THE GHOST IN THE MACHINE

Instructor Courses: Are You Forgetting Someone?

2012-01-14T11:40:00.000-08:00

   You know I teach alot of instructor courses for police departments and we always have things we say to make sure these guys are in the right frame of mind and have the correct approach. However, it wasn't until I taught a course last week that I realized I'd never written about the subject. It's a pretty important one too. Since departments for a long time didn't put alot of priority on unarmed training some of the officers went out on their own and got it. Some got good training and others got really bad training that didn't fit what they do. Some are even lifelong martial artists. So what does that have to do with being able to teach a defensive tactics course at their department? The answer is...nothing.
   Growing up in martial arts myself I'd always been taught that when you go to someone's dojo that teaches a different system the knowledge you have should stay at the door. You do things the way they tell you because it's disrespectful to say things like...oh well at my dojo we do it like this or that. The thing is you aren't at your dojo your supposed to be learning something from someone else. So you should come in as if you know nothing.
Now alot of these officers go to instructor courses for training. Their bosses think it's a good idea because these guys are active and may understand it better. The problem is when these dojo trained officers go to an instructor course they tend to forget all the decorum they learned as part of their training and become disrespectful by trying to work in their own slant during the course. This will not only annoy the instructor but it could put the lives of other officers in danger.
Now obviously when any officer goes to training that is still working the streets they need to know what works for them. There's nothing wrong with integrating it into their over all defense to make themselves better. If they can take one of my courses and work their super ninja kung fu panantukan death blow into it and it works for them then I think that's just fine. However, they shouldn't be doing that during the course because how can you integrate something that you don't even understand and can't establish proficiency. You see martial arts classes aren't designed to teach you something that works in a short time span. They are designed for you to learn techniques that you have to develop over long periods of time to become proficient. My point is a department is like a chain. It's only as strong as it's weakest link. Maybe you spent years training to develop certain tactics that work for you. The problem is not everyone in your department has spent the same time working on the same tactics and you. What works for you may not work for them at all.
Officers when your at an instructor course you need to understand it isn't about you. Your there to learn a skillset so that you can teach it to someone else. It isn't about you and you shouldn't be the focus. The lives of all your officers are important. If she's a female officer about 5'2 she needs to be able to defend herself as well as a male officer 6'4. That's why good courses are conceptual because tactics based courses just flat out will not work for every officer in your department. So your big super judo throw might fit fine for your own personal defense but you need to be thinking about others that don't have the experience that you do. Every course I teach I have this same problem. Officers try to add their own little spin on the tactics for themselves forgetting that they don't understand the course material yet and at the end it never fails. At the end they aren't proficient and the other officers that took it with them from that department that had no prior experience can kick their asses and do it blindfolded. I've been letting it slide because I knew they had other instructors on the force that were proficient and could get them up to speed. That day is ending however. If these guys can't get over themselves and listen like an adult in class and put their officer's safety first then I'm going to fix it for them.
   I want to say this to every officer that will be taking a class from me. You will be tested for proficiency at the end of this class. If you screwed off and didn't do what I asked you will flunk that test. I will personally see to it that you fail. After that you will not be given an instructor certification and I will personally call your supervisor and tell them why. When your department finds out that they wasted that money sending you to a class and you couldn't be an adult and failed leaving them with nothing but a loss in the budget I think you will have some growing up to do. Remember the universe doesn't revolve around you and you need to put the safety of every officer first not just yourself.

I Was Never A Forensic Investigator In New York

2011-12-30T11:32:00.000-08:00

I want to talk with you all today aboutsomething that's been on my mind for awhile. I kept it close to my vest formonths holding it in and it took a good blog rant by a friend of mine to pushme over the edge. I'm a police trainer with a long background in privatesecurity and personal protection. I take pride in the fact that I help protectthe people that protect the people. I have also worked most of my martial artscareer on exposing greed and fraud in martial arts by people only in it for themoney. Well in way those two things have clashed now. What the public is seeingis an illusion that needs to be exposed. There needs to be a dose of commonsense brought into this arguement. There are former police and military peopleout there misleading the public about the facts and I feel that to protect thepublic and get the right training out there I must speak on it. If I have to bethe person to fall on the grenade then so be it. So here we go.

Now it's my policy to never name namesunless I know the person doesn't mind and the fact is this article isn't aboutone person so I'm going to use real examples but at the same time stay onpoint. Now there's this guy from New York that has a pretty popular program outthere. What he's doing and saying however is pretty bad. He seems to only wantto market to ignorant people who don't know any better. He pushes his bigsystem as the most up to date thing and in every interview what appears underhis name? He always puts former NYC forensic investigator. People this is whatwe call marketing. It's used to mislead the public to believe he knowssomething that they don't. What he actually teaches looks more like traditionalKempo than anything else. Pretty good Kempo but Kempo nonetheless. I don't knowif that's his background or not but he doesn't put that on the screen in hisvideos. I'm sure you've all seen it. Constantly bashing grappling tactics. Hehas this one clip where he supposedly proves his arguement by having some guydo a wrestling shoot on a guy with a knife and get stabbed to show thatgrappling training isn't good for self defense and he should know because he'sa former forensic investigator.Then he does another one in an elevator where hehas a guy try to grab a knife arm the wrong way without a proper setup to bashgrappling again. Well as we all know in any system if you perform a tacticwrong it's probably going to fail. But he knows better because he's a formerforensic investigator in New York and he's seen stuff. Then again I'm a 6th Danin Jujutsu and been doing it 34 years and I've never seen a jujutsu guy do adumb move like he's saying they do. All it looks to me that he's proven is howignorant he is about other systems. He doesn't seem to understand bodymechanics or how to set up anything. Just because you suck at grappling tacticsand can't perform them doesn't mean they are bad. Maybe you just suck. The bestway to draw attention away from your flaws is to try to get people to focus onthe perceived flaws of others. All throughout WWII capturing the weapon bearinglimb was used by tens of thousands of soldiers to save their lives and workedat a huge rate of success. I was once attacked with a knife myself when Iwalked in on a rape in progress. The first swing nicked the back of my lefthand and on the back swing I secured the arm and used grappling tactics for thedisarm and to restrain the man until police got there.Then again what do I knowI was never a forensic investigator in new york.

Now as a police trainer I want to give you alittle background on how police train. I don't know how it works in othercountries I can only speak for the US. In most states you have what is known asa POST( Peace Officer Standards & Training) system. It isn't always calledthat sometimes it's called something different it may be called the DCJS( Department of Criminal JusticeServices) or something totally off the wall like in Texas with TCLEOSE( TexasCommision on Law Enforcement Standards & Education). The point is almostall states have a version of it. To those that don't know officers have to getso many hours of training credit every year and report it to these stateagencies. How many hours can vary from state to state. An instructor can try toget it recognized by the state so officers get their credit or they can get anacademy or a department with academy status to host them and they will takecare of it. If you can't make arrangements for them to get credit hoursdepartments won't pay for the training and officers most likely will not attendthe training.

Well several months back I was scheduled toteach a public course in New York,NY. I thought well hey I'll call an academyup there and see what the requirements are and do a police seminar while I'mthere. Guess wwhat I found out? They do have an accrediting program in New Yorkbut depatments are not required to be a part of it. That's right folks theydon't have to train at all if they don't want to do it. Massachusetts along with a few other statesis the same way. What that actually means to you is that our awesome forensicinvestigator may have never had a single ounce of reality based training. It'spossible he has less training than your 12 year old child in kid's karateclass. On top of that I'd like to add that nationwide unarmed training isn't apriority with most police departments. They tend to focus more on TASER, OCspray, batons,etc. That is slowly starting to change thank God but for rightnow that's the reality. Now this guy may be a good martial artist. That howeverdoesn't make it ok for him to come on the internet and push a police title towillfully mislead the public into believing he has some knowledge above others.I mean think about what a forensic investigator does. They investigate crime scenesthey aren't even on the front lines like the patrolmen. To use his logic theother day I watched a space shuttle launch. I know exactly what happenedthere's no doubt about it. It even left a trail. I went and looked uppropulsion on the internet so I even know how it launched. So that must mean Ican get a job with NASA as a rocket scientist tomorrow right? Of course thatsounds silly but it's the same logic. Just because you know how a crimehappened doesn't mean your an expert on how to stop it from happening tosomeone else.

The odd thing is if you look at the trainingpolice actually do in defensive tactics it's pretty telling. PPCT and SPEAR arehugely popular programs all over the world. They were founded respectively byBruce Siddle and Tony Blauer. In a shocker neither of these guys were everpolice officers or even security as far as I know. So basically when policewant high quality training they pretty much make sure they go to people whowere never police officers. Isn't that an odd but true fact? Why would they dothat when they could train under a forensic investigator from New York. Maybethey know the same things your findingout with this article.

Let's move on to another example and sharethe fun of sarcasm with others. A few years back I was looking around on theinternet because I'm kind of an information junkie I'm always looking for newthings. I came across a correspondance course where peope could train in TKDfrom home. It seemed pretty cool they made people test in person so theywouldn't have some goober in there teaching the public. Back then I wasthinking about offering a course that way myself so I wanted to see how theyhad it set up to get some ideas so I clicked on their link for more info. Thecrap got neck deep. The whole marketing thing was how they just got back fromfighting in Afganistan and how you could learn what they used. Seriously Ican't make this stuff up...are you kidding me? If your on the battlefield andyou have to fight with your fists all the time the only thing that proves isthat your a terrible marksman. You need to requalify with your weapon. Nobodyshould be able to get THAT close to youthis isn't medieval times. Warfare doesn't really work that way anymore. Peoplestand back and shoot that's how it goes these days it isn't like WWII orVietnam. I guess these guys were different though. They hopped out of thatplane and said," Screw the guns! We're gonna hop through Basra on one legand kick them all in the head!" The fact is these guys were simplypredators preying on an uneducated public. That was their audience people whowould see those khakis and be ooooooed and ahhhhed and they could make themsome money. I'm sure many people bought into it. I keep waiting on someone toclaim they are Spartan and sell a system on how to kick people down a big hole.

Now the fact is like the other guy they maybe great martial artists or not. I'm not even necessarily saying the programsthey do aren't good. I haven't seen the entire programs they teach. My problemis they mislead the public for money and that first guy bashes honest peoplewith lies and his own ignorance. Very few people lie about just one thing it'sa credibility issue. Some of you may have read my last article Martial Artistsvs Black Belts. There was a part in there where I talked about a guy thatcouldn't get a wrist lock to work so he changed the attack to make a bad lockwork instead of changing the lock for a better one. That guy was a formermarine and his program sucked. As a matter of fact two of the worst martialarts programs I've ever seen were taught by marines. Now at the same time oneof the best MMA coaches I ever had the honor of working with was also a marine.My point is the fact that he's a former marine doesn't make him a great coach.He's great because he goes to Thailand twice a year and he trains really hardwith the right people. He did the work and paid the dues to get to where he isand he deserves all of his success. One of my mentors, W Hock Hocheim was inthe military and also a police officer. His programs are great because hetravelled the world and did years and years of research to make them that way.It isn't because he used to be a cop or in the military.

Former police and military can be greatinstructors or really bad ones. People who never done either one can be just asgood or better. It's about the individual and the work they put into it. Thefact that someone used to be a cop is completely irrelevant and shouldn'tmatter to you either. If they have a great program then it would've been greatregardless because as individuals they made it that way. When someone puts thatstuff at the forefront to me they are just looking for prey that doesn't knowany better and it's a shame and a disgrace. If you teach Jujutsu, Kempo, KungFu, or whatever you teach be honest about it. If you've modified it into a moremodern system then that's great too but don't deny where it came from. There isno super secret ninja pressure point. When you take short cuts and yourdemographic is an unknowing public that doesn't know when your full of crapdon't expect your peers to be nice to you. Then again what do I know I wasnever a forensic investigator in New York.

Police Use Of Force on "Peaceful Protestors" by Marc MacYoung

2011-11-23T13:00:00.001-08:00

Get a cup of coffee, it's a long one. Because like so many other things, it's not a simple issue.
*************

Let me start by saying I'm not interested inarguing lofty ideals, listening to people squealin outrage that the world isn't fair, hearing about justifications for civildisobedience and, of course, being told about evil conspiracies meant tooppress us. Us being we who have the higheststandard of living in all of human history. The'why' of the "occupy" protests is not my concern -- andthat includes the rationalizations of whybreaking the law is 'all right in a noble cause.'

The purpose of this article is to acquaint youwith some of the finer points of police use offorce and the limits of 'protest.' (That is to say,where it bleeds over into other issues.)

For the record, I'm not against free speech or the rightto assemble. And I especially am not againstpetitioning the government for redress ofgrievances. While we're at it, I'm not looking atthe world through rose-colored, capitalist orconservative glasses.

I will be the first to admit there are beau coup big problems with howthings are going in business, the economy, government and society. Thingshave become systemic in our ways of 'doing business' that are causing theseproblems. (As an aside, while it is easy to blame 'evil' and greedycorporations, I see money grabbing all over the place -- including under theguise of noble and humanitarian causes.) I will acknowledge allthese serious problems -- with a stipulation.

That stipulation is these issues are way morecomplex and involved than can be solved bypundits, media sound bites, Internet intelligence,blogs and, most importantly, protests.

What I am here to talk about is:
1) The standards of police use of force againstpeople who are refusing lawful orders
2) Why said use of force is both legal and withinpolicy
3) How the 'outrage' certain people express about useof force is out of sync with the way a majority offolks feel.

The first fact you need to know is the "Occupy(Wherever)" protests have done an interestingthing. They have tried to sell us a 'new'definition of protest. It is a definition that hascrossed a line and has resulted in police usingof force against the protestors. (The irony is this 'version' has been tried before and it was responded to with force back then too.)

The blogsphere is allaflutter over these incidents of brutality,oppression, suppression of free speech andinterference with people's 'right' to protest.

But, that is not why the police are using force.It's what people are doing under their 'expanded' definition of protesting that is gettingthem pepper sprayed, tasered and having the cops kneel on theirheads as they are handcuffed.

The second fact directly relates to use of force.There is a big difference between pain andinjury.

This isn't sophism, it is a medical fact. You can have pain without injury, but injury is usually painful. Pain is a sensation. Injury is things getting broken, smashed, cut, crushed or ruptured.

This difference is something most people do not know, muchless understand. More than being inexperienced with physical violence, manyassume that pain is injury. They hear someone screaming and crying "you'rehurting me!" at the police, and they don't recognize there has been nopermanent injury done by the officers to the screamer. In fact, thatbrouhaha isa pretty good indicator that there is no serious injury.

When people are seriously injured, they tend to be quiet. Instead of screaming, they're more invested in rallying their resources to protect the injuries, breathing and basically staying alive. Then there's the whole going into shock thing. The noise to injury ratio isn't always the case, but it's a good rule of thumb -- especially when it comes to arrest and control tactics.

Pain vs. injury is an important component inunderstanding 'use of force' standards. Actionslikely to cause physical injury (broken bones, concussions, internalhemorrhaging, etc.) are considered a higher level of force. Therefore,the use of these levels is more restricted andrequire the presence of greater danger to the officer (or others). If thereis no immediate danger, these tactics are not allowed to be used.

Whereas, inflicting non-damaging pain is deemed a lower level of force.

Third, many police departments practice 'ask,tell, order' when it comes to verbal tactics. Eventhough it is 'talking,' these still are integralsteps in established 'use of force' policies practiced bylaw enforcement across the country.

As it was explained to me, ask, tell, orderverbalization are a nice bit of public relations,they keep the peace, articulate what the officerdid before taking it to the next level, explain why it went there andset up legally defensible patterns of behavior. The ducks are in a row on this one and you better recognize that.

Let's take ask, tell, order and apply it tosomeone stopped for suspected drunk driving.
"Could you please step out of the car, sir?" (ask)
"Sir, step out of the car." (tell)
"Step out of the car, NOW!" (order)

The next step is known as 'make.' As in, you'vebeen asked politely, you've been told, you've been ordered, now an officeris going to make you do it.

But for now, let's focus on the talking. Askingis a nice bit of requesting compliance. It's allpolite and reasonable to get you to do what theofficer wants. It doesn't get your little duckfeelings hurt because he's politely asking you tocooperate with him in the execution of his duties.Often this sugar-and-spice approach works verywell -- especially when it comes to minor andless dangerous situations.

Having said that: If an officer -- in the execution of his duties -- tellsyou to do something, it is not a request.

It is what is known as a 'lawful order.' Refusalto follow a lawful order from a law enforcement officer (LEO) in theexecution of his or her duties is not a right. Failure to comply is breakingthe law and legally permits the officer to use a higher level of force inthe execution of his duties.

Many people, who believe they have the 'right' to argue with a cop, find out about this escalation of force the hard way. I will also tell you if a cop directly tells you "I'm ordering you to..." the I's have been dotted and the T's crossed for what is coming. The word 'order' is one of those keyword you need to be listening for in what an officer is saying.. This includes an announcement over a bullhorn -- especially when there's a bunch of cops in riot gear standing there. Refusal? Well you can do that, but it won't be fun.

I'd like to explain a related point. In one sense, it doesn't matter how you refuse: If you argue. Ifyou just don't do it. If you try to run. If you stand there and screamobscenities at the cop. If you try to punch the cop. If you sit down, crossyour arms and hold your breath. If you throwyourself on the ground and kick and scream in atantrum.

These all constitutes refusing a lawful order froman officer in the execution of her duties. Whenyou do this, your legal footing has just becomequicksand. No matter how morally or emotionally justified you feel you arein doing so.

Fourth, such a refusal kicks it up to the nextlevel. The officer can now use physical force to'make you.'

This is where how you refuse a lawful order becomes real important. We'll talk more about that in the next point. But, for right now, know that use of force practices are overwhelmingly about 'compliance.' That is getting someone to either stop doing something or to do something (back to that 'order' thing again). It's also about getting someone into a position to handcuff him or her.

The first level of force is knownin some departments as 'soft hands.' While it doesn't always, it can include, on the part of the officer,joint locks, take downs, arrest, control and cuffing techniques. I can be non-painful or it can be painful. It depends on the level of resistance. But let's be real here, making someone do something they don't want to do often involvessome discomfort to the person.

And that brings us to the subject of pain. Pepper spray and tasers, althoughextremely uncomfortable, areconsidered to be part of this lower level of force because they aren't likely to cause physical injury. Physical injury is caused by striking or shooting someone. Yes, two hours later your eyes will be red and inflamed after you have been hit with pepper spray, but odds are you won't be in lying in a coma in a hospital.If you've ever caught a fish hook in your finger, you have suffered the physical'injury' commonly caused by a taser.

Pain, on the other hand, there's a boatload. Being on the receiving end of these items hurts like hell, and they are really goodat convincing people to change their mind about not complying.

That brings up something else you should know. Use of these items has becomemore and more popular with law enforcement. That's because going 'hands on' withpeople always increases the chances of the situation escalating andheightens the chances of injury. This, to both the person and the officer. If people think they can disobey lawful orders, it's a small step from there to physically resisting being touched by the officer.

Physically fight the guy and risk injury or taser him? Guess what? The taser is faster, easier and safer for everybody. After you've been zapped, odds are you're going to let the cop cuff you with no more fuss or bother. Know you are going toencounter this attitude if you choose to resist or disobey a lawful order.

Fifth, there are several versions of resistance tolawful orders.

Let's start with passive resistance. While that includes a drunk sittingdown and holding his breath, it also can be a coordinated and intentionalstrategy. For example, protestors sitting down, locking arms or chainingthemselves to something. When dealing withpassive resistance, officers are not generallyallowed to use levels of force that can causeinjury. For instance, they can't beat passiveresisters over the heads with clubs.

What is allowed to use is painto force compliance. That's where pepper spray and tasers can come into play. It is a noninjurioususe of force. But, oh boy, do you want to stop doingwhat you're doing when you're zapped.

Gota bunch of passive resisters to a lawful order?Hosing them in the face with pepper spray is bothlegally and departmentally approved use of force. Bythe time it gets to that point, the whole ask,tell, order policy has run it's course, and there is no doubt that it is willful disobedience to lawful orders.

Passive resistance is one thing. Trying to fight acop, run away or stop him from cuffing you iswhat is known as 'active resistance.' While anyactive resistance is frowned upon, if your activeresistance is aggressive, it presents a higherrisk to the officer. And attacking the officer is agood way to get injured.

While passive resistance might justify 'softhands,' active resistance justifies the officerusing 'hard hands' (higher level of force). Theseare actions that can result in physical injury tothe actively resisting person. Now we're talkingabout striking, clubbing and other things that canbust your head.

If people are getting injured by the police, look for active resistance --if not outright physical attacks on the officer (or someone else). That isthe only time police are permitted by both policy and law to use suchtactics. Odds are good, those methods will not be used on a 'peaceful'protestor or even a passive resister.

There is another level of force after this andthat's lethal. This is a level that an officer canonly legally use when his or her life (or someone else's) is in danger.Again, it is based on what the other person is doing to create an immediatethreat. This isn't intended to injure or gain compliance, it is designed to stop danger. Andit just so happens to be fatal a lot of the time. Thankfully, these protestshaven't gotten to this point yet.

Sixth, protestors are being trained how to exertthe highest level of passive resistance withoutbumping it up to the point where the police would be legally justified touse a higher level of force.

This is why it's important to know the differencebetween a 'peaceful protest' and passiveresistance to a lawful order. One is alegitimate -- and protected -- right. The other is a deliberate act toprovoke use of force by thepolice.

Why? It's public relations (PR). Protestors are quick to exploit anyincidents involving the police by claiming they are 'peaceful protestors'being brutalized andoppressed by law enforcement while exercising theirrights. And, as the outrage in the blogsphere andsocial media sites demonstrate, people don't knowthe difference between peaceful protestors andpassive resistance in defiance of lawful orders.

This is where the squeals of 'police brutalityagainst peaceful demonstrators' start. It also isexactly what the protestors want. It engenderssympathy, pity and horror in the public, which they capitalize on to promotetheir agenda. Basically, knowing that they won't be physically injured(they'll just suffer some discomfort) they actively engage in a behaviorthey know will result in police use of force against them. Hence, they canclaim to be victims.

There is something you need to know about thisexpanded definition of 'protesting.' Thestrategy of organized passive resistance is tocreate as big a bottle neck as possible. This is a deliberate strategy tojam, obstruct and impede others, and cost people time and money. Ideally, itbrings the entire environment to a stand still by shutting it down (this isimportant to the seventh point).

This is a form of passive aggressiveness that not unlike mold on the floor.It creeps farther and farther into other people's space, until there is nooption but to step on it or be cornered. When you step on it, the screams ofbrutality and victimization begin. And these, in turn, are used as 'proof'of the evil andoppressive system.

Passive aggressiveness is a big part of this kind of protest. It isa deliberate interference with the environment that is being justified as'free speech' and lawful assembly. Not just peacefulassembly, but lawful assembly. While there's alot of overlap, those are two separate issues.

And that brings us to the seventh point. Theissues causing the police to use force do not involve protests. They are about other things.

One of the biggest is camping. More thanthat, it is camping on public, private andsemi-private land. In this expandedversion, we are told 'camping, trespassing and creating public safety,health and nuisance issues are legitimate forms of protest.' The protestorsare pretending their 'right' to protest extends to squatting on both publicand private land.

I cannot stress this point enough: It's not theprotest that is getting them pepper sprayed andarrested, it's the camping and refusing lawfulorders to remove these illegal camps and tents.

That last point is bigger and deeper than youmight think.

The first amendment of our constitution grants us the rights to peacefullyassemble and speak freely. At the same time, these 'rights' are balancedwith the rights and needs of others -- especially when it comes to safety.

That guarantee of 'rights,' however, has a much more specific and limited meaning than people think it does.

Let's start with the biggest point of ignoranceabout the 'rights' we assume are ours. I have a favorite 'demotivationalposter' that reads: "Bill of Rights. Didn't read.Too long -- but will use half-assed understandingto demand 'freedom' for stupid behavior."

For those of you who fall into the 'Too Long, Didn't Read' clique, we'llkeep it short and limit it to only one of the first 10 amendments to theconstitution. Here isthe First Amendment in ye olde Bill of Rights:
"Congress shall make no law respecting anestablishment of religion, or prohibiting the freeexercise thereof; or abridging the freedom ofspeech, or of the press; or the right of thepeople peaceably to assemble, and to petition theGovernment for a redress of grievances."

Notice that first word. It's important. In fact,it's really important. That's because it veryspecifically identifies that 'congress' cannotpass laws restricting free speech, religion, thepress or your right to peacefully assemble. Thishas since been expanded in conventional opinion to include 'government.'

That amendment clearly states the government can'tstop the listed behaviors. In practice, that means the government can't stop the Nazis from marching in Skokie. Nor can itpass laws to keep the Westboro Baptist Church fromspreading its religious hate and bigotry. In thesame vein, it isn't allowed to say the Occupy(Wherever) or the Tea Party can't hold a rally.

What the government can do, however, is establishparameters for public safety, health and to minimize nuisance during theseassemblies. That means there are standards of behavior you can engage in andthose that you can't.

This is important for three reasons:
1) it ensures safety
2) it limits damage to private and public property
3) in a democracy, not everyone is going to agreewith (or even be interested in) what those who areassembling have to say

Setting these boundaries is not suppressing therights of free speech or freedom to assemble. Infact, here's something a lot of people don't know.

Legal protests, rallies, demonstrations andmarches are, in fact, helped and supported bythe police. More than that, there are acceptedpublic venues that can be used. The city will give youa place to assemble.You file for a permit, and the police coordinate the traffic and parking.And, by the way, the requirement to file a permit to hold a demonstration isnot a suppression of free speech. It's a step in getting police supportbecause logistics for an assembly take time and planning. Extra officers,traffic control, routes for marches, public safety and services, all ofthese need to be organized so you can have your rally.These also are things the city do in order for people to exercise their'right' to protest. Things that allow everyone to get their needs met,includingthe rights of people -- who don't agree with theprotestors -- not to be bothered by them.

Wow, that's pretty neat. You get your rally,protest, demonstration or what have you, whileeveryone else gets to go about their business withminimal interruption, safety or health concerns. I'm okay with this idea.

A point of interest, though. By using this system, freespeech is not free. By that I mean, the city endsup paying for overtime, police presence, reroutingtraffic and clean up. This, in turn, means thetaxpayers are paying to support your right topeacefully assemble. Still, it's a pretty gooddeal.

Having said all this, the 'rights' to assembly andfree speech do not extend to a whole lot of otherthings -- including corporations or privateproperty. For example, you do not have the rightto 'protest' on private or semi-private property.You can be forcibly removed for trespassing. Youdo not have the right to block traffic or access.You cannot interfere with or harass those enteringor leaving a governmental or business establishment. This is why picketersor those on strike must stay on the sidewalk in front of the business ororganizationwith which they disagree. Not in the street, not on private property and they must keep moving.

Another example of this is the private parkwhere the original Occupy Wall Street started and the UC-Davis campus. Theseare private properties thatallow public access. That is not the sameas public property (e.g., a public park). Ifthe owners or trustees of these properties 'allow'the protest, fine. If they say no, that is their'right.' This includes the right to withdrawpermission if a crowd gets out of hand.

An important point about public or governmentproperty is where protests are permissible. Thiscomes back to permits. Recently, several arrestsof 'Occupy Denver' folks occurred when protestorsdecided to take their show to other locations. Then theydecided to refuse the lawful order to leave those new areas. The policedidn't tell them that they couldn't go back to thepark (where they had permits to assemble). Thepolice said, "Okay over there, but you can'tprotest here without a permit." Some of theprotestors said, "Oh yes we can!" and arrests resulted.

This seems like a small point, but it's a bigpublic safety and nuisance issue -- especiallywhen protestors start coming up with 'good ideas'as they roam the streets. (Remember the WTO riotsin Seattle?) There's a reason permits are locationspecific.

This brings us to free speech

Let's start with the fact case law has establishedthe 'right to free speech' does not extend to'falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater' (Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes,Schenck vs. United States, 1919). That point has been pretty well arguedand established in the courts.

Beyond that, free speech is a pretty contentioustopic, especially when hate speech, fightingwords, slander, libel and 'encouraging others toengage in criminal and destructive acts' getthrown into the mix. Just because someone claims what they are saying is'free speech,' doesn't mean it is. (And yes, you can apply that idea to whatconstitutes 'peaceful protest,' as well.)

Where people really don't understand that their 'right' to free speech doesnot extend is to corporations, private businesses or John Q. Public. A newspaper(a company) is not violating your rights if they choose not to publish yourranting manifesto. That is not censorship, that iseither an editorial or business decision by thecompany.

The First Amendment says the 'government' can't stop you from talking,blogging or starting your own newspaper. That doesn't mean, if people don'twant to listen to you, your 'rights' are being violated. The government didn't doit, other factors are involved -- including the likelihood that people thinkyou're wrong.

There are actions that have been through thelegal system and have been deemed expressions of free speech. Just as thereare acts that have been shot down as not being free speech.

For example, in 2007 Elizabeth Book won her appeal regarding protesting topless inDaytona Beach. Her gripe was women were being ticketed for publicnudity (and other things) at the annual biker rally for 'showing their tits'(a tradition in the biker community). In 2004, her form ofprotest was to protest topless. It was a plannedevent, the media was alerted and, sure enough, she was arrested for publicnudity. The court upheld hercontention that it was an expression of free speech.Disorderly conduct charges, however, relating to adifferent incident stood up.

In contrast, to Ms. Book's 'success,' nudesunbathing or just flashing one's boobies (even atMardi Gras and biker rallies) have consistentlybeen rejected as acts of freedom of expression (free speech). People doingso are regularly cited for public nudity, disorderly conduct and as publicnuisances. Whereas, strip clubs -- private property, limited admission andnot in public -- have been found to beprotected as artistic expression.

Confused yet? Welcome to how complicated the lawand 'rights' can get. But it is very important in establishing the standards of free speech.

This is, in part, why the redefinition of campingas part of a protest has caused problems. At thistime, camping has not been legally recognized as avalid form of freedom of expression, free speech, or protest.(Oh, BTW, remember I said this redefinition of protest to include camping has been tried before? The 'Bonus Army' tried occupying Washington DC in 1932. It wasn't cops who broke it up, it was the US Army. Turns out camping wasn't accepted as part of a protest back then either.) This failure to be legally recognized means it is not an accepted form of protest that must be tolerated.

That puts us in another realm. In particular, existing health and safety laws.

During this latest round of protests, police in various areas let slide placing sleeping bags and setting up food tables.Actually, those were more political decisions bythe powers-that-be. It's one of those technicallyillegal actions, but enforcement would open a can of worms because of theclaim that it is 'part of theprotest.' The powers-that-be drew theline at pitching tents, however. At first glance, thismight seem arbitrary. It's not.

You cannot legally 'camp' on public property(that's why cops run bums out of the park). Whilewe're at it, you cannot 'block' a publicthoroughfare or road -- without permits or for anextended period of time. Again, this is whyprotestors must keep moving on sidewalks or rallyonly in designated areas. This allows traffic toflow around them. A person in a sleeping bag canget up and move. Tents don't move easily. The tents became obstructions.Whether they were intentionally set up to be so or that was just theeffect, doesn't matter. They were in the way.

There are a lot of people who dismiss the 'inconvenience' the protestors are causing to other in the pursuit of their rights (an attitude that should make you go 'hmmmmm' about someone else volunteering your time and inconvenience). The same folks also to dismiss health and safety issues as either inconsequential or alarmist.

My position is a little different due to personal experiences. Ever been in a crowd when someone starts shooting a gun? I have. Not fun. Ever been in a crowd when a fire breaks out? Again, I have. And again, way not fun.Ever been caught in a riot? BTDT. Add it to the list of not fun things to do. Ever work events or crowd control? I have. Things can go real bad, real quick in a crowd. And when they do obstructions make them all that much worse. Whenever you get crowds, health and safety IS a big deal.

Again the 'dismissers' will claim 'those things won't happen. But speaking as someone who worked crowds professionally, I can assure you they do. Way too often. The only reason 'those things' don't happen more often is because there are people working their asses off to keep it from happening.

The final point about 'free speech' involves your fellow citizens. Now we'regetting into 'my right to swing my arm ends where my neighbor's nosebegins.' (Zechariah Chafee, "Freedom of Speech in Wartime", 32 Harvard LawReview 932, 957 (1919). This includes otherpeople being 'inconvenienced' and endangered byself-appointed 'protestors.'

This isn't a case of a 'protest means whatever I think it means' issue. Nor is it conveniently dismissed by the claim of 'what I'm doing isn't hurting anyone.' We've moved into the realm of cause and effect,safety, health, unintentional consequences andproperty damage.

For example, a few years ago, protestors inWashington state threw bricks and garbageat passing cars and pushed roll-away trash binsout into traffic. Was this free speech? Was this alegitimate form of protest? Or did it createdangerous and problematic conditions where injuryand property damage were likely? Realize that theseconditions weren't just created where the dumpsterswere being pushed into intersections, but extended milesdown the streets and in multiple directions. Theseactions affected people who never laid eyeson the protestors. Oh yeah, and throwing objectsat moving cars? Great way to cause wrecks -- alsoillegal as hell for endangering other people.

That is more extreme than what this latest batchof protestors are doing, but it illustrates apoint. The behaviors of these Occupy folks have become public health andsafety issues. People aren't getting pepper sprayed for engaging in peaceful assembly.. People aregetting pepper sprayed and arrested for refusinglawful orders to take down their tents andimpeding the law enforcement in the execution of theirduties as public safety officers (taking the tentsdown). Some of this resistance is passive, some ofit is active.And remember, actions that cause danger to thepolice or others can be legally and justifiably metwith a much higher level of force to put a stop tothem.

Keep that in mind when you hear aboutincidents of 'peaceful' protestors getting injured. You have to ask, whatwas that person doing that officers -- on the scene -- deemed a level offorce likely to cause injury was warranted. (And that's another wellestablished legal precedent a lot of people don'tknow about. It is the professional assessment ofthe officer on location that determines if abehavior poses a danger. It is not what the commentator on Youtube or Facebookthinks. To make you feel all warm and fuzzy, thisassessment is based on established externalstandards of known dangers. [It's called'jeopardy' -- acting in a manner that is known tobe dangerous.] So the officer isn't making it up on the spot to justify hisor her actions.)

I'm sure by now some apologists are trying toframe an argument about how camping and peacefulprotest do not justify police use of force. Mypoint is that is not the issue.

The issues are violating health and safety laws, disobeying lawfulorders, passive resistance and the level of forcelegally allowed against passive resistance.Just as importantly, the level of forceallowed when that resistance becomes both activeand a danger.

Yet this behavior has it's defenders. A common'monkey brain' wiggle is how 'breaking the law isokay if it is for a noble and idealistic cause.'

If you try to point out these nuts-and-boltsproblems regarding health, safety, disorderlyconduct and public nuisance, apologists willimmediately jackrabbit off to wax poeticabout social injustice and tyranny. If you letthem get a head of steam going, they will tell youabout their outrage against social inequality. Inthe meantime, ignoring the facts that a hundred peoplecamped in a park and peeing on trees is neitherfree speech nor particularly sanitary.

Another common subset of this red herring defenseis 'the wrong we're protesting is greater than thewrong we're doing, so that makes it right.'

I actually saw someone try to justify the millionsof dollars Occupy Wall Street has cost the New York City by pointing out thesupposed trillions that 'big business' had 'stolen.' What? Really? That's what you call 'logic?' Oh, BTW, the $6 million figuredoes not include the cost of time of people who work in the area and loss ofbusiness local shops and restaurants have suffered because people areavoiding the area. This is the 'inconvenience' that 'dismissers' wave away as inconsequential. It's okay. Those people being inconvenienced are eitherpart of, or supporters of, 'the great evil' the Occupy folks are protesting. So they deserve what they get.

Another red herring is to claim pepper spray and tasers are 'torture.' A friend pointed out it's not. That's because 'You can't make torture stop.' You can, however, stop the pain police are inflicting on you by the simple act of complying to the order you are disobeying and resisting. I thought about this and added that torture is 'involuntary.' You can't stop it from happening to you. People come into your cell and drag you to the torture chamber. On the other hand, you can prevent being pepper sprayed by simply complying with a lawful order. That's why the 'torture' argument falls down, the pain these folks are undergoing is entirely voluntary. They are in control if it happens and when it stops. (Boy could I run with some BDSM jokes).

Two final points in closing. I've heard peoplestrenuously object to force being used onprotestors as though they were 'criminals.' I findthis position to be not only ironic, butdownright funny in its hypocrisy. To understand why, I first have to tell you a quote I recently heard: In theeyes of the law, all are equal.However, those who apply the law may not do soequally.

That statement acknowledges that things can behandled in a less than perfect way by theauthorities. In fact, you can even go so far as tosay there can be bias in many cases. Point cededwithout argument.

That bias statement, however, is a two-way street.As in, many people are saying, "These protestorsshould be treated differently for breaking the lawbecause their motives are pure."

Stop and think about that for a second. It is anincredibly elitist, self-serving and arrogantattitude. One you'll see regarding this topicbecause it's sitting right there in plain sight.

Police are not allowed to exercise judgment and selective enforcement between who is a 'criminal' and who is a 'protestor.' They must react according to the circumstances. This includes the fact the law applies across the board (in the eyes of the law, all are equal). As does enforcement and the responses to refusal of lawful orders and resistance.

Camping and trespassing are prohibited, and it doesn't matter who or WHYsomeone is breaking these laws. The same goes for blocking thoroughfares andbeing a public nuisance. The police are duty bound to resolve these issues. If, inexecuting this duty,they encounter passive and active resistance,these conditions will elicit pre-established anddepartmentally approved responses. This is how thepolice treat everyone who actively and willfullydisobey lawful orders.

This is where the hypocrisy comes in. When peopleare squealing about protestors being treated like criminals (being peppersprayed for passive resistance and refusing alawful order), what they are objecting to iseveryone being treated equally.

For folks who areprotesting the inequality and injustice of oursociety, they certainly are claiming some specialtreatment for themselves, dontcha think?

My last point is to ask how much of this is a PR battle? One that the view from the streets says the Occupy folks may be strong inthe blogsphere and certain Facebook circles, but they're losing the bigger battle.

A simple truth is that because these are'organized protests' (like I said most of themeven have permits) the powers-that-be have,by in large, held off doing anything about theprotestors and the problems they are causing.Basically, although there have been lots ofminor issues, people in authority have told the police not to act. Orderingthe police to act is a serious turdburger that government has wiselyhesitated to bite into.

When it comes to knowing how to 'play thegame,' however, the powers-that-be aren't stupid. In fact, by letting theprotests go on, they've allowed acounter position to grow. A position that reallyisn't that sympathetic to what the occupiers aredoing, how long they've dragged it on and how much money they've cost.

Again, while support is strong in the blogosphereand social media for Occupy (Wherever), that isn't the case with the generalpublic. People either don't care or are getting sick and tired of it. Peoplein coffeeshops and progressive areas might be for theoccupation and what it stands for, but in truckstops, McDonald's and Black Angus restaurantsacross the country, there really isn't that muchsupport.

(Do me a favor 'dismissers,' don't you dare tell me the opinions of these, your fellow citizens, don't count.)

What little support the protestors might have had has wanedas the protests drag on and costs mount for the taxpaying public. (This, inaddition to the number of incidents where members of theso-called 'peaceful protest' decided to stoppassively resisting and engage in activeresistance.) While sections of the Internet getall aflutter with news releases and videos of thepolice using force, there's a lot more folks outthere who are shrugging and saying, "About time."

I may be a knuckle-dragging Neanderthal, buteven I can see there's a lot more to be consideredhere than a bunch of protestors claiming theyshouldn't get pepper sprayed when they cause health and safety issues, refuse lawful ordersand, in some cases, create active threats. Now that you know these thingsabout use of force, you have a much stronger way to explain to thenext person, who is all aghast and horrified exactly why the police used force on those sweet, innocent, peaceful protestors.

M
Posted byMarc MacYoungat2:16 PM

The Fallout From Cutting Training by Venom

2011-11-06T21:17:00.000-08:00

A few months ago I reposted an article called Cutting The Training Budget by Harvey Heddon of ILEETA. Since then there have been huge repercussions and negative effects on our society and law enforcement as a whole that has damaged it so much that it may never be fully prepared. Officers need our help now more than ever but the biggest problem is that no one even sees it. The public has started to lose faith in the departments with more and more incidents on police brutality on the rise. Police are now cast in the role as villians with people scrambling trying to figure out how to fix it. Our system is broken. I'm to tell you the problem was caused by administrators cutting the training budgets and this problem can only be fixed with training. With recent incidents in Oakland and Seattle among others the public is outraged. Their anger though completely understandable is misguided. State governments and administrators need to wake up and understand why these things are happening and that there is only one way to fix it. In this article I will prove this from my own experience as well as well known incidents.
   As Mr. Heddon mentioned in his article in a bad economy training budgets are usually the first thing cut. The administrative theory is departments will just need to run more efficiently and they won't need the resources. This is just plain nuts. When you do this your putting officers lives in danger and not to mention civilian lives.



This is a pic of an officer murdering a dog in broad daylight in front of witnesses. The dog's name was Parrot. The dog was barking at the officer because it was scared according to roughly 50 witnesses. The officer didn't know what to do and was afraid of being bitten so he grabbed the dog and threw it down a flight of steps then pulled out his gun and shot it for no damn good reason. Of course this happened in front off the public and now they all hate the police department and the officers will endure the abuse of the public. So what is the department going to say? Well of course they are going to pretend to investigate it then say it was justified because the officer feared for his safety. The problem is that it's bullshit. How should it have gone? The officer should have been trained to know that all dogs have the same anatomical weak point...the legs. The dog never tried to bite the officer or even moved in a threatening manner it was just barking. If the officer was afraid just take out the baton and whack the front legs. Then the dog would yelp and run off. It may limp for a day but it would be fine and the act would easily be explainable. But hey the department didn't think he needed that training and didn't want to pay for it. Therefore he didn't know what to do so he reverted to what he knew which was shoot.. this is very common in departments that don't make unarmed defense a priority. If that officer had known that then none of that ugly incident would've happened and that dog would be alive playing with it's owner. Now if he'd had that training and still murdered the dog then public outrage would be completely justified towards him and there would be grounds for dismissal and the department could use him as a scapegoat and be protected. But because some desk jockey didn't think it was important the public will distrust this department and the media will feed it and violence against officers will escalate. Good job asshole way to save a buck.
   How about that infamous video of the Seattle cop punching that 17 year old girl. If you look at the video the cop wrestled with the girl for several minutes before her friend intervened and got punched. They didn't even have the training to restrain a child. So what happened? Well basically the officer didn't have any type of basic grappling training and when he couldn't restrain the girl he got frustrated. When her friend stepped in and shoved him what did he do? He reverted back to the boxing training he had at the academy and punched the girl. Of course the departments will say he was justified I think the actual statement was it's not an officers job to get hurt. Now this is true, but that department endured one hell of a media shitstorm and they deserved it. The public is not going to continue to tolerate this shit. If he's had some basic training he wouldn't be on camera punching a teenage girl and you know it. But no you went on the cheap and tried to save money and this is the result. Officers need training and if you don't give it to them then they are gonna do what they gotta do to get home at night. You see I've dealt with these types for years. Now I will say not all departments are like that. The majority of training directors I've spoken with over the years understand the problems and want to fix them but the pencil pushers won't come off the money they keep slashing and slashing those budgets like a serial killer in the night.
    I remember just last year an assistant instructor that helps me teach in Texas sent me an email about a drug treatment hospital there for teens. In the last two years the staff had murdered four patients...beat them to death. He thought maybe I could help them out. I got on the phone right away and called that hospital. I had a good conversation with the administrator there. They had training but it was a program out of New York that obviously wasn't working but the state paid for it. I basically broke it down over the phone. The patients at times were getting violent when they didn't want to take their meds is when most of the incidents went down. They'd try to use the training they had and when it didn't work and the patient assaulted them they snap and beat the hell out of them. The guys basically agreed that yeah that's pretty close to what happened. Well the state wasn't gonna pay for any more training and the hospital was under funded. I never heard back from that administator. With the lawsuits they were getting that center may not even be open anymore. If they'd had the training maybe they don't get assaulted then snap and beat a kid to death. Four teens dead because of lack of training and nothing is being done.
   Now I'm going to play whistleblower against my better judgement but someone has to do it. For years I'd tried to get training for government security and a certain nuclear power plant around here. Everytime I'd talk to the head over there I'd always get the same answer. They aren't going to pay for unarmed training it just isn't a priority for them. Now I'm going to be realistic here. They have gun training out the ass one shot one kill 98% accuracy. If your some type of terrorist trying to get in there your going to be shot. In that regard that plant is completely safe and that's why I don't feel talking about it is an issue. Here is the part where I take issue with unarmed training not being a priority. Though possible the odds of that type of terrorist attack are slim though they are prepared for it. I will tell you however something that is real high percentage. What if a guy shows up to work drunk?. He gets back there working and someone reports him to security. They determine he's drunk and try to escort him out but he raises a stink and starts fighting. Well they don't have any training to deal with that. What if the drunk guy is winning? Well one of two things will happen folks. A bunch of security will jump him and beat him down and get sued for brutality and lose. The other thing is we've already determined when things aren't doing well police and security will revert back to what they know. Oops ...they only got gun training. Do you see where I'm heading here? Not a pretty place is it? In that enviroment there's certain equipment that don't need to be shot. Remember 3 Mile Island people? It could happen. There is an immediate danger to the public there. But to a pencil pusher training to deal with that just isn't very important they need to save money. You know it don't have to be a drunk guy it could be someone getting fired that don't want to leave. It could just be some guy with a smart mouth but you got admins pay all the money in the world for training they probably won't need versus spending nothing on training they all definitely need right now.
   This is the sickness that's going on. Police and security will continue to do messed up shit without the right training and departments will keep saying it's ok when it's not. The public will continue to become more angry and misguided taking out their frustrations on police while the pencil pushers sit on there asses collecting a check and counting pennies oblivious to the pain they are causing the public as well as their own officers.
   If your reading this write your congressmen and governors and tell them about it. Let them read this article foul language and all. Change doesn't happen at the bottom it has to change at the top and taking your frustrations out on officers isn't going to fix anything it's just going to get you thrown in jail. Flood those state email boxes if they think it will cost them enough votes they'll do something about it and get departments the funding to get the correct training or at the very least demand the jerks at the departments get fired for putting people in danger. Training is the source of the problem but it is also the solution.

Truth,Lies, and the Invisible World by Venom

2011-10-27T20:40:00.000-07:00

I feel we are at a turning point in the world. Governments that were strong for a thousand years are falling. Governments that seemed solid aren't so solid. Alot of the beliefs we grew up with are falling apart and are showing cracks. This isn't necessarily a bad thing. It may not be a good thing either only time will tell. So what is changing these things what is responsible? This wasn't taken down by guns or missiles. They were taken down by education. As resources like the internet have gotten bigger and more vast people have more access to info than they have ever had. Tools like propaganda that governments have used in the past along with the media don't have the control they used to. Now if you want to know what is going on in any country you just go online and ask someone who is there and even get home made videos. In recent times it's become obvious that news organizations have biases therefore they no longer have any credibility but that's ok because we don't really need them.
At the same time there are those who are afraid. They don't want to know the truth and don't want to see it. They want to cling to outdated values and beliefs. They want to hang on the the people who want to control them and are all too willing to lie to them and claim we are the crazy ones. Check out this interesting speech by David Icke. Don't worry about those documentaries listed at the end I'll address those later in this article

As I said before we aren't the crazy ones we are the ones trying to make a difference. Some people are just cowards but they don't have to be. They can change and make a difference it's not too late. I've seen alot of disturbing things this week and I've published alot of disturbing things on this blog. Many of which I'll be reposting for this article because I think you should look at them, I think everyone needs to see them and get out of this damn denial they are all in. When I post this most will never look at it or they will dismiss it's contents. If I can get one person to open their damn eyes then it will be a success. The fact is no one wants you to see this stuff because then you'll start asking questions. When your educated to these things people can't control you anymore. They can't take advantage of an ignorance that is no longer there. But no they don't want that instead they want you to shut up and sit in front of the TV and watch Jersey Shore so you can laugh at them and pretend you are better than them. They want you to watch CNN and blame republicans for everything or watch FOX News and blame democrats and argue about it in bars when the fact is what you think doesn't mean shit. They always say every vote counts. No actually in national elections it doesn't. Bush lost the popular vote when he was elected as has happened with several other presidents. More people voted for Gore but tough shit the electoral college elected Bush. In alabama where I live it will always be carried by republicans. If your a democrat your wasting gas just stay home because your vote won't matter. The opposite is true in many other states but your an asshole if you say that even though it's true.

People are so wrapped up in themselves and their own ambition they rarely care about anyone else but themselves. Sure there are good people in the world I hope I'm one of them. Unfortunately in modern times good people have become the exception not the rule. It can range from small to big. I'll start with the small. My birthday was last week on October 21st. I try to help people whenever I can. I was honored to have people from all over the world wish me a happy birthday that didn't even know me but they were on my friend's list and facebook told them so they were nice enough to do that for someone they didn't know and make their day better(Thank you for that). Now I know a good many people local that I've worked to help that actually know me. I know a girl who didn't have any furniture and her daughter had to eat off the floor. I had my furniture in storage so I just gave it to her and even helped her move it in for her daughter. I know a guy who's wife was cheating on him with this other guy. I helped get rid of the guy and helped there marriage survive another year(They are gettin a divorce now). I know a girl who was having trouble with college and I did a report for her to try to help her out. I know another one who had self esteem issues trying to lose weight and I always made a point of telling her how pretty she was when I saw her. What do they all have in common? They all had something better to do than type two words on a keyboard for someone who busted his ass for them and asked nothing in return. It doesn't really matter but it would've been nice. Now that is a very small almost irrelevant example but it is a very small example nonetheless. Now for a huge one watch this next video: I want to warn you what you are about to watch is graphic and real this is not fake

18 damn people walked by before someone did anything. The child died of injuries at the hospital but if someone had lifted a finger earlier the child may have been saved. So what was the excuse? Though the video is in chinese(obviously because this happened in China) since i have friends everywhere a friend of mine in China translated it for me. The main excuse was they were afraid someone would think they were the ones that ran over the child and they'd get in trouble. What a bunch of shit the camera was in full view everyone knew it was there. Once again they though of themselves only and let a child die. Now some would just dismiss that and claim well that's how it is over there in China but we're different here. Oh is that so? Well let's see about that.

Here is a pic of young James Bulger he wasn't quite 2 years old. I say wasn't because he was kidnapped out of a shopping center in England far away from China and his body was found murdered and mutilated two days later. Witnesses even said he was kicking and screaming begging for help. Well geez if you saw him kicking and screaming you must feel like shit that you didn't do a damn thing. If not you definitely should you should be scarred for life. Plenty of people saw it. As a matter of fact reader the pic on the right is an actual photo from the security camera at the shopping center. That's little James on the left and the teen on the right is the one that murdered him and mutilated his body. Now it was the witnesses themselves who said he was kicking and screaming yet notice them in the pic not doing anything to help Of course if you follow my blogs you know this is the bystander effect that I've documented ad nauseum in Kitty Genovese and Me as well as the follow up The Genovese Continuum. This was from the original article. Let's look at a re-enactment here in the US and see if the results are any different.

So how many people walked by versus the number that helped? The excuse being they thought someone else would help. You see this is an international problem. Hell a few years ago there was even an incident where a woman was shot to death in a convenient store in San Francisco and people stepped over her and took pics with their cellphones and sent them to friends while the woman lay there dying. They couldn't have cared less. People think these things only go on somewhere else but they are hypocrits because they are no different. Everyone is the center of their own universe while the world goes straight to hell. People there is no innate good in the world. When it comes right down to it the only person you can depend on is yourself so it has to be you that makes the difference. Politicians are all corrupt they aren't gonna help you. The fact is if your getting raped a police officer isn't gonna pop up out of the floor and save you either. They'll show up later and fill out a report and maybe they'll catch the guy but if his dad has money he'll get a lawyer and probably get away with it. The fact is as your reading this unless your aware of these things you are no better than anyone else in those videos. If you want to know the truth have an open mind and research it. Turn the fucking TV off and start asking questions. Question everything hell question this article.
The first problem starts with us. We've grown lazy. Other countries used to respect us because we were defiant and we stood for things and fought for them. Now many have become complacent and don't deserve that respect. So wrapped up in their on feces they can't see outside off themselves nor do they want to. They fall prey to religious fanaticism or even worse misguided cultures or both. I used to work for a copier company and I traveled to many small towns to work. I can't tell you how many towns I went to where people were impoverished. They lived in shacks that couldn't have cost more than a couple thousand dollars. In the middle of those shacks would be a 4 million dollar church that was supposedly raising money to help the poor and the weak but instead were just taking their money to build a 5 million dollar church. Before you start talking about glorifying God remember a church is not a building it is the people inside of it. God can be just as glorified in a field as an irrelevant building. A building doesn't have feelings it can only glorify the ego of man it can't glorify God so what's the deal there. I remember years ago this town was dry alcohol sales were illegal so the people had to give all their tax money to other cities to help their schools so our kids could remain stupid because the churches in the area said God said so. So when the vote came up a local church here went around to all the nursing homes and told the elderly if they'd register to vote and vote against alcohol they'd take them on a trip somewhere and come see them but if they didn't they die alone and go to hell. People got wind of it and you can buy alcohol here now. When people get up off their asses and stand up they can actually make something happen. A preacher came out against the new law and wanted it repealed! years later when it came up CNN and FOX News came to our town to interview everyone because they thought we would be the first city in US history to repeal that law. It didn't happen and they couldn't make fun of us so they left. That preacher was getting money by the way from a nearby city because our town being wet was hurting their tax revenue. Isn't that just so wonderful, decent, and good? This shit goes on in every city this isn't isolated but you won't know how bad your getting screwed with your ass glued to your seat watching Glee. The fact is people are corrupt as hell. The Bible is a great and wonderful thing but people are not. People distort things and take advantage of them and use them to control people for their own designs. God may be great but you are not.
I see this evident in the entertainment here especially some country music. I here the same redundant thing in most male artists talking about how their dad plowed the fields and the simple life and appreciating what you have and all that. Well first of all you should appreciate what you have and all that. My problem is that my father worked in a factory job he hated for 35 years and my mother taught preschool. I worked in factories and warehouses most of my adult life. I love my mother and father and appreciate the sacrifices they made. However, I know damn well they didn't make those sacrifices so my life would be worth less or be stuck doing the same shit they had to do. They want better for me as any good parent would. When I here that kind of music I hear settle for what you got, love your oppressor, study religion stay away from the cities and book learning, you gotta be the government's bitch you should want to be controlled. Would you be happy with what you got if you knew what you could've had but it was stolen from you? I think not. Then they go on about the war and if you don't support the war your anti-american. First of all...Fuck You! I have a cousin in a hospital in Afganistan right now in stable condition he was shot monday. I know for a fact alot of the troops over there do not support the war. I support the troops! You bastards prey on the ignorant hoping they don't know the difference. This country was founded by people who stood up and fought for what they believed in. If they thought something wasn't right they said something about it. People like me are real americans not nuthuggers like you. Your just punks and cowards hiding behind outdated ideals because your afraid to grow.
These will generally be the same people screaming about "immigrants invading america" Well let me educate you. First of all you dumb asses there is no such country as America. America is two continents one being North America and the other being South America. You live in North America in a country call the United States. Sometimes called The United States of America because it is physically on the American continents. Yes you are an american but so are canadians, mexicans, and even brazilians all of whom live on the american continents. You specifically are a United Statesmen if you want to get technical. So when you claim Mexicans are invading America I find it hard to believe since they've been in America thousands of years longer than you. I'm sure they know the name of the country you think they are invading even if you don't even know the name of the country you live in. So they are coming over here just to steal your job right? Well let's look at the working conditions in the border cities where they live shall we?

Gee why would they ever want to leave that? Yeah if you haven't figured it out already they aren't running to the US they are running away from Mexico for fear off death. They don't care about your job they just don't want to die. Frankly the best solution is a better pathway to legalization which would have them paying taxes just like you which is what your concern is right? Because surely it isn't just because your a racist jerk right? I think Carlos Santana had the best take on it when he said if you don't want immigrants in the US then give the land back to the indians and go back to Europe.
On the other end of this issue of truth and change and all that are people who are trying to do the right thing but the wrong way. There are people who just love conspiracies they'll promote anything as long as it's a conspiracy and especially if it's anti-american. They put out hoaxes and think they are helping but you can taken down a lie with another lie. It destroys the credibility of people who are trying to make change the right way.Some people out there are reporting real problems but they get overshadowed by crazy wingnuts. There have been several hoaxes I'm going to show you a real messed up one dealing with the 911 tragedy.

Take a good look at it. On the internet it says this pic was found in a camera in the rubble off the world trade center. This guy was up there taking a pic when the plane hit the tower and of course he was killed. It would be a sad story and a heartfelt reminder of the tragedy this poor guy had no clue. Except for one thing..this photo is total bullshit. That's right people it's photoshopped. When people saw this they were horrified they never did the research or they would've found out this:

If you look closely at the above image, Midtown Manhattan is discernible in the background behind the blissfully unaware subject, indicating that the photographer was facing north from the location of the Twin Towers at the moment the photo was snapped. Only one of the airliners that collided with the World Trade Center on September 11 approached from that direction — the first, American Airlines Flight #11, which struck the north tower (One World Trade) at 8:45 a.m. The trouble is, the north tower had no rooftop observation deck like the one pictured here. Even if it had, it wouldn't have been open to tourists at such an early hour.

There are additional discrepancies to ponder:

Why isn't the fast-moving aircraft blurry in the photo?

Why doesn't the subject (or the photographer, for that matter) seem cognizant of the plane's high-decibel approach?

The temperature was between 65 and 70 degrees that morning, according to news reports. Why is this man dressed for winter?

How did the camera survive the 110-story fall when the tower collapsed?

How was the camera found so quickly amidst all the rubble?

Why did this one-of-a-kind, newsworthy photo never appear in the media until after it had already been well circulated via email?

This is once again an example of how sick people are and things they will do to get attention. Now I'll move onto another one that has damaged movements for the truth. I'll now address what I alluded to about the list of documentaries at the end of that first video. I've seen a couple of them. While some have alot of truth some are more wingnut bull that does more harm than good. 911 was a horrible tragedy and even today in 2011 we still don't have all the answers we want. The fact that we still don't have all the answers is enough to make anyone legitimately suspicious. You know as people sometimes when we don't know what's going on with something we imagine the worst. In one of those documentaries which I will not name. There is a part in it where they lay out all this evidence that the US fired a missile into the pentagon and killed all those people on purpose that their were no plane parts at the crash site and the hole in the pentagon was too small to be made by a Boeing 757. They made all of it seem factual and after that part was over you'd be convinced the US attacked the pentagon with a missile. They said no eyewitnesses even saw the plane that some said they saw a missile. After seeing that I was convinced they were right. But unlike most people I did the research and found out everything they said was a lie. So instead of just saying that how bout I just prove it?

Other pics in the past were obscured by fighter fighters and first responder equipment however this is a perfect view of the impact zone that is supposed to be too small but when you look at those dimensions you can see that it is just about right for a Boeing 757 if you look closely you can see where the right wing did damage on the lower levels.

Here's a photo taken by a passing motorist right after the plane hit you can see just how huge the impact zone was. I say plane because the motorist who took the pic actually saw the plane hit it and described it to investigators in great detail. In contrast not a single person who had a good view of the impact saw a missile or anything resembling it. Every single eyewitness saw a plane.

On the top left we have debri of the plane taken at the pentagon by first responders. You can compare that wheel to the wheels on the right found on a Boeing 757. Yes they say there was no plane debri...oops there it is right there in the pentagon after it hit.

Let's see what an actual eye witness has to say? His name is Joel v.d. Reijden he was more than happy to give his name:

A large American Airlines jetliner came screaming over the highways with it's gears up, after having circled the Pentagon area. It balanced a little to the left an right, clipped some light poles and other stuff, barely pulled itself straight again and fired up it's engines to full throttle in the last few seconds. Some say it struck the helipad with it's left wing right before it hit the Pentagon and a few others claim it hit the ground with it's nose, only inches before the wall. Just like the two airplanes that hit the WTC; "it disappeared.". A few claim they could see the tail sticking out of the building for about one or two seconds before a very heavy explosion engulfed everything in flames. (Like the WTC) People who were close by, were blown off their feet and some even went flying. Small pieces of airplane, concrete and other rubble was blown out of the building and landed up to hundreds of yards away. The blast was so powerful it blew a few big chunks of the engines hundreds of yards through the air. An intense heat has been described, which melted the back of at least one firetruck which was standing in front of the building.

This testimony has been back up by dozens of other witnesses. So he said American Airlines huh?

Holy Shit! There's actual pics of the plane hull in the grass at the pentagon. Low and behold it's from an American Airlines plane! Oh my God who would've have thought it? Apparently conspiracy theorists missed that. Well.. we know they didn't it was just a hatchett job. So let's recap

claim: No one saw a plane hit the pentagon

truth: everyone with a good view saw a plane hit the pentagon

claim: some said they saw a missile

truth: no one who was there with a view saw a missile

claim: the hole was too small to be made by a plane

truth: the hole was the perfect size to be made by a plane

claim: there was no plane debri there

truth: there was plane debri everywhere

So does this mean the government isn't hiding something? No they are definitely hiding alot! Did tthe government have something to do with 911. There's evidence that says they did but this was supposed to be evidence of that as well and it was a complete lie. We may never know. The fact is these people wanted to start a stink to get people to ask questions and shock them. What they actually did was the opposite they destroyed the credibility of people really looking for the truth and made them all look like wingnuts. You can't takedown a lie with more lies. Look at what happened with the birthers. They look like idiots now. The republicans were smart enough to distance themselves from them early on because they knew what would happen. There's freaky stuff out there going on but lying doesn't help it. I want you all to look at this stuff and start researching. Don't believe everything you read no matter what it says. Be diligent and keep an open mind to find the right answers and educate yourself. We can make a change but it's got to be done the right way.

In conclusion to summarize this article. Some of the ways the world is set up don't make logical sense when your forced to think about it. Think about what David Icke said and how it applies to you. Understand the conventional wisdom isn't very wise. There are other ways of thinking about things and new perspectives to look at. There are real answers out there. Maybe watch less MTV and watch more History Channel. Get into it don't settle for anyone's explanation you find it yourself and feel empowered to do so this is your world just as much as it is theirs or mine. Don't get caught up in the minutia of politics use common sense to see the real truth. Don't wait around for someone to help you because they may not be there. Wether it's something small like a birthday or if you see someone else in need. You can be the difference maker and you can make the difference. You don't need anyone to make you feel complete. You can empower yourself to get where you need to be stop waiting on someone else to do it for you. Understand what your listening to when you listen to the radio does it have any value? What are the real values you should have and what's important. Don't trust someone just because they are in a position of authority because in today's times you can't trust anyone. Don't get caught up in someone's dogma that does nothing but oppress you. In things like immigration try to be empathetic and understand what the under person may be going through and apply it to your life. Things aren't always what they seem. And last but not least don't believe every crazy thing you hear because everything you hear may be wrong don't be lazy do the work and find out for yourself be a leader and be the best person you can be. Thank you for your time.

Motives for False Confessions by John Reid & Associates

2011-10-20T19:54:00.000-07:00

To date, the innocence project has freed in excess of 200 individuals from prison based on DNA evidence.* These innocent defendants were found guilty of serious felonies such as murder and rape.* Furthermore, about twenty percent of them confessed to committing the crime either to the police during an interrogation, or to a judge as a result of a plea bargain with the prosecutor.* What causes innocent people to confess to crimes they did not commit?

The simple answer is that, at the time of the confession, many of these suspects believed that it was in their best interest to confess, e.g., escape a death sentence, keep children out of a foster home, etc.* However, when evaluating individual cases, a number of specific motivations can be identified.* When evaluating the trustworthiness of a confession, the investigator, prosecutor and judge should consider the following motivations for false confessions.

Tangible Gains

When speaking of the value of the polygraph technique, John Reid told the following story.* A man from Chicago confessed to a homicide that occurred in California.* The man was extradited to the west coast and charged with the killing.* At that point he recanted his confession, and explained that he was seeking to escape the cold weather of Illinois.* Of course, no one believed him until Reid was able to verify his truthfulness through the polygraph technique.* Other examples of tangible gains that may lead to a false confession include seeking shelter, food, medical care, and protection (being hunted by drug lords).* These suspects may come forward and confess without any interrogation (the so-called voluntary false confession), or confess after a relatively short and mild interrogation.* Once their need has been satisfied, they recant the confession but find that it is much easier to be charged with a crime than having the charges dropped.

Protecting a loved one

During a new years eve party, a guest was shot in the hosts back yard.* When the police arrived, the hosts teenage son came forward and explained that the guest was arguing with his father so the boy ran into the house, retrieved a shotgun and killed the guest.* The boy was charged with first degree murder and obtained an attorney.* Once the boy learned that he would be tried as an adult and face life in prison, he recanted his confession and explained that it was his father who actually shot the guest.* A polygraph confirmed the boys statement, the father was interrogated and confessed.* We have also experienced the opposite situation, where a parent has confessed to protect a son or daughter who was involved in criminal activity.

Low Intelligence / Youthful offenders

In the previous New Years eve killing, the boys father told him that because he was a teenager he would not go to prison.* It has been suggested that suspects who are young or have a low IQ may fail to understand the severity of consequences they face through their decision to confess.* Consider an analogous situation:* I believe most adults of average intelligence would pay the IRS a* $200 fine even though they contest the alleged error on their tax return; putting an end to the hassle, fear and frustration of dealing with the IRS is worth $200.* However, I doubt that the same taxpayer would be willing to spend even a day in jail as punishment for the contested error.

Suspects under the age of 16 who have had little contact with police, or suspects who have an IQ under 65 are statistically abundant in documented false confession cases.* Certainly a confession coming from this category of suspect should be carefully scrutinized to make certain that it was obtained in the absence of a promise of leniency and that the confession contains corroborative information that originated from the suspect. When investigators are dealing with these vulnerable suspects, caution should be exercised to make certain the interrogations are not too lengthy, intense or psychologically manipulative.

Coercion

Many innocent people will confess to a crime if they are subjected to sufficient pain or threats of harm (coercion). This concept is fundamental to common law and, within the judiciary, there is zero-tolerance when it comes to coercion.* For a confession to be admissible as evidence, it must be obtained without inflicting or threatening to inflict any physical harm to the suspect.*

While coercion specifically relates to the suspects physical well being, there is a related psychological circumstance which may have an even greater impact on false confessions. Consider* the following interrogation of an innocent mother in a case involving the death of her infant child.

Martha, the fact that you can't tell the truth about what you did to your child tells us you're an unfit mother.* You know what we do with unfit mothers?* We place their children in foster homes.* Your children will be placed in foster homes across the country and they will never see each other again and you will never see them.* That is what will happen if you don't confess to shaking your child.

When an innocent suspect is convinced that his denials will not prevent a prison sentence, loss of reputation, or loss of something else he values, in an effort to reduce or escape those inevitable consequences, certainly the suspect may be persuaded to confess.* Under this circumstance, because the suspect is still under the threat of the consequence, the confession may not be retracted until the suspect feels it is safe to do so

Duress

The average innocent suspect can answer questions and fend off persuasive interrogation techniques for many hours without being tempted, in any way, to confess.* However, when the sessions become too lengthy, intense or unbearable, the innocent suspect may confess to terminate the conditions. Duress describes lengthy questioning, as well as deprivation of biological needs such as sleep, warmth or food.* Unlike coercion, duress is considered by the courts on a continuum, in which a number of different factors are considered.

A homicide confession obtained after a ten hour interrogation from a mentally competent adult suspect who has waived his Miranda rights may be considered by most courts as legally admissible.* However, a burglary confession obtained after a ten hours of interrogation of a 15-year-old suspect who did not have a parent or guardian present may be suppressed, partially as a result of duress.* When evaluating the trustworthiness of a confession, it is important to recognize that some suspects are more susceptible to persuasive interrogation techniques.

Mental Illness

Following a heinous crime, it is not uncommon for innocent individuals suffering from mental illness to come forward and confess.* Some of them are delusional and receive messages to confess.* Others have lost touch with reality and believe they committed the crime. Some confess to seek attention or recognition. Most of these cases involve voluntary confessions (obtained in the absence of interrogation) which are readily identified as false because the confession lacks accurate corroboration.*

This motivation presents a greater difficulty when the innocent suspect with a mental illness initially maintains his innocence, and confesses after interrogation.** Innocent suspects with anxiety disorders are more susceptible to duress than the average population. With some depressive disorders, the individual may rationalize a false confession by convincing themselves that they deserve to be punished for some real or imagined past transgression.

The latter group of suspects are aware that they did not commit the crime at the time of their confession.* These suspects were simply vulnerable to interrogation tactics that the mentally healthy suspect can easily resist.* Consequently, mental illness and cognitive functioning becomes an important factor when considering duress.

Faulty Memory

Finally, an innocent person may be persuaded to confess if he has no recollection of his activities at the time of the crime but is convinced, after learning of evidence of his guilt, that he must have committed the crime.* This is termed a coerced internalized false confession. There is generally a tangible cause for the suspects memory loss such as intoxication, head trauma, epilepsy or suffering from multiple personality disorder.

Once convinced of their guilt, these suspects may accept this as the truth, plead guilty in court and accept their prison sentence.* Through time, therapy or happenstance, this suspect may question his guilt.* But, as with the earlier suspect who confessed to obtain a warmer climate, he discovers that it is very difficult to undo a plea bargain.

Conclusion

Just because there are many possible motivations for innocent people to confess does not mean that most confessions are false.* To the contrary, the average criminal suspect is more than capable of resisting standard interrogation tactics and a great deal of effort is required to persuade these individuals to tell the truth.* But experience and scientific evidence proves that innocent suspects have confessed.* Furthermore, each of these false confessions satisfied a particular motivation.* Awareness of these motivations should assist investigators in selecting appropriate interrogation techniques for particular suspects and should also assist prosecutors and judges to identify confessions that may not be true.

With the above discussion in mind, the following represents some factors to consider in the assessment of the credibility of a suspects confession.* These issues are certainly not all inclusive, and each case must be evaluated on the totality of circumstances surrounding the interrogation and confession, but nevertheless, these are elements that should be given careful consideration

1. The suspects condition at the time of the interrogation

a. Physical condition (including drug and/or alcohol intoxication)

b. Mental capacity

c. Psychological condition

2. The suspects age

3. The suspects prior experience with law enforcement

4. The suspects understanding of the language

5. The length of the interrogation

6. The degree of detail provided by the suspect in his confession *********

7. The extent of corroboration between the confession and the crime

8. The presence of witnesses to the interrogation and confession

9. The suspects behavior during the interrogation

10. The effort to address the suspects physical needs

11. The presence of any improper interrogation techniques

Credit and Permission Statement: This Investigator Tip was developed by John E. Reid and Associates Inc. Permission is hereby granted to those who wish to share or copy the article. For additional 'tips' visit www.reid.com; select 'Educational Information' and 'Investigator Tip'. Inquiries regarding Investigator Tips should be directed to Janet Finnerty johnreid@htc.net. For more information regarding Reid seminars and training products, contact John E. Reid and Associates, Inc. at 800-255-5747 or www.reid.com.

10 Common Indicators for Highway Drug Interdiction by Andrew Hawkes

2011-10-20T19:49:00.000-07:00

In today’s drug smuggling world, highway drug traffickers are constantly attempting to think of new an innovative ways to conceal their contraband from law enforcement. Little do they realize that the same methods they come up with have been being used for decades by their predecessors. Through thousands of narcotic interdiction arrests by skilled interdiction officers all over the country, we have learned many of these traits and characteristics. Below, I have outlined ten popular techniques that highway drug traffickers attempt to use in hopes that they will successfully get their dope to their destination. By familiarizing yourself with some of these tips, you too can increase your interdiction success. Keep in mind you must always have probable cause to stop a vehicle.
1.     MASKING ODORS.
We have all heard of highway drug smugglers attempting to use large amounts of air fresheners in their vehicles. Not only can you look at for the famous “Christmas Tree” air fresheners hanging from the rear view mirror and other places in the vehicle, but you can also be aware of several other tactics that you may not have picked up on in the past. For example, do you notice several bottles of cologne or perfume in the car, and have they recently been sprayed prior or during your traffic stop of the vehicle? Is there a large bag of scented pipe tobacco, opened, laying in the vehicle but you notice the driver is smoking a cigarette? Or maybe you find it odd that as soon as you stop the car, the driver lights up a cigarette immediately, filling the car with smoke, but has no desire to roll down the windows? These are all examples of masking the odor on the surface of the stop. Masking odors placed directly onto packages of contraband can include animal urine, cayenne pepper, mustard, animal blood, oil and just about anything they feel may frighten off a drug canine or further mask the odor of contraband.

2.     LAW ENFORCEMENT STICKERS AND SLOGANS.
Most officers know that the “State troopers association” stickers you see on vehicle are mailed to random people and solicit money that often are not associated with any law enforcement entity. Most experienced officer’s will also come to determine that most cars they stop with these stickers do not belong to anyone in law enforcement. When you stop or see vehicle traveling across many states with an abundance of these stickers, be aware that they will often put these stickers all over their vehicles, thinking that we as officer’s will think they are “Officer Friendly”.

3.     RELIGIOUS PARAPHERNELIA
The same goes for religious bumper stickers, symbols and bibles strategically placed throughout the vehicle. I once recovered 80 pounds of vacuum-sealed marijuana placed under the carpet of the vehicle. The driver was traveling down the interstate with the biggest bible I have ever seen, lying open on the front dashboard of his rental car.

4.     RENTAL CAR AGREEMENTS/PAPERWORK.
It has been known for years that drug smugglers like to rent vehicles to transport drugs. There are many reasons for this. Often the simple fact is that there personal cars are old and not as dependable as a new rental car. Other reasons include avoiding seizure of their personal vehicles in the event they are caught and arrested. Whatever the reason, the rental agreement paper work can offer several indicators to the investigating officer that could end up instrumental in establishing reasonable suspicion. Questions to ask yourself when inspecting this paperwork are:
a. Is the driver of the car listed on the rental agreement?
b. If not, is the person listed on the rental agreement even in the vehicle?
c. Can the driver give you specific details as to who is on the rental agreement and his relationship to this person?
d. Does the name listed on the rental agreement show to have a criminal history?
e. What city and state was the rental car rented in and what distance is that from where you have the vehicle stopped?
f. What day and time was the rental car rented and how much time has lapsed since then?
g. What was the mileage listed when the car was rented and how far has it traveled since then? Is the mileage traveled consistent with the occupants’ story as to where they have traveled?
Another great tool to use with rental cars can be to contact the rental agency, identify yourself and explain to them that you have one of their vehicle pulled over, several states away from where it was rented, explain that the renter of the car is not in the vehicle and possible that the people in the vehicle may not even know the person that rented the car. Often times they will ask you to impound the car for them so they can pick it up. This gives you, the officer the opportunity to inventory the contents of the vehicle, thus discovering any contraband.

5.     SPECIFIC TOOLS USED TO ACCESS WHERE THE DOPE IS HIDDEN.
Many dope smugglers will go to great lengths to conceal their contraband. What is so funny to the experienced interdiction officer is that they leave obvious tools needed to retrieve the contraband in the silliest of places. I can’t recall the last time I stopped an honest citizen carrying a brand new floor jack and a special tire tool in the front seat of a new Lincoln town car. I can however, recall stopping a drug smuggler, with those tools on the front seat of a new Lincoln that had 160 pounds of marijuana concealed in all four tires of the vehicle! Look for out of place items that don’t fit the rest of the surroundings.

6.     MORE THAN ONE CELL PHONE.
Often a drug smuggler will carry multiple cell phones, that all seem to be ringing at once. The smuggler may have a personal cell phone, as well as a cell phone given to him from the origin of the load, a cell phone from the contact near the destination and numerous other middlemen involved in the drug transaction so that they can all keep tabs on the location. Look for this as a possible indicator and question the suspect in detail as to why he has all these phones and use their answers to build reasonable suspicion.

7.     CONFLICTING STORIES.
A popular subject to that has been taught in interdiction is the “conflicting stories” that passengers give as to the purpose and destination of their interstate travel. Developing these conflicting stories is paramount in your investigation. By getting the suspect’s to give your intricate details that totally contradict each other not only is an indicator, but a great tool in reasonable suspicion.

8.     THE DRIVER IMMEDIATELY GETS OUT OF THE VEHICLE.
This is another post stop indicator that can be a sign of dope trafficking. In this case, the subject is trying to distance himself from something he wants to hide from you. Keep in mind, this indicator can be a sign of something less sinister than drug trafficking, e.g. the subject might be have a weapon in the car, an open beer, etc.. Either way, there is something in the car he is hiding. Just as a side note, if you ask the subject if you can search the car, and he consents but tries to draw you away from where he doesn’t want you to look, then you know the contraband is in a different location than the one they want you to look in. Dead giveaway indicator.

9.     Cars that drive under the speed limit – here is a very easy pre-stop indicator you can start using immediately. Drug traffickers are naturally paranoid and their paranoia will make them do stupid things like drive 10 – 15 miles under the speed limit. drug haulers generally will stay in the “slow lane” as well.

10. OLDER MODEL CARS THAT ARE IN UNUSUALLY GOOD CONDITION. Often older cars will be used to transport drug loads, however, what sets them apart is that they have been very well maintained mechanically, often have new tires on them and have been washed and cleaned to help blend in with the average citizen’s vehicle.
Keep in mind as you go through this list, an indicator by itself is not enough to be a sign of drug trafficking. However, by observing multiple indicators then you can greatly increase your chances of finding the mother load. I talk more about indicators and reasonable suspicion in my book, Secrets of Successful Highway Drug Interdiction. As always, stay safe and happy hunting.
Sergeant Andrew Hawkes is a 17 year law enforcement veteran. He began working Highway Drug Interdiction full time in 1993. Sgt. Hawkes has won many awards in Texas for his interdiction success. He has been an interdiction instructor for police departments, area police academies and for the U.S. DEA basic narcotic investigator's school. Sgt. Hawkes has completed graduate courses in Public Administration and holds a bachelor's degree in Criminal Justice from Dallas Baptist University. Sgt. Hawkes latest publication, Secrets of Successful Highway Drug Interdiction is a "how to" book for the street officer wishing to develop drug interdiction skills without all the complicated police jargon and terminology that goes with a lengthy and expensive training class. Sgt. Hawkes has been featured in The Dallas Morning News, TNOA Narcotic Officer's Quarterly, many area newspapers and law enforcement websites. You can visit his website at www.highwaydruginterdiction.com

A Case for Creating and/or Enhancing Drug Interdiction Units by Bill Woessner

2011-10-20T19:42:00.000-07:00

Today criminal organizations are sophisticated enterprises that operate on a global scale. These organizations are increasingly difficult for law enforcement to identify and penetrate. One area of vulnerability for these organizations is the transportation centers they must use along with everyone else. Trained law enforcement officers have developed methods over the past four decades to detect criminal activity occurring in transportation centers and employed these methods to interdict individuals traveling through these hubs.

Interdiction is a means of narrowing the field of possible suspects from the thousands of legitimate traveling passengers to those few who are most likely involved in criminal activity. Many trained law enforcement officers currently work in interdiction units at various transportation centers in the U.S. and throughout the world. These units need to be expanded, or created where they do not currently exist, because the interdiction units are not only effective in targeting criminal elements, but have been a very effective tool in identifying and stopping terrorist activity.

History of Drug Interdiction

Beginning in the early 1970's, DEA agents, along with state and local police officers working in Detroit and Los Angeles, determined that a number of investigations involved individuals transporting heroin from Los Angeles to Detroit via commercial aircraft. The officers began monitoring those airports and noticed that the drug couriers displayed discernable methods and characteristics. Those characteristics or “indicators” proved to be useful tools that could be utilized by law enforcement officers to identify drug couriers. It was during the transportation of commodities and personnel that the traffickers became vulnerable to detection by alert law enforcement officials trained in the proven methods of drug interdiction. In the mid-1980's, reacting to the change in distribution patterns of the drug trafficking organizations, airport interdiction units expanded to include bus terminals, train stations, commercial package and freight shipping facilities. In the 1990’s the interdiction concept was shared with law enforcement organizations in countries throughout the world. Today, numerous countries have active interdiction units or teams. While interdiction units were created to address the movement of drugs and money by drug trafficking organizations, it was discovered that using particularized characteristics to identify traffickers in specific cities also identified individuals involved in other types of criminal activity. In addition to arresting drug couriers and seizing currency from drug trafficking organizations, interdiction units also arrested individuals with arrest warrants for crimes including murder, financial crimes, credit card fraud, and other felony offenses, including those related to terrorism. For example, in 1993, members of the DEA Greensboro, NC interdiction unit identified an individual traveling on a bus through Greensboro who, when ultimately detained, was identified as Abdel-llah Elmardoudi (Hakim, 2002). Elmardoudi was wanted by the FBI for terrorist-related activities in Detroit, MI (Hakim, 2002).

Transportation Center Screening Methods

There have been no published studies in the United States on the effectiveness of employing specifically identified characteristics to recognize and approach potential criminal suspects in a transportation location. Notably, the British law enforcement community received interdiction-style training from U.S. counterparts and began utilizing characteristics that were cited as unusual relative to traffickers in the British Islands (Buck, 2010).

The British subsequently conducted a study of the effectiveness of using characteristics displayed in prior investigations to identify potential criminal activity. They compared cases involving the use of interdiction techniques to those cases where only standard security screening measures were employed. Standard security screening methods are currently in use throughout the world today by dedicated security organizations, such as the British Airport Authority and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) in the United States.

Standard security screening methods include x-ray of carry-on luggage, employment of magnetometers on traveling passengers, random spectrometer examination of carry-on bags for explosive materials and random hand searches of individuals. The standard security screening methods could be described as mass screening. The British Study, which was conducted by the Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure (CPNI), revealed that application of the known unusual or criminal characteristics by trained personnel was six times more effective in identifying passengers involved in criminal activity than relying on the current mass screening process (Buck, 2010).
The purpose of screening, especially in an airport, is entirely for the safety and security of the traveling public. However, while these screening methods can be effective as a deterrent to criminal activity, they are not intended to identify and arrest criminal elements traveling through transportation centers. It falls on active law enforcement interdiction teams to conduct investigations and pursue criminals in the transportation hubs.
Though it is not the duty of screening personnel to identify and arrest criminals, it is incumbent upon them to identify those individuals, especially terrorist organization directed persons, set on circumventing security and attacking individuals, especially relative to air travel.

Screening Methods to Combat Terrorism

Attempts to destroy airplanes and kill all passengers onboard are an ever present concern for security screening in the world’s airports. In the U.S., the TSA has responded to these threats through enhanced mass screening techniques that have been developed relative to specific attempts or threats. Several of these enhancements include:

(A) The removal of shoes for x-ray, which is in response to the attempt by Richard Reid to ignite his explosive laden sneakers on an airplane in flight from London to Detroit (BBC News, 2001).

(B) The deployment of low emissions x-ray machines that can scan an individual’s body and reveal items concealed underneath clothing, like the attack by Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, who had the explosives concealed within his underpants on a flight inbound from Amsterdam to Detroit (BBC News, 2002).

Al Qaeda has adapted to TSA’s enhanced screening methods by employing drug traffickers smuggling methods such as the insertion of drugs in a body cavity. A prime example of how Al Qaeda is adapting to tighter security is the recent assassination attempt of Saudi Prince Mohammed Bin Nayef by Abdullah Asieri where Aseiri inserted a pound of high explosives and a detonator up his rectum and managed to pass through two sets of airport security, including metal detectors and palace security (MacVicar, 2009). He then waited 30 hours before meeting Prince Nayef and detonating the explosives (MacVicar, 2009). The use of a low emission x-ray might have detected this suicide bomber and possibly prevented the attack. Of considerable concern is a potential method of transporting explosives that would be undetectable by the commonly utilized technological detection methods.

While explosives are the primary concern for security in airports, they are not the only threat that requires detection. In July 2010, Housrou Kediji was arrested at the Bush Intercontinental Airport as he was attempting to board a flight to France. Kediji had ingested 85 condoms containing cocaine that weighed approximately 2.2 pounds (Schiller 2010). In December 2010, Uemduen Sophawat was arrested in Bali, Indonesia upon her arrival from Bangkok, Thailand. Sophawat had ingested 1280 ecstasy pills weighing approximately 402 grams (BNO News, 2010). These are but a few instances of drug couriers ingesting drugs and transporting them aboard airlines.

The DEA has encountered numerous Iranian couriers that had ingested crystal methamphetamine and were arrested at the Bangkok International Airport upon arrival from the United Arab Emirates as well as numerous other countries (Ngamkham, 2010). A number of these Iranian couriers had ingested several latex incased AAA batteries along with the crystal methamphetamine. Upon being interviewed subsequent to their arrests, none of the Iranian couriers knew nor could explain why they had been asked to ingest the batteries along with the drugs. Many DEA investigations have revealed that numerous drug trafficking organizations have and are still using couriers to ingest drugs and money and travel through airports throughout the world for delivery to local distribution organizations.

Terrorist organizations could easily recruit individuals that are willing to ingest explosives, up to a kilograms worth, which could be passed on an airplane and then detonated via a device that was also ingested or even inserted anally. Based on Al Qaeda’s assassination attempt by making use of an individual who inserted explosives up his rectum, it is highly likely they are aware and possibly planning utilization of individuals to board airplanes after ingesting explosives. To the author’s knowledge, there is currently no effective security method routinely employed that would identify couriers that ingest illicit items, including the use of low emission x-ray. Perhaps the only sure way to identify an individual, who has ingested drugs or other illegal items, excluding their personal admission, is through standard or digital x-ray of the stomach and intestinal areas. However, the problem lies in identifying those individuals who should be subjected to the x-ray as it is a time consuming and invasive procedure. The current security model of mass screening will most likely not identify individuals who have ingested dangerous or illegal items. Since the current method to detect if an individual has ingested drugs is through x-ray of an individual’s internal organs, and TSA’s current application of the low emission x-ray has proven controversial (Nader, 2010), there is conceivably no way to perform a large number of the more invasive internal x-ray’s on the traveling public. Therefore, it is needed to narrow the field and identify those individuals most likely involved in criminal activity by identifying specific trafficker characteristics or indicators.

Identifying discernable criminal characteristics or indicators along with interviewing, to minimize the number of persons who might require a more intensive search including an internal x-ray may be one way to overcome the current screening obstacles. Additionally, articulation of the precise indicators of criminal activity will permit law enforcement officers to take appropriate investigative steps that are legally authorized, such as a temporary detention or x-ray. Criminal characteristics identified by law enforcement personnel in particular venues and types of investigations can be an effective law enforcement tool in locating and arresting criminal elements utilizing many nations’ transportation hubs. Our best line of defense against criminal activity including terrorism is three fold. First, interdiction units need to be put into place at all major transportation centers, staff them with law enforcement officers who demonstrate the ability to work effectively in that type of environment, and then provide those officers with proper training. Second, personnel need to be identified who work in the transportation environment and who demonstrate the ability to recognize circumstances that are unusual or out of the ordinary. Once identified, those personnel will need to be trained to assist in locating and identifying potential criminal suspects. Finally, flight attendants need enhanced training in recognizing potential terrorist activity by passengers aboard the airplane, specifically relative to individuals who ingest dangerous items. The threat of terrorist activity at our transportation centers is ever present, and criminal organizations will continue to use transportation hubs to conduct their illicit activities. The best method we have for combating the threat of terrorism is the creation of interdiction units. These units can train transportation hub personnel to watch for specific characteristics that are unusual or out of the ordinary and then immediately contact law enforcement who would initiate an investigation.

REFERENCES

BBC News. (2001, December). Who is Richard Reid. BBC News Internet. Retrieved January 25, 2011, from http://www.news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1731568.stm

BBC News. (2010, October). Profile: Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. BBC News Internet. Retrieved January 25, 2011, from http:// www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11545509

BNO News. (2010, December). Thai Smuggler caught in Indonesia after Swallowing 1,200 Ecstasy Pills. Thaindian News Internet. Retrieved January 30, 2011, from www.thaindian.com/.../thai-smuggler-caught-in-indonesia-after-swallowing-1200-ecstasy-pills_100476923.html

Buck, Gary. (2010, May). Validation of PASS Program. Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure (CPNI). United Kingdom.

Hakim, Danny. (2002, November). Threats and Responses, the “Sleeper” Suspects; Man Accused of Being Leader of Detroit Terror Cell is Arrested. New York Times Archival Information. Retrieved January 25, 2011, from http://ww.nytimes.com/.../threats-responses-sleeper-suspects-man-accused-being-leader-detroit-terror-cell.html

MacVicar, Shiela. (2009, September). Al Qaeda Bombers Learn from Drug Smugglers. MMIX, CBS Interactive Inc. Retrieved January 25, 2011, from http://www.cbsnews.com/.../main5347847.html

Schiller,Dane. (2010, July). Trafficking suspect held. Houston Chronicle. Retrieved January 30, 2011, from http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/bizarre/7125994.html

Nader, Ralph. (2010, November). TSA is delivering naked insecurity. USA Today. Retrieved February 24, 2011, from http://www.usatoday.com/news/ralphnader/tsadeliveringnakedinsecurity.html

Ngamkham, Wassayos. (2010, December). Iranians top police watch list for possible drug traffickers. Bangkok Post Chronicle. Retrieved February 25, 2011, from http://www.bangkokpost.com/iranians-top-watch-list-for-possible-drug-traffickers.html

George “Bill” Woessner (email: gww2354@yahoo.com)

The author began his career in 1984, as a Special Agent with the DEA, working interdiction at the Los Angeles International Airport. He has been involved in criminal interdiction for over 26 years and not only provided interdiction training in the U.S. but also in countries throughout the world. Throughout his career, the author has traveled to over 50 countries and worked with those country’s law enforcement personnel in a training environment. The past three years, the author initiated a standardized DEA international interdiction training program and has conducted interdiction training in various countries, including Jordan, Israel, Korea, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Thailand, England, El Salvador, and Bulgaria to list a few. This interdiction training relies on utilizing courier characteristics and interviewing to identify those passengers most likely involved in criminal activity. Based on the author’s extensive involvement in both working and teaching interdiction with countries throughout the world, he has developed an expertise relative to methodology and trends related to criminal organizations, utilizing interdiction hubs to facilitate illegal activities.

A Short Rant on Defensive Tactics Programs by Venom

2011-10-14T19:34:00.000-07:00

I thought I'd covered this in previous articles but apparently some still don't get it. I tried to be diplomatic in most of them but as some of you know that really isn't my thing. So now I'm just going to tell it like it is flat out so that everyone understands what the deal is and where I stand. I haven't been online alot lately because I've been busy working on some projects and planning others but I still pop on and read articles. I'm convinced diplomacy isn't going to get my point across so here goes the venom once again. Now I'm gonna preface this by saying this applies only to unarmed combatives. Gun training is a different animal and I want to be clear about that. For those of you that don't know I train police both federal and municipal for a living. In the last two weeks alone I've spoken personally with over 130 defensive tactics instructors. I've spoken with instructors from almost every state in this country at one time or another. So I'm not just some numbnuts up here I know what I'm talking about I have intricate knowledge of what police in EVERY state go through on a daily basis not just isolated to one area. So let's let the bloodletting begin.

Training Time

I see this all the time. A guy goes in and teaches a group of cops a really crappy program. Then when it doesn't work he asks them how often they train and blames the officers to cover his ass. Unarmed Combatives is a science it should not require alot of training time. Now I have friends that teach programs that do require alot of training but they are up front about it so I don't have a problem with them they are alright with me. What I do have a problem with is these assholes that come in for two or three days and price gouge a department then teach overly complicated tactics then when they don't work they all ask the same thing,"How often do you train?" Well guess what jackass they don't! You knew that when you flew in and took their money and ran. When those tactics fail it isn't them not training it's that your program sucks and your a shitty instructor. A good police program should not require follow up training. You should be able to go in and teach an entire program and have it work at a 90% success rate when they leave that night. If you can't do that then stop teaching that program because it's bullshit. You say it can't be done? I've been doing it for 10 years and yes it does because I've done it and have the feedback to prove it. There's lots of things taught in police programs that aren't even logical. How many times have you went to a course and had the instructor teach 5 different defenses to 5 different punches? In states like Texas there's a zero tolerance policy on school violence. That means you could have officers in an academy that have never thrown a punch or ever even seen real violence. They don't know anything. The fact is they aren't going to know what the punch is until after they've been hit with it. It's a totally pointless lesson. Your not doing them any favors by teaching that crap when you can teach one thing that works against all of them that doesn't require athleticism.You know some cops are all in it they train everyday. They can do things other cops can't do. But when your an instructor your responsible for every officer not some of them...all of them...so the program has to reflect that.

If your program requires alot of follow up training then it sucks please stop teaching it and taking advantage of people. It's a bullshit excuse and your a bullshit person for doing it.

Junk Science

There are three things that are being taught even now that are total horseshit and people still believe it. The first is Hick's Law. Hick's Law was a test done in the 1950's on computers with punch cards that stated the human brain is only capable of having one thought per second. In modern times it has morphed into the saying that the more choices a person has to make the longer it will take them to make a single choice. Now that in fact is true. However the original study that statement is based on is totally false. Computers with punch cards are a little slower than the technology of today. The fact is that the Kinesiology community has proven that the brain can do around 6 and a half things per second realistically and Hick's Law was actually thrown out as a junk science well over 30 years ago but instructors still prey on people's ignorance of that little known fact and use it. The second thing would be the Boyd Cycle aka the O.O.D.A. Loop(Observe Orient Decide Attack) This is misused all the time. In 1993 I had the great honor to sit down and talk with John Boyd. I was fresh out of high school and he was a guest speaker at an Air Force function where my Uncle Bill was receiving a medal with several others for service in Vietnam. I asked him about the OODA loop and how it applied the hand to hand fighting. He said it didn't apply at all then sat down and corrected me by explaining the OODA loop. For those that don't know John Boyd INVENTED the OODA loop. The man who created it says it don't apply to fistfights. Since he invented it I think he would know how it would be used. The example he gave me which apparently he gave to other people as well because it's on Wikipedia is this:

A plane is in the air flying and sees an enemy aircraft. He flies higher above the aircraft so the sun blocks the enemy's vision while he decides what to do. Then after he decides he executes his decision. Yes that's right he Observed, He Oriented, He Decided, Then attacked. The OODA loop is about getting into position before the altercation not the fight itself. The fight itself is the end of the OODA loop. It's nothing more than an action is faster than a reaction at that point....not the OODA loop. This don't stop dumbasses from getting up in from of a class and espousing it like they know something when actually to people in the know they are only showing their own stupidity or disrespecting the intelligence of the students. The last one is the startle reflex. There are over 28 documented startle reflexes that humans do depending on the stimulus. It also varies between people not everyone is wired the same way. There is no such thing as a general startle reflex that links all of us and there have been many studies in the 1970's that prove it. There are older studies from the 1930's however that people are using to claim everyone will stick their arms straight out and dive towards an attack. That however only applies to audible stimulus not visual and it has been thrown out as a junk science for almost 40 years.

MMA as DT

In the Octagon it's a real fight no doubt about that. These guys are tough there's no denying it they are skilled athletes. There's also alot of overlap of MMA tactics in self defense as it should be because those tactics are good. So what does that have to do with police tactics? The answer is..nothing. How many times have you been watching the main event and Randy Couture pulled out a gun and shot his opponent in the fucking head or sprayed the crowd? How many times has a guy been losing and his corner jumped in and monkey stomped the other guy and it was legal? How many times has the main event been you put a fighter in there and instead of the opponent you put his wife and kids in there and give the other fighter a knife and the defender has to save everyone without being cut? Obviously the answer is never. The situation dictates the tactic. I've never seen a main event take place inside of a car of while someone is trying to exit a vehicle but I see it in dashboard videos all the time. The one that really pisses me off is the clinch. If I'm close enough to touch you I'm taking you down I'm not gonna wrestle with you your gonna eat pavement. I see this Gracie Combatives stuff teaching clinch to control. Talk about oblivious! A clinch is pointless you could end it at that point why would you go from a neutral position to another neutral position when you could skip it and go to an advantageous position and end it. Hell I have a 3rd Dan in Judo I can rock the clinch. That doesn't mean anything in DT your putting yourself in a bad position. A 5'2 woman isn't gonna clinch a 6'4 drunk and win if he goes for her gun she can't just brush it away that's bullshit. She could just as easily drop his ass get a clue people. Then you got the elbow shield. Now we use a type of elbow shield in our courses but we do things a little different. You see there's a huge flaw in most programs that teach the elbow shield. They tend to use it for primarily striking and they try to keep a distance when they use it. I don't care what type of shield you use it has openings. A dynamic attack will beat through that shield and knock you the hell out if you try to hold a distance. Your entire low line is wide open to attack. Just ask Tito Ortiz he's got his ass kicked many times using it that way in the octagon but I bet he could kick your ass. I love the elbow shield but the secret is you gotta close distance quickly and fight on the inside to cover those flaws.

In closing I have alot of friends who are up and coming. Some are even starting to write their own articles. I don't want them reading your dumb fucking articles filling their heads with crap that isn't right and makes them look bad. They are intelligent people and deserve a chance to be all they can be and help people which is the point of this anyway. My friends I hope you learn something from this article and stay away from these pitfalls. To these ignorant people who continue to espouse this crap for no other reason than marketing and to prey on the uneducated please go fuck yourself in the ass with a jackhammer and drop dead.

The Social Disease Behind The Symptoms by Venom

2011-09-20T21:43:00.000-07:00

Sometimes I don't like to talk much I just like to listen to other people. It can be the best reality show you'll ever see. I listen to them talk about politics and religion. I watch how they interact with each other. I watch how guys treat their girlfriends and how their girlfriends talk about them when they aren't there. I see alot of people looking for answers to things but they don't ask the right questions. Some just don't even care. We have alot of problems in our society today but with all the smoke and mirrors some don't even know what they are looking at. We seem to be in the generation where nobody wants to work for anything anymore and nothing has value. The things that do have value aren't really worth anything and these things actually worth something people don't want because they aren't easy to get. This is why people will walk down the street past a good martial arts school and go to a crappy one because they are guaranteed a black belt in 3 years just for showing up. The other they'd have to work for so they don't want it. The problems we deal with in martial arts are a microcosm for the disease spreading through the society we live in. People may think some of my articles are unrelated to each other but in fact it's all relative. No one wants to look at the core of the problems we face because they are afraid. They are afraid they may have to take responsibility for something or that something may be asked of them. They talk about the symptoms and ignore the diseases simply because it's easier. Let's look at a few topics that tend to get bounced around.
   Gun control is a very common topic we can use to illustrate the point. Some think if they get rid of guns then the problems caused by them will go away. This is fighting a symptom not the disease. Gun control laws are a pointless waste of time and tax payer money. Sure alot of other people say that but why is it such a waste of time? Well there's the usual arguments about how criminals don't buy guns at the store they get them on the black market. That may be true but that isn't really it I mean some do and some don't. It has more to do with the saying guns don't kill people. People kill people. You see a gun is nothing more than a tool. It's like a drill laying on a table. It just sits there it does nothing. You put it in the hand of someone on a mission then something could end up with a whole in it. It's not a political problem though it gets politicized. The criminal problem is the fallout after it's over. You see if you look deeply enough at the problem you'll see it's a social issue. More often than not it comes down to someone felt a lack of respect. You can't make a law for that. A guy gets in a fight at a party and gets his ass kicked. People are talking about him. He feels embarrassed and humiliated and goes and gets a gun to show them. If they don't respect him they can fear him. A kid joins a street gang because daddy ain't around and momma has to work. He joins a gang for a sense of family. They commit crimes to get money to get respect. They fight other gangs for respect. Some guy is cheating on a girl she gets a gun and shoots him and his mistress because she feels disrespected and someone has got to pay. Sure this isn't every situation but it's alot of situations and of course there are other issues at hand. Now there could be a billion articles written on the past few sentences and when bad people do bad things the bad things follow them and there is no excuse for bad behavior but the point is the lack of a gun won't change anything. This is a perfect example of dealing with a symptom not the problem. Let's say you outlaw guns. Then they'll use knives. Take away the knives and they'll use sticks, rocks, molotov cocktails, bare hands, or anything other thing they can get their hands on. Guns are not the problem. That's just something people say to make themselves feel better because the real problem will probably never get resolved. Everyone grew up learning the Golden Rule..Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Everyone knows it but no one abides by it because everyone is out for themselves. If everyone truly respected everyone then violence would decline. Think that will ever happen? Of course not. See why it's easier to blame guns? Attacking the symptom ignoring the disease.
    Another way of looking at it would be more parrying vs intercepts. Now I could stand back and parry all day and hold my distance trying to counter punch. The problem is if I parry a punch the guy just punches again. The punch isn't the problem it's the guy punching. The punches are the symptom the attacker is the disease. If I can wedge my body in there and jam him up I can go to the source. If he's unconscious he isn't punching. Now before you flip out yes that is a very simplistic way of looking at it and there's alot of gray area. I'm not one of these big macho cro-magnon guys that think you can just do that all the time. I'm only trying to illustrate another way people never seem to go for the core of the problem instead wasting time on symptoms and never getting the results they need.
   People just don't seem to want to take responsibility anymore for anything. Not to be provocative but look at all the school shootings we've had in recent years. In the 1950's you didn't have school shootings here. It comes full circle a kid is getting bullied at school(the disrespect thing again). The school does nothing about it and he shoots it up. Of course when you look at the parents on the news they had no idea he was having problems in school. He's a good kid. It all must be Marylin Manson or Snooki's fault. God forbid the parents would take any responsibility or any role in the child's life. When I was a kid my parents always knew where I was and always knew what I was doing. These days kids are left alone for hours alone doing God knows what because the parents sure don't know. Now we all have innate sense of right and wrong and of course there is no excuse for shooting up a school obviously this is trying but I just give my two cents on the why. That's why alot of states have adopted a zero tolerance policy for violence in schools, because apparently they feel they have to do the job parents aren't doing at home anymore. A guy gets arrested for smoking weed and blames the cop for harshing his good time(it happens). A guy blows his money on crap because his priorities are screwed up then blames everyone but himself when he gets evicted for not paying the rent. Perez Hilton calls Will.I.Am a homo and then wants to sue because he got punched in the face even though he deserved it. 30 people watch a woman get stabbed to death in New York and think it's a shame she's gone yet none of them would lift a finger to help. Someone living in a shack is pissed at society for holding them down even though they refuse to get a job and blow the money they got on drugs and alcohol. The list could go on and on all night but hopefully you get point.
   The problem isn't guns,Snooki, the man, society, or any of that stuff. We are the problem. The problem is us. Somewhere along the line we lost focus. We got greedy and stopped caring about each other. We got so arrogant thinking of how much we've evolved yet we haven't really evolved much at all. People care more about status than each other just like the middle ages. The toys are different but the outcome is the same. Somewhere we forgot what mattered. We forgot to keep trying to make the world better. We got lazy and thought someone else could do it for us like the president, or the congress, the police, the governor, the church, or some other person. But they can't and they won't. We can make the world a little better but it has to start with us. It has to start with you and your friend in the mirror and no one else. Instead of facing the truth and looking at the problems we took the easy route. When it didn't fix things we didn't take responsibility and blamed others which started a vicious circle. A band aid won't work anymore. Until you understand the problem you can't find the solution. Until we take responsibility for our own lives and learn to dig deeper to treat this social disease instead of the symptoms we will get worse. Until we can admit to ourselves we are the problem then we can never be the solution.

The Empty Handed Cuff by Zachary Williamson

2011-09-18T17:53:00.001-07:00

In the nine years I’ve been involved in law enforcement, I’ve noticed that there is an argument that is debated nearly as much as 9mm vs. .45 acp. And, just as the opinions of “perfect” firearms go, it is always based on just that, opinions. That pressing question is, “Cuffing prior to, or after, patting down or searching for weapons.”
Well, we all know how opinions go, and how they smell… But what if I told you that I had a scientific, geometrical and psychologically based answer to this question? Before you start ridiculing and dismissing what I have to say, please read all the way through.
First off, let’s look at the obvious. If you attempt to cuff someone, in the traditional manner, before searching for weapons, you give them a HUGE opportunity to launch an assault before gaining control. But on the other hand, if you don’t cuff a suspect prior to searching, you give up a HUGE amount of control in the situation. So what is the answer? How about doing both at the same time?
Now I’m not suggesting that you can actually do both, but you can simulate both. I teach a tactic, and I use the term tactic, as opposed to, technique because techniques are finite, tactics are adaptable, that lets you control the suspect as you search without having to fumble with a pair of handcuffs, or telegraphing your intentions. I call it “Empty handed cuffing”. In short, I lock the suspect’s body by grasping in a certain manner, while patting down, or searching. The Japanese call this lock “Kage”. Some schools call it a “Keylock” hold. I simply refer to it as a supinated wrist twist. I teach both pronated and supinated wrist twists, but this lock requires that the wrist be turned as to put pressure on the elbow in a outward direction, or supination.
To demonstrate this, raise your left arm straight out in front of you, now twist your wrist in a clockwise direction. You will feel the pressure of your elbow wanting to bend. Now imagine this pressure on your arm as it is behind you. The pressure will travel through the wrist, to the elbow, from the elbow to the shoulder and from the shoulder to the spine, causing it to bend backward. This is the “Behind the back, supinated wrist twist”, or “Empty handed cuff”.
It takes very little pressure to lock a human body in this manner, but takes a great deal of pressure actually damage the ligaments or tendons. And even more to actually dislocate anything. Now it is possible to cause a great deal of damage with this lock, just like any lock, but you have to intentionally do that. This is what makes this lock great. You can control without relying on pain, but cause pain if needed. It works by causing the body to place it’s center axis over the point of balance. This is simple geometry. If the center of an object, material or biological, is moved past the triangulation point, or balance point, it will fall. This is applied to all aspect of erection, not just in the proper erection of buildings, but in the human body as well. This is the scientific and geometrical aspect of the tactic.
Now here is how I generally apply this tactic. After establishing presence, and situational awareness, I have the suspect, if possible, lean against a car or wall, just like the old 70’s tactics, with the legs spread. If a suspect refuses to obey these simple commands, it’s time to up the ante and different strategies are needed. But, as the trend is now, most suspects will obey to the point that they can launce a severe and un-telegraphed attack in close proximity, or just simply obey commands in a demeanor of defeat. Either way, you now have the upper hand, because now you are ahead in the O.O.D.A. loop. Most people will expect, either, one hand to go back and cuffs be retrieved, or one hand will sleek around and start feeling around the waist and chest. This is where the “new” criminals are now well versed in reversals, escapes and attacks based on Martial Arts teachings. They are learning to turn into your holds, grab their weapons and fatally wound you. They have learned to wait for the “click” of the cuffs or wait for the arm to wrap around in order to pin you and draw their weapons. But instead of grabbing for your cuffs, or getting “touchy-feely” with the guy…or gal, you can apply the lock as described above. This is not expected, not telegraphed and not easily countered. Whether they are sprawled out on your patrol unit, or standing tall and proud, this lock will immobilize the spine and make fighting difficult, if not impossible. This is the psychological aspect.
This works on VERY large suspects as well. You don’t “grab the wrist you “wrench” the hand. This means that you make a ‘wrench” shape out of your hand and place it on the suspect hand, without grabbing. It’s more like a vice or pincher shape. This allows you to put a lot of torque on the hand. Now the lock itself is not the only tool you have here. If you use left on left or right on right grips, you also have the option of placing your elbow into the bend of theirs and increasing the tension and torque that already exists.
Now here is the good part. Once locked, if the suspect pulls a firearm, they cannot get the barrel pointed at you from their position. If they pull a knife, they can’t get to you to cut you. You can perform a complete takedown, (or “Assist” as I teach it, because you never want to have to explain in court why you “threw” someone to the ground), without having to fight the actual weapon. So many Officers are killed because the only option they have been given, for years, is “GET CONTROL OF THE WEAPON”. If you control the body, you control the weapon. If you “cuff” them with your hands, you start out with complete control.
Another question to answer is this, If you don’t have the legal authority to detain, or arrest, is the question of “to cuff or not to cuff” even relevant. The United States Supreme Court determined that if a person is handcuffed, they are no longer free to go, therefore, they are arrested. If you come up on a gentleman walking down the road, in broad daylight, and you decide to stop them, for whatever reason, and decide to run their name for wants or warrants, do you have the right to protect yourself? Of course, but do you have the right to cuff this guy right off the bat. Absolutely not! So what do we do, as Peace Officers? We ask them if they will consent to being “PAT DOWN”, not searched, for their protection and ours. Nearly every time they will consent, either out of ignorance of their right to refuse or simply out of courtesy to the officer. In this instance, we may not cuff them in order to pat them down for weapons since we can’t articulate probably cause or even reasonable suspicion. But we DO have the right to maintain control of their body while performing the pat down. There are no Supreme Court Rulings, as of yet, that prohibits us from using this lock, momentarily, to perform a quick pat down of the subject. It does not cause pain, it does not create undue stress and it does not violate any civil rights. But it DOES give you an incredible amount of control over the subject’s mobility, just in case they are not really all that cooperative after all.

Zach Williamson is a law enforcement officer in Texas and the founder of C.H.A.O.S. Conflict Resolution Systems

The Operator's Paradigm by Zachary Williamson

2011-09-18T17:49:00.001-07:00

As on operator you have the complex task of deciphering what is real, combat proven, defensive tactics and what is “martial arts” hype. When I say “operator”, I am referring to anyone that has to face the possibility of combat during the daily operations of their profession. Every LEO, Military operator, Security operator, or Corrections Officer is defined in my curriculum as an operator. If you fit into any of these costumes, then this column is directed at you.
So what is “real” and what is “BS”? To start, anything that does not put you at a tactical advantage in your given situation is not viable to you. If a strategy works great in the military field of operations, but is not viable for a police officer to use, due to legal restraints, then that strategy is useless for the officer. It may be as “real” as it gets, but it’s “BS” for an LEO because he can’t use it.
I have been involved in the “martial arts” for over 25 years. I have studied many different systems and experienced many different theories. I have never seen any traditional system that covers every situation a modern operator will face. There are many “modernized” systems that try to incorporate old-world logic into modern combat. That is good in theory, but does not fare well in application. The “new” arts instructors that are out there try, desperately, to mask the eclectic mix of traditional styles that they, barely, understand.
There is one “constant” in this whole hodgepodge of “styles” in circulation. “The human body can only move, or be manipulated, in a finite number of directions.” I don’t care if you are applying Ju Jitsu, Tae Kwon Do, Ju Do, or any other Asian words. An arm will only bend at the elbow in a pronate manner. It will only raise or lower at the shoulder, and it only has strength in certain positions. If you try to circumvent that constant, you will lose.
I have a bone to pick with the ‘martial arts” world. Since the popularity growth of the book, “The Art of War”, by Sun Tsu, everybody that had any type of organized system of strategy referred to themselves as “artists”. I understand that you will have people of higher caliber and talent in any given craft. But the term “art” refers to a craft that has no technical, emotional, or creative boundaries. This does not apply to human combat. The very limits of human anatomy are the limits of the techniques and applications of such techniques.
So what is the scope of human conflict that defines the strategies used for domination and victory? I have experienced a system of principals that cannot and will not change from person to person, weather armed or unarmed, armored or naked. The principals apply to empty hands, bladed weapons, and firearms alike. The Japanese call it “Aiki“. The Chinese call it “Tai Chi“. The westerners , specifically the Native Americans, call it “Harmonious Spirit“. Whatever deep, mystical name you call it, it does have a scientific basis. It is the blending of potential and kinetic energy to manipulate the natural tendency of the human mind and body to follow the path of least resistance. This may be the body attempting to avoid perceived injury, or the mind, mistakenly, telling the body to change it’s position for strategic advantage. To achieve this phenomenon, you must put the opponent in a position of “perceived” dominance or structure that causes them to rely on you for balance.
Now the problem with this strategy is that it is difficult to achieve, takes countless hours of training to be proficient, and does not lend itself to large scale training. Well, until now.
As I have spent my last 15 years training in this system, I have come to the one conclusion that most teachers will not divulge. “The principals can be applied to any human reaction”. As many have discovered, you can teach a person to use their natural, defensive, reaction in an offensive manner. If you take the “principals” not the “techniques” of a blending combat system and apply them to natural defensive postures, you can teach large groups of people in a relatively short amount of time.
One thing that needs to be addressed is the need for the operator to understand the psychology of combat. That is something that is, almost, never addressed in any traditional or modern system. Most instructors avoid the dirty world of realism. It is combat science not martial arts training that our public servants, military operators and personal body guards need to undergo. It needs to be realistic, and unforgiving. Intense, scary and brutal. Because we have all heard the saying, “Train hard, fight easy”. Well, I say “Train smart, fight efficiently”. I will address the physical fitness aspect of training at a later date.

Zach Williamson is a law enforcement officer in Texas and the founder of C.H.A.O.S. Conflict Resolution Systems

The Death of Common Sense

2011-09-11T13:35:00.000-07:00

Normally I like to keep things tactical and sometimes deal with the important inner qualities. Yesterday though I ran across an article of a different type that I felt was important and should be seen. It was posted by my friend Mark Lee from Ireland. As always when we post the work of others we always try to give credit where it is due. Mark had told me this article originated in The London Times. Frankly Neither one of us know who wrote it so if anyone knows please let me know so I can accredit them. Without further adieu here is the article.

Today we mourn the passing of a beloved old friend, Common Sense, who has been with us for many years. No one knows for sure how old he was, since his birth records were long ago lost in bureaucratic red tape. He will be remembered as having cultivated such valuable lessons as: Knowing when to come in out of the rain; Why the early bird gets the worm;Life isn't always fair; and maybe it was my fault.

Common Sense lived by simple, sound financial policies (don't spend more than you can earn) and reliable strategies (adults, not children,are in charge).
His health began to deteriorate rapidly when well-intentioned but overbearing regulations were set in place. Reports of a 6-year-old boy charged with sexual harassment for kissing a classmate; teens suspended from school for using mouthwash after lunch; and a teacher fired for reprimanding an unruly student, only worsened his condition.

Common Sense lost ground when parents attacked teachers for doing the job that they themselves had failed to do in disciplining their unruly children.
It declined even further when schools were required to get parental consent to administer sun lotion or an Aspirin to a student; but could not inform parents when a student became pregnant and wanted to have an abortion.

Common Sense lost the will to live when criminals received better treatment than their victims.

Common Sense took a beating when you couldn't defend yourself from a burglar in your own home and the burglar could sue you for assault.

Common Sense finally gave up the will to live, after a woman failed to realize that a steaming cup of coffee was hot. She spilled a little in her lap, and was promptly awarded a huge settlement.

Common Sense was preceded in death, by his parents, TRUTH and TRUST, by his wife, DISCRETION, by his daughter, RESPONSIBILITY, and by his son, REASON.

He is survived by his 4 stepbrothers;
I Know My Rights
I Want It Now
Someone Else Is To Blame
I'm A Victim

Not many attended his funeral because so few realized he was gone.

— with Bob Noonan.

1942 Ranger Combat School

2011-09-07T20:54:00.000-07:00

In the interest of preserving history I thought it would be nice to post some declassified footage of the old Army Ranger training in Hawaii in 1942. There may even be some fun drills in it that you could do in your class on an outing or something for unity building. I especially like the techniques shown with the commando rope you don't really see that stuff anymore. Enjoy!

Old School Combatives

2011-09-07T12:50:00.000-07:00

As we've done in the past with Judo and Catchwrestling we at Stonewall Tactical feel that it's important to preserve and share some of those old footage that help make us all what we are today. I know by today's standards some of this may look funny or have perceived flaws just as everything else does but I still think it should be seen. It will either remind us how far we've come or show us where we may need to return to. Either way I think historical footage has value even if it's only for entertainment.

As you can see we've come a long way in some areas such as disarms from then but in others we may need to give a second look. I know some of those techniques were known back then but fell into disuse over time so some of them are actually popping back up in modern combatives as the latest thing. If nothing else it's interesting. Thanks