Mapping Police Violence collected data on over 1,100 killings by police in 2020. Compiling information from media reports, obituaries, public records, and databases like Fatal Encounters and the WashingtonPost, this report represents the most comprehensive accounting of deadly police violence in 2020. Our analysis suggests the majority of killings by police in 2020 could have been prevented and that specific policies and practices might prevent police killings in the future.
Tag: police state
A war on police?
Let’s talk about movies…
Temporary…
Crazed Off Duty Cop Attacks Mother & Daughter for ‘Walking Too Slow’ in a Parking Lot
When Michelle Aloisi, a 62-year-old registered, nurse went to lunch with her two daughters to celebrate her birthday earlier this month, they never expected their brief reunion to turn into a nightmare. However, thanks to a seemingly power tripping off duty cop, Robert Szelewski, as Aloisi and her two daughters walked from the restaurant back to their car that day, that is exactly what happened. According to the mother and her two daughters, Szelewski became upset at the pace at which they walked back to their car and he proceeded to attack them for it.
On November 14, Aloisi’s daughters, Nicole Whitted, 40, and Brittany Aloisi-Wiles, 39, travelled from Yuma to visit their mother for her birthday. Lunch was a success and as they walked from the restaurant back to the car, Aloisi was slow to get moving thanks to a condition she has that makes it hard to walk after sitting for long periods.
As the girls slowly walked their mother back to the car, Szelewski, who was just arriving at the restaurant, allegedly became enraged that these women would impede his swift entry into a parking space.
“He zoomed into that back parking spot, jumped out of his car, threw his hands up in the air and screamed ‘Just f—ing walk’ at us,” Nicole Whitted said.
In an interview with Tuscon.com, the family described what happened next.
“He starts to advance toward me. My sister (Brittany) saw it. She kind of cut it off in between. He’s advancing toward the end of his car. He’s screaming at us and she’s going ‘What are you going to do?’ or something along those lines. Then he starts to go ‘What are you going to do, what are you going to do?’ then chest-bumps Brittany,” Whitted told Tuscon.com.
“Then he took her down. He grabs her by the back of the neck. Took her down violently to the ground.”
Through his police union-appointed attorney, Szelewski disputed this chain of events and while we don’t have video of the initial confrontation, we do have a grueling five-minute clip showing what happened after they met.
Where’s the app for that?
FBI Document Says the Feds Can Get Your WhatsApp Data — in Real Time
As Apple and WhatsApp have built themselves into multibillion-dollar behemoths, they’ve done it while preaching the importance of privacy, especially when it comes to secure messaging.
But in a previously unreported FBI document obtained by Rolling Stone, the bureau claims that it’s particularly easy to harvest data from Facebook’s WhatsApp and Apple’s iMessage services, as long as the FBI has a warrant or subpoena. Judging by this document, “the most popular encrypted messaging apps iMessage and WhatsApp are also the most permissive,” according to Mallory Knodel, the chief technology officer at the Center for Democracy and Technology.
Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg has articulated a “privacy-focused vision” built around WhatsApp, the most popular messaging service in the world. Apple CEO Tim Cook says privacy is a “basic human right” and that Apple believes in “giving the user transparency and control,” a philosophy that extends to the company’s wildly popular iMessage app. For journalists, activists, and government critics who worry about government mass surveillance and political retribution, secure messaging tools can mean the difference between doing their work safely or facing imminent danger.
Australia declares war on ‘trolls’
The Australian government will introduce new legislation forcing social media companies to “unmask” anonymous users who post offensive comments, or make them pay defamation fines if they are unable or refuse to do so.
The new initiative seeks to define social media giants as publishers, making them responsible for the user-generated content on their platforms, as well as to introduce special mechanisms through which anyone can file a complaint and demand a post takedown if they think they are being defamed, bullied or harassed, Prime Minister Scott Morrison announced during a televised press briefing on Sunday.
The online world should not be a wild west where bots and bigots and trolls and others are anonymously going around and can harm people.
If a platform refuses to delete offensive content, a court may order it to reveal the identity of the anonymous commenter. In case the company again refuses or is unable to identify the troll – then it will be held ultimately liable and will have to pay any resulting fines.
“Free speech is not being allowed to cowardly hide in your basement and sledge and slur and harass people anonymously and seek to destroy their lives,” Morrison stated. “In a free society such as Australia where we value our free speech, it is only free when that is balanced with the responsibility for what you say.”
Morrison offered little insight into details of the proposed legislation, or if it will be up for public debate, but said he expects strong support from parliament. He previously hinted at an imminent crackdown on online anonymity during a G20 summit last month, where he said “the rules that apply in the real world should apply in the digital world.” However, it remains unclear how exactly the Australian government expects social media companies to verify the identities of their users.
FBI And Other Agencies Paid Informants $548 Million In Recent Years With Many Committing Authorized Crimes
Federal agencies paid out at least $548 million to informants working for the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), in recent years, according to government audits.
- A few informants became millionaires, with some Amtrak and “parcel” delivery workers making nearly $1 million or more.
- Many informants were authorized to commit “crimes” with the permission of their federal handlers. In a four-year period, there were 22,800 crime authorizations (2011-2014).
- The FBI paid approximately $294 million (FY2012-2018), the DEA paid at least $237 million (FY2011-2015), and ATF paid approximately $17.2 million total (FY2012-2015) to informants.
Our auditors at OpenTheBooks.com compiled this information by reviewing federal reports. While some of the data is several-years old; it’s apparently the most recent available.
The FBI spent an average of $42 million a year on confidential human sources between fiscal years 2012 and 2018. “Long term” informants comprised 20 percent of its intelligence relationships (source: DOJ IG 2019 report).
The ATF employed 1,855 informants who were paid $4.3 million annually (FY2012-2015). Therefore, on average, each informant made $2,318 for the year. (source: DOJ IG report 2017).
The Biden Crackdown on Thought Crimes
The Biden administration is seeking to radically narrow the boundaries of respectable American political thought. The administration has repeatedly issued statements and reports that could automatically castigate citizens who distrust the federal government. We may eventually learn that the new Biden guidelines spurred a vast increase in federal surveillance and other abuses against Americans who were guilty of nothing more than vigorous skepticism.
Biden is Nixon on steroids
The Biden team is expanding the federal Enemies List perhaps faster than any time since the Nixon administration. In June, the Biden administration asserted that guys who are unable to score with women may be terrorist threats due to “involuntary celibate–violent extremism.” That revelation was included in the administration’s National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism, which identified legions of new potential “domestic terrorists” that the feds can castigate and investigate.
The White House claims its new war on terrorism and extremism is “carefully tailored to address violence and reduce the factors that …infringe on the free expression of ideas.” But the prerogative to define extremism includes the power to revile disapproved beliefs. The report warns that “narratives of fraud in the recent general election … will almost certainly spur some [domestic violent extremists] to try to engage in violence this year.” If accusations of 2020 electoral shenanigans are formally labeled as extremist threats, that could result in far more repression (aided by Facebook and Twitter) of dissenting voices. How will this work out any better than the concerted campaign by the media and Big Tech last fall to suppress all information about Hunter Biden’s laptop before the election? And how can Biden be trusted to be the judge after he effectively accused Facebook of mass murder for refusing to totally censor anyone who raised doubts about the COVID-19 vaccine?
The Biden administration is revving up for a war against an enemy which the feds have chosen to never explicitly define. According to a March report by Biden’s Office of the Director of National Intelligence, “domestic violent extremists” include individuals who “take overt steps to violently resist or facilitate the overthrow of the U.S. government in support of their belief that the U.S. government is purposely exceeding its Constitutional authority.” But that was the same belief that many Biden voters had regarding the Trump administration. Does the definition of extremism depend solely on which party captured the White House?
You must be logged in to post a comment.