If they had to pass laws on racial profiling in order to get it to stop (actually to shut you up, and protect their image), then that shows you that it’s a huge problem, and human condition. Police training and laws can’t get rid of a racist mind (generalizations) or heart (hate); you can’t change people if they don’t want to change. It’s a shame if they really believe that they’re getting somewhere by schooling officers on racism beforehand. In officer training and tests, the officers, like anyone else, will write or do whatever they believe to be the right answer, not what they actually believe or would do in that situation. This makes it useless, especially when they are told what the right answer is beforehand.
Picture an officer, or potential officer, being questioned verbally or written: “If you were to pull over a minority, would you? A. Believe they had guns or weapons. B. Feel dislike towards them. C. Treat this person the same as any other person. D. Have a little bit of fear depending on which race they were.” Is the answer hard? Of course, these are not the actual questions (or they might be, who knows), but no matter how deceptively they try to make the questions, anyone would know the right answer. A child would know which answer to choose. You already know beforehand, “the key is to not be racist,” so you choose the answers and do all things that equate to not being racist, in order to pass. Garbage.
The police can’t search your car without your consent, therefor they ask you if they can. You don’t have to say yes, you can say no, but most people say yes (for a number of reasons). Instead of asking you the direct question, “Can I search your car?” they say, “I’m going to search your car, okay.” By saying this, those who don’t know their rights, which is nearly everyone, will take it in the form of a statement, that is, they will think that the officer is just telling them what he/she is going to do; thus, making the person believe that the officer has the right to do it — no choice. Taking that same statement in the form of a question is telling the person that he/she has a choice. This is an example of how they deceptively bypass their own laws (just as the government).
And if you say no to the search, they’ll bypass their laws again and make you wait there until they bring in a K-9 unit; then they’ll have a dog search your car, person, and/or belongings. That’s saying, “By law we can’t search you without your consent, but if you refuse, then without your consent we can bring in a dog to search you.” And a dog’s sense of smell is a thousand times better than man’s. This is how the government and friends do all laws restricting them from doing what they really want to do– they find ways to get by it and do it anyway, while you’re still believing that they’re truly following that law.
Police officers believe they have the right to kill, granted to them by the government, so they use it. To many of them, taking a life doesn’t matter because they believe themselves to be exempt. This is also why most of them will shoot a suspect several times when it’s not even needed, or aim for the head or chest when a shot in the arm or leg will do. They wait for that circumstance that says (from their training), “you get to kill him/her now,” and they do, even if they don’t have to (many officers will shoot someone once or twice and be fully out of harms way, and no longer have a threat posed to them, but continue to shoot until they know that person is dead).
Anyone in a position of high power lacking self control and knowing that they will face no consequences or severe enough consequences for their actions will abuse that power. And for so long, the worst punishment officers have faced is paid leave. Paid leave is a paid vacation, and a paid vacation is a treat. So, for murder, brutality, racism, and harassment they get a treat, a plus, a bonus. Think about the type of government you must have to condone this. With issues such as paid leave, for example, they tell you that it’s the law or procedure, as if it’s like gravity and they can’t change it. You accept it as though it is something that can’t be changed, so the situation dies. Nothing is changed.
{The abuse some officers do to minorities is not always caused by racism, it can be just the way that officer is –abusive. But even this type of officer will most likely abuse a minority before, and much more harshly, than a White, and that’s when their racial prejudice is activated. So, race and racism will be a factor in the abuse.}
Officers are told to shoot based on the level of threat they feel. If they already have racist beliefs (or actually any partial beliefs), then the level of threat they feel for the race they have these beliefs about is already at a more than normal level, being that nearly all who have racist beliefs fear and feel threatened by that race or feel that that race is their enemy. Say for instance, a level eight is when they’ll shoot. Well, if they have racist beliefs, the average person of that race in which they hold these beliefs about will be at a four on sight. Now all that person needs to do is make one little movement that measures a four and they’ll be shot; where as a person who they didn’t hold these beliefs about would be at a zero and could make a move that measured four and would not be shot.
This goes for any race of cop on any race. A Black cop can feel a higher level threat with Blacks, and that’s a racist belief–based on race. It’s the same for men and woman, young and old, resident of the ghetto or suburb. If the officer’s beliefs are partial, then his/her decisions will be partial. Not only will others suffer, but one day that officer will suffer also.
Officers will also use a taser gun and pepper spray based on the level of threat they feel, and race will have the same affect it does when they use a gun. And after they electrocute or spray someone, they may do another thing that is common among some officers when they use a taser gun or pepper spray: They’ll tell the person to do some sort of action, such as putting their hands up, and will electrocute them or spray them again if they don’t do it while or immediately after being electrocuted or sprayed.
If you’re being electrocuted, how can you put your hands up? And if you’ve just been electrocuted it’s almost impossible to put your hands up immediately afterwards. If you’re being pepper sprayed, you’re reaction is going to be to shield or wipe your face. In most cases you’re going to be too focused on the pain to pay attention to what someone is saying or to comply to what someone is saying. So, there are going to be many times when someone is not going to put their hands up while or immediately after.
Also, while that person can barely breathe as a result of the spray, to jump on their back — putting your weight on their back, which compresses their lungs– while their face is buried in the ground with their head turned to the side –restricting their airway– is suffocating them. That’s absolutely crazy. And then it’s not understood why they died.
The cameras on police cars are there to incriminate you, but not them. To ensure this, they simply park the car facing a different direction than the action, or take the action away from the view of the camera. Also, they all know and were told not to do any “ruffing up” in front of the car, only on the sides or rear. What you see on TV is a small portion of what really goes on. Think about this: Why aren’t there cameras all around the car? Wouldn’t that make more sense? Wouldn’t that aid them tremendously? Wouldn’t that be more evidence of everything going on? Yes, including evidence of them.
Why is having an on-board camera voluntary, shouldn’t it be mandatory? With all that they would gain from having cameras, or cameras all around, they don’t do it, therefor there has to be a reason why they don’t (I’m sure they’ll come up with what they say is the “real reason”). The reason is obvious. The same reason why there aren’t cameras on every inch of a prison, interrogation room, and court room. (If you don’t have anything to hide, then what’s the problem?) They fear the camera because the camera shows the truth (usually). They might as well embrace it, it’s been shown to make no difference in their “justice” system anyway.
Everything you do leaves clues behind, so when will you stop believing that the assassinations of MLK and others couldn’t have been solved when the government always finds out the who, what, when, where, why and how of plots and terrorist attacks all the way from here to the other side of the world. You believe them when they say that they can’t solve such a crime in their own country, which they have full control over and access to. How naive can you be? In nearly all cases, if the FBI or other Intelligence agency says they can’t solve a crime, then either it’s because they did it, had a lot to do with it, don’t care, or solving it will lead to truths they don’t want you to know. Get it through your heads.
How many more years of corruption do you need to see before you wake up and say, “oh my goodness, they are liars”? The FBI and CIA’s profession is all about deception, they lie for a living, yet you believe they don’t lie to you. You even believe them to be telling the truth when “the heat is on them.” When “the heat is on” regular people, most of them resort to lying, so what do you think a professional liar will do in that situation?
When there is a situation that could show that cops are corrupt, a DNA case for example, the DNA testing is left to themselves–people who have motives. Cops (people of a team) take care of cops (people of the team), so what sense does it make to rely on and trust them? Police departments have already been caught having had DNA results changed, yet as with brutality, harassment, and every other corrupt practice, everything goes right back to normal as if it were a one time thing — a one time thing that keeps happening.
If an Intelligence agency, such as the FBI, does something wrong, then it’s left up to the government’s courts to convict them. Of course they’re going to get off! They gather up all of the evidence and choose what to show the public, and they show it, or arrange it, in a way that proves their case. They then make sure that proof against what they’ve shown is not presented to the public. That’s so obvious, yet you still fall for it. When questioned about something, they’ll lie; have that lie proven to be false; lie again; have that lie proven to be false, and keep going with this process until they tell a lie that can’t be proven to be false (or they’ll just move on). They’ll then stick with that lie as if they’ve won. Some people in society actually believe them to be telling the truth when that last lie can’t be proven false. What about the fact that they just lied all those times?
{A documentary was made about the case of Antonio Rosario, Hilton Vega and Freddie Bonilla — “Justifiable Homicide.”
http://www.ctn5.org/shows/documentary/justifiable-homicide-3384
http://realityfilms.net/
This is something you have to see. It shows true American justice for minorities; and also shows the true colors of city officials like Giuliani.}
If a regular person is accused of something, then there is no trusting that person and they now have reasons to lie, but if someone with a title–still a regular person–is accused of something, then all of sudden that human being cannot, and will not, have reasons to lie–they have a title, so they are no longer human. You’re telling me that a cop who is accused of brutality has no reason to lie? A cop who kills someone without cause has no reason to lie? A detective who is accused of pinning a crime on a minority has no reason to lie? A judge who is accused of bias ruling has no reason to lie? A police force that has spent years saying someone committed a crime and is accused of being wrong has no reason to lie? A president who is caught in a lie has no reason to lie again? This can go on and on, all the way throughout the government. Now, either American society and it’s heads are very, very stupid; very, very crooked; or a combination of both. Either way, they, nor the people in society, are in any position to teach, rule, judge, or especially lead.
Proving their injustice: If you have the money, and you get a private investigator or examiner –someone who doesn’t have motives or any special ties or relationship with police, the courts, and the like (someone who is actually for justice)– then the police and friends, the people who you’re fighting against, will say that those people you hire are not creditable, and will dismiss anything they find no matter what it is. They’ll say that they’ve had they’re “experts” and other “big titled” people who’ve been practicing for twenty-five, forty, or fifty years come to the conclusion that …. They’re on their team, of course they came to that conclusion! Just because they have those titles and have been in that field for many years doesn’t mean they won’t make a crooked decision. In fact, they’re even more “pro team.”
If it’s clearly shown that 1 + 1 is not 3, but these people say that 1 + 1 is 3, then saying that they’ve had this person and that person come to that conclusion, they’re saying that all of those people are crooked or very stupid (you’re only telling on them) because if they came to that conclusion, you know that they’re lying or very stupid. “We’ve come to the conclusion that 1 + 1 is 3. No, we don’t want to hear any of that evidence, get that out of here. Just look at what our people have.”
{Read this: www.skepticfiles.org/conspire/lapdhurt.htm In some cases, if you don’t go along with the team, you’ll be pressured to. All this corruption, and you’re suppose to believe these people are telling the truth.}
Torture: Torturing someone causes unbearable mental or physical distress to that person. People are tortured so that information can be gained from them, so that they would say, think, or do what the torturer desires, or just because the torturer wants to punish them. Torturing someone to get them to tell you what you want to hear may or may not cause a person who’s withholding information to tell you what they’re withholding, but it almost always causes someone who has no information to tell you what you want to hear. (Torturing someone to get them to confess may or may not cause a person who’s guilty to confess, but it almost always causes someone who is innocent to confess.)
It’s exactly how people play around and get someone to say “uncle.” “Say, ‘uncle’! Say, ‘uncle’!” The person being tortured can’t take it any longer so they say it. “No one who faces that many years in prison would confess to a crime they didn’t commit.” When someone is in a burning building they’ll jump out the window to their death instead of staying inside and enduring more heat or smoke –more torture. So, even people who knowingly face death will choose death to escape present torture. Using torture, the police can simply go out and round up innocent people, then torture them into confessing; and they’ll then be charged with the crime and sentenced. I bet that’s never happened.
Continued on Page 3
