Crazy Examples From The News: “This Can’t Be True… Can It?”
If you’re like me you watch some TV news, read the newspaper, and maybe listen to your friends and neighbors as to what they think. That sounds about right, doesn’t it? Then, as we’ll see, now and then something comes along and you read/watch it and say to yourself, “This can’t be true... can it?” Here’s some examples.
In Lee County, Florida, the sheriff is Carmine Marceno... maybe. It seems that a technicality that the state's lawful requirements to have ever been a police officer in Florida were not met. The Equivalency of Training (EOT) process is for Out-of-State Federal Officers and previously certified Florida officers with a four year or more break-in-service pursuant to section 943.131(2), Florida Statutes and Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.) 11B-35.009(4)(5). You may be eligible for an exemption from the full basic training requirements if you were an officer in another state or with the federal government and meet the following requirements: You worked at least one year, full-time as a sworn officer in the discipline you are seeking exemption. Lee County Sheriff Carmine Marceno does not have to meet these requirements to be sheriff, but he did have to meet them to work for Naples Police Department and as a sheriff's deputy at Collier County Sheriff's Office and Lee County Sheriff's Office. Though he has promoted himself to reporters and the women he has allegedly taken advantage of as working for the New York Police Department, The Washington Standard has confirmed with NYPD human resources that he has never worked for them. He traveled to Florida in 1999 and was employed by Naples Police Department against the law stated above, having never completed 12 months of full-time work as a sworn officer in New York. As I understand it the State of Florida is looking at the law, his records and trying to come up with a solution. Good luck, Florida.
Let’s travel to Charlottesville, Virginia for this next question of, “Can this be happening?” The town council apparently set into motion a series of rather harsh rules, and The Rutherford Institute decided to challenge them. The Rutherford Institute is a non-profit organization based in Charlottesville, Virginia, U.S., dedicated to the defense of civil liberties and human rights. The Rutherford Institute’s actions come in response to a motion filed by the City of Charlottesville to dismiss a Fourth Amendment lawsuit against the City over its August 2018 “state of emergency” lockdown measures. In accordance with the emergency declaration, local, state and federal law enforcement agencies locked down portions of the small college town, deployed 700 police officers, many in riot gear, to patrol portions of the downtown area, restricted the free movement of persons on public streets, and imposed a broad ban on innocuous items such as metal food and beverage containers, aerosol sprays, glass bottles, skateboards, masks, and hoods. The Institute’s lawsuit arose after police swarmed a disabled war veteran and arrested him for lawfully purchasing canned iced tea, bug spray, lightbulbs and razor blades, which were banned as part of the city’s pre-emptive measures to discourage civil unrest, all the while allowing him to carry two firearms—which were not among the city’s prohibited items—through a security checkpoint. “Despite any credible threats to public safety, government officials embarked on a militarized exercise intended to intimidate the residents of Charlottesville—once home to Thomas Jefferson—into going along with the lockdown, the invasion of their privacy, and the dismantling of every constitutional right intended to serve as a bulwark against government abuses,” said constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute and author of Battlefield America: “The War on the American People.” John Miska, a disabled war veteran was allowed to pass through the security area with his firearms, which were vetted by a police officer. Now, it seems to me that firearms are a lot more dangerous than are bug spray and lightbulbs, but I could be wrong.
We’ve come a long way from Officer Friendly, it would seem. Could you believe that police could “manhandle” a nine-year-old boy and eventually knock him to the ground? It happened when a Washington Metropolitan police office took “offense” that the boy was leaning against a car! When police told the boy to get off the car — which they had no idea who it belonged to — the boy “talked back to the officer.” Apparently talking back to the officer was enough for the cop to go after the boy, who then gave chase. The nine-year-old did not run away, but merely ran in circles like any child would do, the playful nature of the child running can be observed on the video by the laughs of witnesses as the boy runs in circles. As the video shows, the officer is manhandling the boy, tossing him in different directions and eventually knocking him to the ground. This abuse prompts the bystanders to react and demand that the officer stop the onslaught. But he did not. As the cop continues to manhandle the terrified child, he eventually places him in handcuffs, but not before the child has become so scared that he soiled his pants. The MPD gave the standard canned response. The department noted that the tiny boy was a “threat” to the officer, then that officer could’ve done whatever he wanted.
Parting shot: We have sunk to a new low.