Catch us live on BlogTalkRadio every

Tuesday & Thursday at 6pm P.S.T.

Friday, February 24, 2017


Five Things Veterans Know That The Rest Of America Doesn’t


Because of their training, their experiences, and their worldview, veterans tend to be a breed apart.  There are many things that veterans know that the rest of American doesn’t, but here are five things veterans know to get the conversation started:

1)  How to use the metric system… and the 24-hour clock

Does anyone understand why we still use the outdated imperial system of weights and measures, when there’s something WAY better? Even the people who came up with the imperial system, the Brits, don’t use it anymore. And even if they did still use it, didn’t we fight a whole big Revolution against them so they couldn’t be the boss of us anymore?

Veterans, scientists, engineers, and immigrants are probably the only people in America who can easily relate to the metric system. The military uses the metric system for things that really matter, like planning for airstrikes, conducting land navigation, and determining how much beer you can legally bring back from your Iraq-to-CONUS redeployment stopover in Germany. But even the military still relies on the imperial system for arbitrary measurements, like the distance selected for measuring physical fitness evaluations. I guess “two miles” doesn’t sound as far as 3,219 meters.

Then there’s the 24-hour clock.  “I get it in 7!” Um, is that AM or PM?  “I get in at 1900.”  Brilliant, see you tomorrow night.  It is completely unnecessary, in a 24-hour day, to arbitrarily go from 1 to 12 twice a day when you can just count up from zero.

2)  What it’s like to live with “socialized” medicine

Universal coverage sounds great . . . until you have to live with it. Remove the profit incentive and take away accountability, and you’ve got a recipe for disaster. While the unit-level medical personnel, or “Docs,” are almost universally loved by those in uniform, I can sum up the experiences that many veterans have with the system as a whole with this: “Here’s your handful of Motrin . . . now take a knee, face out, and drink water. Oh, and change your running shoes.”
United States paratrooper airborne infantry in the smoke
Is the average veteran’s perspective different than the average American civilian’s?

Then there is dealing with the VA, where people were literally dying while waiting for an appointment. Still don’t think there will be “death lists” with universal, single-payer government health care? The VA is “Example A.” And did you know that it’s almost impossible to sue Army doctors for malpractice? The military’s health care system is great . . . if you can get seen, if they’ll pay for necessary treatments, and — oh yeah —  if the care provider doesn’t screw it up. This does not bode well for “ObamaCare.”

3)  How to get along with just about anyone

In addition to being a ticket into the American middle class, the military is the only real remnant of the “melting pot” left in America. The military takes people from every corner of the US — as well as from foreign countries — and jams them all together in a way that no other experience can. And — oh yeah — it forces people to get along. The nuances of military life shatter stereotypes, break down barriers, and expose people to cultures, attitudes, and peoples in a way that few other experiences can. Whether it’s the people in their squad, the local nationals just outside the wire, friendly military forces, or other government and non-governmental agencies, veterans can usually find a way to work with people to get things done. A lot of America could learn from their example.

4)  What is actually in the Constitution

While most Americans might pay lip service to the Constitution, very few of them think about what it really means. Interestingly, American officers are one of the only ones in the world who swear an oath not to an individual leader or to a political entity, but to an incorporating idea: the US Constitution. While both officers and enlisted members of the US military are sworn first and foremost to support and defend the Constitution, enlisted members also swear to obey the orders of the President and the officers appointed over them, whereas that verbiage is deliberately omitted from the oath that the officers themselves take. Since all members of the military are sworn to defend the Constitution, obligated to follow Constitutional orders, and specifically enjoined to not obey those orders illegal under our Constitution, it naturally follows that they take the time to actually learn what is in the Constitution.

5)  That there is genuine evil in the world

A lot of people navigate the world in deliberate ignorance of the evil that surrounds them. Veterans know it’s out there because they have seen it . . . and shot it in the face. They believe in the adage that “the only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing,” because they’ve seen it happen. They are willing to go to great lengths to make sure that evil can’t touch something that they love.

Thursday, February 23, 2017

Wednesday, February 22, 2017


 Police work by its very nature involves the slippery slope (the potential for gradual deterioration of social-moral inhibitions and perceived sense of permissibility for deviant conduct). In fact, the whole unspoken "dark" side of criminal justice work involves putting up with conditions that are at less than usual comfort levels; i.e., "slumming it".

  Police are routinely involved in undercover work which involves taking on false identities and inducing crime. Police are allowed to make false promises to hostage takers and kidnappers. Police feed disinformation to the media. Police are trained to be deceptive at interviewing and interrogation. Police make all kinds of excuses to get out of nuisance calls.  Police trade or sell their days off and desirable work assignments. Police angle themselves into cases requiring court appearances and manipulate the overtime system to earn an average of $5000 more a year. Police strain the truth to protect loved ones and crime victims. Police routinely invade privacy via surveillance and other technological means. Police fighting the drug problem may encounter more loose cash than the gross national product of some small countries. And as with sting operations, there's something that's just plain sick about a system that condones the police making a product, selling the product, and then arresting people for buying the product.

 Police deviance is a much broader term than corruption. It includes all activities which are inconsistent with norms, values, or ethics (from a societal standpoint or even from the police standpoint). A theorem in criminology is that it's always fruitful to study when people not only break society's norms, but the norms of their own social group too. The following definitions may be helpful:
  • Deviance -- behavior inconsistent with norms, values, or ethics
  • Corruption -- forbidden acts involving misuse of office for gain
  • Misconduct -- wrongdoing violations of departmental procedures
  • Favoritism -- unfair "breaks" to friends or relatives (nepotism)
 Although this lecture is about deviance, it might be useful to take a brief look at a couple of these other terms. Corruption is criminal conduct that can involve under using one's authority, overusing one's authority, or profiteering via one's authority. The key element is misuse of official authority; the gain can be personal or for the common good. Corruption is bad because it undermines integrity, the state of policing being whole or undivided. Corruption has been the target of numerous efforts at creating topologies. Here are three of the most popular topologies of corruption:
  Police misconduct is impropriety of office, not misuse of authority. It's wrongdoing, the appearance of wrongdoing, or puzzling behavior that violates standards usually set down in departmental policies and procedures, for good reasons, that the employee may or may not be cognizant of. Misconduct is bad because it leaves the public free to speculate and draw sweeping generalizations about the profession of policing as a whole. The different types of misconduct are often classified as follows:
  • Malfeasance -- intentional commission of a prohibited act or intentional unjust performance of some act of which the party had no right (e.g., gratuity, perjury, use of police resources for personal use)
  • Misfeasance -- performance of a duty or act that one is obligated or permitted to do in a manner which is improper, sloppy, or negligent (e.g., report writing, unsafe operation of motor vehicle, aggressively "reprimanding" a citizen, improper searching of suspect)
  • Nonfeasance -- failure to perform an act which one is obligated to do either by law or directive due to omission or failure to recognize the obligation (e.g., failure to file report, improper stop & frisk, security breach)

  According to the Knapp Commission, which blew the whistle on the standard police explanation for corruption (he/she's a rotten apple in an otherwise clean barrel), "rotten apples" are either weak individuals who have slipped through the screening process or succumbed to the temptations inherent in police work or deviant individuals who continue their deviance in an environment that gives them ample opportunity. Police departments tend to use the rotten apple theory or some variation of the "rogue cop" story to minimize the public backlash against policing after every exposed act of corruption.
 A functional explanation may be closer to the truth, and is indeed supported by almost every scholarly observer on the subject. A functional explanation is that corruption is inherent in society's attempt to enforce unenforceable laws. Another approach is the "occupational socialization" explanation, the polar opposite of rotten apple theory that is sometimes called "rotten barrel" theory. According to this view, the very structure of policing (exposure to unsavory characters, forgetting what you learned in the academy, clannishness, and overzealous, misguided approaches to crime control) provides plenty of opportunities to learn the entrenched patterns of deviant police conduct that have been passed down thru generations. 

   A gratuity is the receipt of free meals, services, or discounts. Non federal police usually do not regard these as forms of corruption ("not another lecture on the free cup of coffee or police discount"). These are considered fringe benefits of the job. Nevertheless, they violate the Code of Ethics because they involve financial reward or gain, and they are corruption because the officer has been placed in a compromising position where favors (a "fix") can be reasonably expected in the future. When there is an implied favor (a "wink and nod"), it's called "mooching". When the officer is quite blatant about demanding free services, it's called "chiseling".
  Gratuities often lead to things like kickbacks (bribery) for referring business to towing companies, ambulances, or garages. Further up the scale comes pilfering, or stealing (any) company's supplies for personal use. At the extreme, opportunistic theft takes place, with police officers skimming items of value that won't be missed from crime scenes, property rooms, warehouses, or any place they have access to. Theft of items from stores while on patrol is sometimes called "shopping". 

  A shakedown is when the police extort a business owner for protection money. The typical scenario involves gay bars, which are considered the most vulnerable. In some cities (like Boston for example), police are still charged with the power to inspect bars for compliance with liquor regulations. Officers are then in a position to threaten bar owners with violations if they do not make payoffs, and promise to intercept ("fix") any other violation reports processed through department channels. In other cities (like San Francisco, for example), officers would promise extra protection against gay-bashing in return for extra payments. In still other cities (like New Orleans, for example), moonlighting officers would make extra money from "details" in liquor establishments, and be paid extra for overlooking open sex or drug violations. In some cities, police officers have complete control over liquor licenses and even own nearby parking meters. To deal with the gay bar issue, many police departments have tried hiring openly gay recruits.
  Shakedowns are also common with strip bars, prostitution rings, drug dealing, illegal gambling, and even construction projects. In each case, the approach and modus operandi are somewhat variable, because each officer subjects the business operator and/or patrons to the shakedown differently.

 This is usually a means to effect an act of corruption, leaving out certain pertinent pieces of information in order to "fix" a criminal prosecution. "Dropsy" evidence is typical, where the officer testifies untruthfully that he/she saw the offender drop some narcotics or contraband. Lies that Miranda warnings have been given, when they haven't, are also typical. Lying in court is called "testifying", and police can do it coolly; they're trained witnesses.
 Other actors in the system, supervisors and even judges, are often aware of the perjury. They pretend to believe police officers who they know are lying. Everybody's happy with the system. The cop gets credit for a good bust; the supervisor's arrest statistics look good; the prosecutor racks up another win; the judge gets to give his little lecture without endangering his reelection prospects, the defense lawyer gets his fee in dirty money, and the public is thrilled that another criminal is off the street (Dershowitz 1996).
 Most perjury is committed by decent cops who honestly believe a guilty defendant will go free unless they lie about something.

  Police brutality has been defined as excessive force, name calling, sarcasm, ridicule, and disrespect (President's Commission 1967). Other commissions have simply used a vague definition as "any violation of due process". Kania and Mackey's (1977) widely-regarded definition is "excessive violence, to an extreme degree, which does not support a legitimate police function." When a citizen charges police brutality, they may be referring to a number of things, including:
  • profane or abusive language
  • commands to move or go home
  • field stops and searches
  • threats of implied violence
  • prodding with a nightstick or approaching with a pistol
  • the actual use of physical force
 Only the last one of these (unreasonable and unnecessary actual use of physical force) can be considered police brutality. This is commonly expressed as "more than excessive force". Police perjury and police brutality go hand in hand, as officers who commit brutality will most likely lie on the stand to prevent the possibility of a lawsuit or departmental charges. The reasons why an officer might engage in this kind of conduct are many:
  • a small percentage may have been attracted to police work for the opportunity to enjoy physically abusing and hurting somebody
  • an officer may come to believe "it's a jungle out there"
  • an officer may be provoked and pushed beyond their endurance
 The most common reason is occupational socialization and peer support. One common belief is that it's necessary to come down hard on those who resist arrest because they may kill the next police officer who tries to arrest them (so you have to teach 'em a lesson). Another practice is the "screen test", police jargon for applying the brakes on a police vehicle to that the handcuffed prisoner in back will be thrown against the metal protective screen.
 Criminal justice experts are divided over whether racial differences exist with respect to police use of force (Weisburd et. al. 2000). On the one hand, the Christopher Commission (1991) stated that white officers were somewhat more likely to use excessive force against African-Americans, and watchdog groups like the ACLU, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch have stated a pattern exists, but on the other hand, respected researchers like Adams (1996) and Tonry (1995) as well as the U.S. government itself have never unveiled a pattern.
 There are many reasons why a police officer would use obscene and profane language. Effective use of verbal communication is one of the skills expected in police work. Concepts such as "command voice" and "command presence" are routinely taught at police training academies. The FCC specifically condemns certain words on radio and television that are "patently offensive", but there's no such mechanism for determining what's offensive with interpersonal communication. The following topology exists:
  • words having religious connotations (e.g., hell, goddamn)
  • words indicating excretory functions (e.g., shit, piss)
  • words connected with sexual functions (e.g., fuck, prick)
 Generally, words with religious connotations are considered the least offensive and words connected with sexual functions are considered the most offensive. It's commonly the case, however, that use of such language by police officers is purposive and not a loss of control or catharsis.
  • to gain the attention of citizens who may be less than cooperative
  • to discredit somebody or something, like an alibi defense
  • to establish a dominant-submissive relationship
  • to identify with an in-group, the offender or police subculture
  • to label or degrade an out-group
 Of these, the last is of the most concern, since it may reflect the transition of prejudice to discrimination, especially if racial slurs or epithets are involved. On the other hand, profanity for innocuous purposes may very well be something that it is unrealistic to expect will go away in policing or many other contexts.

  Contacts with promiscuous females and minimal supervision are part of the job. Sooner or later, every police officer will be propositioned. There are a number of women who are attracted to the uniform or the aura of the occupation. Every police officer will be able to tell you stories about police "groupies". These are women who make the rounds by waving at officers, getting them to stop or pull over, and then set up meetings to have sex with them, or sometimes right then and there. A woman such as this typically has sex with whole departments and hundreds of police officers. Other situations involve:
  • traffic stops -- to get a closer look at the female or information about her
  • fox hunting -- stopping college girls to get the I'll do anything routine
  • voyeurism -- window peeping or interrupting lovers lane couples
  • victim re-contacts -- consoling victims who have psychological needs
  • opposite sex strip searches -- touching and/or sex with jail inmates
  • sexual shakedowns -- letting prostitutes go if they perform sex acts
  On occasion, one hears about "rogue" officers who coerce women into having sex on duty, "second rapes" of crime victims, and school liaison officers involved with juvenile females, but such instances are rare because of the penalties involved. When police sex cases come to the public attention, the department reaction is usually to reemphasize the code of ethics. Such was the case in the 1985 Rathskellar incident in San Francisco, where at a police academy graduation party, one bashful recruit was handcuffed to a chair, and a prostitute was brought in to perform oral sex on him. 

  On the night shift, the police car is sometimes referred to as the "traveling bedroom". In police argot, a "hole" or "coop" is where sleeping takes place, typically the back room of someplace the officer has a key to and can engage in safe "cooping". Police officers who attend college during the day or moonlight at other jobs in order to make a decent living are often involved in this kind of conduct. Numerous court appearances during the day can also be a factor, along with the toll of shift work.
 Sleeping on duty, of course, is just an extreme example of goldbricking, the avoidance of work or performing only the amount minimally necessary to satisfy superiors. Goldbricking can take many forms: from ignoring or passing on calls for service to someone else; overlooking suspicious behavior; or engaging in personal business while on duty. 

  There are endless opportunities to drink or take drugs while on duty (e.g., victim interviews, shakedowns, contraband disposal), and the reasons for it are many: to get high, addiction, stress, burnout, or alienation from the job. However, even in cases of recreational usage (which doesn't exist, since officers are never off-duty or have any of their "own time"), the potential is there for corruption. The officer must obtain the drugs from some intermediary, involve others in transactions, and open the door to blackmail, shakedowns, ripoffs, and coverups. It sets a bad example for public relations. It will affect judgment, and lead to the greater likelihood of deadly force or traffic accidents. Alcohol and drug use tends to become a systemic problem; others become involved, either supporting or condemning the user. Alcohol and drugs tend to be mixed by police officers because there's more sub cultural support for alcoholism; thus the abuser covers up the drug use with alcoholism.
 More intriguing is when the police become sellers or dealers of drugs. One occasionally hears stories of officers selling drugs at rock concerts. The motivation here appears to be monetary gain and greed, although there have been some attempts to claim stress or undercover assignment as a defense. In cases were such officers have been disciplined, plea bargained, or arbitrated, the courts have not upheld a job stress/drug connection, although there is some precedent in rulings that job assignment may be a factor in alcoholism.
 With the exception of a few places (like Hawaii), police officer associations (POAs) have opposed random drug testing. They especially oppose drug testing after a shooting incident because it taints the officer. They are not generally opposed to drug testing of applicants or probationary employees. They do, of course, support strict discipline of any employee who is involved in dealing drugs. 

 This normally involves jeopardizing an ongoing investigations by "leaking" information to friends, relatives, the public, the press, or in some cases, directly to the criminal suspects or members of their gang. The officer may be unaware that they are even engaging in this kind of conduct which may involve "pillow talk" in some instances. Failed raids, for example, are often due to a leak in the department.
  In other cases, department resources, such as computer systems, may be used to produce criminal history reports for "friends" of the department such as private detectives, consulting firms, or area employers. Passwords can also slip out, granting access to computer network information. In rare cases, police resources are put to use in blackmailing political figures. In general, however, cracking down on secrecy violations has produced more problems than it has solved. Part of the reason for the current fragmented condition of American law enforcement rests upon a false sense of security derived from overdone needs for secrecy.



Today, governments and their agencies worldwide are classifying their "Biker" populations as undesirable criminal organizations, slating them for harassment and selective prosecution.  Our governments are blatantly determined to eradicate the biker lifestyle.
I will attempt to show how all of this began, and how it is connected to the U.S. government's "war on motorcycle clubs."   No matter where you live, this "War On Motorcycle Clubs" is a serious threat is to our individual constitutional and human rights as citizens of our respective countries.
In 1961, during the John F. Kennedy administration, the office of Attorney General was held by his brother Robert Kennedy.   With help from the U.S. Congress, Attorney General Kennedy got a special organized crime bill passed called the Racketeering influence and Corrupt Organization Act of 1961 (RICO).  This new law was designed to prosecute the secretive organized crime organizations such as the Mafia, Drug Cartels, and Domestic Terrorists.
The RICO Act was designed to allow Federal Prosecutors to go outside the normal rules of conduct and evidence to gain convictions.  These new rules allowed the government to charge unconnected criminal acts committed by individual members of these organizations together in a single Indictment. 
 Since these organizations were classified as criminal organizations, all the prosecutor had to do was to persuade a jury that each of these independent criminal acts were somehow committed in furtherance of the organization's goals.
This helped establish the necessary "Criminal Enterprise" to qualify as a RICO Act violation. The government could do this even though it was not necessary to prove any of the defendants knew or participated in the criminal acts of others charged in the RICO Indictment.
In 1980, former movie actor and governor of California Ronald Reagan was elected President of the U.S., with ex-CIA Director George Bush as Vice President.  Soon after Reagan took office, he issued an Executive Order declaring America's top four Motorcycle Clubs to be classified as Criminal Organizations. This new classification added the motorcycle clubs to the list of traditional criminal organizations who could be easily prosecuted using the special RICO rules.
President Reagan ordered Attorney General William French Smith and his Justice Department to set up special regional task force headquarters across America.  The Justice Department's mission was to profile and get the selected motorcycle clubs off the streets using whatever means necessary.  
In my opinion, the reason behind President Reagan's Actions was his daughter's supposed involvement with the Hell's Angels Motorcycle Club.   It doesn't seem to be just a coincidence that the Hell's Angels were the first Motorcycle Club the Justice Department went after using the RICO Act.
It seems obvious Ronald Reagan brought his own personal animosity against motorcycle clubs to the office of President.   He then used the power of that office to pursue his personal vendetta against motorcycle clubs, using the broad  RICO rules which almost guarantee conviction.
Over the last 30 years federal law enforcement agencies have expanded this selective prosecution to include more than 300 Motorcycle Clubs.   These motorcycle clubs are now classified as "Outlaw Motorcycle Gangs/Criminal Organizations."
During my lengthy RICO sentence, I did extensive research and litigation in the courts.   I’m fully aware of the uphill battle it will take to change the classification and profiling of the targeted motorcycle clubs, but it can be done.  It is our Constitutional right to be treated like any other citizen.  The battle can be fought and won only in the courts.
Roadblock 1%er