High School Bans “I Can’t Breathe” T-Shirts at Tournament
By John Vibes | The Free Thought Project | December 28, 2014
San Francisco, California – In the aftermath of the many recent high profile police killings, athletes all over the country have been using their platform to spread awareness about the growing police state.
Many professional players have worn shirts that say “I Can’t Breathe”, in remembrance of Eric Garner’s last words before his life was taken by NYPD cops. In most cases, the professional sports teams have stood by their athletes and respected their freedom of speech. However, many young athletes who play for school teams have been banned from wearing these shirts during games and tournaments.
At a high school basketball tournament in California, administrators have banned all of their players from wearing the controversial T-shirts during warm-ups and practices. The three-day tournament was actually temporarily cancelled until every player from every team involved agreed not to wear any police brutality related clothing during their warm-ups.
One female team from the Mendocino Unified School District was actually disqualified from the tournament after several girls on the team refused to comply with the new conditions.
Not everyone from the boys teams decided to comply with the orders, some decided to sit out because they felt that their rights to freedom of speech were violated. However, there were enough players on the boys team to agree for the tournament to take place.
According to a statement from Principal Rebecca Walker, the ban is intended “To protect the safety and well-being of all tournament participants it is necessary to ensure that all political statements and or protests are kept away from this tournament. We are a small school district that simply does not have the resources to ensure the safety and well-being of our staff, students and guests at the tournament should someone get upset and choose to act out.”
Mendocino teams created controversy on December 16th when the teams first wore the “I Can’t Breathe” T-shirts before a game with Fort Bragg.
The political correctness brigade has succeeded once again at stifling the free exchange of ideas. To all those students who refused to comply with the dictates of the censors, we commend you; you are an example for children everywhere and a beacon of hope for society.
UK police misuse pre-charge bail to ban activists from protesting – report
RT | December 25, 2014
UK police forces are misusing pre-charge bail by banning hundreds of protestors from attending lawful demonstrations, The Guardian newspaper has revealed. Of all bailed protesters, eighty-five percent are never charged with any crime.
Since 2008 police have arrested at least 855 people in England and Wales and then released them on pre-charge bail, setting a date to return to the police station. Until their return, those bailed are prohibited from attending any demonstration. However, 85 percent, or about 732 people, have never been charged, according to data the Guardian collected using the Freedom of Information Act.
Of the 500 arrests by the Metropolitan Police since 2008, only 15 people have been charged. In the same way the City of London, Essex and Sussex police banned 120 people. On average only one in seven has been charged.
Citing “additional research”, The Guardian assumed the actual number of bans imposed could be far greater as some of the bail conditions given by custody sergeants were not picked up by the scope of the newspaper’s information requests.
In the UK, no court permission is required for a custody sergeant to hand out a protest ban. Should a protester violate this restriction, an arrest for breach of bail could follow. However, people on pre-charge bail can appeal to a magistrate.
“Bail is becoming an instrument that is being used by people without recourse to the judicial process. It is essentially to punish protesters and curb their right to demonstrate,” Rachel Harger of leading human rights law firm Bindmans told the newspaper. “It is effectively the police conducting their own extra-judicial justice without going to court.”
In the meantime, police managed to prove that in 123 cases they had enough evidence to start proceedings against the suspects.
However, civil liberties and protest groups insist that using bail is just a way of “disrupting protest activity without the inconvenience of dealing with a formal legal process.”
“As a result of the police’s long track record of misusing pre-charge conditions against protesters in an irresponsible way, we believe the only solution is the complete withdrawal of this power for all protest-related offences,” The Network for Police Monitoring (Netpol), a group which seeks to monitor public order, protest and street policing, said.
According to the policy officer of civil liberties group Liberty, Rachel Robinson, “the lack of limits on police bail make it liable to abuse and misuse, and can act to frustrate, rather than further, prosecutions.”
“Its use against protesters raises particular concerns, potentially chilling peaceful dissent for protracted periods without any prospect of criminal conviction,” she added.
The Guardian has also cited an example of Kelly Rogers who was one of those affected by the ban. She said West Midlands Police issued her a “blanket ban on all protests.” However no criminal charges were ever pressed against her.
“Ultimately, their only aim could have been to stop us protesting again, even though it is our right to do so,” she said.
UK Justice Minister Mike Penning said there will be consultation on pre-charge bail reform.
“The Home Secretary has been clear that it is wrong for people to spend months, or even years, on police bail with no judicial oversight or accountability,“ he said.
He added that in parallel, the College of Policing “is developing evidence-based guidance to bring consistency, transparency and rigor to the way in which pre-charge bail is used in criminal investigations.”
The Palestinian presidency must withdraw its project
Al-Araby Al-Jadid – December 23, 2014
If the aim behind promoting a draft resolution for the recognition of a Palestinian state is to recognise the Palestinian-ness of the land and undermine the legitimacy of settlement expansion, then the clauses [of this resolution], especially as they have been amended under US pressure, seek to reinforce the Israeli occupation and prevent any Palestinian political, cultural or armed resistance.
The original draft of the resolution was already problematic to begin with without any amendments. The reason for this is that it demands the recognition of a Palestinian state based on 1967 borders and this ignores the very core of Palestinian rights, most notably the right of return for Palestinian refugees among other historical and legitimate demands.
While the original draft makes no reference to compromising on Palestinian rights, it also does not make any explicit reference to the Palestinian right of return except to say that the plight of the refugees should be solved as it was outlined in UN Resolution 194. This claim does not adhere to the full implementation of the resolution but simply refers to it as a non-negotiable reference, which quite frankly is the problem in itself.
The vague wording of UN Resolution 194 is so ambiguous that it presents a sort of loophole that gives officials the opportunity to fully ignore the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes. And yet, as if the ambiguity of this resolution was not enough for the United States, they also insisted on adding amendments that would force the Palestinian people to give up their original demands for the return of the original Palestinian state thereby giving up their claim to all of historic Palestine and the right of return.
It is also wrong to assume that the extent of the injustices would stop at forcing the Palestinians to give up their right to historic Palestine in exchange for the establishment of a Palestinian state on less than 20 per cent of the original land with East Jerusalem as the sovereign and independent capital of Palestine. The new amendments outline that Jerusalem will be the joint capital among both sides, a suggestion that ultimately declares that the Israelis have the right to all of Jerusalem, which goes back to the Israeli suggestion that the Palestinian Authority can extend its mandate over Abu Dis and the surrounding neighbourhoods located just outside of Jerusalem.
Thus, it is also not enough to prevent the Palestinians from establishing a Palestinian state or to allow them to establish some semblance of a semi-sovereign and geographically fragmented entity composed of the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem as the new amendments now propose the idea of land swaps and completely ignore the illegitimate nature of Israeli settlements. These amendments not only wholly ignore the UN’s patchy attempts to salvage the remnants of the Palestinian state, but it also carves out large blocs of land as they are constituted by Israeli settlements and the annexation of the Jordan Valley among other pockets of land desired by Israel.
In order to prevent the Palestinian people from practicing their right to determine their fate, two new amendments have been introduced and one of them prohibits both sides from making any unilateral decisions including land confiscations and the displacement of land owners, Israeli bombardments, preventing Palestinians from ascending to and accessing diplomatic channels and international forums, undermining all attempts at Palestinian resistance (to the occupation). All of these measures ultimately undermine all former international resolutions including the fourth Geneva Convention and the UN charter.
Moreover, the Palestinian administration is, as always; keen to close all the outstanding gaps and build an impenetrable wall that confirms Israel’s conditions and outlook on the conflict, which could be as complex as preventing attempts at Palestinian resistance or as simple as preventing any information on the history of the Palestinian revolution from being broadcast on Israeli media because it confirms the historical claim and presence that the Palestinians have to the land.
Finally, the emphasis that has been placed on ensuring Israeli security serves as a pre-requisite to any step forward with our without the US veto. What this ultimately does is hinder all progress and more importantly, renders the veto completely irrelevant as the amendments mentioned above secure Israeli interests. The Palestinian presidential administration must withdraw this resolution immediately.
Translated by MEMO
Israeli police shoot 5-year-old in the face while exiting school bus
Ma’an – 24/12/2014
JERUSALEM – Israeli forces on Wednesday afternoon shot a 5-year-old Palestinian child in the face with a rubber-coated steel bullet in East Jerusalem as he was getting out of a school bus on his way home, relatives said.
“An Israeli soldier fired a black rubber-coated bullet at the child from a close distance, injuring him under the eye,” the uncle of 5-year-old Muhammad Jamal Ubeid told Ma’an.
The incident reportedly took place in the East Jerusalem village of al-Issawiya, where Muhammad’s family lives.
The child’s uncle said that Muhammad and his 14-year-old sister stepped out of a school bus and had started to walk home when the Israeli forces shot him.
The uncle said there were no confrontations at all in the area between Israeli forces and Palestinians at the time of the shooting.
An Israeli police spokesman did not return a request for comment.
Muhammad was evacuated to the nearby Hadassah Medical Center on Mount Scopus where medical authorities said he had a fracture in the bone below his eye.
The boy was later transferred to the Hadassah Medical Center in the Ein Karem neighborhood in West Jerusalem for treatment.
East Jerusalem neighborhoods like al-Issawiya have seen months of heavy police presence and widespread protests amid increasing anger over the Israeli occupation and perceived discrimination.
Palestinians in East Jerusalem have residency rights but not citizenship since Israel occupied the city in 1967, despite the fact that the vast majority are born and raised in the city and trace their heritage back generations.
Israel captured East Jerusalem from Jordan in 1967 and later annexed it in a move never recognized abroad. The international community sees East Jerusalem as Palestinian territory.
Israel, the United States and International Lies
By Robert Fantina | IIPRC | December 22, 2014
Israel and the United States are forever talking about Israel’s ‘vulnerability’, proclaiming it as the U.S.’s ‘best friend’ in the Middle East, the only democracy there, and the one with the most moral army in the world. To paraphrase William Shakespeare, ‘Methinks they do protest too much’.
Let us look at these points in a little detail, to see how quickly they unravel.
• Thanks solely to the U.S., Israel has the fourth most powerful military organization in the world. With nothing in return but campaign contributions to so-called representatives, the U.S. gives $3 billion to Israel every year. One might think that U.S. cities, say, for example, Detroit, which earlier this year was struggling to find $1 billion to stay afloat, and which receives no money from the federal government, might be a better place to spend all that money. With that military organization, Israel periodically bombs its mortal enemy, Palestine, which has no army, navy or air force.
• It is probably true that Israel is the U.S.’s major ally in the Middle East, although prior to the bloody and violent establishment of the country, the U.S. had no real enemies there. And it can be argued that, if the U.S. were to even the playing field in the Middle East, reducing aid to Israel and increasing it (from nothing) to Palestine and other countries in the region, it might be looked upon a bit more favorably. The U.S. then might have more than one ally in the region. Additionally, if the U.S. were to stop protecting Israel from the international consequences of its abominable human rights abuses, the reputation of the U.S. might improve, not only in that part of the world, but around the globe.
• Elections do not a democracy make. Arabs living in Israel have fewer rights than Israelis, and this lack of equal rights is institutionalized. Africans living there are also not afforded the same rights as Israelis. A foundational precept of democracy is the equality of the people living in that country, each with the same power to enact laws and live by those laws. There is equality in the rights of all citizens, and in their privileges. This does not exist in Israel. For example, until a court ruled it illegal in September, Africans seeking asylum in Israel could be detained for months without charge. In October, Israelis demonstrated against this court decision, using flags that resemble those used by ISIS, with one demonstrator claiming that the court’s decision is ‘more dangerous to Israel than ISIS’. The protestors want no African non-Jews present in Israel. This demonstration took place in an African refugee neighborhood, where protesters took to the streets and damaged African-owned businesses.
Much of Israeli’s land is mandated by law to be owned and occupied only by Israelis; Arabs need not apply. There are separate schools for Arab and Israeli children, with the conditions and educational quality of the schools for Israelis being far superior.
• To say that Israel’s army has any morality at all is a joke, but, unfortunately, no one is laughing, due to the death and suffering that army causes and has caused for generations. Consider the following:
• Since 2000, while 133 Israeli children have died due to the conflict between Israel and Palestine, at least 2,060 Palestinian children have been killed. Catherine Cook, author of Stolen Youth: The Politics of Israel’s Detention of Palestinian Children, said this about those children: “The majority of these [Palestinian] children were killed and injured while going about normal daily activities, such as going to school, playing, shopping, or simply being in their homes. Sixty-four percent of children killed during the first six months of 2003 died as a result of Israeli air and ground attacks, or from indiscriminate fire from Israeli soldiers.”
• During Israel’s brutal bombardment of the Gaza Strip in July and August of this year, when over 500 children were killed, a video was widely circulated showing an event that was also witnessed by several journalists. During a lull in the fighting, four Palestinian children ventured out to play on a beach. Israeli soldiers shot each one to death.
• In the West Bank, Israeli soldiers routinely break into Palestinian homes at all hours of the day or night, ransack them and arrest without charge any males in the home. They routinely shoot and kill children and adults, often in reprisal for throwing stones at their tanks, and standby and do nothing as Israeli settlers harass and kill Palestinian adults and children.
Additionally, many U.S. cities, for some inexplicable reason, have received training from the Israeli military. This might explain why so many innocent, unarmed citizens die at the hands of U.S. police officers.
Today, Israel continues to violate the terms of the cease-fire agreement that ended its most recent brutal bombardment of the Gaza Strip. Palestine has maintained its part of the bargain. Israeli terrorists, also known as IDF soldiers, continue to shoot Palestinian fishermen and sink their boats, in blatant violation of international law and the recently-signed peace agreement. Israel refuses to allow farmers in Gaza to transport their crops to the West Bank for sale, again, one of the things Israel agreed to allow as part of the cease fire.
According to international law, an occupied nation (Palestine) has the right to resist the occupying force (Israel). So any resistance efforts by Palestine are legal. The occupying force is required by international law to protect the citizens of the occupied nation. Israel kills innocent men, women and children indiscriminately. The occupied nation, according to international law, must not disrupt commerce, yet by its complete blockade of the Gaza Strip, Israel has destroyed the Palestinian economy. International law states that education and normal pursuits must not be disrupted any more than is absolutely necessary to keep peace, yet due to the checkpoints established by Israel in the West Bank, the simple tasks of going to school, work or the local store take hours, if they are allowed at all.
The occupying force is also forbidden from moving its own citizens onto the occupied territory. Israel has moved over 500,000 settlers onto occupied land.
And ultimately, occupation is to be a short-term, temporary measure. Israel’s occupation of Palestine has continued for decades.
The brutality of the Israelis would not be possible without the complete and total financial support of the United States. That nation, which cares nothing for human rights, as demonstrated by the racism, poverty and other injustices that are so prevalent within its own borders, legislates as powerful lobbies demand, not for the good of the citizens. Israeli lobbies funnel substantial funds to most elected officials for their election and re-election campaigns, and not wanting to jeopardize that funding, these officials will countenance any degree of horrific violations of international law, and will be blind to blatant human rights abuses. The U.S. then uses its veto power in the United Nations to prevent any real progress towards peace and justice for Palestine.
Israel and the United States, along with a few other countries, are out of step with what the rest of the world sees and is increasingly addressing. The U.S. was one of the last nations to oppose apartheid in South Africa, and will be one of the last to oppose the apartheid Israeli regime. But with world opinion now clearly moving in Palestine’s direction, the U.S. will not be able to thwart the Palestinian right to self-determination and freedom forever. The world will move ahead without the U.S.
Israel charges 8 Palestinians over Facebook posts
Ma’an – 23/12/2014
JERUSALEM (AFP) — Eight Palestinians from annexed East Jerusalem were indicted on Monday for inciting anti-Jewish violence and supporting “terror” in postings on Facebook, an Israeli justice ministry spokeswoman said.
The eight men, aged 18-45, were charged at Jerusalem Magistrate’s Court with “incitement to violence or terror and supporting a terrorist group” on Facebook, a ministry statement read.
The incriminating posts were put online in recent months as a wave of violence rocked the city during which several Palestinians staged lone wolf attacks killing nine people.
The defendants “directly called for violence and terror against (Jewish) citizens and security forces and praised, encouraged and supported these deeds and their perpetrators” on the Internet, the statement read.
Among the remarks posted online were “It is good to kidnap soldiers”, “Zionists flee because you’ll soon be killed by a car” and words expressing hope that a right-wing Jewish activist, who survived an assassination attempt in October, would die a painful death, the indictment said.
All eight Palestinians were arrested earlier this month in what police said was their biggest operation yet aimed at halting incitement to violence on social networks.
Israelis on social media routinely and openly incite violence against Palestinians, especially during heightened periods of tensions such as this summer’s military offensive on Gaza.
Ma’an staff contributed to this report
Climate Policy Risk: Who’s In Denial?
By Marlo Lewis | Cooler Heads | December 19, 2014
Earlier this week, economist Roger Bezdek gave a presentation at the Ronald Reagan Building titled “Carbon Dioxide: Social Cost or Social Benefit?” Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank covered the event and published a short review titled “The new climate denialism: More carbon dioxide is a good thing.”
Granted, it’s hard to develop an argument about a complex, technical subject in a 760-word column, but Milbank doesn’t even try. He takes cheap shots and spouts off without knowing whereof he speaks.
Milbank starts with a snarky putdown, asserting that “though Bezdek is an economist, not a scientist, he played one on Monday.” How so? Some of Bezdek’s slides show the fertilization effects of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions on crop yields and plant growth. For example:
That is not playing scientist, it is citing scientific research.
Another slide shows that, over the past 250 years, CO2 emissions closely correlate with population growth, life expectancy, and per capita GDP.
Milbank retorts that “correlation is not the same as causation.” Deep! But does he really think unprecedented improvements in the human condition — a greater than doubling of average human life expectancy, an eight-fold increase in the sheer abundance of human life, and an eleven-fold increase in global per capita GDP — would have occurred without fossil fuels?
Milbank repeatedly misfires, as the excerpts below (indented in blue) and my comments (standard width in black) show.
For years, the fossil-fuel industries have been telling us that global warming is a hoax based on junk science.
Name a single CEO of any major energy company or trade association who says that! If there are any, they are outliers. Skeptics argue that predictions of catastrophic global warming are based on speculative interpretations of selective evidence and models projections that increasingly diverge from observations. That’s a different thesis — and much harder to refute. Milbank inveighs against a straw man.
But now these industries are floating an intriguing new argument: They’re admitting that human use of coal, oil and gas is causing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to rise — but they’re saying this is a good thing.
New argument? The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change has emphasized the ecological and health benefits of atmospheric CO2 enrichment since its inception in 1998. Founder Sherwood Idso’s first peer-reviewed paper on the subject was published in 1991.
I pointed out to Bezdek that increasing energy use fueled the economic growth, and CO2 was just a byproduct. So wouldn’t it make more sense to use cleaner energy?
CO2 does not dirty the air, so reducing/capturing CO2 emissions does not make energy cleaner. CO2 is not “just” a byproduct; it is the inescapable byproduct. Thus, UN emission reduction targets endanger both existing economic, health, and welfare benefits and progress towards a wealthier, healthier world.
He [Bezdek] went on to point out that “35,000 people every year in the United States die in automobile accidents, but the solution is not to ban automobiles. You try to make them safer.” And the solution to climate change is not to ban energy but to make it cleaner.
Making energy “cleaner” in the present context means banning (rapidly phasing out) the carbon-based fuels that currently supply 82% of U.S. and world energy consumption, and are projected — absent additional market-rigging interventions — to supply 80% of U.S. energy in 2040.
The presentation began as a standard recitation of the climate-change denial position, that “there’s been no global warming for almost two decades” and that forecasts are “based on flawed science.”
Milbank provides no evidence that the “standard recitation” is incorrect – very likely because he can’t.
So instead, he resorts to name calling and labels Bezdek a ‘denialist.’
Enough back and forth. What matters is the big picture. Some 1.3 billion people in developing countries have no access to electricity and 2.3 billion people face chronic electricity shortages.
Source: International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis
Even in Europe and the United States, millions of low-income households struggle with high energy costs. Many must choose between heating and eating.
Source: EU Fuel Poverty Network
Source: Bezdek (2014)
Forcing an energy-starved planet to abandon fossil fuels before cheaper substitutes are available is bound to have profound social costs. That is Bezdek’s thesis, and it is spot on. Milbank is in denial.
Know Your Rights: Police Checkpoints
The Free Thought Project
Not only is the question, “am I being detained” very important, but so is remaining silent and making sure not to answer any of their questions.
Many INNOCENT individuals have been imprisoned, or otherwise harmed, merely because they chose to answer questions asked by some Law Enforcement Officer or government official, agent, representative, tribunal, or employee.
It is very important to understand that the 5th Amendment protects the innocent more than the guilty.
Knowing how to assert your rights is not only a good idea to prevent from being unlawfully kidnapped or caged, but it is also a successful catalyst for change when applied on a large enough scale.
In the video below, activist Kenny Suitter, shows how to properly remain silent during police interactions. It is as simple as stating, “I do not answer questions.”
Because of the SCOTUS ruling in Salinas v. Texas, you are now expected to know that you have a right against self-incrimination, and unless you specifically and clearly invoke this right, anything you say or do not say, including your mannerisms at the time you stop talking, can be used against you. You actually have to say, “I do not answer questions.”
Don’t concern yourself with what kind of interrogation you’re in. Don’t worry about whether Salinas applies in your particular situation. Just invoke your 5th Amendment right immediately, verbally, and clearly.
Just like this:
Being stopped by police can be a particularly stressful experience. An innocent individual can easily get tricked into self-incriminating themselves as the police officer badgers and pries for information.
Memorizing laws and and statutes can go a long way, however, having a business card handy, that states your rights for you, is much more convenient, especially when under the stress of a police stop.
Here is a good example of what that business card should look like:
Side 1:
“I hereby invoke and refuse to waive all of the following rights and privileges afforded to me by the United States Constitution. I invoke and refuse to waive my 5th Amendment right to Remain Silent. I invoke and refuse to waive my 6th Amendment right to an attorney of my choice. I invoke and refuse to waive my 4th Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. If I am not presently under arrest, or under investigatory detention, please allow me to leave.”
Side 2:
“Officer, I Assert My Fifth Amendment Rights As Stated On This Card”Pursuant to the law, as established by the United States Supreme Court, my lawyer has advised me not to talk to anyone and not to answer questions about any pending criminal case or any other civil, administrative, judicial, investigatory or adjudicatory matter. Following his advice, I do not wish to talk to anyone about any criminal, civil, administrative, judicial, investigatory or adjudicatory matter, without my lawyer present. I waive no legal rights, nor give any consents, nor submit to any tests or other procedures, without my lawyer present. I ask that no one question or talk to me, without my lawyer here to advise me.
If you’d like a downloadable version of this card you can get it at this link.
Below is a video which shows the effectiveness of these business cards.
Houston P.D. Orders All Officers Turn Off Body Cameras During Protest
TheAntiMedia | December 20, 2014
Remington Alessi was arrested on Saturday December 13 in Houston, Texas. He was arrested while engaging in a nonviolent protest against police brutality. He gives us his account of what he learned in the back of a squad car.
“We’re going to go ahead and turn off the personal video devices going forward, so be sure all officers have them turned off when engaging the protesters.” The words cut through me and chilled my spine as I sat, helplessly handcuffed in the back of a Houston Police cruiser after being arrested in the midst of a protest.
As an activist who has been around the block a few times, I knew that little would endanger a crowd more than a crowd of officers who had just received an order from higher up to disable their own personal accountability.
Barely into the pilot program, the Houston Police Department’s commanding officers managed to brazenly display how easily the personal video devices can be misused. Per an earlier interview, “Capt. Mike Skillern, who heads HPD’s gang unit and is involved in testing the cameras, said his fellow officers act “a little more professionally” when wearing the devices.” But how do they act when they switch the devices off? If officers had their way, no one would know.
The biggest fault here lies in the physical design of the cameras themselves. The VIEVU LE3 model camera is employed by HPD and is worn by over four thousand police agencies, according to the company’s website. The camera’s most conspicuous feature is an easily operated off switch, which can functionally slide over the lens of the camera at any time an officer feels the need to remove any potential accountability. Hyperbole fails in describing how much of a problem it is for police to control when video is being recorded.
Allowing police to control the video stream will create a situation in which footage will appear only when it benefits the officer, while footage of police beating unarmed suspects, throwing incendiary devices at toddlers, and erasing civilians’ video records of police brutality will never appear, due to conveniently located off switches designed by VIEVU to make the devices popular among police.
When the order came across the radio to disable the cameras, I held my breath, hoping against hope that even a single officer would object to the directive that specifically commanded officers to stop recording their activities. My heart sunk as I was met with silence. Not even the friendly Lieutenant Troy Finner, who only an hour prior had waxed poetic about being concerned about protesters’ safety had a word to say about the order. Instead, he, like every other police officer assigned to ‘protect’ the nonviolent protesters, agreed to endanger them the moment a commanding officer gave the order.
The thin blue line will be maintained, cameras or not.






