You Are A Fool If You Believe..

YOU ARE A BLACK PERSON LIVING IN AMERICA.…

You believe the Police are there to pro­tect you. You believe Prosecutors will pros­e­cu­tor offenderS regard­less of who they are. You believe also that Judges are tru­ly inde­pen­dent tri­er of facts who will not allow affil­i­a­tions to col­or the way they dis­pense justice.
Here’s the skin­ny you are a fool.
Obviously four hun­dred years of rabid racism has taught you noth­ing if you chose not to wake up you are guar­an­teed anoth­er four hun­dred which will be worse that the pre­vi­ous if you can pic­ture that.

CITY OF CHICAGO FIRES INVESTIGATOR BECAUSE HE REFUSES TO FALSIFY POLICE BRUTALITY COMPLAINTS TO ABSOLVE COPS OF GUILT.

The city of Chicago fired an inves­ti­ga­tor because he refused to fal­si­fy police bru­tal­i­ty com­plaints to make offi­cers appear inno­cent of any wrong­do­ing, fur­ther rais­ing sus­pi­cions that the Chicago Police Department (CPD) is a cor­rupt police force. Investigator and for­mer police com­man­der Lorenzo Davis, 65, was released from the Independent Police Review Authority (IPRA) after refus­ing to alter case find­ings indi­cat­ing sev­er­al instances of unjus­ti­fied use of police force. The IPRA announced Davis’ ter­mi­na­tion on July 9, and accused him of hav­ing “a clear bias against the police.” The IPRA also said that Davis was “the only super­vi­sor at IPRA who resists mak­ing request­ed changes as direct­ed by man­age­ment in order to reflect the cor­rect find­ing with respect to OIS.” Considering the CPD’s past of heinous cor­rup­tion, it’s rea­son­able to believe that Davis was oust­ed because he didn’t cov­er up the behav­ior of dirty cops. The Chicago PD has earned a noto­ri­ous rep­u­ta­tion for cor­rup­tion and racism that has exist­ed for decades. Even the high­est-rank­ing police offi­cials in Chicago are sus­pect­ed of being cor­rupt. “I did not like the direc­tion the police depart­ment had tak­en,” said Davis. “It appeared that offi­cers were doing what­ev­er they want­ed to do.” Listen to WBEZ’s report.

Most if not all American Police Departments are actu­al laws onto them­selves . I don’t mean they are inde­pen­dent of Political manip­u­la­tion , I mean that they oper­ate with impuni­ty in most cas­es con­trary to the rule of law with­out fear of consequence.
To many Black cit­i­zens the police are mere thugs in uni­form with the legit­i­ma­cy of the law to back them.
Former Commander Lorenzo Davis refers to many with­in the Chicago Police Department as “race sol­diers”, he should know. However what exist in Chicago exist in Missouri, In Texas, In new Mexico, In Florida , In New York and every nook and cran­ny of the United States.

JUDGE LET COP WALK AFTER DEADLY SHOOTING .LEGAL EXPERTS SAY REASONING IS INCREDIBLE.
A Cook County judge acquit­ted Chicago police offi­cer Dante Servin of sev­er­al homi­cide-relat­ed charges for the fatal shoot­ing of an unarmed woman stand­ing out­side with some friends near his home. It was the first time in 15 years that a police offi­cer had been charged in Chicago for a fatal shoot­ing. And the court­room atten­dees explod­ed in out­rage as Judge Dennis Porter announced Servin was not guilty on all charges for killing 22-year-old Rekia Boyd. But Porter’s rul­ing was par­tic­u­lar­ly con­found­ing because of bizarre rea­son­ing that some legal experts are call­ing “incred­i­ble.” In an opin­ion that lament­ed Servin was nev­er charged with the more severe crimes of first- and sec­ond-degree mur­der, Porter sug­gest­ed he was acquit­ting Servin and send­ing him home with­out any pun­ish­ment because the invol­un­tary manslaugh­ter charge against him was actu­al­ly not severe enough. Servin was off duty when he fired the shots. He encoun­tered a group gath­ered in an alley while dri­ving through in his Mercedes sedan. As he drove the wrong way down the alley after an alter­ca­tion, he said he thought he saw one of the men reach for a gun and fired sev­er­al shots over his shoul­der at indi­vid­u­als who had their backs to Servin. Servin hit 22-year-old Rekia Boyd in the back of the head, killing her. “He was con­stant­ly shoot­ing,” Icka Beamon tes­ti­fied, who was in the alley that night and ran for cov­er. “He was try­ing to kill all of us.” Porter, the Cook County judge pre­sid­ing over the case, agreed that Servin was act­ing inten­tion­al­ly when he fired his gun. In fact, he said in his rul­ing, Illinois courts have long held that when a defen­dant “intends to fire a gun, points it in the gen­er­al direc­tion of his or her intend­ed vic­tim, and shoots, such con­duct is not mere­ly reck­less,” but “inten­tion­al” and “the crime, if any there be, is first degree murder.”

In a bizarre turn of rea­son­ing, Porter sug­gests that since the first-degree mur­der charge is not on the table, and the crimes with which he was charged — invol­un­tary manslaugh­ter and reck­less dis­charge of a gun — require that Servin was reck­less, Servin can­not be con­vict­ed of any crime at all. Lamenting that both sides might “ben­e­fit from some clo­sure on this ques­tion,” he nonethe­less con­cludes that the law com­pels him to acquit Servin of all charges. Porter’s rea­son­ing doesn’t clear­ly square with sev­er­al fun­da­men­tal prin­ci­ples of crim­i­nal law, accord­ing to legal experts. The con­cepts of “reck­less­ness” and “intent” are crim­i­nal law con­cepts that describe what is an ele­ment of almost every crim­i­nal offense — state of mind. In homi­cide cas­es, for exam­ple, state of mind (known as mens rea) is direct­ly cor­re­lat­ed to the sever­i­ty of the crime — offens­es that require mere “reck­less­ness,” or “con­scious­ly disregard[ing] a sub­stan­tial and unjus­ti­fi­able risk” — typ­i­cal­ly car­ries a low­er pun­ish­ment than mur­der crimes, which require the pros­e­cu­tor to prove intent, because inten­tion­al acts assume a high­er lev­el of malice.

Porter asserts that a defen­dant who does some­thing inten­tion­al­ly could not have also been reck­less, and thus should not be con­vict­ed of any­thing at all. But this dis­tinc­tion between reck­less­ness and intent “real­ly doesn’t make any sense at all,” University of Illinois law pro­fes­sor Marareth Etienne told ThinkProgress. At least under the nation­al crim­i­nal law stan­dard known as the Model Penal Code that all first-year law stu­dents are taught in Criminal Law 101, a high­er state of mind such as intent “always proves a low­er lev­el,” in this case, reck­less­ness. Recklessness “just means that you were aware of a risk and you didn’t take the prop­er pre­cau­tion. So clear­ly if you shoot at some­body and you shot in a crowd you’re aware of a risk that they’re gonna die,” Etienne said. “This is incred­i­ble!” University of Illinois Director of Trial Advocacy J. Steven Beckett said. “It appears to me that a less­er includ­ed offense was ignored because the proof of the greater offense was obvi­ous. This put pros­e­cu­to­r­i­al deci­sion-mak­ing under scruti­ny beyond any­thing imag­in­able.” In oth­er words, the pros­e­cu­tors were pun­ished for not hav­ing charged Servin with a more severe crime. Even more remark­able, Porter came to this deci­sion in what is known as a “direct­ed ver­dict” before he even heard the defense’s arguments.

“When a motion for direct­ed ver­dict is made by the defense, the evi­dence must be con­sid­ered in the light most favor­able to the pros­e­cu­tion,” Beckett points out. “What the judge did here appears to be just the oppo­site!” Etienne points out sev­er­al adverse con­se­quences that would result if Porter’s under­stand­ing of the law pre­vailed. A defen­dant charged with invol­un­tary manslaugh­ter could get on the stand and make the very argu­ment Porter now makes: I am not guilty of a crime of reck­less­ness because I did this on pur­pose. “And by the way my tri­al has start­ed so dou­ble jeop­ardy. You can’t go back and charge me with an inten­tion­al killing.” Double jeop­ardy is the con­sti­tu­tion­al notion that an indi­vid­ual can’t be charged twice for the same offense, and legal experts seemed to agree that dou­ble jeop­ardy means Porter’s rul­ing can’t be appealed, and that pros­e­cu­tors from the same juris­dic­tion can’t file charges a sec­ond time around. The oth­er adverse con­se­quence is that most of the plea deals pros­e­cu­tors now make with defen­dants wouldn’t make much sense: A defen­dant is charged with first-degree mur­der, for exam­ple, but pleads guilty to the less­er offense of invol­un­tary manslaugh­ter. “And that’s done all the time,” said Etienne. Porter does cite sev­er­al Illinois cas­es for his con­clu­sion. These cas­es pri­mar­i­ly deal with the issue of jury instruc­tions in the reverse sit­u­a­tion when some­one charged with a more severe intent crime wants a jury to con­sid­er a less­er offense. A mur­der defen­dant, for exam­ple, wants the judge to also instruct the jury that they can find the defen­dant guilty of the less­er crime of invol­un­tary manslaugh­ter rather than mur­der. The judge rejects the defendant’s argu­ment, on the ratio­nale that this is a crime of intent, and not a less­er crime of reck­less­ness. But Etienne points out that this is a very dif­fer­ent legal argu­ment. “To dis­miss a case where reck­less­ness was charged because intent was proven. That’s a dif­fer­ent ques­tion,” she said, while con­ced­ing the pos­si­bil­i­ty that Illinois courts would come out a dif­fer­ent way on this question.

Timothy P. O’Neill, a pro­fes­sor at John Marshall Law School in Chicago, ques­tions Porter for anoth­er, dif­fer­ent rea­son. “I respect Judge Porter, but at the same time I think he maybe made the case a lit­tle bit more dif­fi­cult than it had to be,” O’Neill said. Even if Servin intend­ed to fire the gun, he seem­ing­ly didn’t intend to hit Boyd. He instead intend­ed to hit the man whom he believed was pulling a gun out of his waist­band. “You can do inten­tion­al acts and still be found guilty of invol­un­tary manslaugh­ter based on results,” O’Neill said. Both O’Neill and Etienne agreed that Servin could have, and per­haps should have, been charged this time around with mur­der — a crime that requires intent. “But that does NOT mean that it is legal­ly impos­si­ble to also find it could have been invol­un­tary manslaugh­ter: the defen­dant com­mit­ted vol­un­tary acts that reck­less­ly killed an unin­tend­ed vic­tim,” O’Neill said. “That is invol­un­tary manslaugh­ter.” http://​thinkprogress​.org/​j​u​s​t​i​c​e​/​2​0​1​5​/​0​4​/​2​1​/​3​6​4​9​0​4​3​/​j​u​d​g​e​-​l​e​t​s​-​c​o​p​-​w​a​l​k​-​d​e​a​d​l​y​-​s​h​o​o​t​i​n​g​-​t​h​o​u​g​h​t​-​c​h​a​r​g​e​s​-​w​e​r​e​n​t​-​s​e​v​e​r​e​-​e​n​o​u​gh/

It’s impor­tant to note that the lat­est case of egre­gious police mis­con­duct hap­pened in Illinois the State the President calls home. And in Chicago a city run by the President’s for­mer Chief of staff Rahm Emanuel a Democrat.
The killing of trou­bled 17 year old Laquan McDonald by City of Chicago Cop Jason Van Dyke result­ed in a mas­sive cov­er-up involv­ing the Mayor the Prosecutor’s office and the Police who went as far as to crim­i­nal­ly delete crit­i­cal footage from a busi­ness place which cap­tured the exe­cu­tion of the 17 year old teen by Van Dyke.
Cook County State’s Attorney Anita Alvarez said Van Dyke had been on site less than 30 sec­onds and out of his car for six sec­onds, when he start­ed shooting.
However despite this clear knowl­edge that Jason VanDyke who had in excess of 20 com­plaints against him for abus­ing cit­i­zens had exe­cut­ed Laquan McDonald no crim­i­nal charges were brought by the Prosecutor ,

The mur­der­ous cop was still allowed to con­tin­ue oper­at­ing as a police offi­cer. Despite clear abu­sive and vio­lent ten­den­cies Van Dyke was allowed to con­tin­ue being a cop. Even after the city set­tled with at lest one mem­ber of the com­mu­ni­ty he caused seri­ous injury to. The city of Chicago pro­posed and reached a $5 mil­lion set­tle­ment in April to the moth­er of Laquan McDonald even though she did not even file a law­suit against the city for the mur­der of her son.
The Mayor , the Prosecutor and the Police brass knew it was a hor­ren­dous mur­der yet they fought tooth and nail to cov­er up the atro­cious behav­ior of a man whom they all knew sum­mar­i­ly exe­cut­ed anoth­er human being. The city’s man­ager’s were equal­ly as duplic­i­tous in approv­ing a 5 mil­lion dol­lar sum of tax­pay­ers mon­ey so a mur­der­ing punk could remain in uniform.
As a for­mer police offi­cer I am offend­ed when I see media hous­es like CNN bring on cops to tell view­ers why it’s nec­es­sary to fire 16 bul­lets into anoth­er human being who is armed with a small pen knife when the first shot spun him around and he fell pos­ing no dan­ger to any­one( not that he did before the shots).

A police offi­cer’s job is not to kill peo­ple, their job is to pro­tect and serve.
Members of the pub­lic are not ene­my com­bat­ants cops do not need to keep fir­ing until a per­son shows no sign of life.
CNN and oth­er cor­po­rate medi­um of mis­in­for­ma­tion are asym­met­ri­cal­ly wag­ing a war against black com­mu­ni­ty as well bring­ing cops, retired cops and cop-apol­o­gists on to con­vince a gullible pub­lic that cops need to treat civil­ians as com­bat­ants on a battlefield.
Even wars have rules of engage­ment, trag­i­cal­ly for the Black Community in America police do not seem to need to observe any rules of engagement
Jason VanDyke opened fire on Laquan McDonald imme­di­ate­ly after arriv­ing on by all accounts includ­ing the damming video of the incident.
He fired and kept fir­ing until the prostate vic­tim stopped twitch­ing . .….….…Sixteen shots in all it was a pub­lic execution.
None of the oth­er offi­cers fired a sin­gle shot. The crim­i­nal defense lawyer for Van Dyke lied that his client feared for his life the video shows oth­er­wise. An offi­cer afraid for his life does not advance on the per­son you are afraid of as Van Dyke did in the video.
The Prosecutor did not charge the killer cop with cap­i­tal mur­der until after a judge forced them to release the video.
The cov­er-up is mind bog­gling in this case the entire sys­tem in Chicago was pre­pared to cov­er up this heinous execution.
But no per­son of col­or should be sur­prised at this , it has been hap­pen­ing for hun­dreds of years and indeed cer­tain­ly before the advent of mobile cam­eras and video devices.

This killing is just anoth­er in a long line of police killing of peo­ple with­out jus­ti­fi­ca­tion. It is eeri­ly rem­i­nis­cent of the killing of 12 year-old Tamir Rice in Cleveland.
It smacks of a cal­lous, bla­tant, con­temp­tu­ous ‚dis­re­spect­ful dis­re­gard for human life. Those who argue that Blacks are killing Blacks shows a seri­ous lack of com­mon sense . It is the job of the police to bring black mur­der­ers to jus­tice they are paid to do so. The pris­ons are filled with black gang-bangers. What does that have to do with police murder?
We do not pay police to com­mit mur­der . Rahm Emanuel spoke of the impor­tance for peace after the video was released, yet Emanuel is dis­mis­sive of the Black Lives Matter Movement , declar­ing last month,” this move­ment has made a hard job even hard­er for law enforce­ment It is hav­ing an impact on the safe­ty we want to see through­out the city of Chicago,” .
Nothing like legit­imiz­ing these pow­er crazed big­ots they turn on you in a jiffy. This from a guy who Chicago Black res­i­dents turned out in droves and elect­ed to office.

What author­i­ty did Chicago police have to enter the burg­er King and erase damn­ing evi­dence from a secu­ri­ty camera?
Now that we know the offi­cers lied about the sequence of events what action will be tak­en against them?
What action will be tak­en against those who delet­ed the video of the exe­cu­tion from the sys­tem of a pri­vate company?
Will the Police Union now come out and apol­o­gize for lying that Laquan McDonald lunged at Van Dyke?

None of this will hap­pen because we live in a police state where the laws are stretched and recon­fig­ured to accom­mo­date police killings.
No one knows exact­ly how many peo­ple police kill in America each year. In light of recent hap­pen­ings some orga­ni­za­tions have begun look­ing seri­ous­ly at just how many peo­ple American police are exe­cut­ing in their name on an annu­al basis.
There are no uni­formed stan­dards of report­ing cop killings, none is required . It was always left up to cops to decide when to kill peo­ple and they do not even have to report it to fed­er­al authorities
Video Vigilantism is now slight­ly begin­ning to scratch the sur­face of this grotesque under­bel­ly of police atroc­i­ties and it reveals some­thing many would like to pre­tend is not happening.

Unfortunately some see it as nec­es­sary to con­trol and even exter­mi­nate Blacks from the equa­tion. This is a dou­ble edged sword how­ev­er as police are killing whites as well with alarm­ing alacrity and frequency.
Maybe just not with such depraved indif­fer­ence but soon col­or won’t matter.
Batons,pepper-spray and tasers are mere­ly used as instru­ments of tor­ture for American cops once a sus­pect is peace­able in hand­cuffs not tools to sub­due vio­lent suspects.
In oth­er coun­tries includ­ing Britain police are able to encir­cle sus­pects who are armed with machetes and swords with­out fir­ing a sin­gle shot. Generally when a sus­pect is in pub­lic act­ing strange armed with swords, machetes or small fold­ing knives[sic] there is usu­al­ly some­thing more going on as was the case of Laquan McDonald. The rul­ing is that he had PCP in his sys­tem whether this is true or not we may nev­er know. Who knows what to believe from these Agencies anymore?
If a per­son is act­ing irra­tional­ly it is all the more rea­son to try to deesca­late .Whatever hap­pened to try­ing to resolve issues ?
Why are American cops so deter­mined to kill?