Will You Help Me Repair My Door [video]
youtube.com
youtube.com
More on topic, the raid seems like a total miscarriage of justice- these sheriffs rolled up in camo and busted in like they were storming bin Laden's compound. All that work to confiscate 2 joints (its actually kinda funny, I would've assumed Afroman would have a lot more... Although he does have a song about how he only needs 2 zigzags)
They aso tried to civil forfeiture $5k in cash but ended up giving it back. Afroman did a whole thing with the local news where he went to the sheriff to pick up the money, and they filmed him opening the evidence bags. The count cMe up short. $400 went missing while the money was in the evidence locker, whoops.
This scandal makes me think the Constitutional Sheriff movement might be very bad.
https://www.themarshallproject.org/records/2587-constitution...
> The Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association (CSPOA) is a political organization of local police officials in the United States who contend that federal and state government authorities are subordinate to the local authority of county sheriffs. Self-described constitutional sheriffs assert that they are the supreme legal authority with the power and duty to defy or disregard laws they regard as unconstitutional. As a result, they may sometimes be referred to as sovereign sheriffs.
via https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_Sheriffs_and_Pe...
Terrifying.
Per Marbury v. Madison (5 U.S. 137): "It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what The Law is." and "A Law repugnant to the Constitution is void." (Opinion of the court via Chief Justice John Marshall).
As legally authorized officers of the Judiciary, Sheriffs and their deputies are obliged to interpret and act upon the law.
Not terrifying at all: this has been the status quo since 1803.
If you find this terrifying, do not become a Judicial Officer. These people handle treason on a daily basis.
P.S. I sympathize with Afroman, and support and appreciate his music. As intelligent citizens, I think he knows the law as I do, perhaps even better than me (because he's a celebrity).
Oh I see, Belarusian friend tells me you just get tortured and flee to another country by thousands then.
If you escalate from peaceful protests to armed conflict, then a modern military will win over a bunch of farmers on any given day, provided that rules of engagement are loose enough. What good is your AR-15 covered in patriotic Eagle stickers against A-10 Thunderbolt?
But if those 90% of population can be silenced by a very small filtered force (personal guards, but better call them "riot police"), and keep the real "military" in barracks fed by propaganda 24/7, preventing talking to people -- then they would learn the truth anyway, but when it's too late, when all the leaders are already dead/jailed/exiled.
The whole point of legitimacy rests on public approval. What approval are we talking about if it needs "A-10 Thunderbolt" against your own people. If an american city, say, Portland, would start armed resistance, no President would ever order airstrikes against it, that would be the last day of their presidency. But they won't start it, because the whole system already accommodates Portland wishes into non-violent resolution.
A side note: Napoleon military genius rests a lot on the La Grande Armée, the largest army by far in Europe. But why other countries didn't have their own armies of the same size? Because only democracy can keep such a big army to turn the arms against its government, otherwise at some point giant army wishes may not align with its government (although it may take time of course). Democracy at least persuades people that they have a voice. So, in some sense, the Napoleonic wars made "democracy -> large army size -> democratic neighbors" transition.
Going back to Belarus example, if the "riot police" would have to deal with armed protestors, they would have it like million times harder, and I'm not sure of the outcome.
I'm sure that'll work about as well as that "sovereign citizen" thing that some people try.
I think the Constitutional Sheriff movement and idolization of local sheriffs is troubling.
Okay lol.
They were unconstitutional. That has been proven.
It was illegal for officers of the law to enforce them.
I don't think the primary law enforcement problem in the US is Sheriffs. Say what you will about police. These are not the same organizations.
What!? The revisionist history begins
https://eppc.org/publication/bidens-covid-vaccine-mandates-a...
https://gov.alaska.gov/supreme-court-decision-forces-biden-a...
> “Although Congress has indisputably given OSHA the power to regulate occupational dangers, it has not given that agency the power to regulate public health more broadly,” the court wrote
If you want to show how this was unconstitutional then you'll need to show something else entirely. This SCOTUS opinion isn't proof of that, no matter if it is from a ".gov" site or not.
But, please feel free to provide additional information
Oh, alright.
https://www.swfinstitute.org/news/90658/supreme-court-rules-...
OSHA does not yet have any policing powers, this was an attempt to generate them.
Let me ask you something officer, any kidnapping victims inside my suite pockets?
Also, an 8 minute mile is not a particularly high bar to clear and with the increased work capacity granted by basically every single popular steroid (funnily enough, HGH would probably not confer immediate/direct benefits in this scenario in the same way that less exotic PEDs could) it would be trivial for most users to do with little to no preparation.
Meditating again on the conflicting requirement that:
1) Cops be intelligent, physically fit, free of troublesome political biases, cool under stress, be willing to risk being shot by criminals and,
2) Not be paid $500,000 a year.
"Cops are paid too much" is an evergreen topic on sfgate. Here's a recent story: https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/S-F-overtime-costs-soar-... If you want the best of the best of the best, you'll have to pay for it.
"Pfft, I could do that." Okay, why aren't you? Quit your tech job today and head to the police academy. Hmm? You don't want to? That's odd...
Well. Police is a cesspool. Police world is the closest you can get to being a criminal without being a criminal. Very few people want that for themselves.
The fact that being a criminal or being nearly a criminal pays so little is only one of the factors why people want none of that.
How much is this in comparison to the costs of defending or settling lawsuits against the police department as a result of bad cops?
When asked for comment, Adams County Sheriff Kimmy Rogers said the result of a neighboring sheriff’s office investigation into Afroman’s claim is imminent. He also that the attention the rapper’s songs have generated has turned into a wave of threats against his deputies. “I can handle it, but I don’t appreciate some of the messages coming in about Adams County deputies getting ambushed, ‘I hope they die slow,’” Rogers said. “It’s kind of tolling on some of the officers. I doubt that your family would want that said about you.”
I like the part where a deputy is poking around behind the couch with his gun.
Shot of the person I'm talking about at 2m11s [0].
Gotta make sure you break up your silhouette using a desert camo pattern in the well-known desert of Adams County, Ohio.
... interior
It’s weird that there’s only one LEO in multicam and the rest are in black uniforms.
Afroman has good taste though, those HS-5s sound beautiful, surprised he didn't spring for the 8inch subs though. Guess it's simple if you're not mastering jungle.
> Presumably SWAT captain, for dealing with the possible threat of well-armed cartel dens.
Was the operational target a structure in a wooded area where this individual needed to sneak up on without visual detection? Is that the reason for the foliage-coloured camo?
Because it does not look like the operation involved sneaking around a wooded area to me.
Couple that desire to cosplay with a large funnel of tax dollars going to purchase military purpose weapons for potential use on domestic civilians and we have a resultant system no different than high-school aged kids wanting to prep for airsoft.
Except it is different. They have the ability (and sometimes even the express desire to) escalate and potentially kill other people.
Outside of the due process that is the law they swear to uphold when sworn in to service.
It has done a full circle now where companies that design camo patterns make ones specifically for police, such that they don't have any actual camouflaging purposes, but still look like camo (and not just boring plain blue or whatever). The language used by the manufacturers to describe them is very telling, e.g.:
"The MultiCam Black™ pattern was developed to meet the unique requirements of law enforcement officers operating in high-risk environments. It projects a distinctly authoritative presence appropriate for domestic operations. MultiCam Black™ is designed to complement an officer’s existing equipment and present a sharp, professional image for top-tier law enforcement units."
(here's how this "authoritative presence" actually looks: https://i.imgur.com/TqyzNJp.jpg)
Or here's another one:
"Ghost was derived from both A-TACS iX and LE-X. Ghost is designed and a tactical option for Military, Government and Law Enforcement Urban Operations. Ghost combined eleven variable shades of neutral grey that not only gives it and aggressive look, but it is also very effective in urban settings."
https://www.google.com/search?q=HS-8+frequency+response&tbm=...
https://thebigfootdiaries.blogspot.com/2015/02/afroman-puts-...
There's a reason there's a song called "Fuck the police" and none called "Fuck the ambulance service" or "Fuck the firemen"
https://www.quora.com/Can-police-disable-your-security-camer...
I mean I'm editorialising a little, but while both suggest that black people are getting a pretty rotten deal decades after people usually thing the struggle for civil rights for black people were fought and ultimately won ... one indicates real, visceral hatred towards a single institution which has famously and repeatedly been confirmed to be well deserved (and additionally as a phrase or slogan is itself very well known around the anglophone world). The other does neither.
The cunning part is to have additional hidden cameras hard wired within the studs going to a second well hidden NAS box that takes the direct mirror feed from the first NAS box via a hidden diversion of the seemingly direct cable.
The intent is to have sacrifical cameras and sacrifical storage .. along with additional cameras and mirrored sacrifical camera + additional storage .. and then optional encrypted offsite backup.
Cables Vs WiFi is interesting - cables can be traced, but they are harder to remotely tap or jam.
"Safety" from a "privacy perspective" depends on your threat model, and how you feel about cloud storage. There are obviously options which don't use the cloud, which can range from cameras storing on local microSD cards, to cameras that feed to a local Linux box running ZoneMinder.
The "easiest" way would be the "camera with microSD storage" option, with options ranging from the likes of Dufy and Waze, to Reolink and others.
Aside from running your own "NVR" type box locally (or remotely/colo), if you're not happy with cloud providings from the likes of Eufy, Ring (owned by Amazon), or Nest (owned by Alphabet), a number of cameras support Apple's HomeKit Secure Video (HKSV) -- which just pushes video through an Apple HomeKit hub (Apple TV, HomePod, etc.) rather than a third party cloud provider.
Your privacy goals may differ from others -- whether it depends on who the cloud storage is with, or no cloud storage at all, whether you want wireless or hard-wired cameras, and whether you're concerned about any local storage potentially being removed from the property.
You'd need to give more information on what you're looking for, for folk to advise -- alternatively, there are more than enough sites and blogs with comparisons and write-ups of home surveillance offerings.
On the other hand, I don't know the full situation and trying to infer information from this submitted video.
Please don't feel insulted but I feel like your comment is a result of poor civic education in America. I say that because everyone should know that guilty or not you are afforded the benefit of doubt and you should be treated like an innocent person, even if you are caught red-handed in a crime until the due process of a lawful judicial proceeding finds you guilty. This means, cops have the responsibility to behave professionally, respectfully and freaking knock on doors, avoid the display and use of military weapons, holster their weapons until there is an actual threat. Again, the lack of education in these matters is widespread, most don't know their basic rights (not just you). If you see the condtions of Jails (not prisons) in america, it is appalling, really, my takeaway is the rule of law or the constitutional rights of people are absolute jokes, rendered that way because of lack of education. To think that an innocent person with no due process or legal proceeding could be locked in solitary for months or be in an environment where they are sleep deprived and sleeping on concrete, getting raped and beat up, medical procedures against their will, losing their jobs,healthcare and housing all because the public tolerates this type of bullshit or the type of bullshit you see here where act like they're in afghanistan, because "big strong man with guns and badge good guy,can do whatever he want".
So, no, what I have seen in the video is unacceptable whoever the target is, short of an active shooter, terrorist or dangerous fugitive.
>are you saying destroying property, needlessly traumatizing children, going in armed like it's world war three or they were hunting for bin laden, stealing his money and disconnecting cameras so their actions won't be recorded
I am not saying anything, just trying to understand people's reaction with the limited information. It seems conflicting to me.
>Please don't feel insulted but I feel like your comment is a result of poor civic education in America
I am not from USA, I am from EU. In EU, in quite a few places at least, police does not even need a warrant. If they think you are doing a crime (using drugs, possessing drugs) - they can just bust in to your house and arrest you. So compared to that, USA judge granting warrants system sounds great to me. Then again, I don't know everything, maybe you have similar laws as well.
>Regarding busting in instead of respectful knocking
From one side I do agree that innocent people shouldn't get swatted. But, from another perspective: If you don't break in fast - criminals will one hundred percent destroy the evidence needed to put them away.
I'm not sure how anyone could explain it to you if you have no automatic reaction to what happens in the video. The amount of force used seems to me to be obviously excessive for the crime Afroman is accused of (that is, selling weed), to the point where I don't see how I could possibly clarify further.
Perhaps one thing may help clarify: whether he's guilty or not is mostly irrelevant to my reaction to this footage. Even if he's guilty, that's excessive force for arresting a weed dealer. The only thing that could change my mind is if the police could produce believable evidence that they had good reason to think he would be violent (such as a record of violent incidents, or membership of a violent gang; the warrant at least does not specify any of this).
The cops refuse to show evidence that they had reason to believe he is a violent criminal (and as the aggressors here, it's on them to provide this), but they barge in as if he's a terrorist with plans to blow up a primary school. If that doesn't provoke any sort of "this is deeply unjust and a massive abuse of power" reaction in you, I don't expect any amount of explaining will result in you understanding people's reaction.
In most of the world trafficking drugs is a serious crime with jail. Maybe in USA it is different, I admit I don't know. My original comment was that it is highly irresponsible to be doing that with a family. My first automatic reaction was how can someone with kids do that, not how police responds.
(As an aside, there's no evidence that Afroman is guilty of selling drugs; that makes it even harder for me to understand why your first gut response is to think "how can someone with kids do that". There's no reason to think he's guilty, apart from blind trust in the police's word.)
In my experience there’s a very deeply ingrained sense that police are the good guys lingering in average suburban Americans of a certain age. (I’m sure in others too that’s just my background.) It’s really hard to discuss these kinds of topics with someone that by default accepts that police action implies necessity.
As someone from south america living in the EU it seems to me fairly strange that it's not immediately apparent that the sort of violence depicted from the police is completely unwarranted - I've seen police raids in both south america and in the EU, and this level of going in fully armed with military-grade gear is only reserved for the most extreme of cases and /always/ supported by a court order. There's no argument whatsoever in that search warrants with no body of evidence should involve SWAT-team levels of response, which clearly was not the case as there's enough evidence to go around that the search warrant is literally a piece of paper that anyone can invent without need to provide supporting evidence for their claims.
> From one side I do agree that innocent people shouldn't get swatted. But, from another perspective: If you don't break in fast - criminals will one hundred percent destroy the evidence needed to put them away.
This isn't an american thing, it's a basic principle of justice all humans know. It is better for the guilty to get away with their crimes than for the innocent to be punished wrongly. One reason among many for that is, you can compensate financially but you can't unpunish someone. You can't remove the trauma, lost time and suffering. But for the guilty, if they get away today you can cartch them another day. And there will always be guilty people who get away with wrongs. But it is easy to prevent innocent people getting punished, simply have a good standard of evidence and trial and the presumption of innocence.
Another thing to consider is cops are being lazy when this happens. Any idiot can take a gun and break through a door. It is the responsibility of cops and the government to stay a step ahead of the bad guys and use their money and resources to build a case. In this case for example, if they suspect the evidence will be destroyed then monitor who goes in and out of the place and arrest people as they leave or intercept sewage if they discard something. Monitor all entrances and communications. The warrant allows them to search which includes surveillance. They can use undercover cops. If they absolutley have no choice they can send an unarmed person who doesn't look like a cop to knock and get a repsonse. Then send armed (gun holstered) cops to ideentify themselves and within 10sec of no response break the door and politely but respectfully make sure everyone leaves so they can search and even then they must have a very good probable cause! And lastly, if the person is innocent they should pay them for the damages and provide counseling and any other support or treatment, especially for children.
Right now cops investigate their friends and themselves. It’s global news when one decides to even fire (not even arrest) a friend despite video evidence of a crime. This shouldn’t happen. It should be possible for the public to submit evidence to a federal police review board and let them handle investigations in a less biased manner.
When a cop carries out an illegal search or decides to kill someone in a fit of rage as often happens, that should be well out of the domain of local police investigation and should go straight to the federal government.
Being a /good/ cop requires very high skills, and it's an unavoidably political job, so I think a union is going to be an essential part of it. I agree that the current situation in much of the USA is really bad, though.
It’s why generally on the left, cops are not considered “valid jobs” to be protected by a union. It’s a state sanctioned violence force.
You might sever the connection between the police force and the administration and reduce the size of departments down to the level of details and make them all much more directly accountable to the judiciary and the population they police. In larger areas the details can offer support and oversight in a way they are currently unable to.
There are tons of things a prevalent and inexpensive internet connectivity was supposed to drastically improve. This should be one of them, to remove the need for severe top down military style policing that intersects with administrative politics.
The only chance for local police to get away with it to keep it from reaching the central at all.
It doesn't mean that central won't try to cover the ass of local if the reputation of the whole police is at stake.
I believe any death is automatically referred for review, even if there is no evidence of wrong doing, as it’s so unusual.
If he was able to buy a nice place and retire, I'd say he's financially smarter than 99% of celebrities.
Maybe it's nicer than Hattiesburg.
More than me, though, and the guy seems to be having fun. I followed the link in the video to his Twitter page thinking it might have more information on the raid... Instead, it's almost exclusively videos of him signing the boobs of his fans. Gave me a good chuckle.
https://thebigfootdiaries.blogspot.com/2015/02/afroman-puts-...
My only slightly exaggerated take is that police on duty can do whatever they want to whomever they want - up to and including killing someone - and not be held liable.
In the United States, qualified immunity is a legal principle that grants government officials performing discretionary (optional) functions immunity from civil suits unless the plaintiff shows that the official violated "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known".[1]
I'm sure killing people violates clearly established constitutional rights, so the concept looks puzzling.
A web search should turn up plenty of blogs by lawyers ranting helplessly about whatever the latest absurdity was.
Dave Chappelle's "Sprinkle some crack on him and let's get out of here" wasn't just fanciful comedy.