Days Black People Not Re-Enslaved By Trump

Wednesday, April 30, 2008

Did the Government Create HIV?


Since we have people flapping at the mouth about how Rev Wright is paranoid for suggesting that the US Government created AIDS to kill off people of color. Let's hit this straight on. I have in my possession a copy of the Department of Defense Appropriations for 1970. I got this material back in 1993 so this is not new.


So that you can see it I found a copy online here:


http://panindigan.tripod.com/aidsdodhear.html:


Dodbiowar2


The relevant text:


There are two things about the biological agent field I would like

to mention. One is the possibility of technological surprise. Molecular

biology is a field that is advancing very rapidly and eminent biologists

believe that within a period of 5 to 10 years it would be possible to

produce a synthetic biological agent, an agent that does not naturally

exist and for which no natural immunity could have been acquired.

MR. SIKES. Are we doing any work in that field?

DR. MACARTHUR. We are not.

MR. SIKES. Why not? Lack of money or lack of interest?

DR. MACARTHUR. Certainly not lack of interest.

MR. SIKES. Would you provide for our records information on what

would be required, what the advantages of such a program would be,

the time and the cost involved?

DR. MACARTHUR. We will be very happy to.

(The information follows:)


The dramatic progress being made in the field of molecular biology led us to

investigate the relevance of this field of science to biological warfare. A small group of experts considered this matter and provided the following observa- tions:

1. All biological agents up the the present time are representatives of naturally

occurring disease, and are thus known by scientists throughout the world. They

are easily available to qualified scientists for research, either for offensive or

defensive purposes.





2. Within the next 5 to 10 years, it would probably be possible to make a new

infective microorganism which could differ in certain important aspects from

any known disease-causing organisms. Most important of these is that it might

be refractory to the immunological and therapeutic processes upon which we

depend to maintain our relative freedom from infectious disease.

3. A research program to explore the feasibility of this could be completed

in approximately 5 years at a total cost of $10 million.






4. It would be very difficult to establish such a program. Molecular biology

is a relatively new science. There are not many highly competent scientists in the

field. Almost all are in university laboratories, and they are generally adequately

supported from sources other than DOD. However, it was considered possible

to initiate an adequate program through the National Academy of Sciences -

National Research Council (NAS-NRC).

The matter was discussed with the NAS-NRC, and tentative plans were plans were made

to initiate the program. However decreasing funds in CB, growing criticism

of the CB program, and our reluctance to involve the NAS-NRC in such a con-

troversial endeavor have led us to postpone it for the past 2 years.

It is a highly controversial issue and there are many who believe such

research should not be undertaken lest it lead to yet another method of massive

killing of large populations. On the other hand, without the sure scientific

knowledge that such a weapon is possible, and an understanding of the ways it

could be done, there is little that can be done to devise defensive measures.

Should an enemy develop it, there is little doubt that this is an important area

of potential military technological inferiority in which there is no adequate

research program.

Tuesday, April 29, 2008

A Confused Black Person


A person who I will assume to be "African-American" wrote a comment to the NY Times:


#

45.

April 29th,

2008

6:18 pm



Why is Rev. Wright attempting to bring down the person who could very well be the first Black president of the U.S.? Does Rev. Wright really stand for the advancement of blacks in America, or simply himself? Race was not an issue for Obama, and it looks like that his problems now are not about race, but perhaps “bitterness” from another powerful black man, Rev. Wright?



I hope that Obama can get beyond this issue, however I do find it ironic that the chance for the first black president was ruined, not by whites or Clinton or McCain or the Republican PArty, but by another black man.



— Posted by annmarie


This is one of the best examples of the confusion that has cropped up in the African-American psych of late. How is Rev. Wright bringing down anyone? Seriously. Most black folk have no problem with what Wright has said. Any informed person knows that 99% of what Wright has said is factual. How is it that Rev. Wright would be bringing down Obama by telling the truth? This is classic "blame black people for white racism" talk.


How can this nitwit claim that Wright is not for the advancement of blacks? Seriously. Wright has been working for said advancement for longer than Obama has been in politics. It was Wright, who gave Obama legitimacy in the South Side of Chicago. It was Wright who was instrumental in getting Obama where he is now. Obama owes a whole lot more to Wright than vice versa.


And then we have the last line. No doubt, sell out Knee-grows will feel this particular sentiment. Note to these knee-grows. If whites were racist in the first place, there wouldn't be a problem. Obama gets into office, or not, based on white folk's votes. It will be their fault if he doesn't get in or their credit if he does.


Personally I'm tired of these weak knee-grows, to busy trying to tell what black folk ought to be doing to make white folk feel comfortable with themselves.

Obama Denounces Sean Bell Verdict

No. Actually he didn't.

Obama Denounces Wright Remarks

Translation:

Will y'all Negroes please shut up and stop irritating these good white folk

ZIDERA

An excellent read on the external forces at work in Zimbabwe from the Deskrat:


The US introduced economic sanctions on Zimbabwe through the Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act, 2001. (ZIDERA) Through this enactment Zimbabwe’s access to finance and credit facilities was effectively incinerated.

ZIDERA empowers the US to use its voting rights and influence (as the main donor) in multilateral lending agencies, such as the IMF, World Bank, and the African Development Bank to veto any applications by Zimbabwe for finance, credit facilities, loan rescheduling, and international debt cancellation. The US cites Zimbabwe’s human rights record, political intolerance and absence of rule of law as the main reasons for the imposition of sanctions. The ZIDERA also suggests that if Zimbabwe acts to correct these ills, then the sanctions will be removed and economic support measures are suggested.


Here at the Ghost we hold that Mugabe still holds the primary responsibility for:
a) Not moving on the land earlier and
b) not having a fallback plan for England's about face.
c) Not grooming leadership to take over from him.

The author of the linked article has made the correct statement that Mugabe is not Zimbabwe and therefore the economic sanctions that serve to hurt the people of Zimbabwe rather than it's leader is immoral. I agree, though the problem is that Mugabe through his "leadership" has made himself synonymous with Zimbabwe. Again, had he groomed new leadership to replace him such a distinction would not have to be made. That fault lies squarely with Mugabe and the ZANU-PF.

Saturday, April 26, 2008

John White Vs. Oliver and Isnora


Let us look at this recent verdict and compare it to the John White verdict from just over a month ago:


In the case of the Sean Bell shooting we have Judge Cooperman saying that the since the officers thought there was a gun and thought that something deadly was going to happen, the court cannot find them guilty. At worst, says Cooperman, they were careless.


So remember: No gun, A loud argument: Ok to shoot 50 shots because someone made "threatening movements."


John White: In his home. 2 cars of white youth (thugs) pull up to the front of his house. They are yelling at the man's house threatening the life of his son.

John White retrieves his gun and comes outside to defend his son and his property from this mob that came out to his house. Mob member gets into John White's face clearly menacing the man and is shot and killed. 1 Shot. guilty of manslaughter. Like the Sean Bell case, there is "no gun" there is a "heated argument" and there is a threat on someone's life.


How does a court system reconcile acquitting a set of people who shot at unarmed men based on the "fact" that there was an argument, and threatening movements" and convicting another faced with the same situation?


It is clear then, that under criminal law in NY State that police have the right to shoot at unarmed people so long as they say that the person was making "threatening moves" and having "heated arguments." but a civilian defending his home and family has no such right. In other words, under NY State law There is one set of codes for the police and another for civilians.


Technorati Tags:

Friday, April 25, 2008

Sean Bell Verdict: The Verdict Was in On March 19, 2007


Yes, you read this right. The verdict was in on March, 19, 2007. On that day the grand jury delivered the indictments and that is what sunk the case.

Back on that day I posted a link to the indictment found here


If you read all the counts you'll note that there is NO second degree manslaughter charge against Isnora or Oliver for shooting at Guzman. This is significant because first degree manslaughter charges requires the proof of intent. I said back in march of 2007 that intent would not be provable. Second degree manslaughter requires no intent.


Once it was shown in court, by both Isnora and Oliver that the target of their weapons fire was Guzman, it didn't matter what happened to Bell (case wise) Bell becomes collateral damage from the assault on Guzman.


So the question that needs to be asked is why was there no second degree manslaughter (or attempted manslaughter if such a charge exists) leveled at Isnora and Oliver?


If the prosecutor did not ask for such an indictment, was he or his office acting in concert with the police department to assure that the officers would be acquitted? That is a fair question given the DA's comments about wanting to maintain the respect of the police.


It would also explain what I considered a very weak prosecution that had no aim other than "laying out the evidence." Did the prosecution know that they could not show intent? I know full well from reading the transcripts that intent with the possible exception of Oliver's grand jury testimony was NOT proven and no effort that I saw was made to show intent.


If it is the case that the prosecution purposefully not charge the officers with the charges that could have been proven, then I think there ought to be a Federal investigation into why that happened.


Technorati Tags:

From the steps of Queens County Court

I'm not home right now so a full entry on the verdict will come up later. What I will comment on is the fact that though I and a few other people got to the courthouse at daybreak, we were unable to get inside. However at least 30 members of the press were queued ahead of us and let in. That was simply out of order. Those same reporters would hsve continual access to everyone, we the lowly bystanders simply wanted to hear for ourselves the decision by Cooperman. We deserved to have been treated better than that. They could have easily let the 5 of us who had been there at daybreak in with the press.

Anyway once we determined that we weren't getting in, we waited for the decision and it arrived with a running reporter.

Not guilty.

More later.

Tuesday, April 22, 2008

Obliterate Them

Quick! Name a country that Iran has attacked in the last 10 years.
Quick! Name a country that Iran has been attacked by in the last 30.

Quick: Name a country that the US has gone to war with in the last 10 years.
Quick! Name a country that the US has gone to war with in the last 30 years.
Quick! Name a country that the US has gone to way with in the last 50 years.

Quick! Name a country that the US supplies arms to that has bombed peoples who's main weapons are rocks.
Quick! Name a country that the US has declared an "axis of evil".
Quick! Name a country named an "axis of evil" that has been threatened with Preemptive strikes
Quick! Name a country in the Middle East that the US had propped up a dictator until he was overthrown by the people.

Now if you're bright enough to have gotten correct answers for the above questions then you are bright enough to know that all this Iran sabre rattling being done by both Clinton and Obama is sheer silliness and is intended for only two things:

1) Satisfy the Israeli lobby.
2) Stoke the white supremacist fervor of putting those Muslims in their place.

Hillary Clinton says that she would "obliterate" them and Obama seems to think that Iran is not a sovereign nation that has the right to defend itself and develop weapons to that end without anyone's permission (a position I'm quite sure Clinton agrees with). Obama ups the ante with "conventional weapons" and "any of our allies." The record is quite clear that the US is a greater threat to Iran than Iran is to the US. the US currently has it's military deployed on two sides of Iran, not to mention those in the Persian Gulf. Does anyone here think that if Iran had it's military in Mexico and Canada and ships in the Gulf of Mexico that the US would even tolerate that kind of situation? If anything Iran would be stupid not to develop weapons of deterrence given the hostility shown to it going back decades.

Lastly, it is highly unlikely that Iran, or any other Muslim nation would throw a nuclear bomb at Israel. Simply put, any scientist knows full well what the fallout from such an attack would be. A: There would be a great number of Palestinians killed in such an attack. There is a high likelihood that such holy places such as Jerusalem would be damaged of destroyed. That wouldn't sit well with a lot of Muslims. Lastly, the radioactive fallout from such an attack in that region would be damaging to the economies of the countries in the area not to mention the health crisis that would follow.

No, any real analysis of this situation would clearly show that the nuclear aspirations of Iran are a direct result of US policy (and dumb statements by wanna be presidents) who have been threatening Iran either directly of through proxy for decades. It would have been nice to see so called "news reporters" to point out these things to these wanna-be president candidates.

Sunday, April 20, 2008

The Daugthers of the Confederacy and the Clintons

The Black Commentator posts news on Thursdays so when I received an e-mail from them today I knew it had to be something important. It seems that Bill Clinton has been giving high praise to a group with known Klan connections. Klan as in Ku Klux Klan.

The Black commentator has angled this as a question about reainess to lead issue. I'm not sure I agree with that given that when Obama was in SC he didn't make any comments regarding the confederate flag. I suppose it was too racial at the time. So if anything this little but about the Daughters of the Confederacy is really payback for he Rev. Wright "issue."

Now here's the problem. Black voters will still be votin for Obama. The question is whether white folks will be put off by this organization. More important is whether in a general election with Obama on the ticket, would attacks on Daughters of the Confedercy play to the underground Republican get out the vote machine.

Friday, April 18, 2008

A Letter To judge Cooperman


I Tawt I taw a Puddy Cat


That is the infamous line of one Tweety cartoon character and best sums up the basis of the defense's case: Isnora thought Guzman had a gun.

While I'm sure you have to weight the technical attributes of what constitutes manslaughter and reckless endangerment allow me to weigh in on this matter.


Under the social contract that the citizens of NYC have with the state of NY, we give the police the authority to protect us with the use of firearms (among other items). We employ and train these individuals to protect and serve all citizens from criminals and criminal activity. Why do we have police? Because they act as a deterrent to crime. We know that where police are present crime is less likely to occur. Not only that but we trust that the training these officers undergo will allow them to make decisions that are better than the untrained civilian. Furthermore the police are a part of the entire judicial process. The police apprehend suspects of criminal activities thereby making them available to the court system where guilt is determined, or not, by the representatives of we the people. In the court, proper rules of evidence are adhered to and the defendant, presumed innocent by the process, can challenge the evidence or lack thereof. This process ensures that the people are protected from "overeager" or "retributive" representatives of the state as well as ensuring that the state treats all of the citizens in a fair manner.


In the movie Judge Dredd we witness Sylvester Stallone proclaim that he is the law. In that movie the heavily armed police were given the role of police officer, judge, jury and executioner. Dredd's character "judges" all manner of people to exectution and sends one character, who becomes his side kick, to a prison somewhere. When Judge Dredd becomes a victim of a setup he comes to the realization that he is not the law and that the law, meaning the police are not infallible. Fortunately Judge Dredd was simply a movie and all characters killed in the movie were actually able to go home at the end of their performances.


Similarly we see the movie Minority Report where people are arrested for crimes that they have yet to commit, or as is relevant to this case, what a group of people thought was going to transpire. No extenuating circumstances, no examination of the evidence, simply the word of a person and a person is put into a deep freeze for whatever term is deemed appropriate. Again, fortunately for the characters in the movie, they could all go home after the shoot was done.


Before I get to the case before you let me review a case out of North Carolina. When the PlayStation 3 game console was released there were lines wrapped around buildings in order to purchase one. One person decided that he would rob a person of their brand new PS3 in a store parking lot. Apparently, this individual assaulted the person and perhaps had a weapon. Someone at the police department decided that a young man at some house was the suspect. The police, deciding that the boy was a serious threat came to the boys home with arms ready. The police officers knocked at the door of this man's house. He was playing his PS3 at the time and had answered the door with the PS3 controller in his hands. The officer(s) upon seeing the controller, shot the boy to death.


As far as I know the young man in question has not been determined to have been the armed robber, but that really doesn't matter now does it? He's dead. his guilt having never been determined by a court of law. No evidence presented by the state. No chance for his defense attorney to cross examine witnesses or present his own. No, because of a set of assumptions made by the police, because they decided that deadly confrontation was more desirable than any number of other tactics available to them, the young man is dead for answering his door while playing a video game. Besides, since when was the death sentence approved for robbery? With this is mind let us look at the trial before you.


The defense, specifically Anthony Ricco has made a mockery of the events surrounding this case. In his opening statements he referred to his client as the black man with a gun. I said at that time that he may have well referred to his client, and the victims as niggers. I understand that he has dropped all pretense and done just that. Ricco's entire defense for his client has been based on playing the race and class cards.

The worst thing about his defense of Isnora, whom, I could be convinced to have some sympathy for, is that it depends upon entirely irrelevant material. For example, what does the National Action Network have to do with the events that took place that fateful night? Nothing. What does Al Sharpton, like him or not, have to do with the events that happened on that fateful night? Nothing. Is Ricco suggesting that Al Sharpton send Sean Bell and Co. to the bar that night in order to set up the NYPD?


The defense is asking that you find for them because Isnora claims to have heard someone say "yo, go get my gun." Though he managed to miss other parts of the conversation. The logic here is that once Isnora supposed he heard something about getting a gun, that a gun was going to be got and a potential crime was going to go down. If we follow this logic then we can ask why didn't Isnora and the other detectives step in right then and there? He was going to break cover anyway. Whether he broke cover around the corner or in front of the Kaluah bar, wouldn't matter. Had the detectives done so then no one would be dead.


Another option, which detective Napoli discussed, was getting a uniformed driver involved. That is, by his admission, normal procedure. Clearly if a marked vehicle with lights flashing had stopped in front of Sean Bell and co. Sean Bell would be alive today. How do we know that? Well, Sean Bell and co. had committed no crime and therefore had no reason to run from the police. However; Insora and co. did not make those decisions. Instead they followed Sean Bell and co. to their vehicle.


My point being that there were any number of options that would have protected the lives of both the officers and the victims. There was a choice not to make those decisions. There was a choice to not bring police lights, there were choices to not call in uniformed officers. Like the case in North Carolina, the defendants, specifically Oliver and Insora, made the choice to use force, and ended up killing someone.


In the case of Detective Oliver we find that his testimony is clear in that he attempted to execute Guzman. He admitted that not only did he not see a gun, but that he was not going to wait to determine whether there was a gun on the scene. Furthermore; Oliver's testimony that he got out of the police van and walked to the passenger side of the vehicle which he also testified he believed gunfire had just come from shows that Oliver is a liar. No person in their right mind would leave the relative safety afforded the police van to walk to a car window which they believed gunfire was coming from. No, it is clear that Oliver had decided to exact revenge for what he thought was the shooting of Isnora. We do not allow for that by police or civilians. In fact I would say that if attempted murder charges were on the table, that Oliver had intent because it is clear from his statements on the scene and ballistic evidence that he intended to kill Joe Guzman.


I do hope that you come down on the side of justice. I hope you remind everyone that the law applies regardless of whether you wear the badge or are looking at it.

Mugabe Must Go.

Mugabe must think we are all stupid. As Bill Fletcher at the Black Commentator wrote, it doesn't matter whether you like Mugabe or the MDC. To have an election and to not announce results is an insult not only to the people of Zimbabwe but to all Pan-Africanists. Apologists for Mugabe ought to be shamed for not speaking out firmly against the clear power grab by Mugabe.

As I have been saying for a while now, there is no excuse, none, for Mugabe to still be president of Zimbabwe. None. It is clear now for all to see that this former liberation hero, whom this writer had much respect for, has become the very thing he overthrew. Did not the colonial powers use the power of the state to deny the people of Zimbabwe their rights? Did not the colonial masters whom Mugabe has attempted to distract his people with, use violence to suppress the people of Zimbabwe?

If the MDC is a stooge for the CIA or Ebglsh agencies, Mugabe has no ne to blame than himself for not having the foresight to groom leadership from a broad selectin of groups that make up Zimbabwe. Encouragment of loyalty to the state rather than the party or the ethnic group would have served as a barrier to outside influences.

Instead of that Mugabe and his people and unfortnately a lot of people in the US calling themselves "revolutionaries" have been distracted by their earthly god: The white man" without whome they appaently unable to concieve of much of anything. Finances a mess, White man's fault. Food not growing? White man's fault. unemployment running rampant? White mans's fault. Never mind that the white man in Zimbabwe is all but absent.

Now I'm not saying that the British or Americans don't have an interest in the ousting of Mugabe. No doubt.Bu that is no excuse for his continued rule of that country. Does he not believe that he will die one day? Is he an immortal and we're just finding out? What happens if he keels over tomorrow?

In any case, I believe that Mugabe lost the election outright. Had he had enough votes to have a runoff then I think the results would have been posted but the fact that the government has gone out of it's way to not only not release results but to also intimidate opposiion party members and the press.

At the end of the day the fact is that Mugabe and the ZANU (PF) have dsgraced themselves and become a blight on the country. If anything makes it clear that they are only out for themselves it is this latest election. We Pan-Africanists cannt stand on the side of oppressive and non transparent government regardless of whether it is held by a black liberation hero or not.

Monday, April 14, 2008

"Faith Forum"


The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.


-Article VI, US Constitution.


Despite the above stated and despite the supposed patriotism of the voting public, still we have candidates for office sitting in a "faith forum" where such testing was done. Mind you, Article VI was intended to prevent the government from imposing such tests, but I would think that just as people are opposed to private citizens violating their privacy or censoring their speech, they would also be bright enough to come out against "faith forums" for those running for political offices. Also, as has been abundantly clear, there are way too many people willing to either lie in regards to their faith, or are flat out hypoctites on the matter.


Some will argue that these forums don't just talk about religion per se. They ask questions about global poverty, etc. Fine. These same questions can be asked and answered without discussing ones religion, asserting the maleness of God, or whatnot.


In any case, after the most "faith based" administration in history, we have 2 wars, one of this is clearly illegal. We have the practical leveling of a city in Lebanon with US built and sold weapons. We have the practical shredding of the constitution (which it is abundantly clear that a lot of these religious folks don't care for with the exceptions of the parts about gun ownership and tax-exempt statuses for their church activities) and "legalized" torture. And of course the major entry of the federal government in the private lives of citizens a-la- Terri Shiavo.


Enough of these "faith forums" these faithful have their own problems to deal with starting largely with themselves and their faithfull co-religionists.

Thursday, April 10, 2008

Sean Bell Watch:The Grand Jury Testimony Of Isnora and Oliver.


Unfortunately since the detectives in question did not take the stand we were unable to put their story to the test and therefore we only can go by the testimony they gave to the grand jury. Let us look at the testimony given by Isnora.


On page 2226 we find:


He stood right next to me and we were both waiting

basically to point out the individual with the White Sox

hat and the long sleeve shirt.


This White Sox wearing man is the man that Isnora said was in the club and had made a motion to his hip that Isnora took to mean that the man was armed. Thus far this White Sox man is the only person who could arguably be thought of as posing a "threat" to anyone. He continues:


Several moments after

there was a group of males that exited the club. I

would say maybe about seven or eight. They exited the

club and they were hovering close near the front

entrance of the club and more where I was standing but

closer to the street where I was basically by the gated

area.


This would be the group that contained Sean Bell and his friends.


We both were standing out there and we were still

waiting for the individual to come out which we haven't

seen yet and we, you know, began to hear like a loud

commotion, like an intense argument between the group of

males that came out and the female that was with the

owner of the black SUV and it was like a big argument





So Isnora and co. are still waiting for this "White Sox hat" wearing male. No one in the group of seven match that description and so as far as we know the only person who could arguably pose any danger was still in the club.


While we were in front of the club and

the argument between both parties, the female and the

group of guys that was there, and basically the female

was stating that she wasn't going back with the group

of males, I guess to a hotel, whatever she said, I'm not

doing you guys, and the individual that was with the

female, the guy, the owner of the SUV, he stood there

and I don't know what he said but he directed comments

to Guzman and the group of guys that was there.








What is significant here is that Isnora who is so keen to have heard "get my gun" and apparently close enough to hear this conversation between the SUV guy and his "chick" couldn't quite make out a portion of a conversation between said SUV guy and Guzman. Yet he describes this as a "loud commotion, like an intense argument." How then is he going to "not hear" part of said loud conversation?


So shortly thereafter I heard Guzman say get my gun, get my gun. He was facing the owner of the black SUV. He said get my gun, get my gun, and I hear Bell say -- I don't curse -- he said let's fuck him up.



So let's get it straight. Isnora briefly lost his ability to hear and then hears "go get my gun" and "let's fuck him up." Nor did he see anything that may have prompted this alleged statement. Then Sean Bell and co are off walking to their vehicle.


Once I informed the Lieutenant of the direction

where the group of males were going, he instructed me to

see where they were going, follow them, follow where

they were actually going. I did not follow closely

behind them because I didn't want them to think that I

was with the individual with the SUV to retaliate after

what just happened so I gave them enough room so they

couldn't see somebody was following them.


This is pretty important here. Anyone who is street wise knows full well that if you see someone following you, but acting like they aren't following you, you are likely to become a victim of a stickup, at best. What is important here though is that Isnora admits that his very presence and actions could lead Bell and Co. to believe that he was associated with the Black SUV man. Therefore Isnora's testimony actually corroborates the testimony of Guzman who said that he thought that Isnora was out to kill them.


I had taken out my shield from my

pocket, I had clipped it to my collar of my sweater, my

neck area, I clipped it there. Once I had clipped it, I had held it for several

moments as I passed the group on the corner because I



didn't want to tip anybody off as to, you know -- I

guess I didn't want to tip them off who I was and so I

removed my service weapon as I crossed the street and I

noticed the vehicle was parked, the headlights were on

and as I walked towards the vehicle area, I noticed Bell

and Guzman in the front seat.





Pg 2272:


Q. You were holding your firearm with your right arm

extended forward, is that fair to say?

A. Yes.



And so we have Isnora with his badge hidden rounding the corner. Then we have Insora, right handed with his gun pointed at the front of the Altima. Isnora is illuminated by 2 ~55 Watt bulbs off the Altima's headlights standing as he put it, less than 6 feet away from the vehicle gun up towards Bell and co. holding the gun with one hand (later testimony) that in all likelihood interfered with Bell, and Guzman's ability to see Isnora's badge.


So again, Isnora's actions played out exactly as he had thought about. He appeared to be a member of the other entourage.


I had eye contact

with him from the beginning when I first got to the

vehicle, and after it struck my leg, I maintained focus

on Guzman only because when he said get my gun, get my

gun so I felt in my mind something's up here, why, you

know, they racing out of the location.




Why? Since we know they had no gun and had not committed any crime whatsoever, they perhaps thought, as Isnora suggested, that they were about to be killed by the SUV guy or one of his boys. What if Isnora had followed his early concern that maybe he would be seen as such a person?


I was watching the passenger side and I noticed that he kept

reaching in his waistband area, but all the while I kept

saying police, don't move, police, don't move. I said

it several times and I know they saw my shield because

it was clipped on my collar area.



He knows? He KNOWS that Guzman can see his badge? How does he know this? Can he read minds? Perhaps Isnora knows Guzman saw the badge the same way Isnora saw everything else around him, such as in this statement:


Pg 2273:


Yes. In the midst of what transpired -- a lot of

times -- I don't know how to explain it, but it felt

like I couldn't hear nothing, it was like sketchy. I

don't know how to explain, but --

Q. Would it be fair to say you're trying to describe

like a kind of tunnel vision where you're focused?

A. Yes.





Pg 2275:


I was able to see the individual, but, like I

said, it's sketchy. Like I said, when you have tunnel

vision, it's just -- I don't know how to kind of paint

the picture to explain that my vision was just solely on

this individual and nothing else.








Pg 2277:


Well, after the firing had ceased, that's when I

noticed he was around my side. Like I said, when I was

firing, I couldn't tell exactly where each individuals

were. My tunnel vision blocked everything, all my

peripheral vision.








Pg 2293:


Q. Did you at any point realize that there was no

threat coming from inside the vehicle?

A. I could not tell.

Q. Did you ever pause in your gunfire to assess

whether there was a threat coming from inside the

vehicle?

A. No, because I was so scared and in my mind as to

what happened before all the way up to that point, like

I said, tunnel vision I just couldn't. I wasn't able to








Is it not entirely possible that Guzman and Bell were so fixated, "tunnel visioned" as Isnora put it on the gun in the right hand of Isnora that they didn't see anything else? hmmmm?


I seen -- I was

watching the passenger side and I noticed that he kept

reaching in his waistband area, but all the while I kept

saying police, don't move, police, don't move. I said

it several times and I know they saw my shield because

it was clipped on my collar area. I noticed that his

arm was going up in an upward motion and I yelled gun

and my mind, I felt that he had a gun and I couldn't

wait anymore. I don't know, it happened so quick.


So Guzman is reaching into his waistband area. Diallo was reaching for his wallet. Guzman apparently was reaching for or putting down his phone. In either case:


1) Neither one is a crime.

2) Insora still hasn't seen any weapon.


Now as to the hands going up. Lets take the assumption here that Guzman had in fact thought Isnora was an officer. That is not testimony anywhere, but we're going to take Isnora's word for it, that Guzman did in fact think that Isnora was a officer of the law and heard the commands Isnora was issuing. What were those commands?


Pg 2268:


Q. Now, after the vehicle has hit you, do you shout

any additional commands?

A. I just remember I kept saying police, don't move,

put your hands up, police, don't move. It was quick and

I was scared.

Q. Did you also ask them to show their hands?

A. Yes, in the midst of me saying police, don't

move, I said show me your hands.

Q. Basically you said police, don't move, police,

don't move and additionally you said show your hands,

show your hands?

A. Yes.

Q. You said you then observed movement by Mr. Guzman

within the vehicle, is that correct?

A. Yes. Like he just -- I kept -- like I said, I

kept my focus on to the side in the passenger window and

I kept noticing the waistband movement with both hands

as he is going to reach for something in his waistband.

Q. Could you tell for certain that he wasn't putting

on a seat belt?

A. No, he was not putting on a seat belt.

Q. How could you be certain of that, you saw

movement around his waist?

A. Because he is actually reaching like this, he is

not going like this.

Q. So now you also said show your hands, is that

correct?

A. Yes. I stated police, don't move, police, don't

move, then show your hands, show your hands.

Q. Do you see a problem in giving those two orders

at the same time, don't move and show your hands?

A. I'm not too sure as -- I mean, I am trying to say

I was nervous and all I kept thinking was that the

individual had a gun.


So the actual set of commands from Isnora was to stop and "put up your hands" Again, assuming that Guzman was following directions from Isnora, he would have had to move his hands up from his waist. That would mean that Guzman, by Isnora's grand jury testimony, the only testimony we have from him, was in a no win situation. Had he not put up his hands, he would be disobeying a direct police order and be shot. If he puts up his hands, from his waist where they were claimed to have been, then he would be shot because Isnora had determined in his own mind that Guzman had a weapon. And remember, this assumes that Isnora is telling the truth and everyone else is lying. By Isnora's testimony, Guzman and Bell were essentially dead men walking. Isnora, like Judge Dredd, had already judge them guilty of a crime (apparently conspiracy to commit a drive by) and had determined that it was his place to execute punishment. Isnora's testimony is full of I'm sure he had a gun. I'm sure there was a gun. There is no testimony that he saw a gun at any point during the entire sting operation. Isnora saw what he wanted to see and assumed that which he wanted to assume.


the SUV, black SUV, because of

what transpired earlier. I'm sorry, I am just -- once I

seen the arm go up, I fired. I yelled gun and I fired.

In my mind I knew that he had a gun in my mind and, like
I said,





So giving an order to "put your hands up" a suspect does just that and Isnora tries to kill him.


Q. Again, you had given a command show your hands,

is that correct?

A. At that moment?

Q. Earlier.

A. Earlier I know I said police, don't move, police,

don't move.

Q. When you saw the hand come up, did you see

anything in the hand?

A. No. To be honest, I didn't see. My thing was

that I wasn't going to wait to see what was coming up.

What took place prior with the argument all the way to

that led to -- in my mind I felt he had a gun and I

felt -- like I said, that was the last thing I wanted to

do, but I don't know how to explain because everything

-- just my vision was toward him and it felt like

everything was a little bit blurry to the side. I don't

know how to --


Did you see anything in the hand? No. I wasn't going to wait and see. Translation, I had determined he was a threat on the basis of a partially overheard conversation, the entire contents of which I did not get. Nor was I situationally aware to know that the persons who would have been the object of the supposed drive by had left the scene.


Q. Would it be fair to say that based upon the

action you were taking it was your intention to either

kill or disable him at that point?

A. No. My intention was not to kill the individual.

My intention was, as I was trained to shoot center mass

and for the -- how do I say -- for the threat to stop.

Q. Center mass is a term for the torso area of the

body, is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. You're trained to shoot at center mass because

that's where just about all the vital organs are in the

body, is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And because shots to center mass would be the

most injurious in all likelihood, is that correct?

A. Well, to my summation, like I said -- ask the

question again.

Q. I am just saying, you were saying you were aiming

your rounds at center mass because of your training and

we are saying that you're trained to shoot at center

mass because that's where mainly organs are, is that

correct?

A. Well, all the vital organs, yes, are center mass,

but that's how we were taught and we were taught to stop

the level of threat.


Stop the level of threat. What threat? The one entirely in Isnora's mind.


Q. Did you at any point while you were firing your

weapon see Mr. Guzman trying to escape across the front

seat to the driver's side?

A. No, I can't tell. The only thing I can say was

in my mind he was going to his waistband, he was coming

up.

Q. So you never did see if Mr. Guzman was trying to

evade the gunfire, for example?

A. Meaning if I can tell or --

Q. Yes. If you saw movement in the car which you

concluded he was trying to escape being hit by your

gunfire?

A. No.


Well both the evidence and Guzman's testimony point out that Guzman did in fact try to get away from the bullets being fired at him. So again, Isnora, fearing the imaginary gun could not even tell that Guzman, the victim, was trying to get away from the gun fire, a completely natural reaction to being shot at.


Q. What movement did you see after you began to fire

your weapon?

A. I just saw the muzzle flash. I just couldn't

tell.

Q. Did you at any point realize that there did not

appear to be gunshots coming from that vehicle?

A. I'm not sure. I mean -- can you repeat the

question?

Q. Did you at any point realize that there was no

threat coming from inside the vehicle?

A. I could not tell.

Q. Did you ever pause in your gunfire to assess

whether there was a threat coming from inside the

vehicle?

A. No, because I was so scared and in my mind as to

what happened before all the way up to that point, like

I said, tunnel vision I just couldn't.




So apparently Isnora had gotten a good look at the front of his gun and never, as indicated before, attempted to verify that he was in fact threatened with anything other than perhaps a vehicle 1 foot in front of him, which he could have easily gotten away from.


Now let us move to the grand jury testimony of Detective Oliver, who like Isnora decided, as is his right, to not testify. We find the following:


When I made the

right-hand turn I was still just looking a little to the

left and a little right, and started thinking maybe he's

just by himself walking on the street, and I still

didn't see him, and then maybe a second later I looked

to my left, and I saw Detective Isnora either on the

sidewalk or on the street, but right by the curb

standing at a car. Immediately thereafter, I just see

the tires screeching, and the car just came at me, and

hit my van head on, it smashed into us head on. I was in

shock at that point, and immediately the car went into

reverse, again, and the car came back at Detective

Isnora who was again either on the sidewalk or right on

the street by the curb, and I saw him jump out of the

way, and the car, the rear of the car, hit the building,

and as soon as it hit the building again it started to

come back at me, and that's when I saw Detective Isnora

with his arms out, and his gun in his hands yelling,

he's got a gun, he's got a gun, and then right before

the car hit us again for the second time I saw the

passenger window get blown out, and I saw shooting at

him, and the car hit us, and I heard the engine revving.


We should note here that Detective Oliver did not testify that he heard Isnora prior to the "screeching tires" yelling any police commands. Isnora testified that he had been yelling police commands at such a loud voice that he was sure that Sean Bell and co heard him. Yet detective Oliver heard no such yells. Who's lying?


Secondly Oliver testifies that he heard Isnora say "he's got a gun!" then then sees the passenger window blow out and says he saw shooting "from the car." Yet we know there was no shooting from the car. Therefore we can safely say that Oliver assumed that there were shots from the car because he chose to believe what Isnora had shouted. The fact is that neither Isnora, nor Oliver saw any weapon whatsoever.


I put my car into park, and I heard shots just coming

from the car. Immediately I got out of the car. I

yelled, police don't move, and I still see a passenger



appearing to be raising a gun. So I started firing my

weapon. It would only seem like a second or two.


How can he have heard shots coming from the car? He can only say that he heard shots. It’s not like he said “I heard bullets whiz by my head” or “bullets hit my vehicle.” So again, his testimony makes assertions he simply cannot prove and that the evidence does not support..


Secondly, How can he state that he “saw a passenger appear to be raising a gun?” He saw no gun. Isnora saw no gun. All they saw was arm movement.


I looked at my gun. I didn't know if it had any bullets or

something was wrong. I was standing right in front of

him. I see him lifting his arms. I didn't want to die. I

reloaded the gun, and I continued to fire, and the shots

still are going on around me. I don't know where they

are coming from, and all of this is happening in a

matter of a couple of seconds, which it seemed.








So detective Oliver was standing right in front of Guzman and could not tell whether or not he had a gun in that “raising hand’? Shots going all around him and he hasn’t determined that there is no shooting coming from the raising hand, which by his own admission had not been raised enough to get a shot at him even if Guzman had a gun? Do we understand what Oliver is saying? He knew there were no shots coming from the “raising hand” because he said he didn’t want the hand to get to a position where it could shoot him. Therefore he knew he was shooting at a person who was not firing at him and had not fired at him.


Q. At that point you hear that, is that when the car

is going into reverse and before it hits the wall or

after it hits the wall?

A. After it hits the wall.

Q. You hear Detective Isnora say, he's got a gun?

A. Yes.

Q. You could see the front passenger and driver in

the vehicle, is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you see a gun?

A. No.


Did he see gun? No. Refer to my previous paragraph.


Q. Please indicate once you left your car what

position you took on the street?

A. I got out of my car over here, and I had my

weapon drawn, and I yelled, police don't move, and I

walked to this general area right over here, and I was

looking, and I began firing from this position over

here.

Q. Let me make a record.

MR. TESTAGROSSA: The witness has indicated

that he took a position approximately six feet

away from the car.

Q. Does that sound fair, Detective, five, six feet?

A. Maybe six to ten feet, in that general area.

Q. And apparently directly across from the passenger

front door of the vehicle?




Oliver saw no gun. Oliver felt so comfortable that he didn’t run, he didn’t duck, he simply got out of his vehicle, weapon drawn and walked six to ten feet from his vehicle to the passenger side of the Altima where he previously claimed he thought gunfire was coming from. Is it police training to walk towards a place where you think someone is shooting from? Does that sound right to you?


Q. That was the position you were standing in and

that's where you began to fire?

A. Yes.

Q. At this time the passenger side window was

already blown out of vehicle, is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. You could look into the vehicle and see the

occupants since there was no longer a window there, is

that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. So you could see a person in the front passenger

seat, and a person in the front driver's seat as you

started to fire your weapon, is that correct?

A. I never saw the driver. I could only see the

passenger.

Q. You never saw the driver?

A. No, sir.

Q. Now, you began to fire your weapon. What was your

target?

A. It was the passenger.

Q. Now, you could look into the vehicle and see the

passenger, is that correct?

A. Yes.


Detective Oliver could not see any part of the driver? Ok I’m game. That would mean he was so close to the vehicle that he could only see down into the passenger seat, in which case he could have easily seen any weapon that would have been there. He saw no weapon but continued to fire anyway.


Q. You indicated also that when you fired your

weapon the passenger side window is blown out, and you

can see into the interior of the car, and you could see

the person in the passenger seat, is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you see a gun in that person's hands?

A. No.


From his own mouth.


Q. By the way, did you see whether Detective Isnora

had a shield on at that time? Well, at that time when

you first get out of your car did you see a shield on

him?

A. I didn't even see Detective Isnora until I exited

my vehicle.

Q. You did see him before you exited the vehicle, is

that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Had you seen a shield on him at that time?

A. I don't recall.


The first time he saw Isnora is when he exited the vehicle? But he already said that when he turned down the street in the p-van, he saw Isnora. So either he saw Isnora before exiting the van or he didn’t.


Now here comes the execution:


Q. And what did you see this person doing at that

time?

A. I saw the passenger of the vehicle. The window

was blown out, and he kept moving like this as to

indicated he was trying to raise his arm, and I didn't

want him to get that arm up.

Q. Just for the record, you are indicating that the

man in the passenger seat was kind of twisting towards

the interior of the car?

A. No.

Q. Why don't you clarify that?

A. What I saw was the passenger of the vehicle, he

kept trying to raise his right arm as to bring a gun up

to me the whole time. I didn't know if he could have

been shooting through the vehicle because he couldn't

get his arm up. I was not about to let him get that arm

up. I felt if he got that arm up he was going to kill

me.

Q. Would it be fair to say, as you made the motion

that you just demonstrated to the jury where you

indicated this man was trying to reach for his waist you

were also lowering your left shoulder and basically

putting yourself in a position where your left shoulder

is also lowered to your waist?

A. I can't answer that, that way. I don't know if he

was tipping his shoulder. When he is trying to reach he

wasn't just sitting still, and moving his arm. He was

like -- he was trying to get his arm up.

Q. The motion that you are making now as you

demonstrate to the jury is an attempt to show the jury

the motion that man was making?

A. It was a motion that appeared to me that he was

trying to raise a gun at me.

Q. But the motion that you are demonstrating to the

jury is an attempt by you to show the jury the motion

that man was making, is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And in making that motion you are tipping your

left shoulder, is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. When this man, who you testified was making this

motion, he was in the passenger seat of the vehicle, is

that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And when he made that motion and was tipping his

left shoulder that was kind of pushing his body towards

the interior of the car, is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And again you saw this motion, but you saw no



weapon, is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. You fired that shot at the same time you saw this

motion, is that correct?

A. I'm sorry?

Q. You fired your first round at about the time you

first saw this man making this motion?

A. Yes.


Here we have detective Oliver backing the testimony of Guzman by showing that Guzman was moving in such a motion that would appear to be moving away from the source of gunfire. Oliver sees this, states that he didn’t want to gun, to which he had not seen and repeatedly states he had not seen, to be raised at him and therefore decided to fire, two magazines full of bullets.


Q. Where did you direct that round?

A. Center mass.

Q. You directed it at the man's torso, is that

correct?

A. Yes.

Q. What part of his torso was turned to you at the

time you fired that round?

A. Facing towards in his seat. It was just his side.

Q. So his side was turned towards you?

A. Yes.





And so Oliver admits that Guzman was facing his “seat side” that would be his back, to the officer.


Q. But there comes a time when you notice the rear

passenger and you directed fire at him, is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And when you directed fire at him you see him, is

that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And you don't see a weapon in his hands, do you?

A. No.

Q. How many rounds do you direct at the passenger of

the vehicle?

A. I'm unsure. I don't know how many. Everything

happened within seconds.


Right. So again Oliver points his weapon at and fires at a person he admits he saw had no weapon and posed no threat to him whatsoever. even more damning:


Q. Detective Oliver, you indicated that there was

one thing you wanted to clarify from earlier testimony?

A. Yes.

Q. Please go ahead.

A. You had said before that I had seen the rear

passenger window get blown out is when I thought the

rear passenger was a threat that's incorrect. It's after

I saw the rear window get blown out that I had thought

the rear passenger was a threat.

Q. Alright. So just to clarify, it was the rear

windshield that you meant, is that what you mean?

A. Yes.

Q. Alright. When you saw the rear window go out, the

rear windshield, go out that's when you saw the rear

passenger and saw the threat or what you perceived to be

the threat from that passenger, is that correct?

A. Yes.


So Oliver thought maybe Benefield was shooting out the back window? As in the opposite direction of him?


It is pretty clear by the grand jury testimony of both Isnora and Oliver that neither of them saw any weapon. Furthermore, detective oliver has admitted, multiple times, that though he was not threatened with any weapon, he continued to shoot at Guzman.

Monday, April 07, 2008

Sean Bell Watch: Somebody is Lying


And so today we find that Nelson Rafael, who was in his apartment one block away from the incident, claims that he heard shouts and then gunshots. He couldn't make out what was being said. He was up at 4AM watching TV.


Now Lt. Napoli is on record as saying he heard no shouts before the shooting. Given that Lt. Napoli was all of two car lengths away from the actual shooting, and according to detective Carey, Lt. Napoli was on the scene before the shooting began. So, either Nelson Rafael is lying or Lt. Napoli is lying.


In other news, the NY Post is reporting that a defense witness is to take the stand and report on NYPD procedure for shooting:


The NYPD trains its officers to continue firing their weapons until a target no longer poses a threat, an expert will testify this week at the trial of three officers charged in the 50-shot killing of Sean Bell.



The witness, an expert in police training and tactics, will explain when police officers "can use deadly force," said a defense source.



He is also expected to contradict the prosecution's claim that the officers should have fired just three times and then stopped to assess the situation.



"It's a ridiculous notion of firing three shots and then stopping, which is never taught in the Police Department," the source said.




This would explain why the prosecution did not introduce procedure at trial. Unlike most, my issue is whether police procedure was followed not on what Isnora and Oliver thought or not so this issue is paramount for my argument on the shooting.


Technorati Tags:

Saturday, April 05, 2008

Zimbabwe


I've been watching the events in Zimbabwe. I don't have much to say because I've said most of it already here, here, here, here and here.


To re-iterate I fully support the idea of land reclamation and I do agree that Zimbabwe owes a debt of gratitude to Mugabe for taking up leadership in Zimbabwe's struggle for independence. But it is clear that it is past time for him to step down. We conscious Pan-Africanists cannot be blinded by talk of British neo-colonialsm and the likes. We cannnot be blinded to the very real problem of presidency for life. We cannot support the lack of training for future leadership, laws agains insulting Mugabe and other foolishness. If Mr. Mugabe was serious about nation building he would have stepped down long ago, Zimbabwe would be on it's 4th or 5th president by now. The land reclamation project would have been done in a manner that did not disrupt food supplies to the people

Perhaps the MDC is a stooge for Europe and America. Who's fault is that? Had the Zanu-PF had the foresight to do as Fanon had discussed in propagating a national consciousness and had properly groomed leadership such "stooges" should they exist would not be able to gain traction.


It is time for Mugabe to go. Full stop.


Technorati Tags: , ,

Sean Bell Watch: Officer Carey's Testimony


Sorry for the delay in posting but between work and reading the transcripts of Benefield and Guzman, I've been unable to post for a bit.




Portions of the Transcript:



Uh, the first thing I saw, the first

5 undercover that I saw was Detective Isnora, on the east

6 sidewalk. He had his gun raised in his right hand and was

7 walking from the sidewalk, out into the street, in front

8 of a car that was parked, but had its headlights on.



A The Altima then came forward, as I said, at a

15 high rate of speed, had a head-on collision with the van

16 that I was in. Um, it then put the car in reverse, cut

17 the steering wheel to make a turn back, in the direction

18 of Detective Isnora, who was still standing on the street

19 at that point, made almost a right-angle turn, went back,

20 again at a very fast rate of speed, and had a collision

21 with the metal roll-down gate on the wall, blowing out the

22 back window of the Altima.



At this point I still heard Detective Isnora

16 yelling, and there were other voices at this point also

17 yelling police commands: Police, show your hands. Police,

18 don't move. I believed at this point that there was no

19 possible way that the people in the car would try to make

20 any further actions.



As the car came forward off the curb,

21 Detective Isnora who was now at this point almost walking

22 alongside the car, started to walk towards the front

23 passenger seat -- front passenger door of the car and

24 started yelling: He's got a gun, he's got a gun, and

25 shooting towards the front passenger section of this car.

drb

PO M. Carey - Defense - Direct/Culleton

4617

1 A After the impact with our car I stepped out wide

2 of my open door, I took aim towards the front passenger of

3 the car above the windshield -- above the engine block and

4 fired three rounds through the windshield. After I fired

5 those three rounds, I noticed through my peripheral vision

6 that Detective Isnora was walking almost into my line of

7 fire. To avoid any kind of crossfire or basically me

8 hitting Detective Isnora I lowered my gun and stopped

9 shooting at that point.



I ducked down behind the open door,

10 my open passenger side door because I believed that the

11 front passenger had a gun and was firing back at us. I

12 took -- I ducked down to try to cover myself. Within that

13 split second that I was ducked down there, I looked out

14 passed the door and observed the back passenger get out of

15 the door from behind the driver's side and start to run

16 towards the sidewalk.



Q Did you receive -- prior to this incident, did you

9 receive training by the New York City Police Department with

10 respect to the use of deadly physical force, when it could

11 be used, when it could not be used?

12 A Yes.

13 Q And did you receive training by the New York City

14 Police Department as to when you were using deadly physical

15 force what you were supposed to do?



Q And what part of the passenger did you direct your

24 fire at?

25 A I know that gunfire -- the engine block was

vr

P.O. M. Carey - Defense - Cross/Martin

4651

1 covered from a round from a nine-millimeter gun. I was

2 aiming my firearm above the engine block which would have

3 been through the windshield over the dashboard. What I was

4 able to see of the passenger was about mid-chest level up.





Cross by the People

Q Well, let's explore that. Did you ever believe,

12 at any point in this incident, that you yourself were being

13 fired upon?

14 A Me, myself? No.

15 Q Did you ever, at any time, see a weapon in the

16 hands of a civilian?

17 A No.



Q Are you telling the Court that the fact that you

11 did not believe you were firing -- being fired on had no part

12 in your decision to stop firing?

13 A That's correct. At the time that I stopped

14 firing, I did believe that Detective Isnora was still being

15 fired upon. I, however, did not want to hit him.




Q Now, during the course of the incident and --

8 withdrawn. When you got out of the P-van and fired your

9 shots in rapid succession, your shield was not displayed; was

10 it?

11 A No, it wasn't.

12 Q At the time that you saw Detective Isnora firing

13 his weapon into that vehicle, you did not see any shield; did

14 you?

15 A No, I didn't. I couldn't see the front of them.

16 Q You did not see a shield displayed by any member

17 of your team during this incident when the shooting is taking

18 place; did you?

19 A No.

20 Q You indicated that after the incident was over,

21 there came a time when you saw shields on some of the members

22 of your team; is that correct?

23 A Correct.



Q There is a patrol guide provision which deals with

2 shooting at moving vehicles; isn't that correct?

3 MR. RICCO: Objection. Assuming facts not in

4 evidence.

5 THE COURT: Sustained.

6 MR. RICCO: Judge, can you --

7 THE COURT: I ruled.



Why hasn't the patrol guide been put into evidence?



vr

M. Carey - Defense - Cross/Testagrossa

4692

1 the reason why I thought he was walking into my line of fire.

2 Q I'm going to ask you, if you would, to stop me

3 when I'm as close to you as you believe Detective Isnora was

4 to the side of the vehicle.

5 A Stop.

6 MR. TESTAGROSSA: Seven feet, your Honor?

7 THE COURT: Seven, eight feet. Yeah.

8 MR. TESTAGROSSA: All right.

9 Q As he's doing this, Detective Isnora is out in the

10 open; is that correct?



Q Do you recall being asked this question and giving

7 this answer:

8 "Captain Davis: Did he yell gun first and

9 then fire or did he fire and then yell gun?

10 "Police Officer Carey: I believe he fired

11 and then yelled gun."

12 Do you recall being asked that question and

13 giving that answer?

14 A I don't recall it. I -- you're reading it to me

15 so I believe that I said it. I don't recall saying that.

16 Q As you sit here now, having listened to that

17 question and answer which you acknowledge that you gave, did

18 Detective Isnora fire first and then yell he's got a gun?

19 A No.

20 Q So when you said that in this hearing you were

21 wrong?

22 A Yes.



I think we should give him the Trent Benefield treatment. If we are to believe that Trent Benefield lied on the stand (which is extremely probable) and that his prior testimony given on the day of the incident, at the hospital was factual, then I would say that officer Carey is also lying on the stand and that his previous testimony in regards to Isnora firing first and supposedly shouting police commands after to be factual.



Secondly, Carey's testimony directly contradicts that of Lt. Gary Napoli who said he did not hear any of the other officers shout "police!" Napoli, by Carey's own admission was on the scene before him and therefore would have been in a position to hear any commands that Isnora had yelled. So then someone has lied.



Lastly, Carey makes it clear that he, like Oliver were shooting at someone who they admit posed no direct threat to either of them. Furthermore, it is of interest that Isnora was walking towards Bell's vehicle, gun drawn (and possibly shooting)in one hand. What was in his other hand? My question is why the police procedure has not been entered into evidence if it is needed to be so to be discussed. That procedure is important in determining the rules of engagement.


Technorati Tags:

Friday, April 04, 2008

Mr Mom? No, Utter Madness

It is a pretty sad state of affairs in the US and little wonder why it is looked at by many outside the US as a morally decadent society, when a woman, sorry, female who clearly has psychological issues; decides she wants to be a man. Well no, she wants to look like a man and undergoes hormone therapy to grow stubble and bulk up I suppose and becomes a "legal" man. How one can be a legal "man" without the prerequisite chromosomes and bodily apparati, clearly shows the utter confusion that exists in the US.

In any event, this legal "man" decides to keep their female reproductive organs. Just in case I suppose. Never mind the fact that actual men, well males that is, do not have female reproductive organs or a double x chromosome set. This "man" decides to have a baby and gets pregnant. Now Oprah and a lot of the media is talking about a pregnant man. Utter madness!

There is no pregnant man. There is a very confused woman, sorry, female in need of serious help and a society so fucked up that it doesn't have the logical center to call this what it is: a pregnant woman. Instead we have photo spreads in magazines, TV shows and whatnot.

Utter madness it is. ordinarily I could care less what a confused man, or woman wants to do with their bodies. Their body their business. It's my opinion that if one really thinks that one is a "man" in a womans body and decide to take on a "male" role, then part and parcel of that is the inability to bear children. That is part and parcel of being male. It isn't some biological accident. It isn't a defect, and if you ascribe to a divinity of some sort, it is not an accident of said divinity's creation. It is a fact. It is a fact that all males, all men, come to understand and appreciate. It is part of the mystery of heterosexual sexuality. And be clear here, the "relationship" that this couple has is modelled on a heterosexual model. Clearly, this female is confused by what it means to be a "male" and is that much more confused in regards to what it is to be a man. It is not cute. Not cute at all.

Personally, I think her legal status of male out to be revoked because it is clear that she is not one biologically. She want's to walk around with facial hair and whatnot, she can do her, the rest of society ought not play the game though.