Trishawn Carey, a mentally ill woman is charged with assault for raising a police baton

The LA Police Department and Prosecutors don't have enough to do.  They have filed "3-strike" charges against a homeless, mentally ill woman for picking up a policeman's baton or "night stick" waving it around and then dropping it.  A good front-page headline article in July 24 2015 LA times by Marisa Gerber and Richard Winton explains the situation.
I think LAPD and Prosecutors are abusing the intent and spirit of the 3-strikes law and they should know better than do this to a person known to be mentally ill.  It seems crazy and expensive to taxpayers to spend the money to have a court trial for such an insignificant charge.  It seems also crazy to send her to prison for 25 years.
On the other hand -- maybe there is more to the story.  Maybe she actually "WANTS" to be in prison where she can get her three square meals, a bed, and her proper medications, rather than live on the street.  

House should Join Senate in Torture Ban

Today's Union Tribune had an oped by Dr. David Debus, a San Diego psychologist who has been active in the anti-torture movement.
See this link:  http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2015/jul/23/cia-torture-ban-legislation/
Dr Debus is asking the US House of Representatives to pass a bill (McCain-Feinstein Bill) that has already passed the Senate that will ban the CIA from torturing people.  I am writing my congressman, Darrell Issa to ask him to vote for it, and I hope others will encourage their representatives to do likewise.  I tend to doubt that Issa will vote for it, because he has generally voted with all of the right-wingers in favor of torture.  He certainly supported all of Bush/Cheney's torture efforts including rendition, and Guantanamo.  We can hope he might have a change of heart?
I think that the US torturing people is an embarrassment for the US and it violates everything our country stands for. Of course, nobody in the military would be permitted to torture someone, because it is against the US law, and international law, and an order to do so, would be an illegal order.  If we do it to people from other countries, then it would make it "ok" for other countries to do it to our soldiers and citizens when captured abroad.  Apparently, the US even did it to American citizens.  It isn't clear to me why CIA employees should have been "exempt" from US law in the first place.  I have a hard time understanding why nobody has ever been prosecuted for torturing prisoners.
In the series "24" We all saw how torture was dramatized in situations where information might be needed to prevent an imminent disaster that could kill millions. Would torture in that type of situation make sense?  I don't know!  --but keeping people prisoners for years and torturing them seems like punishment, and not a valid method for extracting useful information.

FORFEITURE BILL WOULD HELP TAKE PROFITEERING OUT OF POLICING | SanDiegoUnionTribune.com

I've been a critic of asset forfeiture by law enforcement since it first started.  It seems like a great idea!  If a criminal acquires assets such as homes, cars, or land, using funds obtained illegally, then they should not be entitled to keep those assets.  That, in principle, makes perfect sense!  The assets then should be used to compensate those injured by the criminals.  If the assets were stolen, then they should be returned to the people they were stolen from.  However if the assets were obtained from an illegal activity such as drugs, prostitution, or gambling, who should get the "loot" from the forfeiture?  It would seem logical that the Government should receive the assets, as a representative of the people.  However which Government should get the loot?  City, State, or Federal?  Also how should those funds be used?  Somehow, our laws got twisted to make our Police forces benefit from "looting and pillaging" citizens so the police forces were entitled to take an keep any assets they could "capture" without any judicial process.  They could pull over a car for a "fuzzy dice hanging from mirror" violation, toss a small bag of marijuana in the back and then claim the owner was a "drug runner."  Then they could confiscate and keep the car, and the poor owner would have to spend their own money to hire a lawyer to get their car back.  The car would be "guilty until proven innocent" --.!! There have been notorious cases where drug enforcement agencies have seized valuable real estate when pot plants (wild or planted) were discovered on the property.  Forfeiture makes sense if we thought that the police forces would only use the right when they really were dealing with a criminal.  But who determines that the person is a criminal, unless the person is charged and convicted of being one?

That is not the way our justice system is supposed to work!

It does make sense for the Government and Police to "capture" and "freeze" any assets at the time of the arrest.  I'm sure police and prosecutors don't like the thought that a drug dealer might hire an expensive lawyer to defend them using proceeds from their drug business.  However, who separates the funds obtained illegally from those that might be legal?  The whole process needs to be "adjusted" to protect citizens from police abuse. Changes need to be made to protect citizens, but also capture those assets that might have been obtained illegally before they can be liquidated.  It is a shame that police and prosecutors take laws that make sense when passed and then abuse them against good judgement.  The "Three Strikes Law" made good sense when we passed it in California, and it was advertised and sold to the public as a way to get people who commit three "violent crimes" off the street.  Then the police forces started using it to extort confessions out of people charged with non-violent crimes, and sent far too many people to prison for extended sentences for minor crimes, such as use or sale of recreational drugs.  The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization (RICO) law was passed in 1970 as an attempt to combat the Mafia.  Police forces and prosecutors used that law far beyond what it was intended, and now use it against kids neighborhood clubs, which they call "gangs."  That has further violated many of our bill of rights freedoms.  Now our California legislature is considering a bill (Senate Bill SB443) that will help reduce some of the unchecked powers our police forces have with asset forfeiture.  The bill makes sense!  See this article by Steven Grenhut in today's Union Tribune:

FORFEITURE BILL WOULD HELP TAKE PROFITEERING OUT OF POLICING | SanDiegoUnionTribune.com

However, it is clear that the Police forces really do like "looting and pillaging" their neighbors.  They are fighting hard to keep the right to steal our stuff for their own use, and try to prevent us from getting it back without hiring lawyers at our expense.  I really do hope that the bill passes!

National security measures more invasive than effective | UTSanDiego.com

Ann McFeatters had a well-written column in Sunday's San Diego Union Tribune that pointed out the dilemma that we have in trying to stop terrorism.

National security measures more invasive than effective | UTSanDiego.com

She explained that TSA caught her gift of perfume that was slightly more than the 3 oz maximum, but apparently misses many of the guns and knives that their own inspectors are able to pass through the airport inspections. Apparently bomb-making materials got through 67 out of 70 attempts.   The good news is that TSA does have a program to "test" their inspection system.  I hope their statistics improve!  I wonder if they are too focused on collecting up the loose change ($675,000 in  year) and miss doing what they are supposed to be doing (See this link).   I've often thought that TSA designed the airport checkpoints to maximize opportunity for people to leave change and valuables.  It is also now reported (Ashley Halsey, Washington Post) that TSA is trying to catch whoever "leaked" the report on the results of the security tests with guns & knives. It appears to me that again, the Government is trying to "kill the messenger" by finding the "leaker" rather than correcting the problem.  NSA did the same thing with Snowden, who reported the Government was spying on Americans.  Of course nobody in NSA has been prosecuted for violating the law, or lying to congress, but they do want to catch Snowden!

It is obvious that it is much easier for a terrorist to cause damage, death, or injury, than it is to defend against the terrorism.  To a terrorist, every place and every person is a target.  To the defenders, a target terrorist could be anyone, and their weapon could be almost anything!  It could be a liquid, a solid, a powder, a knife, a gas, or even a sharp stick!  That's what makes terrorism so easy to do, and difficult to defend against. When a terrorist is willing to give up his life, it is even more difficult!

The terrorists have seemingly "won" most of the war so far.  They have successfully caused all citizens in almost all countries to take expensive and cumbersome actions which have reduced our freedoms.  Perversely, terrorist organizations can then say that the governments in our countries are taking away freedoms, and use that as a rallying cry for recruitment!  Government now spies on our bank accounts, our internet usage, our telephone calls, and our location, all in the name of fighting terrorism.  We and our vehicles are searched at transportation nodes, and our computers can be searched at any time.  Yes, the terrorists have caused all of us to lose many freedoms.  We have also had to pay for all of this additional layer of security.  The cost of the immense amount of additional security has become a huge tax on our economy.  Think of the salaries paid to all of the additional TSA, FBI, CIA, NSA, and border patrol employees involved with physical inspections, and sitting in rooms listening to all of our telephone calls and internet use!.  The latest Gallup Poll shows that a majority of the US believes we should worry about protecting our rights more than protecting against terrorism.  However it does amaze me that there are a lot of people who are willing to give up their privacy to protect against terrorism.  It is funny how people think.  So many people won't fly because they are afraid of a one in a million crash, but will buy a lottery ticket for that one in a million chance of winning.  So they are willing to give up all of their personal and financial privacy to help protect them from that one in a million chance of being a victim of terrorism

I'm afraid that a lot of these techniques that are being used to counter terrorism are being done to make the public think that we are safer because of them. It is clear that the TSA airport inspections aren't all that effective. But it does give travelers the feeling that something is being done for their safety.  Maybe that's why TSA wants to keep their "testing program" secret!  I'm not sure that they will do all that much to actually stop it.  I sure wish there were an easier answer!

'I am a citizen': when border patrol agents violate the rights of US residents | US news | The Guardian

I can understand the need for having a good screening system at the US-Mexico border.  It is important to make sure that people crossing the border have correct papers, and to verify that they aren't smuggling.  It takes significant time to perform all of the necessary checks for each person entering the country.  Because of that, and the appearance that the border patrol is "under-staffed" there are often huge hours-long waits at the border crossings.

That is one reason I have been a critic of the two major "border checkpoints" on Interstate 5 and Interstate 15 north of San Diego.  The checkpoints are not always in operation, but it is impossible to guess when they will be in operation.  Because the checkpoints can cause a delay in travel of  15 to 30 minutes, there is no way to plan trips for work or appointments without allowing an additional 30 minutes, just in case the checkpoint is in operation.  So not only are people delayed by the checkpoints when operating, they also have to allow for the checkpoint, so they end up wasting time by being "early" when the checkpoint isn't in operation.   When the checkpoint is in operation, cars move slowly past a border patrol agent who looks very bored and simply waves each car forward -- no apparent rationale for allowing cars to pass or stop them.

It is pretty clear that the checkpoints each employ a lot of people by the number of employee cars parked at each checkpoint, and I really don't see those employees being very productive.  It would seem that those employees would better serve the country if they were assigned to the actual US/Mexico border to assist with the border crossing inspections to reduce the wait time, or to actually patrolling the border for illegal crossings.



Over the past 20 years, I have written to my US Senators, and my Congressman (Randy "Duke" Cunningham) and since 2001, Darrell Issa about eliminating the border checkpoints to save taxpayer money and eliminate the annoyance to San Diego citizens when we travel to Orange or Riverside Counties. I've never received a rational explanation, nor has there ever been any action taken.  I believe many other people have also written and complained to no avail.  The checkpoints are an annoyance to everyone who travels North from San Diego County.  There are many daily commuters!



This article in Guardian points out that there are MANY other similar checkpoints on our side of the border that are continually annoying American citizens in the area.  A lot of the checkpoints are down closer to the border, and directly affect the residents in those areas.  In addition, as is probably expected, the border patrol stops people who appear to be Latino much more frequently than people who don't.  See this article:

'I am a citizen': when border patrol agents violate the rights of US residents | US news | The Guardian  Is it racial profiling?  Or is stopping people who look Latino just common sense?  Do we really need to show "our papers" at every checkpoint?  Do we need to allow our car to be searched?



I don't believe that most of the border checkpoints, particularly the ones on I-5 and I-15 are needed to control immigration, nor are they really used for that purpose.  I believe the purpose of those checkpoints are to allow the Government to "legally" stop drug courier suspects who may have been identified elsewhere using spies or informants inside drug organizations or electronic eavesdropping technology.  By catching the suspects at the border checkpoint, the Government prosecutors can claim that the person was caught during a "random border inspection" and not have to give away informants or "technical means."  Some of those "technical means" may not even be legal, and, even if it is legal, the Government doesn't want that information to be exposed during court proceedings.  In order to make the "random checkpoint" argument believable, the border patrol has to randomly open and close the checkpoint even when there are no suspects passing through just to maintain the charade.



If I were in charge of the Border Patrol, DEA and FBI, I would probably do exactly what they are doing if I wanted to continue the "war on drugs" as we have for the past 60 years.  Yeah, why not put "border checkpoints" all through the 100 mi area North of the border?  We could set up random checkpoints all over the region.  Would that help fight the war?  Or would it violate more of our citizen's rights?    However, I don't believe the US correctly fighting the drug war.  The methods being used are extremely expensive and end up violating the rights of all of us.  We would be much better off with programs that included treatment, licensing, taxing, standardizing doses, education, and spending much less on interdiction and law enforcement.  I believe the reason we are using the current strategy is because there are so very many businesses, leaders and government employees who are profiting from it.  For example, the prison guard unions would probably put money up to fight against any effort to legalize drugs.



I believe our Federal and State politicians understand this.  However they like receiving the campaign funds from the drug-war profiteers, and they don't have the guts to do what is right!   One clear example is that in the states where Marijuana has been legalized for medical or recreational use, it required a vote from the people to change the law, rather than a simple vote by the legislature and signature from the governor.  So even when it is the "will of the majority of the citizens" -- their representatives didn't have the guts to pass the law without a referendum first.

"Pay to Play" Police Volunteers Article in The Guardian

I've had friends who worked as police volunteers, and have seen police cars around Oceanside with "volunteer" printed on the side of the cars.  I've also seen older folks in police uniforms sauntering up and down the strand sidewalk and the beach on busy days. Sometimes, I've seen them cruising the beach in City of Oceanside "dune buggies" which sort of looked like fun.   I imagined they could work to enforce the rules about no smoking, drinking or dogs on the beach, if nothing else.  After reading about the accidental Tulsa shooting by Bates, a volunteer, I researched information about the City of Oceanside's "Senior Volunteer" program:  --Pretty impressive! 100 volunteers over the age of 50! It does say that volunteers are not put in "confrontational situations" --   I also discovered the "Volunteers In Police Service" or VIPS program sponsored by the US Department of Justice actually promotes the concept of putting volunteers in local police forces.  On the surface, this sounds like a great idea!  Expanded police force with little cost to Government.  Brilliant!

I've often thought it was probably useful to have additional, visible, police presence around the community to help citizens, and provide "eyes and ears" for the professional police whom the volunteers could call if needed.  I wondered a little about the cost to the City for maintaining the volunteer forces.  After all, they would need uniforms, radios, and vehicles, but volunteers probably would only be working a few days per week. A good staff of well-trained volunteers could supplement the force, and also serve as a "reserve surge" if and when a crisis occurred.  During fires, earthquakes, or floods, we need all of the trained help we can get!  I wondered if the volunteers were compensated at all.  This article amazed me!

150 cops, population 300: pay-to-play policing, from Tulsa to Kid Rock's town | US news | The Guardian

Who knew that citizens would actually pay money (or bribes to campaign funds) in order to be a member of the "volunteer" police force?  Is it really that much fun that people would pay money to be able to walk around in uniform and annoy their neighbors?  Is it really possible that a town of 300 could have 150 cops (albeit part-time, and many are non-resident)?

There have been many science-fiction books written that have focused upon the notion of a surveillance society with everyone spying on their neighbors.  Some books have added the concept of electronic tracking and video surveillance with chips inserted into citizen's bodies and pervasive video camera tracking systems. The book 1984 by George Orwell is one of the most notable.  Quite a few of those books were made into movies.   Those stories seemed hard to believe!  First of all, the electronics seemed far to0 difficult and expensive for a society to install.  The data collected would be much too much for anyone to ever be able to track a single individual, and where would a community every get a force of volunteers to spy on their neighbors?  Wow!  It came true!  We now have pervasive electronic systems that can track our every move continuously, as well as almost everything we do.  Our cellphones are tracked, our license plates are read and tracked, our debit and credit cards track what we buy, and internet tracks products we buy, facts we research, movies we watch, music we listen to, and friends we connect with using email or text.  Big Data analysis software can now sort through that massive amount of information and produce maps of where we've been, what we've done,  and generate large charts showing all connections to our friends and relatives. That analysis is getting cheaper and cheaper as computers and software get better.  Now, to top off all of that, the Federal Government is building a huge network of volunteers in all levels of police forces to serve as additional eyes and ears "on the ground" to track individuals.  I believe President Bush implemented this system as a response to the 9/11 attacks.  With the excuses of a "war on drugs" and a "war on terrorism" our nation has given up most of what we stood for to the "right wingers"... So we have lost our war for freedom.

I would like to know how much of our Federal, State, and local police efforts and expenditures are in support of the "war on drugs."  We know that most of our Homeland Security efforts (including Coast Guard, FBI, CIA, NSA, Border Patrol, Customs and Coast Guard are involved in drug interdiction.  However, even at the local level, our volunteers are apparently involved in DUI checkpoints, sniffing out marijuana smokers, and ticketing people drinking beer or smoking on the beach -- all aspects of the "war on drugs."

Video shows California deputies beating suspect after he flees on horseback | US news | The Guardian

The latest video of California deputies beating a suspect shows that police brutality is common across the country.

Video shows California deputies beating suspect after he flees on horseback | US news | The Guardian

I think that the use of video is now starting to show what has been going on for a century.  When police have an opportunity, they will take revenge upon suspects.  By "police" we also include FBI, DEA, Border Patrol, Military Police, and all state and local forces.  When convenient video first became available, police would try to stop observing citizens from taking video, confiscate their cameras or intimidate them into giving up their media.  Why did they do this?  Of course, to hide what they were doing!  Now that everyone has a video camera on their phone, it is much more difficult to stop from happening.  Now we are hearing (and seeing) a lot more about this going on.

I think it is absolutely absurd that the Rodney King police got off scott free for the beating they engaged in.  That set a precedent that made them think they could get away with anything.  The lack of an indictment in the Ferguson case gave the police the impression they could even get away with murder if they could somehow claim they "feared for their life"...

I can sympathize with police -- it is a dangerous job!  When a suspect is carrying a gun and might point it at them, they do need to defend themselves!  I can also understand that after a long difficult chase, as this one was, they might be very angry, exhausted, and have a lot of adrenalin flowing in their bodies.  They just might want to "take it out" on the suspect.  That is certainly a difficult thing to stop!  However I think our US system of Justice requires restraint and discipline on the part of our officers.  Officers who participate or who observe and don't try to prevent a beating should be disciplined in some way.  The public should be aware the the discipline occurred to help maintain confidence on our police system.  I wonder if what we all see in movies and TV (for example "Dirty Harry") helps set the public image for how police should act?  Do our police believe that it is OK to beat up suspects because they've seen it happen so much on TV and in movies?