matthews said. "We will do our job, but we don't need to be told we need a certain number of tickets within a specified period of time."
The state police union calls it ticket blitzing -- Connecticut trying to make money off of enforcement.
"And by definition under statute a quota is a specific number of infractions or summonses within a specified period of time and that is what the email said," said Matthews.
Which is illegal under that statute. Lt. Vance says it's not a quota. Rather, it's a way to motivate troopers to enhance highway safety. He says it's something state troopers do every Spring.
"Even last week we had a [Department of Transportation] worker killed on our highways just doing his job," Vance said. "We had troopers down in Bridgeport make two stops of people going over 100 mph. Not only were they motor vehicle stops for speeding, but they resulted in a convicted felon with a gun and another individual with narcotics and narcotics money."
Is the memo motivational or revenue?
"Whether it's motivational or a quota, it's disturbing to us because at a time when the taxpayers are out of work 'cause they're unemployed, or gas is $4 a gallon and unemployment is like around 9%, now is not the time to be just issuing tickets to generate revenue," Matthews said.
"This is not a quota. Troopers have discretion," Vance said.
"There is nothing more difficult for a Connecticut state trooper than to stop a family -- a husband, a wife, a couple of children in the back -- for a motor vehicle violation, and hand that family a $275 ticket for violation of the rules of the road. But we look at that family and hope that we have saved a life, hahaha."
WASHINGTON (AP) – Jailers may perform invasive strip searches on people arrested even for minor offenses, an ideologically divided Supreme Court ruled Monday, the conservative majority declaring that security trumps privacy in an often dangerous environment.
In a 5-4 decision, the court ruled against a New Jersey man who was strip searched in two county jails following his arrest on a warrant for an unpaid fine that he had, in reality, paid.
The decision resolved a conflict among lower courts about how to balance security and privacy. Prior to the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, lower courts generally prohibited routine strip searches for minor offenses. In recent years, however, courts have allowed jailers more discretion to maintain security, and the high court ruling ratified those decisions.
In this case, Albert Florence's nightmare began when the sport utility vehicle driven by his pregnant wife was pulled over for speeding. He was a passenger; his 4-year-old son was in the backseat.
Justice Anthony Kennedy said the circumstances of the arrest were of little importance. Instead, Kennedy said, Florence's entry into the general jail population gave guards the authorization to force him to strip naked and expose his mouth, nose, ears and genitals to a visual search in case he was hiding anything.
"Courts must defer to the judgment of correctional officials unless the record contains substantial evidence showing their policies are an unnecessary or unjustified response to problems of jail security," Kennedy said.
In a dissenting opinion joined by the court's liberals, Justice Stephen Breyer said strip searches improperly "subject those arrested for minor offenses to serious invasions of their personal privacy." Breyer said jailers ought to have a reasonable suspicion someone may be hiding something before conducting a strip search.
Breyer said people like Florence "are often stopped and arrested unexpectedly. And they consequently will have had little opportunity to hide things in their body cavities."
Florence made the same point in his arguments: He said he was headed to dinner at his mother-in-law's house when he was stopped in March 2005. He also said that even if the warrant had been valid, failure to pay a fine is not a crime in New Jersey.
But Kennedy focused on the fact that Florence was held with other inmates in the general population. In concurring opinions, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito said the decision left open the possibility of an exception to the rule and might not apply to someone held apart from other inmates.
Kennedy gave three reasons to justify routine searches — detecting lice and contagious infections, looking for tattoos and other evidence of gang membership and preventing smuggling of drugs and weapons.
Kennedy also said people arrested for minor offenses can turn out to be "the most devious and dangerous criminals." Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh initially was stopped by a state trooper who noticed McVeigh was driving without a license plate, Kennedy said.
In his dissent, Breyer said inmates in the two New Jersey jails already have to submit to pat-down searches, pass through metal detectors, shower with delousing agents and have their clothing searched.
Many jails, several states and associations of corrections officials say strip searches should be done only when there is reasonable suspicion, which could include arrest on drug charges or for violent crimes, Breyer said.
Susan Chana Lask, Florence's lawyer, said, "The 5-4 decision was as close as we could get … in this political climate with recent law for indefinite detention of citizens without trial that shaves away our constitutional rights every day."
The first strip search of Florence took place in the Burlington County Jail in southern New Jersey. Six days later, Florence had not received a hearing and remained in custody. Transferred to another county jail in Newark, he was strip-searched again.
The next day, a judge dismissed all charges. Florence's lawsuit soon followed.
He still may pursue other claims, including that he never should have been arrested.
Florence, who is African-American, had been stopped several times before, and he carried a letter to the effect that the fine, for fleeing a traffic stop several years earlier, had been paid.
His protest was in vain, however, and the trooper handcuffed him and took him to jail. At the time, the State Police were operating under a court order, because of allegations of past racial discrimination, that provided federal monitors to assess stops of minority drivers. But the propriety of the stop is not at issue, and Florence is not alleging racial discrimination.
In 1979, the Supreme Court upheld a blanket policy of conducting body cavity searches of prisoners who had had contact with visitors on the basis that the interaction with outsiders created the possibility that some prisoners had obtained something they shouldn't have.
For the next 30 or so years, appeals courts applying the high court ruling held uniformly that strip searches without suspicion violated the Constitution.
But since 2008 — in the first appellate rulings on the issue since the Sept. 11 attacks — appeals courts in Atlanta, Philadelphia and San Francisco have decided that a need by authorities to maintain security justified a wide-ranging search policy, no matter the reason for someone's detention.
The high court upheld the ruling from the Philadelphia court, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
"Now if the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms comes to disarm you and they are bearing arms, resist them with arms. Go for a head shot; they're going to be wearing bulletproof vests. They've got a big target on there, ATF. Don't shoot at that, because they've got a vest on underneath that. Head shots, head shots.... Kill the sons of bitches. If the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms insists upon a firefight, give them a firefight. Just remember, they're wearing flak jackets and you're better off shooting for the head. I was talking about a situation in which law enforcement agents come smashing into a house, don't say who they are and their guns are out, they're shooting and they're in the wrong place. This has happened time and time again. The ATF has gone in and gotten the wrong person in the wrong place. The law is that if somebody is shooting at you, using deadly force, the mere fact that they are a law enforcement officer, if they are in the wrong, does not mean you are obliged to allow yourself to be killed so your kinfolk can have a wrongful death action. You are legally entitled to defend yourself and I was speaking of exactly those kind of situations. If you're going to do that, you should know that they're wearing body armor so you should use a head shot. Now all I'm doing is stating the law."
-FBI agent G Gordon Liddy, attorney at law and convicted felon Watergate burgler on his radio show
By Eric Bradner
Evansville Courier & Press
March 21, 2012
INDIANAPOLIS — Although he said it was a "close call" that took days of consideration, Gov. Mitch Daniels signed into law a measure that gives Hoosiers the right to use force to resist police officers who illegally enter their homes.
The new law is a reversal from last year's controversial Indiana Supreme Court decision. Advocates called it an effort to protect against rogue police – although Daniels acknowledged that the law might create perception problems.
"In the real world, there will almost never be a situation in which these extremely narrow conditions are met. So as a matter of law, law enforcement officers will be better protected than before, not less so," Daniels said.
"What is troubling to law enforcement officers, and to me, is the chance that citizens hearing reports of change will misunderstand what the law says."
It was the only bill the Indiana General Assembly passed during the 2012 legislative session that the Republican governor was seriously considering sending back with a veto. His signature means he rejected nothing lawmakers sent him this year.
The issue was sparked by the state high court's decision in the case of Richard Barnes, an Evansville man who fought a police officer who entered his house while responding to a call reporting a domestic dispute.
The court found that officers sometimes enter homes without warrants for reasons protected by the law, such as pursuing suspects or preventing the destruction of evidence.
"In these situations, we find it unwise to allow a homeowner to adjudge the legality of police conduct in the heat of the moment," the court said. "As we decline to recognize a right to resist unlawful police entry into a home, we decline to recognize a right to batter a police officer as a part of that resistance."
The new law only gives Hoosiers the right to resist officers who they believe are acting unlawfully. Using deadly force against an officer is only protected to prevent serious bodily injury.
Groups such as the Fraternal Order of Police and other law enforcement organizations had lobbied against the measure. Rep. Linda Lawson, the No. 2-ranking House Democrat and a former police officer, said it will create "open season on law enforcement."
In a statement announcing his decision to sign Senate Enrolled Act 1, Daniels sought to underscore that the law does not create what some opponents said would be an open season on law enforcement officers.
"Today is an important day to say: Indiana's outstanding law enforcement officers put their lives on the line every day to protect all Hoosiers. The right thing to do is cooperate with them in every way possible. This law is not an invitation to use violence or force against law enforcement officers," he said.
"In fact, it restricts when an individual can use force, specifically deadly force, on an officer, so don't try anything. Chances are overwhelming you will be breaking the law and wind up in far worse trouble as a result."
In the waning days of this year's session, lawmakers complained that the measure had become dramatized. House Speaker Brian Bosma, R-Indianapolis, said what lawmakers did was write a jury instruction.
Still, Daniels took meetings this week with advocates and opponents, and said the law's message is something to consider. "It's a close call," he said.
NEW ORLEANS -- Four New Orleans police officers were sentenced to 38 to 65 years in prison for convictions including violating the civil rights of two people killed a week after Hurricane Katrina devastated the city in 2005.
U.S. District Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt in New Orleans sentenced a fifth officer today to six years in prison for covering up the crimes.
A federal jury in August convicted officers Kenneth Bowen, Robert Gisevius, Robert Faulcon and Anthony Villavaso of opening fire on unarmed black civilians on the city’s Danziger Bridge and conspiring with others to cover up their actions. The fifth, homicide detective Arthur “Archie” Kaufman, was convicted of conspiring to make the shootings appear justified.
“We hope that today’s sentences give a measure of peace and closure to the victims of this terrible shooting, who have suffered unspeakable pain and who have waited so patiently for justice to be done,” Thomas E. Perez, assistant attorney general for the Justice Department’s civil rights division, said in an e-mailed statement. “The officers who shot innocent people on the bridge and then went to great lengths to cover up their own crimes have finally been held accountable for their actions.”
The civil rights violations caused the deaths of James Brissette and Ronald Madison, the jury found, which meant that the four officers directly involved faced a maximum punishment of life in prison. Bowen was sentenced to 40 years, Faulcon to 65, Gisevius to 40, Villavaso to 38, and Kaufman to six.
After Katrina
The shootings took place on Sept. 4, 2005, one week after Katrina flooded most of New Orleans and one day after stranded evacuees were airlifted and bused to safety.
A July 2010 indictment accused Bowen, Gisevius, Faulcon and Villavaso of firing on a family on the east side of the Danziger Bridge, killing James Brissette, 17, and wounding four other people. The defendants said they were responding to a policewoman’s radio call of officers and rescue workers in danger.
The U.S. accused Faulcon of shooting Ronald Madison, a 40- year-old man with mental disabilities, on the other side of the bridge. The jury said Faulcon’s actions didn’t amount to murder.
Kaufman, the homicide detective, was charged with joining the officers in a conspiracy to conceal what happened at the bridge. Kaufman was convicted on 10 counts including obstruction of justice and fabrication of evidence.
‘See His Father’
Engelhardt said at the sentencing hearing today that he was restricted by federal guidelines or would have imposed shorter prison terms. He noted that Faulcon’s son was born after Katrina.
“He will never see his father outside a prison wall under this sentencing scheme,” Engelhardt said.
The judge said that five other police officers who pleaded guilty received much lower sentences. “One can only be astonished and deeply troubled by the plea bargains allowed in the Danziger Bridge matter,” he said.
“Using liars to convict liars is no way to pursue justice,” Engelhardt said, referring to cooperating officers who testified against the defendants.
Federal prosecutors wouldn’t have had a case without enlisting the help of cooperating witnesses, Perez, the assistant attorney general, said in a conference call with reporters today.
‘Prosecution Fell Apart’
“It’s important to understand where we were in the year 2008, which was three-plus years after the shooting and the state prosecution fell apart, frankly, and we had nothing,” Perez said. “We had to build a case from scratch and you don’t go to the witness store and pick out witnesses to build a case. You have to do your leg work and see where you can go.”
Attorneys for the four accused shooters depicted their clients at trial as dedicated officers who refused to abandon their posts, rescuing residents from Katrina’s floodwaters both before and after the shootings.
The defendants claimed they were responding to gunfire and that they believed the shooting victims were a danger to themselves and others. They also denied involvement in a cover- up.
The U.S. said at trial there was no evidence that any of the civilians had guns.
The judge said the “context of Katrina cannot be ignored” in the case. This included widespread looting and escalating fear of gunfire, Engelhardt said.
![•See the memo [.png image]](http://media2.wtnh.com/_local/served/ticket-email.png){kind=link}