The Dark Web's Largest Pedophile Site Was Secretly Run By The Police For A Year

A major international police operation to bust child predators involved police sharing child pornography with over a million unsuspecting online subscribers for a year after investigators took control of the dark web"s largest child abuse forum. Though hundreds of pedophiles were arrested after the site was shut down, the police sting involved undercover officers sharing extremely disturbing content and encouraging followers to engage in sexual acts with children. But police say it was worth it.

A new report reveals that Australian police were running the largest pedophile and child pornography forum on the internet for a year as part of a joint initiative between Australian, European, and Canadian police as well as the US Department of Homeland Security to track down the site"s administrators and child porn producers. Over the weekend the Norwegian newspaper VG published its bombshell investigation which confirmed that between October 2016 and September 2017 a special police task force based in Queensland, Australia was able to quietly hack the site "Childs Play" which had reached over a million registered accounts and had thousands of active users.

Queensland police at Taskforce Argos, including investigator Paul Griffiths (pictured). Image source: Kinsa.net

The task force was able to identify the site"s top tier administrators, leading to hundreds of international arrests and criminal investigations, but not before crossing what critics see as a significant ethical line: to expose those behind the site, police themselves posted child pornography and facilitated what was essentially a pedophile online meet-up.

The site has existed since April 2016 on the dark web, which made it next to impossible to identify users and administrators as the dark web operates based on layers of encryption which ensures complete anonymity. Not only did the forum include over one hundred active producers of child pornography who would daily post videos and images, but even more disturbingly involved a smaller inner circle who shared child torture videos.

Among this inner circle were Childs Play administrators "Warhead" and "Crazymonk" - later revealed to be 26-year old Canadian Benjamin Faulkner and 27-year old Tennessee native Patrick Falte, according the VG report. Both had previously worked as internet security professionals and were active technical support providers for pedophilia related internet sites - the two had initially met, for example, through a website called the the “Pedo Support Community." The Australian child abuse task force had begun tracking the two by assembling profiles of their previous digital footprints in relation to child abuse related chat on the open web.

Source: Norway"s VG

Faulkner (Warhead) for example, had in 2012 posted the following to a chat forum under his previous online identity, CuriousVendetta:

A little about myself to establish credibility here: My name is CuriousVendetta, and I work as a JR forensics consultant and penetration tester for an IT security firm. On the side, I do what I can to cause general mischief on the internet with a few friends of mine...

At the pool is where I am free, and where I can generate my fantasies. I have more girls in my "fan club" than I can even count.

Faulkner was working as a youth swimming instructor in the small Canadian city of North Bay in Ontario and though it appears some parents had become suspicious of his proclivities, no police reports were ever filed. Patrick Falte had lived all his life with his parents a half an hour outside of Nashville and was the more advanced technical expert of the two. Both Warhead and Crazymonk as administrators of the Childs Play dark web forum had promised subscribers increased security measures. For example users knew that should Warhead, the site"s leader, ever miss one of his routine postings to the community which involved a message stamped with a pornographic image, it would be a signal that the community had been infiltrated by police.

But police did infiltrate the community and took it over, partly due to mistakes made by the administrators. The forum transacted in Bitcoin - common for the dark web - but Crazymonk had his bitcoin wallet linked to his personal email address, making it easy for the US Department of Homeland Security to locate him. Other mistakes which helped police included both site leaders posting identifying information in various on the open web which helped investigators build profiles for the two. From there police not only began monitoring the pair - even installing tracking devices on their vehicles - but were also able to observe all communications and postings on the site through a backdoor. It was soon understood that the two would occasionally drive for over 10 hours to meet multiple times a year. After months of monitoring, the two met in person at a usual spot in Manassas, Virginia, where one of Childs Play"s users had regularly offered the men his 4-year old daughter to rape while being video taped.

It was in Manassas that US federal agents finally made the arrest, but only after the 4-year old had already been raped in a Virginia home. Authorities told VG that they had no way of knowing of the rape beforehand, citing online messaging as not indicative of that information. The video tape would later be used to convict Faulkner and Falte, who were given life sentences for both the rape and running the site. After the arrests, the Australian task force, known as Argos, then moved in to assume the identities of the arrested site administrators. Investigators studied the pair"s online language styles and characteristics, eventually posting an admin message so that users wouldn"t get suspicious, which of course required the child pornography image stamp.

The site"s server was located in Australia, which was important to the international investigation as Australian law gives police broad leeway to commit crimes in pursuit of investigations, especially in relation to catching child pornographers. Task force Argo"s officers not only uploaded the image, thereby convincing subscribers that nothing was wrong, but according to VG issued the following message to the community:

"I hope that some of you were able to give a special present to the little ones in your lives, and spend some time with them. It"s a great time of year to snuggle up near a fire, and make some memories."

Police, while running the site, also continued to share images and videos while undergoing their year-long investigation which identified numerous video producers as well as consumers of the content. For example the task force posted a video of an eight-year-old girl being raped only two weeks after taking over the forum, which was viewed 770,617 times, according to the report. Such extreme police tactics, which authorities argue was necessary to rescue victims and put predators behind bars, have outraged some of the victims" families.

VG reporters were able to speak to a mother of one the victims whose video was used by police as part of the operation: "My daughter should not be used as a bait... It is not right for the police to promote these images," she said. But police investigators told VG in response to criticism that, "There is definitely a balance between what we want to achieve and how we go about it." And added, "Eventually we get to the point where it isn’t worth running the forum any more. But as long as we’re identifying victims, producers and abusers, we will keep running it."

A similar investigation by the FBI in 2015 of a site significantly smaller than Child"s Play"s size made 870 arrests and rescued 259 children after agents kept it online for just two weeks. The FBI came under fire for actively sharing, promoting and facilitating the transfer of thousands of images and videos. But the Australian task force ran a site which was over five times the size and content volume for close to a year.

UK Embraces Pre-Crime - Brits Face 15 Years In Prison For Watching "Terrorist Material"

Authored by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

The UK’s home secretary, Amber Rudd, is the latest bureaucrat to highlight the increased global trend of governments going completely insane.

Her latest plan is to threaten the British population with up to 15 years in prison for the crime of watching “terrorist material.” Yes, you read that right.

The Guardian reports:

People who repeatedly view terrorist content online could face up to 15 years behind bars in a move designed to tighten the laws tackling radicalisation the home secretary, Amber Rudd, is to announce on Tuesday.

 

A new maximum penalty of 15 years’ imprisonment will also apply to terrorists who publish information about members of the armed forces, police and intelligence services for the purposes of preparing acts of terrorism.

The tightening of the law around viewing terrorist material is part of a review of the government’s counter-terrorism strategy following the increasing frequency of terrorist attacks in Britain this year.

“I want to make sure those who view despicable terrorist content online, including jihadi websites, far-right propaganda and bomb-making instructions, face the full force of the law,” said Rudd. “There is currently a gap in the law around material [that] is viewed or streamed from the internet without being permanently downloaded.

According to the Home Office the updated offence will ensure that only those found to repeatedly view online terrorist material will be guilty of the offence, to safeguard those who click on a link by mistake or who could argue that they did so out of curiosity rather than with criminal intent. A defence of “reasonable excuse” would still be available to academics, journalists or others who may have a legitimate reason to view such material.

The UK is clearly embracing pre-crime here, since it’s clear someone watching terrorist propaganda in the privacy of their own home does not harm anyone else.

Thus, this is a victimless crime, and as I’ve maintained on many occasions, I do not believe such a thing exists. If there’s no victim, there’s no crime.

What the UK is arguing here is that watching “terrorist material” increases the likelihood of someone committing a violent terrorist attack in the future. So you’re actually being punished for what you might potentially do in the future.

This is pre-crime and it’s totally insane. 

Beyond that, we can pretty much guarantee that the definition of “terrorist material” will expand over time to whatever politicians don’t want the rabble exposed to.

But it gets worse still. Here’s what Rudd had to say about her government’s demented crusade against technology itself.

Rudd also caused some consternation at the fringe meeting by criticising the tech industry for their “patronising” attitude that “sneered” at politicians who did not always get it right.

She claimed it was not necessary for her to understand how end-to-end encryption worked to know that it was helping criminals.

It’d be funny if it weren’t so incredibly sad.

*  *  *

If you liked this article and enjoy my work, consider becoming a monthly Patron, or visit our Support Page to show your appreciation for independent content creators.

After Vegas Shooting, It's Time To Take Private Security Seriously

Authored by Ryan McMaken via The Mises Institute,

In the wake of the Aurora Theater shooting, I suggested that private sector establishments ought to be expected to be more concerned about the safety of their customers. In the case of the Aurora Theater, this was magnified by the fact that the theater was a "gun free zone" and did not allow patrons to carry their own firearms as self defense. At the same time, the theater owners themselves couldn"t be bothered with taking even the most rudimentary steps against allowing a gunman to casually carry multiple weapons from his car into one of the theater"s back doors. 

The issue came up again with the Orlando shooting in 2016, when the perpetrator simply walked into a private establishment with a rifle and started shooting. Again, we find ourselves with a situation in which the owners of a private establishment refused to take simple steps such as checking entrances for people with rifles, or employing reasonably well-trained security personnel to be present inside the club. 

I wasn"t the only one to suggest that maybe, just maybe, private establishments such as the Orlando nightclub and the Aurora Theater may share some responsibility in preventing violence on their own premises. 

In response to this position, numerous commentators - mostly conservative and libertarian - took the position that it is outrageous to expect private owners to take steps to prevent events like these. At the time, I noted Reason magazine"s response as representative of this type of thinking:

Reason magazine has ... hopped on the bandwagon of pre-emptively and unconditionally absolving the theater owners of any possible responsibility. Reason writer Lenore Skenazy claims that a focus on worst-case scenarios is "worst-first thinking" and that such thinking "promotes constant panic. The word for that isn"t prudence. It"s paranoia."

In other words, Skenazy"s position is that private owners should simply assume terrible things won"t happen and proceed accordingly. If bad things do happen, then let"s all just throw our hands in the air and declare "who woulda thunk?" 

This sort of thinking results in what security consultant Bo Dietl calls  the "panic, forget, repeat." It"s not a serious approach to security. 

Unfortunately, this problem has become apparent again with last weekend"s shooting in Las Vegas which has so far claimed at least 59 lives, making it the worst mass shooting in modern American history.

To perpetrate the shooting, the shooter used the Mandalay Bay hotel as a sniper"s nest from which to rain down death on a crowd assembled at a nearby music festival. (Both the hotel and the venue are owned by MGM Resorts International.)

At the same time, it appears the organizers of the event did not take steps to prevent a shooting of this nature. The police response to the shooting, not surprisingly, appears to show disorganization and lack of knowledge about the situation. 

The State Protects Its Own

Some readers will scoff and say "how could anyone be expected to anticipate a sniper situation like this?"

In response, I suggest this thought experiment: imagine that a US president or any important political figure were present at the music festival. What do you think security would have looked like? There would have been well-trained security personnel stationed to keep an eye out for snipers, with spotters and "good guy" snipers all around. 

Obviously, we would have found out that looking for the worst-case scenario would suddenly have mattered when "important" people are involved. But protecting ordinary members of the public? Well, that"s just "paranoia," we"re told. The state, of course, is highly invested in protecting its own personnel and its own interests. The organizers of the music festival, however, appear to have relied on blind faith as their primary defense. 

The importance of competent professional private security in this case is also illustrated by the fact that a large number of private individuals armed with side arms would have done little to prevent the situation. Even if festival-goers on the ground had been able to quickly spot the source of the gunfire — which itself seems unlikely — a handgun would have been of little use. The often-repeated claim by gun-rights activists that conceal-carry is the answer to all shootings falls flat in this case. 

Inaction from Public and Private Police Forces 

Private security weren"t the only ones who appear to have taken a rather lackadaisical view of the situation. 

Interviewed in the wake of the Las Vegas shootings, The Boston Herald interviewed former Boston Police Commissioner — and current security consultant — Edward Davis about the situation. Davis notes: 

There"s always been a fear — not so much among the security chiefs, but by the police out here — that there would be an attack. It is their worst fear coming true.

There are two things we can take away from this claim. First of all, assuming Davis is right, we learn that the private sector security chiefs weren"t terribly concerned about this situation arising. Second, we learn that the public-sector police were concerned about it. Yet, it appears that nothing was done to address the fear by either group. 

Moreover, Las Vegas has long been recognized as a target for terrorism, given its iconic status. "This is, just on its face, a big glaring target for Islamic terrorists," Davis added. (Davis is right that it"s a target. But he"s wrong that only "Islamic" murderers are interested.) 

Davis also confirms our suspicion that the safety of government personnel in the area have been a subject of worry, in regards to security. The general public? Not so much:

Working on presidential visits and with the Secret Service, snipers are a concern for them, but you don"t think about it around a concert.

And why not consider security around a concert? Are we already incapable of remembering the Paris theater shooting of 2015? This sort of amnesia-based thinking is apparently the best that our security personnel have to offer. Had security personnel and their employers been taking the situation seriously, they might have concluded that the chosen locale for the event could not be conducted while offering sufficient security. Certainly, were the Secret Service to conclude that a location can"t offer sufficient safety for a political figure, they would recommend against that political figure accepting the risk at all. Perhaps concert organizers in Vegas should bring the same level of scrutiny to their own events. 

The Imagined Cure-All: Gun Control 

Predictably, in the wake of the shooting, gun control advocates have already seized on the tragedy to push for preferred legislation. They like to portray the US as an exceptionally violent place, and claim the reason is too little gun control. 

Forgotten, of course, is the French Bataclan Theater shooting, which resulted in 130 deaths. Forgetten, of course, is the 2016 Brussels airport bombing which took 35 lives. Forgotten is the spate of car-rammings, including the Nice, France, massacre which alone took the lives of 86 innocent people. 

Indeed, if we look at mass-murder events such as these public rammings and shootings in 2016 and 2017 - and thus excluding the 2015 Bataclan Theater shooting - we end up with a total of approximately 140 victims in Western Europe, and around 120 victims in the US (this includes the Orlando shooting.) This alleged juxtaposition between chaotic America and serene Europe appears to be rather misplaced.

Moreover, as total gun sales in the US climbed repeatedly in the 1990s and the 2000s, homicide rates fell. Stringent gun control laws are common in Latin America, yet homicide rates are much higher in that region than in the more laissez-faire United States. Clearly, gun control does not explain away differing levels of violence absent consideration of other factors. 

Government Won"t Protect Us 

Shootings in night clubs and theaters simply are not matters requiring national policy. Nor is the challenge of stopping terrorists from driving trucks through crowds of revelers, as has happened repeatedly in Europe in recent years. Prevention in these cases require that security personnel on the scene employ competent security to control what goes on inside their own buildings and venues. 

The knee-jerk appeal to national policy such as nationwide gun control, however, highlights what happens when the private sector blithely relies on a disinterested government to provide security instead. In the US, the Supreme Court has ruled (in Castle Rock vs. Gonzalez) that police are not obligated to provide protection to citizens. As a result, de facto policy is that the lives of police officers receive priority over that of members of the public. It also means that government police are protected from any liability should they be AWOL or incompetent when homicidal maniacs unleash themselves on the public. Thus, there is absolutely no reason to expect public-sector police agencies to provide security at night clubs, movie theaters, or large public events. 

Nor is there any reason to simply sit back and assume that gun control will protect us. Experience in high-gun-control zones like Latin America, Russia, and Europe suggests otherwise. 

Should Private Owners Be Expected to Provide Security? 

But, as soon as someone suggests that private owners of public-access venues be expected to take security seriously, then the very idea is denounced by many as simply a bridge too far. For these critics, apparently, it"s much better to just trust in government, and hope for the best. 

It"s easy to see why the private sector and its defenders might vehemently oppose the idea that private owners need to do more. Private security is costly and could drive up prices of goods and services. If the legal system simultaneously protects these owners from any responsibility in allegedly "unforeseeable" events, then we have no reason to expect them to do anything differently. The Aurora-Shooting lawsuits against the theater"s owners was significant because it called into question whether or not a private owner should be held legally liable for allowing a nut with multiple guns to so easily plan and set-up a mass-shooting scenario under their noses. 

In the end, the theater was found not liable, and the theater owners"s attorney claimed the event was "unpredictable, unforeseeable, unpreventable and unstoppable." This claim is obviously nonsense. Of course the shooting was preventable. It simply wasn"t preventable using the minimal amount of time and effort the theater owners were willing to devote to customer safety. 

In the future, will we continue to label shootings of this nature as "unforeseeable"? It"s true that, given the size of the population, events of this magnitude remain exceedingly rare. Yet, how many times must an event of this nature take place before it does become foreseeable? How long will it be before customers should enjoy a reasonable expectation that private owners will plan ahead to prevent these sorts of threats?

The response of some people to this revelation will be to indulge in maudlin declarations of "it"s a crying shame." "It"s a crying shame we have to live in a world where we have to worry about gunmen!" Perhaps. It"s also a crying a shame we live in a world where not everyone drives the posted speed limit in residential areas. If they did, we wouldn"t have to worry about our children as much when they play outside. It"s a crying shame we live in a world where the plane you"re flying in might malfunction and fall out of the sky. Thanks to human error, malice, and stupidity, many bad things happen every day. 

Many other bad things happen thanks to an unwillingness to plan ahead. And so as long as we continue to declare things like mass shootings on private property to be "unforeseeable" and "unstoppable" and generally not worth the effort needed to prevent them, we"ll just be left relying on the same government agencies who are under no obligation to protect citizens from anything.

Ex-CIA Head Proposed Law That Would Make Reading Leaked Material A Crime

By Emma Best of Muckrock

     "We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.”

     - William Casey, 13th CIA Director   

Just months before the government’s first successful use of the Espionage Act against someone for leaking to the media, a declassified report written by then-CIA Director William Casey argued that just such an act would be irresponsible.

In the formerly SECRET paper, the Director stated that using the Espionage Act against media leakers was like “driving tacks with a sledge hammer” - grossly excessive. Months later, the government did just that, setting a precedent which is still used today. Two years later, Reagan’s war against leakers had pushed Casey into the even more aggressive position of threatening not just leakers with prosecution - but the Washington Post, the Washington Times, the New York Times, Time and Newsweek as well.

Far from minimizing the potential harm of national security leaks, Casey emphasized the damage that they could do. However, none of the five examples provided by Casey in his report resulted in any actual harm. Two examples “could have” resulted in adversary adjusting their techniques, though the language implies that hadn’t happened. A third and fourth example resulted in potential damage which forced the Agency to cut off contact with a human source lest that danger be amplified. While endangering human sources is never a good thing and disrupting HUMINT operations was unlikely to have been the intention, the report again indicates that no actual harm came to anyone. A fifth example placed someone in danger of being discovered, again a possibility which hadn’t come to pass, though it “could possibly have an adverse effect on U.S. relations” with an unknown group.

Casey took the time to point out that aside from a lack of discipline and professionalism, some leakers had specific motives, such as pushing a particular program or policy over another one.

Far from painting the media as the enemies of the public, Casey acknowledged that they were conflicted between their duties. Nevertheless, he conceded that it’s the job of the media to inform the public.

This concession didn’t stop him from also arguing that journalists be prosecuted and held in contempt if they refused to divulge their sources.

Casey also cited a legal argument that journalists do not have any legal protections for privileged communications, unlike doctors, lawyers and members of the clergy. As a result, they felt that a journalist could be “brought before a grand jury, given immunity from prosecution and can be compelled to identify the source of classified information.” However, care would need to be taken “to avoid making a journalist [into] a martyr.” To this end, a daily fine should be levied against the publisher until the questions were answered, rather than the journalist themself, which Casey felt was “legally feasible.” Casey also proposed a special prosecutor, an idea which was being explored by CIA elsewhere.

Curiously, Casey felt that this would not be “directed at the media, but at requiring the cleared government employee or contractor to live up to [their obligations].” How a measure that would directly fine publishers would impact the leaker would remain entirely unaffected, Casey failed to explain.

Casey also proposed legislation that would make the mere unauthorized possession of classified material a crime. At the time, this would put at risk anyone reading a New York Times article that reprinted classified material. Today, it would put anyone reading The Intercept or WikiLeaks at risk of potential prosecution, to say nothing of those involved in the outlets’ administration or distribution.

Despite his desire to see new legislation created that would specifically target media leaks (an all around better solution than bending preexisting laws to fill a role unintended by Congress), Casey argued against using the Espionage Act to prosecute leakers. Unlike specifically tailored and debated legislation, using the Espionage Act to target media leakers was excessive the same way that “driving tacks with a sledge hammer” was.

Ideally, Casey felt that the new law should not require they demonstrate that a leak caused any actual damage to the United States. Instead, the question should be whether or not the information was passed to someone not authorized to receive it.

Despite his desire to see the media prosecuted for their role in publishing leaks, Casey was not of the opinion that journalists are less patriotic than other Americans, though he added that “a few are less responsible than they should be.”

A memo to CIA’s General Counsel from the Chairman of the CIA Director’s Security Committee, written just months before Casey’s report, argued explicitly that while a “narrow legal standpoint” could potentially justify prosecuting media leakers under the Espionage Act, specific legislation was needed to properly deal with the problem.

Another memo written a few months before for the Director of the Intelligence Community Staff flatly stated that “no matter how one views it, this is a different crime from espionage.” It adds that “we should not drive tacks with a sledge hammer.”

Nevertheless, it would not be long before the Intelligence Community was doing just that.

Despite the misgivings in Casey’s edited paper about using the Espionage Act to target leakers, along with those expressed in the memo to CIA’s General Counsel, it was only a few months later that the government did just that by targeting Samuel Morison. This successful prosecution turned into a precedent used for decades, resulting in what Senator Moynihan called an “erratic application” the Espionage Act, which has since been used to target leakers and whistleblowers alike - and used to threaten media publishers themselves. To date, however, no such legislative solution has been passed. Instead, Reality Winner is charged under the Espionage Act for leaking a document to The Intercept.

You can read Casey’s full report on Unauthorized Disclosures to the Media below.

Legal Round Up: 3 Articles on the Law, and Fighting Back

Via The Daily Bell

In China, Foreigners Can Buy a Marriage

China is a dystopian nightmare for many who live there. Yet even the hardcore communist regime cannot keep a little freedom off the black market.

For many immigrants and foreign workers in China, they are even lower on the social ladder than the peasants. These people cannot own property, and often their children are not allowed to attend school.

But someone found a solution. Fake marriages. Foreigners in China are “marrying” Chinese citizens, even when the foreigner is sometimes already married. This helps foreigners living in Beijing buy property there. It also helps migrant workers send their kids to school and meld into a normal life.

This arrangement has increased since China responded to crowded conditions with more restrictions on foreigners. It sounds a lot like foreigners in America who get married in order to obtain a green card.

Governments just can’t keep creative black market businesses from flourishing when their restrictions leave no other choice.

We’ve even heard of straight men in the military marrying other men to take advantage of the benefits.

Prison Time for Thwarting Emissions Regulations

Volkswagen found that they could not design a diesel engine that would meet federal pollution requirements. So instead, they created software that would cheat the regulations.

Now, a Volkswagon engineer has been sentenced to 40 months in prison for his role in faking the emissions standards.

His crime is basically trying to continue doing business while being obstructed by the government. Is America a free country? They arbitrarily limit the products companies can create. Then they throw a man in prison for breaking their stupid rules.

Courts Actually Holding Police Accountable

Let’s end on a positive note. An appeals court has issued a ruling that protects two important ways of holding police accountable.

First, it should be a little harder for police to charge everything that moves with “obstruction.” The court ruling that says the First Amendment protects speech critical of police officers.

The case stemmed from a man who stepped onto his porch while the police arrested his wife in their driveway. He came outside to yell to them that they were overreacting to her failure to obey orders to walk backwards towards them. She was partially handicapped and could not easily comply.

When the man did not go back into his house he was arrested. He never even moved towards the police. He simply spoke to them while they were trying to arrest his wife. That was enough for them to charge him with obstruction.

Turns out they didn’t even have cause to arrest the wife either. She was the passenger in a car which crossed the center line of the road, and then drove for 40 whole seconds before pulling over, into the woman’s driveway.

So the courts said the lawsuit against the officers on Constitutional rights violations may move forward. The court found no reason for them to be granted sovereign immunity, and be shielded from lawsuits.

Unfortunately, the decision was not unanimous. A dissenting judge said he thinks holding police accountable for their actions will make it harder for them to do their jobs.

More bad news: this judge was considered by Trump for the Supreme Court.

'Gunfight' Starts Over School Supplies At WalMart (Or Why Amazon Is 'Winning')

If you had any reasons to question why increasing numbers of Americans are turning to Amazon.com for their everyday and anyday needs, the following clip will erase them...

On Monday of last week, an argument broke out between two pairs of women over the last notebook on the shelf at the Novi Towne Center WalMart store, according to police.

Video from a bystander shows a woman pull out a gun during the fight...

The fight involved two Farmington Hills residents, ages 46 and 32, and a mother and daughter from South Lyon, ages 51 and 20.

WCRZ-FM reports that the two Farmington Hills women were shopping for school supplies, and when one of them reached for the last notebook on the shelf, a South Lyon woman also reached for it. Police told the Free Press that it was the 20-year-old who reached for it.

The two women pulled the 20-year-old’s hair, and the woman"s mother was pushed aside before pulling out a gun, according to Fox2Detroit.

*  *  *

And that"s why Amazon"s sales are soaring...

Where Private Security Outnumbers The Police

Private security guards have become a common sight across our society, whether they"re escorting cash in transit, patrolling shopping malls, conducting screening at airports or protecting VIPs. In many places, the guards dress like police officers and are equipped with firearms.

As Statista"s Niall McCarthy notes, private security is booming and the sector is worth approximately $180 billion, a number that"s expected to increase to $240 billion by 2020. That"s greater than the GDPs of 100 countries including Portugal, Romania and Hungary. An estimated 20 million workers are employed in the private security sector while its biggest company, G4S, has 585,000 employees and revenues of nearly $10 billion.

Research conducted by the Guardian has found that half of the planet"s population lives in countries where there are more private security workers than police officers.

You will find more statistics at Statista

India and South Africa have glaring disparities while in the U.S., there are over 1.1 million private security guards compared to 666,000 police officers.

Things are far more even in Germany, though private security still has a slight edge over the Polizei by a margin of 2,000.

When companies like Blackwater (now called Academi) flocked to Iraq more than a decade ago to fulfill lucrative contracts, the industry really started flourishing.

However, increasing levels of wealth and growing global inequality have proven the real driving forces behind its inexorable rise. The global pool of super rich individuals is bigger than ever, resulting in heavy demand for services like alarm monitoring and armored transport. That demand isn"t going to slacken anytime soon with the private security sector growing 6 percent every year.

Australian City Council Halts Construction Of Synagogue Over Fears That ISIS Could Target It

Authored by Daniel Lang via SHTFplan.com,

People living in the West have given up a lot to satisfy their government’s concerns over terrorism. Here in the US for instance, our right to privacy in our homes, on our persons, and especially in our communications, has essentially died since 9/11. Everything we say on our phones or search on the internet is catalogued by the NSA without a warrant, we can’t fly on an airplane without being groped and prodded by TSA agents, it’s now fairly common to be forced through police checkpoints many miles away from any border.

The US isn’t alone in this regard. Across the board, every Western nation has sacrificed essential freedoms in the name of combating terrorism. The only difference is that unlike in the US, most Western nations have sacrificed more speech related freedoms rather than privacy (though all Westerners have lost both rights to some degree). This is especially true in Europe and Canada, where expressing right wing opinions or criticizing Islam is now considered a hate crime, and is believed to be an invitation for more terrorist attacks.

Australians however, seems to be close to losing their right to practice any religion they want. That’s what the Jewish community in Sydney learned recently when they tried to build a synagogue. Residents and city council members decided to not let the structure come to fruition because they feared it would invite terrorist attacks.

The temple was to be built in Bondi, a short walk from Australia’s famous Bondi Beach. But locals worried that the space would pose a security risk to nearby residents, motorists and pedestrians. As evidence of that threat, the council pointed to the synagogue’s own design, which included setback buildings and blast walls. They also said the design would have an “unacceptable impact” on the street and neighbourhood.

“A number of residents agreed with the contentions … and provided additional evidence against the development of the site,” the council said in a statement.

And on top of that, the courts complained that the building’s design would only protect the worshipers inside.

But the court sided with the council. In its decision, the court explained that western countries are under threat from Daesh, also known as ISIS or ISIL, and that the potential of an attack in Australia is considered “probable” by government officials. The court also noted that the designs would serve only to protect those inside the building, not those outside.

You know the West is slipping into collectivist madness, when you can’t construct a building that is only designed to protect the people inside of it from an external threat. That would be like saying that you’re not allowed to own body armor because it doesn’t protect bystanders from gunfire. (Oh wait, body armor is highly regulated in Australia and most people who aren’t cops, soldiers, or security guards can’t own it? Color me shocked.) But worst of all, the refusal to let this synagogue be built is nothing more than an admission that the terrorists have won.

“The decision is unprecedented,” Rabbi Yehoram Ulman told news.com.au. “Its implications are enormous. It basically implies that no Jewish organization should be allowed to exist in residential areas. It stands to stifle Jewish existence and activity in Sydney and indeed, by creating a precedent, the whole of Australia, and by extension rewarding terrorism.”

It’s such a big win for terrorism that I doubt any terrorist organization ever expected to have these results. Here’s a country of 24 million people that has lost less than 10 people to terrorism over the past 20 years. They all died at the hands of Islamic radicals, who are known to despise Judaism. Sydney’s response is to prevent a Synagogue from being built in a vain effort to prevent more terrorist attacks. The city is doing exactly what Islamic terrorists want them to do, and these terrorists barely had to lift a finger.

If this kind of moral weakness isn’t overcome in the West, then our freedoms will not survive the next generation.

Fewer Dying from 3 of the 5 Leading Causes of Death in the U.S.

A study published online in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report says that fewer people are dying from 3 of the 5 leading causes of death in the United States – heart disease, cancer, and stroke. [1] [2]

Potentially preventable deaths from asthma, bronchitis, emphysema, and other chronic lower respiratory diseases didn’t budge, though.

But, eh, more people died from unintentional injuries, mainly caused by falls and by overdoses from both prescription and illegal drugs.

Former CDC Director Tom Frieden said in a statement:

“Fewer Americans are dying young from preventable causes of death. Tragically, deaths from overdose are increasing because of the opioid epidemic, and there are still large differences between states in all preventable causes of death, indicating that many more lives can be saved through use of prevention and treatment available today.” [3]

The rates of death from each cause vary geographically. Where people live is generally a good indicator of the health problems they face, their access to and use of social services, and public health efforts. Deaths from all leading causes are highest in the South.

Macarena C. García, DrPH, from the Center for Surveillance, Epidemiology and Laboratory Services at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), wrote:

Source: NIDA

“Public health officials can use the decreases observed as benchmarks for improving population health, while using observed increases to direct targeted efforts to reduce the number of potentially preventable deaths.

Specifically, given the reported increase in potentially preventable deaths from unintentional injuries, these findings might inform the selection and implementation of evidence-based interventions to prevent deaths from injuries such as falls and drug overdoses, based on epidemiologic burden.” [2]

For the study, Garcia and her team analyzed mortality data from the National Vital Statistic System, using the same model as that used in a 2010 analysis to allow for comparison.

Overall, the 5 top causes of death in the U.S. – heart disease, cancer, chronic lower respiratory disease (CLRD), stroke, and unintentional injuries – increased from 2010 to 2014, which was consistent with population increases. But the rate of heart disease, cancer, and stroke deaths increased more slowly than the population grew.

Of those who died of heart disease, cancer, CLRD, stroke, and unintentional injuries, the CDC estimates that 15% of the cancer deaths, 30% of the heart disease deaths, 36% of the CLRD deaths, and 28% of the stroke deaths were preventable. A whopping 43% of the unintentional deaths were preventable. [3]

Potentially preventable cancer deaths fell 25% from 2010-2014, driven by a 12% decrease in the age-adjusted death rate from lung cancer. The authors of the study credit the decline in cancer deaths to prevention, early detection, and treatment.

There was an 11% decrease in potentially preventable deaths from stroke and a 4% decrease in potentially preventable deaths from heart disease. The researchers wrote that the reduction in both causes of death is attributable to improved quality of care and a drop in risk factors, including better blood pressure control among people who have hypertension.

In comparison, potentially preventable deaths caused by accidents increased 23%. Those caused by CLRD rose1%, which the CDC said was not considered statistically significant. [3]

Overdose deaths involving prescription opioids have quadrupled since 1999, the CDC said. Nearly two million Americans abused or were addicted to prescription opioids in 2014, and more than 14,000 people died from overdoses involving those drugs.

Source:

[1] Medscape

[2] CDC

[3] Fox News

National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA)

---

---

UK Cops Issue Simple Advice For British Tourists To Survive A Terrorist Attack: "Run!"

British tourists are being urged to watch a new safety video on how to survive a terrorist attack ahead of their summer breaks. The four-minute clip issued by counterterrorism police depicts a firearms attack unfolding at a hotel.

And the message is simple - Run, Hide, Tell!

Just over two years ago, 30 Britons were killed in a terrorist shooting rampage at a resort in Sousse, Tunisia. Seifeddine Rezgui walked off the beach and through the Imperial Marhaba hotel, systematically shooting dead holidaymakers. RT reports that police have emphasized there is no specific intelligence that UK holidaymakers will be targeted this summer, but said the film is part of a general campaign to raise public awareness...

Detective Chief Superintendent Scott Wilson, national coordinator for the Protect and Prepare strategy, told the Press Association that the chances of being caught up in a terrorist incident are “still low” but “sadly we have seen atrocities that take place in the UK and abroad.”

“It is important that everyone stays alert and knows what to do if the worst was to happen.

“As we saw in Tunisia in 2015, any westerner is likely to be a target anywhere in the world,” he added.

“We want people to think of this in the same way they do the safety films airlines show before take-off.

“They don’t expect anything bad to happen but it is a sensible safety precaution to show people what to do.”

The video encourages people to first run to a place of safety if possible, leaving belongings behind and bringing others with them.

If there is no place of safety, they should hide by barricading themselves in and turn their phones to silent.

As soon as it is safe, they should alert authorities by using the local emergency number, which is 112 in EU countries.

Chinese Media "Applauds" China's CIA-Spy Killing Spree: "Washington Has No Idea What's Going On"

China"s Global Times, published by the official People"s Daily, said in an editorial in its Chinese and English-language editions that, if reports of China "systematically dismantling CIA spying operations, killing or imprisoning more than a dozen sources" are true, it was a victory for China.

As we previously detailed, an influential state-run newspaper applauded China"s anti-espionage efforts on Monday after the New York Times said China had killed or imprisoned up to 20 CIA sources, hobbling U.S. spying operations in a massive intelligence breach.

And now, as Reuters reports, China"s Global Times, published by the official People"s Daily, said in an editorial:

"If this article is telling the truth, we would like to applaud China"s anti-espionage activities. Not only was the CIA"s spy network dismantled, but Washington had no idea what happened and which part of the spy network had gone wrong," the paper said.

"It can be taken as a sweeping victory. Perhaps it means even if the CIA makes efforts to rebuild its spy network in China, it could face the same result," it said.

However the widely read paper, which is known for its strongly nationalist stance, said one part of the report was false.

"As for one source being shot in a government courtyard, that is a purely fabricated story, most likely a piece of American-style imagination based on ideology," it said.

The story has attracted thousands of comments on Weibo, China"s version of Twitter, with many people expressing glee that the spy ring was broken.

"Strike hard against spy traitors, protect the country"s security!" wrote one Weibo user.

"Well done! Good on you China," wrote another.

This is the ally that President Trump holds so close?

Connecticut Set To Become First State To Allow Deadly Police Drones

Connecticut could become the first US state to allow police to use drones equipped with deadly weapons if a bill opposed by civil libertarians becomes law. The bill, which was approved overwhelmingly by the state legislature"s judiciary committee on Wednesday, would ban so-called weaponized drones in the state but exempts police and other agencies involved in law enforcement, the AP reported. The legislation was introduced as a complete ban on weaponized drones but just before the committee vote it was amended to exclude police from the restriction. Connecticut Governor Dannel Malloy, a Democrat, was reviewing the proposal, "however in previous years he has not supported this concept," spokesman Chris Collibee wrote in an email.

"Obviously this is for very limited circumstances," said Republican state Sen. John Kissel, of Enfield, co-chairman of the Judiciary Committee that approved the measure Wednesday and sent it to the House of Representatives. "We can certainly envision some incident on some campus or someplace where someone is a rogue shooter or someone was kidnapped and you try to blow out a tire."

The bill now goes to the House of Representatives for consideration. Details on how law enforcement could use drones with weapons would be spelled out in new rules to be developed by the state Police Officer Standards and Training Council. Officers also would have to receive training before being allowed to use drones with weapons.

North Dakota is the only state that allows police to use weaponized drones, but limits the use to "less lethal" weapons, including stun guns, rubber bullets and tear gas.

Currently five states - Nevada, North Carolina, Oregon, Vermont and Wisconsin - prohibit anyone from using a weaponized drone, while Maine and Virginia ban police from using armed drones, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Several other states have restricted drone use in general. So far, 36 states have enacted laws restricting drones and an additional four states have adopted drone limits, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Meanwhile, concerns are growing about potential unchecked police brutality and death raining from the robotic skies: civil libertarians and civil rights activists are lobbying to restore the bill to its original language before the full House vote Reuters adds.

"Data shows police force is disproportionately used on minority communities, and we believe that armed drones would be used in urban centers and on minority communities," said David McGuire, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union in Connecticut. "We would be setting a dangerous precedent," McGuire added. "It is really concerning and outrageous that that"s being considered in our state legislature. Lethal force raises this to a level of real heightened concern."

"That"s not the kind of precedent we want to set here," McGuire said of the prospect that Connecticut would become the first state to allow police to use lethally armed drones.

Others echoed McGuire"s concerns: "We have huge concerns that they would use this new technology to abuse our communities," said Scot X. Esdaile, president of state chapter of the NAACP. Esdaile said he has received calls from around the country from NAACP officials and others concerned about the Connecticut legislation.

Three police departments in the state - Hartford, Plainfield and Woodbury - began using drones within the past year, according to the American Civil Liberties Union of Connecticut.

For now, however, the proposal is unlikely to unleash scenes out of some Robocop spinoff: The bill includes restrictions on drone use and reporting requirements that are supported by the ACLU.

It would require police to get a warrant before using a drone, unless there are emergency circumstances or the person who is the subject of the drone use gives permission. It also would require police to report yearly on how often they use drones and why, and create new crimes and penalties for criminal use of drones, including voyeurism.

Furthermore, final passage is not assured: although the bill overwhelmingly passed the Judiciary Committee, several members said they just wanted to see the proposal get to the House floor for debate. They said they had concerns about police using deadly force with drones. If Connecticut"s Democratic-controlled House passes the bill it will move to the Senate, which is split evenly between Democrats and Republicans.

"I think that police are taught one thing," said Democratic Bridgeport Sen. Edwin Gomes. "You put a weapon in their hand, they shoot center mass, they shoot to kill. If it"s going to be used, you"re going to use it to kill somebody."

Finally, for those wondering how a drone could possibly shoot, the following video of a drone shooting a gun - appropriately enough in Connecticut - should answer that question.

Swedes Begin Construction Of Police Fortress In "Little Mogadishu"

Rinkeby is a suburban housing estate near Stockholm, where the Swedish welfare state keeps a large number of unassimilated migrants. 90% of the population is non-Swedish and many of these are Somalians given to crime and rioting.

Some may remember it from the riots confirming President Trump"s fears about Sweden...

In June 2010, Rinkeby was the scene of riots and attacks against the local police station and Rinkeby is the region in which the "60 Minutes" crew were attacked in 2016.

The problems Sweden faces integrating large numbers of Muslim immigrants is a subject on which Nordstjernan columnist Ulf Nilson has written many times. His warnings of increasing radicalization among Sweden’s Muslims – warnings he started to broadcast a decade ago – now seem eerily prophetic in light of an Associated Press investigation that found Stockholm to be a breeding ground for jihadists among Swedish Somalis.

According to the AP report, which first ran Jan. 24, an al-Qaida-linked group is busy recruiting anti-government fighters among Somali youths living in Rinkeby. A suburb of Stockholm, Rinkeby has earned the nickname of “Little Mogadishu” because of the number of Somalis living there. Rinkeby is also the center of the recruiting efforts of al-Shabab, a group with ties to al-Qaida.

Rinkeby is a known problem area in Stockholm. It was here NRK journalist Anders Magnus was attacked with stones last spring, and here the police never go in the evenings without reinforcements from other patrols according to Dabladet.

As Alt-Right-News reports, in 2014, they had to close down the police station, as it had originally been built for an all-Swedish community, where the main job of policemen is to look for lost pets and help old ladies cross the street.

The new police station, which is being built under heavy security and is scheduled to open in 2019, will cost over $40 million construction costs in addition to an annual rental cost of $1.6 million. The security cost for the actual construction is unknown. It is planned that 250 personnel will work there in the community of around 15,000 people. This is a ratio of one cop to 60 residents (for comparison Chicagohas one cop to 270 residents).

The police station will feature bullet proof windows, walls reinforced with sheet metal, and fencing around it, possibly with electrified barbed wire. So it will look more like a military installation than anything. Also it will be designated as "specially protected," which means a year in prison for anyone even throwing a stone at it. 

But there are problems with the police station, as none of the largely White police working there will actually live in the community and will have to commute it. This being Sweden, a disproportionate number will also be women. This raises several problems that would not be issues elsewhere. Police officers are worried about vandalism to their private cars so refuse to drive in, while using public transport is considered too dangerous, especially for female officers.

"Those who will be working in Rinkeby do not want to use public transport and take the subway," Local Police Area Manager Niclas Andersson told the press.

"It"s too dangerous. One suggestion is secure parking for the private cars of police personnel. Another is that the police will be driven to and from work."

A secure parking area for the private cars of police personnel can not be added without greatly inflating the already high cost of the facility, so it looks like police personnel will have to be bussed in at the start of each shift in a specially reinforced police bus with darkened windows.

This is what multiculturalism looks like, folks, and the costs are enormous.

5 Dystopic Movies That Are Coming True Right Now

From "border walls" to "biometrics" and from "economic collapse" to the "surveillance state", is life imitating art... or was it all a guidebook?

As The Daily Sheeple"s Melissa Dykes notes, it"s actually kind of hard to watch some of these... things are hitting way too close to home these days.

TSA Launches "Invasive" Pat-Downs With "More Intimate Contact Than Before"

As a result of a study, which found that weapons routinely make it past airport security, the TSA is introducing “more rigorous” and “comprehensive” physical inspections at airports around the country, according to Bloomberg. The security agency, which until now had the option of using five different types of physical pat-downs in the screening line, is eliminating the "options" and replacing them with a single, universal method which would involve heavier groping.

The Transportation Security Administration made the announcement to its agents this week, and in the case of Denver International Airport employees, advised employees and flight crews on Thursday that the “more rigorous” searches “will be more thorough and may involve an officer making more intimate contact than before.”

In an ominous warning, TSA spokesman Bruce Anderson told Bloomberg that "people who in the past would have gotten a pat-down that wasn’t involved will notice that the [new] pat-down is more involved." The shift from the previous, risk-based assessment on which pat-down procedure an officer should apply was phased in over the past two weeks after tests at smaller airports. In their notice, Denver airport officials said employees are subject to search at random locations: “If a pat down is required as part of the operation, badged employees will be required to comply with a TSA officer’s request to conduct a full body pat down.”

The new policy will also apply to pilots and flight attendants, classified as “known crewmembers” who generally receive less scrutiny at checkpoints. The TSA conducts occasional random searches of these employees, and airlines this week inquired as to whether their employees would be subject to more frequent pat-downs. The number of random searches for airline crews isn’t changing and will remain a “very small percentage” of the total, Anderson said. But airport employees may face more random checks.

Anyone who declines use of the TSA"s existing conventional scanner screen will be subject to the new pat-down. The TSA currently screens about 2 million people daily at U.S. airports. The agency doesn’t track how many passengers are subject to pat-down searches after they pass through an imaging scanner.

The TSA has been criticized in recent years for its overall screening techniques after an internal investigation by Homeland Security in 2015 found that the TSA failed an unbelievable 95 percent of airport security tests, allowing undercover agents to successfully and repeatedly smuggle mock explosives and banned weapons through checkpoints in the country’s busiest airports. As a result, the TSA has been in desperate need of change and the physical inspection would be a good place to start.

That said, the agency has been ridiculed for years for causing delays at airports and being largely ineffective at detecting contraband. The good news is that while passengers may find the new patdown more intrusive, Anderson promised that the new screening procedure isn’t expected to increase overall airport security delays. However, “for the person who gets the pat down, it will slow them down.”

As Bloomberg adds, in December, a CNN political commentator, Angela Rye, posted an article online describing her “humiliation” during a TSA agent’s search. Rye wrote in graphic detail about the pat down of her genitals during a search at the Detroit Airport before a flight to New York.

TSA officials didn’t immediately address whether the new universal pat-down protocol will mandate touching of passenger genitals.

While the physical screening process has been a stress point for the TSA practically since its inception, the agency has tried to make travelers more comfortable by pairing them up with people of the same gender for pat-downs and also giving people the option of being inspected in a private room, however at the cost of substantial travel delays. However, as some have mused out, it still doesn’t answer one of the most confounding questions about the TSA: "Is America really any safer because some underpaid worker grabbed a pussy at the airport?"

Upcoming British Legislation Could Jail Journos for 14 Years

Planned Espionage Act could jail journos and whistleblowers as spies …  Proposals in the UK for a swingeing new Espionage Act that could jail journalists as spies have been developed in haste by legal advisors, The Register has learned.  The proposed law update is an attempt to ban reporting of future big data leaks.  The British government has received recommendations for a “future-proofed” new Espionage Act that would put leaking and whistleblowing in the same category as spying for foreign powers.  That threatens leakers and journalists with the same extended jail sentences as foreign agents. Sentences would apply even if – like Edward Snowden or Chelsea Manning – the leaker was not British, or in Britain, or was intent on acting in the public interest. – The Register

Britain is doing one of the things it does best, which is thinking of how to punish people. Now it’s figuring out ways to throw more people in jail for longer periods of time for exposing various kinds of government crimes.

That’s right. It’s not thinking about lessening those crimes, only covering them up.

The British government has received an updated Espionage Act that is a good deal stronger than the act on the books. It puts journalists in the same boat as foreign agents when it comes to spying and also does not differentiate between those who are citizens of other countries and those who come from Britain.

More:

The proposals have been slammed by journalists who faced down British and US government threats after publishing Edward Snowden’s sensational revelations in 2013.  The UK Law Commission’s recommendations are contained in a 326-page consultation paper titled Protection of Official Data [PDF].

“It is alarming that such a far-reaching proposed reform of laws which could be used to jail whistleblowers and journalists should have been drafted without any adequate consultation with free speech organisations”, Alan Rusbridger, the former Guardian editor who published the Snowden revelations, told The Reg.

According to the commission, the proposed “redrafted offence” of espionage would “be capable of being committed by someone who not only communicates information, but also by someone who obtains or gathers it”.  There should, it says, be “no restriction on who can commit the offence,” including hackers, leakers, elected politicians, journalists, and NGOs.

The journalists who helped Edward Snowden with thousands of GCHQ documents and who visited him in Hong Kong in 2013, could be thrown in jail for long periods of time under this potential legislation.

David Leigh, The Guardian’s former investigations editor reportedly said that the Law Commission’s recommendations were a “a giant leap backwards to the bad old days when public-interest journalists went in fear”.

Additionally, British offices abroad of all types would be “prohibited places” or “protected sites”, so that reporting about then would be subject to the penalties of the Law Commission.  There should be no public-interest defense for those caught up in the Commission.

The commission supposedly consulted with journalists and others from across Britain, but the article states that it did not do much consulting in reality.  The commission itself admits that the job was too big to allow time for much consulting. And even though the commission was directly involved, its fact-finding was suggested by the government itself.

It was not generally press released either but only provided to the Telegraph newspaper because, “it’s a nuanced issue. We wanted to secure an opinion editorial first”.

In reality this is simply a British government project that has been initiated not in parliament from what we can tell, but behind the scenes by London’s City, the financial backbone of England and Europe.

The City doesn’t want leaks going all the way up the chain to the square mile establishment itself. Instead, laws should be put in place that return sentences of between 2 to 14 years.

The article adds that the commission ought to be encouraged to cast its net far more widely now that it has gotten to the end of its fact-finding phase. It must act more independently.

But no matter what it does, the British Cabinet Office will probably take up the commission report as legislation.  While, “the Cabinet Office refused to say whether a draft Bill would be requested or legislation intended,” it is hard to believe that the commission would go through so much effort without any results.

We are also on record as pointing out that Snowden himself was a CIA agent and that much of what he released was already known or didn’t damage either America or Britain very much. And now his efforts are being used to justify this legislation.

Conclusion: Besides, as stated above, the impetus for legislation probably comes from the very top as the City wants legislation before something emerges over time that implicates the City itself.

More stories:

‘The World Needs Globalization, It Needs Trade’

Republicans Reeling in Fed?

Trump’s Complications in Draining the Swamp

French Protesters Set Car On Fire During Ongoing Anti-Police Protests: Live Feed

Protesters against police violence have set a car on fire during a rally in the Paris suburb of Bobigny, which followed a police officer’s assault on a 22-year-old man last week, leading to a spike in anti-police demonstrations across Paris.

Today marks a week of violent protests in Paris suburbs after the alleged abuse of a young man by police officers. The rallies have followed the charging of a police officer who allegedly used his baton to rape a 22-year-old man. Three other officers are accused of assault. The incident is said to have happened during a stop and search operation.

The prosecutor’s office said the police had stopped a group of about a dozen people after hearing calls of drug dealing sites in the area. During the operation the officers “attempted to arrest a 22-year-old man”, and when he resisted, used tear gas and “one of them used an expandable baton”, it added. But the man, known only as Theo, suffered such serious injuries to his rectum that he needed major emergency surgery, and remains in hospital.

Cited by Euronews, Abdallah Benjana who is the former deputy mayor of Aulnay-sous-Bois, a diverse Parisian suburb, asked what was happening? “Isn’t there enough tension to spark trouble? Unemployment, insecurity, high rents… no idea of a future; you do this to a young man; all of this can only explode.” The four officers have denied the charges but locals say they’ve had enough. It is unacceptable what they (policemen) have done. And every day it is like that, whenever the police come they carry out abusive checks. It is always like that.”

French police have in the past been accused of using excessive force in poorer neighbourhoods. The death in police custody last summer of a young black man, Adama Traoré, in Beaumont-sur-Oise outside Paris, and the slow reaction of authorities sparked accusations of police violence and a state cover-up. An investigation is ongoing.

Anti-police violence is not new in France, with similar incidents taking place periodically, most rececntly in May of 2016, when protesters in Paris attacked a police car with two officers inside with iron bars and set it alight in a dramatic unleashing of new anti-police violence, as officers across France took to the streets to denounce violence they say has been repeatedly directed at them.

"Everybody hates the police!" they chanted at Paris" Place de la Republique, where several hundred police officers gathered on their lunch break to condemn "anti-cop hate." The protesters were dispersed with pepper spray.

The anti-police tensions show no signs of abating as the live feed from the latest day of anti-police protests below demonstrates.

EN DIRECT. #Bobigny La situation dégénère au rassemblement pour #Theo https://t.co/QazIsnrEeC pic.twitter.com/YXRr17GkFI

— MiSo K (@ricom76) February 11, 2017

Emeutes à #Bobigny : véhicule de RTL en feu....État d"urgence ?...la racaille est une fois de plus de sortie ! #Marine2017 #AuNomDuPeuple pic.twitter.com/1z1C0PLrZ5

— Francis Barthe (@BartheFrancis) February 11, 2017

#bobigny la voiture RTL a été prise pour cible @le_Parisien @le pic.twitter.com/BUFwgOohQi

— Yann Foreix (@yannforeix) February 11, 2017

Live Feed:

In Speech to the CIA, Trump Offers to Build Them a Room Without Columns: ‘Do You Understand That?’

At the end of Trump"s speech to a room filled with 400 employees of the CIA, Trump said, rather cryptically, that maybe he"d build them a bigger room "by someone who knows how to build and we won"t have columns, do you understand that?"
 

Here is the full speech.
 
For those of you who are fucking retards and haven"t the slightest clue what that could mean, I suggest you read up on the fifth column theories -- which are essentially the existence of a shadow government.
 

A fifth column is any group of people who undermine a larger group—such as a nation or a besieged city—from within, usually in favor of an enemy group or nation. The activities of a fifth column can be overt or clandestine. Forces gathered in secret can mobilize openly to assist an external attack. This term is also extended to organized actions by military personnel. Clandestine fifth column activities can involve acts of sabotage, disinformation, or espionage executed within defense lines by secret sympathizers with an external force.

Indeed. A new room, built by a capable architect, without columns, sounds awfully good to me.

Content originally generated at iBankCoin.com

Entire Police Department Quits After "Illegal, Unethical, And Immoral" Requests By Town Council

The Town Council of the small town of Bunker Hill, Indiana, home to 888 residents, is likely wishing they had  "do-over" this morning after constant budget cuts and alleged "illegal, unethical, and immoral" requests from council members resulted in the entire police force quitting.  Per the Fox 59 affiliate in Indianapolis, the Bunker Hill town Marshall and his 4 deputies all walked off the job earlier this week and have no intention of returning. 

An entire Indiana town has no police officers after every single one walked off the job. The officers blame the Bunker Hill Town Council for the situation.

Thomison served as town marshal for four years until Monday night when he and four other officers handed over resignation letters to the council, telling them they have had enough.

“They would not communicate with us or the officers and they kept scaling back,” said Thomison.

In their resignation letters, the officers accuse council members of asking them to “do illegal, unethical, and immoral things.” They cited examples like asking police to run background checks on other town councilors to find their criminal history. The officers also claim they were threatened when they said no.

Another issue they brought up in the letter was their safety. The officers say they were all forced to share one set of body armor, putting their lives on the line while they were out making arrests and serving warrants.

“I did not want to send someone out there with bad body armor so I would take mine off and provide it to the other officers. I told them we have to provide this, there is an IC code that explains that and says that the town has to provide that body armor,” said Thomison.

Meanwhile the Bunker Hill Town Council offered the following statement to residents saying that disagreements with the police force were "caused by the lack of funding available to the town" but that council members had never asked officers to "be involved in any illegal, unethical or immoral actions."  Well, clearly it seems like someone is stretching the truth slightly.  

Like most small towns, there have been from time to time, disagreements in the policy making process between the town council and other town departments. The current town council as well as prior councils have, on occasion, had disagreements with Mr. Thomison over a number of things. These disagreements have primarily been caused by the lack of funding available to the town to invest in the police department. However, the council denies that it has failed to provide body armor for the marshal or reserve deputies. The council is well aware of Indiana law on the topic and has complied with it fully. Further, the council absolutely denies that it has ever asked Mr. Thomison or any of the reserve deputies to be involved in any illegal, unethical or immoral actions.

The council admits that it had made a number of cuts to the police department over the last few years. This was a decision the town made due to a lack of funding. Bunker Hill is diligently working to solve this problem for the coming year. The cuts made to the police department were not made with the intention of jeopardizing the safety of any of the town"s police officers. Over the last few years, the Council has made attempts to find additional money for the department. Mr. Thomison was instrumental in obtaining a large sum of money on behalf of the town. However, he fails to state that the police department received the benefit of a large portion of that funding.

As Mr. Thomison has stated, there is currently a lawsuit pending against the town relating to Indiana"s Open Door Law. The council denies that it has violated Indiana"s Open Door Law in any manner. However, the council will not comment further on this topic as the litigation is still pending.

The resignation of the entire police force has come as a shock to the council. It has never been the goal to dismantle or otherwise endanger the town police department or officers. The council thanks these officers for their service to the town. Bunker Hill is in the process of obtaining a new marshal and reserve deputies. The council asks for patience from the town residents in this process.

If ever there was a time and a place for some drag racing on public streets...this is it for Bunker Hill residents...enjoy!