SAPD Cop Who Attacked a Black Man and Broke Into His Home w/o a Warrant after an Unlawful Stop in Arbitration to Get His Job Back, Seeks to Resume Imposing Unwanted Mandatory Service in Liberal City

From [HERE] Former SAPD Officer Thomas Villarreal revealed Wednesday that he'd initially been offered a fifteen-day suspension for what happened during this January 2020 traffic stop of Eric Wilson.

That contemplated suspension was rescinded months later and upgraded into an indefinite suspension the department's equivalent of a firing, and criminal charges.

Villarreal and another officer, Carlos Castro, were both ultimately indefinitely suspended in August amid allegations they violated department policies by kicking in Wilson's door and using excessive force to arrest him. They were also charged with aggravated assault.

The criminal aggravated assault case against Villarreal and Castro resulted in a mistrial last year after the District Attorney's (DA) Office failed to turn over critical evidence to the pair's defense attorneys.

The DA's office initially said it would refile cases against both of the former officers, but only charged Castro on a lesser charge of assault earlier this year.

That charge against Castro was dismissed in July because the District Attorney's Office could not prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt, records show.

Today, Villarreal and his attorney called on retired and current SAPD officers who trained cadets at the training academy, who had also weighed in on his and Castro's criminal case.

Each told the arbitrator they felt Villarreal was justified in entering Wilson's home or that he had used reasonable force.

Among those officers was one retired officer who trained cadets on the use of force, criminal procedure, searches, and other topics.

Ret. Officer "Then I gave my opinion was that they did have exigency to get inside the house,” said Retired Officer McDonald.

“That they did have exigency?” clarified an attorney.

“Yes," said McDonald.

It'll be a few months before the arbitrator returns his decision in this case, but if reinstated, the city could be on the hook for tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars in back pay to Villarreal.

Wilmington Cop Convicted of Perjury, Evidence Tampering and Repeatedly Smashing a Black Man's Head into a Window Sentenced to Only Probation by White Liberal Judge who said, 'It was just a one-off'

Video Shows Wilmington Officer Slamming Man's Face Into Wall

From [HERE] A Wilmington police officer was sentenced for assault, official misconduct and evidence tampering charges Friday, stemming from a violent arrest that prompted protests in 2021.

Despite prosecutors arguing his excessive force and subsequent lies in official paperwork deserved a prison sentence of six months, the presiding judge said he felt a sentence of probation would serve as justice in the case.

Samuel Waters' defense argued that he'd already suffered consequences including the loss of his job as a police officer, as well as a pending federal lawsuit, in successfully arguing for a probationary sentence.

Last year, a jury found Waters guilty of misdemeanor assault and official misconduct for repeatedly slamming a man’s head against the wall of a Southbridge store, as well as felony evidence tampering for lying about the circumstances of his encounter with the man in his subsequent police report.

Video of the violent arrest circulated on social media in 2021, prompting demonstrations and Waters’ eventual firing from the Wilmington Police Department.

The jury acquitted him of felony perjury related to his statements following the interaction. He was also acquitted of another count of assault for a separate, violent arrest that took place days before the encounter that led to his guilty verdicts.

The arrest of Samuel Waters

The encounter that led to Waters’ guilty verdicts stemmed from his response to a harassment complaint at a nearby business. The suspect in that case, Dwayne Brown, had just made a purchase at a convenience store in Southbridge when Waters approached him.

Waters' body camera was not activated during the interaction, but the arrest was captured on security camera footage that had no sound.

After a brief interaction, Waters turned Brown around and placed one of Brown's hands on a plexiglass wall. Waters then briefly grabbed ahold of Brown's other arm before he placed his own hand on Brown's head and rammed it into the plexiglass wall.

After the head bounce, Waters escorted Brown outside and placed him under arrest for harassment and resisting arrest, charges that were ultimately dropped. Outside, his body camera was activated. As Waters had Brown pinned against an outside wall, Waters told Brown: "Maybe next time" he will "listen, instead of being a (expletive)."

Brown angrily replied: "You smashed my face into the glass for nothing."

"That is not (expletive) proper procedure, dude," Brown told Waters in the footage. "I wasn’t doing anything but asking you questions. You were wrong."

Testifying to the jury in Waters' trial, Joseph Leary, a Wilmington police officer who trains others on the use of force, agreed with Brown's assessment.

He told the jury that department training and policy do not endorse bouncing a suspect's head off a wall generally. Force to the face, neck and back area are regarded as "red zones" because of the potential to cause serious and permanent injury. 

"There was nothing that was going on where that level of force was required," Leary told the jury.

The guilty verdict related to Waters' lying was built on comparisons of his subsequent police report and his oral statements captured on body camera footage afterward.

In body camera footage after Brown's arrest, he told someone he had no idea who Brown was. But he authored police reports and other documents in the aftermath of the arrest that were examined during the trial. In that narrative of Brown's arrest, he claimed that the harassment victim showed him a picture and he immediately recognized Brown, which prosecutors said was a lie.

Waters also included information about Brown's criminal history that prosecutors said was meant as an after-the-fact justification for his violent tactics during the arrest.

In court Friday, Deputy Attorney General Dan McBride, who heads the state Attorney General's Office of Civil Rights and Public Trust, also noted a conversation Waters had with his supervisor directly after the incident.

McBride said Waters told his supervisor that Brown harassed the "only white female" working at the business and that he was just going to take a miscellaneous complaint until Brown resisted arrest. McBride said that was also a "lie."

He argued that Waters' use of force came within seconds of their encounter and described it as "almost an ambush."

Arguments over prison time

Criminal defendants are sentenced by judges based largely on the range of punishment prescribed by the law governing their guilty convictions, as well as standardized recommendations based on their personal history, criminal conduct and things like whether they've accepted responsibility for their wrongdoing.

The recommended sentence in Waters' case called for a sentence consisting of only probation. However, in court Friday, prosecutors said that Waters' use of force, subsequent betrayal of trust and his failure to appreciate the seriousness of his conduct warranted some imprisonment.

In court Friday, McBride said Waters' reports contained more "fiction than fact," but used "standard" police language that "struck me to my core."

He said Waters lied in his reports, seeking to create a "fictitious character" and a "stereotype of a Wilmington criminal" to justify his use of force. He told the judge he has been a prosecutor for more than a decade and regularly relies upon the written statements of police officers in litigating against criminal defendants.

"It made me question everything I ever read in every case," McBride told the judge.

Waters' case was a rare public airing of the official reports that all Delaware police create in the course of their work.

Exemptions in state public records law give local police departments broad latitude to hide such documents absent the subpoena power possessed by prosecutors and even in cases where the wide circulation of video depicting police violence creates cause to question officers' actions.

In a written submission to the court, McBride's office also noted that before Waters was a Wilmington officer, he was fired from a police department in Maryland for running a stop sign and then flipping someone off while in uniform. They argued this wasn't relevant to his convictions, but showed his "disregard for professional standards that police should abide by."

McBride said the case erodes the already strained relationship between police and the public and thus deserves serious punishment.

On Waters' behalf, John Malik, his defense attorney, argued that his client had already suffered consequences. He lost his job and ability to be a police officer and thus isn't an ongoing threat to public safety or to re-offend.

He said his client has been working at a national grocers' distribution warehouse and nearly lost that job when he was convicted last year. He argued he'd have trouble finding another job if he were sentenced to prison time.

Malik also cited two recent Delaware police violence cases that only resulted in probationary sentences: one involving a New Castle County officer who dragged a young woman by her hair while in a temporary lockup and a Dewey Beach officer who struck a man while he was on a medical stretcher.

Malik also said it is easy for the public to "Monday morning quarterback" such actions by police. He delved into the facts of the case to argue that Waters' choice to use force was not incorrect, though the type of force he used was wrong.

He noted Waters rescues animals and helped his wife's former student, arguing his actions were an aberration and not in his character. He also disputed that Waters had not shown remorse or an appreciation for his offense, stating that his client has not made such statements because he intends to appeal his conviction.

Waters also declined to address the court Friday, citing his plans to appeal the case.

Ultimately, presiding Judge Francis Jones said he had balanced the factors described by Malik with the seriousness of Waters' betrayal of public trust and concluded that he did not deserve prison time. He said he doesn't believe Waters is an ongoing threat to public safety.

"This was a one-off," Jones said before handing down the sentence of probation.

Meanwhile, Brown filed a lawsuit against Waters and the city, claiming the Police Department has engaged in a practice of violating people’s constitutional rights. In September, a judge ruled that his attorneys had not offered sufficient allegations to support such a claim and gave them the opportunity to amend their complaint.

That amendment is pending submission by Brown’s attorneys.

Fairfax Cop Not Guilty of Manslaughter in Shooting Timothy Johnson. White Cop Claimed Black Man “WAS REACHING!” for a Non Existent Gun as He Fled from Upscale Mall in City Controlled by White Liberals

FAIRFAX VA IS NOT CONTROLLED BY ELITE, WHITE LIBERALS? Fairfax County was once considered a Republican bastion but Democrats now control of the Board of Supervisors and the School Board (officially nonpartisan) as well as the offices of sheriff and Commonwealth's Attorney. Democrats also hold all the Fairfax seats in the Virginia House of Delegates and every seat in the Senate.

Fairfax County encompasses parts of three congressional districts, the 8th District, the 10th District, and the 11th District. Democrats represent all three districts, with Jennifer Wexton representing the 10th, Don Beyer representing the 8th, and Gerry Connolly representing the 11th. [MORE]

From [HERE] A white Fairfax County jury found a former police sergeant not guilty Friday of involuntary manslaughter in the killing of a black man suspected of shoplifting last year, but convicted him of a lesser gun charge, determining that he bore some criminal responsibility in the shooting.

The jury spent 11 hours deliberating in the case against Wesley Shifflett, who prosecutors argued had no justification for shooting Timothy McCree Johnson outside of the Tysons Corner Center mall after giving chase over allegations that Johnson had stolen sunglasses. It ultimately found him guilty him of recklessly handling a firearm, which carries a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment.

The decision punctuated a winding path to accountability for the office of Fairfax County Commonwealth’s Attorney Steve Descano, which twice brought the case to a grand jury — an unconventional move that yielded just the second indictment of a Fairfax County officer in an on-duty shooting in the department’s 84-year history.

Lawyers for Shifflett argued throughout the trial that he was simply doing his job when he fired two times at Timothy Johnson, 37, in a dark area after giving chase. Police officers, they said, with backing from law enforcement experts at trial, are trained to fire twice when they believe they are in danger, and Shifflett believed he saw Johnson reach for his waistband. Prosecutors painted Shifflett as a man who — in a moment of unreasonable panic — made a reckless decision with lethal consequences.

In body-camera footage played repeatedly for the jury, Johnson, who prosecutors said was not armed, could be heard asking for help as he lay dying: “I don’t have nothing. I’m shot, man, please. Hurry.”

Carl Crews, an attorney for the Johnson family, said after the family watched the video of the incident stated,

“The best way to describe the video is to say first what was not on it,” said Carl Crews, an attorney for the family, after viewing the footage Wednesday. “What it doesn’t show: danger. It doesn’t show the officers faced any danger — imminent or otherwise. “This was an execution by Fairfax County police officers,” Crews said.”

Unfortunately the video is dark and unclear - thereby enabling a jury of sheeple to indulge the cop-actor’s performance of theatricks about an imaginary gun in a scary Black man’s hand.

The trial, which began Sept. 17, neared mistrial three times before the case landed in jurors’ hands: once when the lead prosecutor experienced a medical emergency that delayed proceedings for a week, once when defense lawyers filed, then withdrew, a motion for mistrial after a witness testified without his lawyers present and once when prosecutors played an unadmitted portion of Shifflett’s body-camera footage during closing arguments.

Melissa Johnson paced the halls outside the courtroom for hours on Friday as she awaited the verdict, swinging a silver necklace that contained her son’s ashes. At a table nearby, a group of mothers whose sons had also been killed by the police sat and prayed.

At times, Johnson closed her eyes and sang.

“Jesus, Jesus,” she sang. “Precious Jesus, we have the victory.”

Prosecutors sought to show jurors that Johnson did not have to die, saying there were alternatives Shifflett did not take. Shifflett could have waited for backup, taken cover, used the flashlight on his gun, they told jurors.

They called Collins Kenlak, the assistant asset protection manager at the Nordstrom at the time, to testify that he was confused about why officers had chased Johnson at all.

Although prosecutors said Johnson ultimately was found to have stolen two pairs of sunglasses valued at about $850 from the store, store surveillance footage shows he had returned the glasses store workers first alerted police about. “As soon as those glasses were returned, I made it clear we don’t have any reason to approach him,” Kenlak said.

The threat Shifflett perceived never existed, prosecutors told jurors. Johnson was suspected of a nonviolent crime and did not have a gun, facts they argued rendered Shifflett’s fear unreasonable.

“Reason cannot be found in what ifs and maybes and the facts here are clear: Mr. Johnson was unarmed and fleeing,” Assistant Commonwealth’s Attorney Natheena Tyler said during her closing argument Wednesday. “Fear alone is not enough to justify the use of force.”

Weak Liberal Federal Prosecutors Fail to Convict Memphis Cops of Most Serious Charges in Tyre Nichols Death. Jury says Cops Didn’t Willfully Beat Black Man to Death, Deny Treatment or Conceal Evidence

GETTING AWAY WITH A MURDER RECORED BY SEVERAL CAMERAS? From [HERE] Three former Memphis police officers were found guilty on Thursday of federal witness tampering charges in the fatal beating of Tyre Nichols, a 29-year-old Black man. But all three defendants were acquitted of the more serious charge of violating his civil rights by causing his death.

One officer, Demetrius Haley, was convicted on a lesser charge of violating Mr. Nichols’s civil rights by causing bodily injury. That is, he was acquitted of causing the Black man’s death but found guilty of the lesser charge of only causing bodily injury.

The three defendants — Mr. Haley, Tadarrius Bean and Justin Smith — and two other former officers who pleaded guilty to their role in the violence, still face additional state charges, including second-degree murder.

In September 2023, federal prosecutors charged the five officers involved with depriving Nichols of his civil rights (by both beating him and failing to administer first aid), obstructing the investigation and conspiracy to commit witness tampering.

The counts were as follows:

COUNT ONE (all not guilty)

(Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law: Excessive Force and Failure to Intervene)

On or about January 7, 2023, in the Western District of Tennessee, the defendants, EMMITT MARTIN III, TADARRIUS BEAN, DEMETRIUS HALEY, DESMOND MILLS JR., and JUSTIN SMITH, while acting under color of law as Detectives with the Memphis Police Department and while aiding and abetting one another, willfully deprived Tyre Nichols of the right, secured and protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States, to be free from an unreasonable seizure, which includes the right to be free from the use of unreasonable force by a police officer. Specifically, defendants MARTIN, BEAN, HALEY, MILLS, and SMITH unlawfully assaulted Nichols and willfully failed to intervene in the unlawful assault. This offense resulted in bodily injury to, and the death of, Tyre Nichols.

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 242 and 2.

COUNT TWO (all not guilty)

(Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law: Deliberate Indifference)

On or about January 7, 2023, in the Western District of Tennessee, the defendants, EMMITT MARTIN III, TADARRIUS BEAN, DEMETRIUS HALEY, DESMOND MILLS JR., and JUSTIN SMITH, while acting under color of law as Detectives with the Memphis Police Department and while aiding and abetting one another, willfully deprived Tyre Nichols of the right, secured and protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States, not to be deprived of liberty without due process of law, which includes the right of an arrestee to be free from a police officer's deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. Specifically, defendants MARTIN, BEAN, HALEY, MILLS, and SMITH knew that Nichols, an arrestee in police custody, had a serious medical need and the defendants willfully disregarded that medical need by failing to render medical aid and by failing to advise the MPD dispatcher and emergency medical personnel of the circumstances surrounding Nichols' serious medical need, including that Nichols had been struck repeatedly. This offense resulted in bodily injury to, and the death of, Tyre Nichols.

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 242 and 2.

COUNT THREE (all not guilty)

(Conspiracy to Witness-Tamper)

On or about January 7, 2023, in the Western District of Tennessee, defendants EMMITT MARTIN III, TADARRIUS BEAN, DEMETRIUS HALEY, DESMOND MILLS JR., and JUSTIN SMITH willfully combined, conspired, and agreed to violate Title 18, United States Code, Section 1512(b)(3) by knowingly engaging in misleading conduct towards, corruptly persuading, and attempting to corruptly persuade, their supervisor (MPD Supervisor 1), the officer tasked with writing the Incident Report (MPD Detective 1), and other persons, with the intent to hinder, delay, and prevent the communication to a law enforcement officer and judge of the United States of truthful information relating to the commission and possible commission of a Federal offense. Specifically, in relation to statements the defendants made to MPD officers regarding the arrest of Tyre Nichols, the defendants conspired to intentionally withhold and omit material information and knowingly make false and misleading statements all to cover up the use of unreasonable force on Nichols.

COUNT FOUR

(Obstruction of Justice: Witness-Tampering)

On or about January 7, 2023, within the Western District of Tennessee, defendants EMMITT MARTIN III, TADARRIUS BEAN, DEMETRIUS HALEY, DESMOND MILLS JR., and JUSTIN SMITH, while aiding and abetting one another, knowingly engaged in misleading conduct towards, corruptly persuaded, and attempted to corruptly persuade, their supervisor (MPD Supervisor 1) and an MPD Detective (MPD Detective 1) with the intent to hinder, delay, and prevent the communication to a law enforcement officer and judge of the United States of truthful information relating to the commission and possible commission of a Federal offense. Specifically, defendants MARTIN, BEAN, HALEY, MILLS, and SMITH provided false and misleading information and withheld and intentionally omitted material information in their communications with MPD Supervisor 1 and MPD Detective 1, each of whom was tasked with writing MPD reports for the arrest of Tyre Nichols, including: defendants MARTIN, BEAN, HALEY, MILLS, and SMITH omitted that defendant MARTIN repeatedly punched Nichols; defendants MARTIN, BEAN, HALEY, MILLS, and SMITH omitted that defendants MARTIN and HALEY kicked Nichols; defendants MARTIN, BEAN, HALEY, MILLS, and SMITH omitted that Nichols had been struck in the head; defendants falsely stated to MPD Detective 1 that Nichols was actively resisting at the arrest scene; defendants falsely stated to MPD Detective 1 that Nichols grabbed defendant SMITH by his vest and pulled on officers' duty belts; and defendants MILLS and SMITH falsely stated to MPD Detective 1 that Nichols lifted both of them in the air.

In violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b)(3).

The verdicts were as follows:

According to the complaint filed in the civil case (atty Ben Crump);

Nichols was two minutes away from his home when he was stopped by MPD at 8:24 p.m. on January 7, 2023. Officers Haley, Martin, and Preston Hemphill[32]conducted the initial stop of Nichols' at the intersection East Raines Road and Ross Road,[33] with police vehicles surrounding his car on three sides. The body-worn camera footage released by the City of Memphis on January 27, does not "show any activity earlier than an officer responding to a stop in progress ..."[34]

Haley and Martin were at the traffic stop when Hemphill arrived at 8:24 p.m.[35][15] By 8:25 p.m., Haley[36] pulled Nichols out of his car as Nichols said: "I didn't do anything."[35] An officer shouted: "Get on the fuckin' ground" and moments later an officer shouted "I'm gonna tase your ass."[37] Officers pushed Nichols to the ground. At about 8:25:45 p.m., Nichols was laying on his side in the road - an officer had Nichols' left hand, a second officer had Nichols' right hand, a third officer held a taser against Nichols' left leg while also using his right hand to hold Nichols to the ground.[35] From the moment that Nichols was pulled from the car, to being held on the ground, officers simultaneously yelled numerous commands, threats, expletives, and made "assaultive comments"[15] at him. While being held on the ground an officer continued to yell for Nichols to lay down. Nichols responded "I am on the ground". An officer yelled back "Lay on your stomach". Moments later, Haley, deployed pepper spray against Nichols[15], which hit several of the other officers.[37] Nichols broke free and began to run. Hemphill, against regulations,[38] deployed his taser at Nichols. At 8:26 p.m., Nichols began running south on Ross Road, as he was pursued by at least two officers. Two more police units arrived at the scene around 8:29 p.m.[39] Footage showed that one officer who remained at the area of the traffic stop said, "I hope they stomp his ass".[40]

At 8:33 p.m., Officers Bean, Mills, and Smith caught up to Nichols and had him on the ground at Castlegate Lane and Bear Creek which is approximately a half a mile (800 meters) away from the original traffic stop.[36] Footage from a pole-mounted CCTV camera showed an officer using his leg to push Nichols hard to the ground. Between 8:33 p.m. and 8:36 p.m. Nichols was punched, then pepper sprayed a second time, then kicked in the upper torso numerous times by a fourth officer, then an officer can be heard yelling "I'm going to baton the fuck out of you." before striking Nichols several times with a baton, then punched five times in the face by one officer.[41][42] The video footage showed officers had control of Nichols' arms when he was struck with the baton, kicked, and successively punched in the face 5 times.[43][44] A fifth officer arrived, as Nichols was on the ground and in the process of being handcuffed, and kicked him in the upper torso, which was followed by another kick to the upper torso by another officer. Fox News reported that in the videos, "Nichols can be heard calling out to his mother before police beat him into a daze".[34] Nichols' conduct has been initially described as non-resisting[45] and non-violent;[15] there is no indication that he struck back at the officers.[46]

By 8:37 p.m., Nichols was handcuffed and limp; officers propped him against the side of a police car.[47] After Nichols was on the ground, the involved officers convened and shared their stories about the arrest. In the body-worn camera footage, Michael Ruiz of Fox News reported, "officers can be heard discussing his alleged driving, 'swerving' and nearly hitting one of them".[48] One officer bragged: "I was hitting him with straight haymakers, dog", while another exclaimed: "I jumped in, started rocking him."[49]

Medics arrived around 8:41 p.m. but did not begin to assist Nichols until 16 minutes later. An ambulance arrived at 9:02 p.m. and took Nichols to St. Francis Hospital at 9:18 p.m. after he complained of shortness of breath.[39]

On scene, video footage showed officers issued at least 71 commands over 13 minutes; The New York Times described the orders as "often simultaneous and contradictory" and "sometimes even impossible to obey". The Times cited one such example of many, where an officer shouted "Give me your fucking hands!" while Nichols had one officer pinning his arms behind his back, a second officer holding his handcuffed wrist, and a third officer punching Nichols' face.[50][51][52][15] One former police officer described the officers' interaction with Nichols as having "started with poor communication" and going downhill from there.[51]

On January 8, the department stated that the traffic stop of Nichols was due to reckless driving.[53][54] On January 27, Memphis Police Chief Cerelyn J. Davis stated that her department reviewed footage, including from body cameras regarding the traffic stop and the arrest, to "determine what that probable cause was and we have not been able to substantiate that – ... It doesn't mean that something didn't happen, but there's no proof."[53][54][55]

Kristen Clarke, the assistant attorney general for civil rights, emphasized in a statement that all five of the former officers had now been convicted of federal felonies.

“Tyre Nichols should be alive today,” she said.

Omaha Cops 1) Watch Slow-Mo Video then 2) Create Tale to Justify Murdering Steven Phipps: Claim Fleeing Black Man Aimed a Gun at Them as He Jumped Over a Fence, While He was in Mid-Air and Upside Down

From [HERE] and [HERE] Omaha Police Chief Todd Schmaderer insisted his colleagues followed department policy when an officer shot Steven Phipps, a 22-year-old Black man, eight times during a traffic stop.

Phipps, who was in possession a legally owned a firearm, fled police after being pulled over for expired plates.

He had just finished work at the time and was driving a silver Chevrolet Monte Carlo inside near N 31st Avenue and Taylor Street, Omaha, with his younger brother in the passenger seat on September 28.

Officer Noah Zendejas only fired his weapon when Phipps' gun was pointed at him, according to Schmaderer. This was after a chase where Phipps ran and jumped a fence.

"We really don't know what Mr. Phipps' intent was," Schmaderer said, adding that the officer had the right to defend himself.

His aunt, Angela Phipps, said after seeing the police footage, she heard Phipps repeatedly say "don't shoot me" after he hit the ground while holding his hands and one leg up in a defensive position.

However, police maintain that most of the shots were fired while Phipps was in midair and that he did not drop his weapon until after he landed.

The video speaks for itself. Police claim that somehow while Phipps jumped head first over a high fence and was upside down, in mid air while falling to the ground, managed to point a gun at police. Said narrative appears to be contradicted by the video

Family of Steven Phipps Jr. — the man killed by Omaha Police during a foot pursuit over the weekend — have spoken out.

Two members of North Omaha’s church community sat watching Wednesday’s OPD news conference as it happened, paying close attention and taking notes. Their initial reaction best described as disappointed.

“Mayor Stothert saying that the citizens are safe, evidently African-American Black men are not safe in Omaha,” said Pastor Portia Cavitt, the President of the Interdenominational Ministerial Alliance. “We know that people have a right to own guns. Why is it when a Black man has a gun that the officer fears for his life?”

“Why did they have to shoot him eight times?” Rev. Hemphill said. “I don’t understand that.”

Later, the two church leaders were joined by other members of the North Omaha community, including Phipps’ family.

“They know they harassed him and they know what they did,” said family member Jenesha Plunkett. “All we want is justice for him. Y’all can’t keep running around doing this to our young boys. Y’all have everybody sacred. It makes no sense in the world. He didn’t deserve it.”

Cavitt says they are hosting a town hall meeting at Clair Memorial United Methodist Church at 4 p.m. Sunday to allow the community to share their feeling and concerns about police shootings. [MORE]

Study Shows Police Stop Black People Based on How They Look, Not How They Drive

From [HERE] In 2018, police officers initiated contact with nearly 29 million U.S. residents aged 16 and older: traffic stops comprise over four-fifths of police-initiated contact.48 There are clear racial disparities in traffic law enforcement. For example, the Stanford Open Policing Project’s dataset of nearly 100 million stops collected from 21 state patrol agencies and 35 municipal police departments reveals that these agencies were more likely to stop Black, but not Latinx, versus white drivers between 2011 and 2018.49  Echoing findings from other ‘veil of darkness’ analyses, this study also found that officers stopped Black drivers less often after sunset, when a driver’s racial identity is less visible.50 Studies of jurisdictions including Connecticut, Massachusetts, North Carolina, and South Carolina have also found significant racial disparities in police stops.51 On the other hand, national surveys of drivers since 2002 have found racial disparities in traffic stops only in some years.52 But a closer look at the causes of traffic stops reveals that officers stop Black drivers for less serious reasons than white drivers.

Charles Epp of University of Kansas and his colleagues have shed light on investigatory traffic stops. These are distinct from traffic-safety stops, which are based on factors such as speeding at greater than seven miles per hour, suspicion of driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol, running a red light, or reckless driving. The pretext for investigatory stops, on the other hand, may be for such infractions as failure to signal a turn or lane change, having a malfunctioning light or expired license tag, driving too slowly, or stopping too long—or for the officer to check for a valid license or to conduct a warrant check. The objective of these stops is to investigate drivers deemed suspicious. This is a form of proactive policing that uses minor traffic violations as a pretext for a criminal investigation and helps raise municipal revenues through fines and fees.53 Traffic-safety stops, the researchers found, are based on “how people drive,” whereas investigatory stops are based on “how they look.”54

Epp and colleagues’ study of police stops between 2003 and 2004 in Kansas City found that investigatory stops differed significantly by race while rates of traffic-safety stops did not.55 These differences existed for all ages, however, they were sharpest among drivers under age 25: among these drivers, 28% of Black men had experienced an investigatory stop as had 17% of Black women, compared to 13% of white men and 7% of white women. Socioeconomic differences did not fully explain this racial disparity: Black drivers under age 40 were over twice as likely as their white counterparts to experience investigatory stops for both the highest- and lowest-valued cars. More recently, University of North Carolina professor Frank R. Baumgartner and colleagues analyzed over 20 million stops in North Carolina between 2002 and 2016 and found that the majority of stops that white drivers experienced (56%) were for traffic safety reasons, while the majority of stops that Black drivers experienced (52%) were for investigatory reasons.56 Directing officers to make investigatory stops, Epp and colleagues argue, opens the door to biased policing based on stereotypes of Black criminality.

Pedestrian Stops and Order-Maintenance Policing

Similar disparities arise in investigative pedestrian stops and with order-maintenance policing. In 2013, Judge Shira A. Scheindlin concluded, regarding New York City’s stop-and-frisk tactic, that the city’s “highest officials have turned a blind eye to the evidence that officers are conducting stops in a racially discriminatory manner.”57 The police policy broadly targets male residents of neighborhoods populated by low-income people of color to uncover drugs and weapons. Despite evidence finding the tactic to be ineffective, a conclusion that was reinforced when New York City continued its crime decline after scaling back stop and frisk, related forms of policing persist in many other cities.58 For example, a 2022 analysis of the Milwaukee Police Department’s stop-and-frisk practices, conducted by the Crime and Justice Institute, found that Black residents were 4.5 times as likely to get pulled over, 10.1 times as likely to be subjected to a field interview, and 2.6 times as likely to be frisked as white residents.59

Further, in 2022, New York City Mayor Eric Adams re-embraced ‘broken windows’ policing, a policy seeking to promote public safety by clamping down on petty, ‘quality-of-life’ offenses and disorder through arrests.60 Order-maintenance policing persists despite the limited evidence to support its efficacy and great cause for concern about its negative impact, disproportionately on people of color.61

Stop Outcomes: Searches, Arrests, and Police Violence

National surveys, as well as studies of specific jurisdictions, reveal disparities in the outcomes of police stops. After pulling a driver over for a traffic stop in 2018, officers nationwide searched Black and Latinx drivers 1.7 and 2.6 times as often as whites, respectively.62 This disparity holds even though police are less likely to find illegal drugs, weapons, or other forms of contraband such as stolen goods in the cars of Black and Latinx drivers than those of whites.63 These patterns of ‘contraband hit rates’ have been found in jurisdictions across the country, including Philadelphia, Missouri, and California.64 Because they are searched so much more frequently, Black and Latinx drivers are arrested more frequently than whites in police stops—a disparity that would be reduced if they were searched at the same rate as whites.65

Police violence also differs by race. In recent years, police officers have threatened or used non-fatal force in about 3% of encounters that they initiated or which resulted from a traffic accident.66 But they have been over 2.5 times as likely to use or threaten force against Black individuals as whites (5.5% versus 2.1% in 2020) and more likely to do so against Latinx individuals (3.4%) than whites as well.67 Researchers have also identified racial disparities in how respectfully police officers speak to stopped drivers, based on body-worn camera footage from Oakland, CA.68

Racial disparities are also stark in relation to who police officers kill. Black Americans were 2.5 times as likely to be shot and killed by police officers as whites, and Latinx people were 1.2 times as likely, between 2015 and 2021.69 At this rate, police will kill an estimated one in 1,000 Black men.70 Police officers’ greater inclination to stop and search people of color suggests that differences in people’s behavior alone are unlikely to account for disparities in lethal police violence. [MORE]
48.

Overall, 62 million U.S. residents had contact with the police in 2018, which includes 35 million interactions that people initiated and nine million interactions related to a traffic accident (all forms of police contact add up to more than the total since some individuals experienced multiple types of contact). Of the approximately 24 million traffic stop encounters in 2018, 18.7 million (77%) were experienced by drivers and 5.7 million (23%) were experienced by passengers. Tapp & Davis. (2022), see note 13.

49.

This study found the state-patrol stop rate to be 7% for whites, 10% for Blacks, 5% for Latinxs. The municipal-police stop rate was 14% for whites, 20% for Blacks, 9% for Latinxs. Pierson, E., Simoiu, C., Overgoor, J., Corbett-Davies, S., Jenson, D., Shoemaker, A., Ramachandran, V., Barghouty, P., Phillips, C., Shroff, R., & Goel, S. (2020). A large-scale analysis of racial disparities in police stops across the United States. Nature Human Behaviour, 4(7), 736–745. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-0858-1

50.

See Grogger, J. & Ridgeway, G. (2006). Testing for racial profiling in traffic stops from behind a veil of darkness. Journal of the American Statistical Association. 101, 878–887. https://doi.org/10.1198/016214506000000168.

51.

Barone, K., Fazzalaro, J., Kalinowski, J., & Ross, M. B. (2022) Traffic stop data analysis and findings, 2020. Institute for Municipal and Regional Policy, University of Connecticut; Flingai, S., Sahaf, M., Battle, N. & Castaneda, S. (2022). An analysis of racial disparities in police traffic stops in Suffolk County, Massachusetts, from 2010 to 2019. Vera Institute of Justice; Baumgartner, F., Epp, D., & Shoub, K. (2018). Suspect citizens: What 20 million traffic stops tell us about policing and race. Cambridge University Press; Horn, C. (2020, June 12.) Racial disparities revealed in massive traffic stop dataset. University of South Carolina.

52.

Bureau of Justice Statistics. Contacts between police and the public.

53.

McIntire, M., & Keller, M. H. (2021, November 3). The demand for money behind many police traffic stops. The New York Times.

54.

Epp, C. R., Maynard-Moody, S., & Haider-Markel, D. P. (2014). Pulled over: How police stops define race and citizenship. University of Chicago Press, p. 64, emphasis in original.

55.

This study is based on drivers’ reports of officers’ reasons for the stop. Epp, Maynard-Moody, & Haider-Markel (2014), see note 54; for a similar study of traffic stops for non-moving violations in California, see Muhammad et al. (2022), see note 10.

56.

Latinx drivers in North Carolina were also more likely to be stopped for investigatory rather than for traffic safety reasons. Baumgartner, Epp, & Shoub (2018), see note 51.

57.

Floyd v. City of N.Y., 959 F. Supp. 2d 540, 562 (S.D.N.Y. 2013).

58.

Rosenfeld, R. & Fornango, R. (2014). The impact of police stops on precinct robbery and burglary rates in New York City. Justice Quarterly, 31(1), 96-122. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2012.712152; Keating, D., & Stevens, H. (2020, February 27). Bloomberg said ‘stop and frisk’ decreased crime. Data suggests it wasn’t a major factor in cutting felonies.

59.

Crime and Justice Institute (2022). City of Milwaukee settlement agreement: Analysis of 2022 traffic stops, field interviews, no-action encounters, and frisks; ACLU-DC & ACLU Analytics. (2020). Racial disparities in stops by the DC Metropolitan Police Department: Review of five months of data; Wisconsin State Journal. (2022, May 12). ACLU, Milwaukee police stop-and-frisk resolution efforts continue; ACLU Illinois. (2023). Stop and frisk; Palmer, C., & Orso, A. (2023, March 17). Stop-and-frisk is getting renewed attention in Philly amid a mayor’s race focused on crime. The Philadelphia Inquirer.

60.

Goodman, J. D. (2017, October 20). Fewer criminal tickets for petty crimes, like public urination. The New York Times; Konig, J. (2022, March 23). NYPD launches “quality-of-life” initiative that critics call return to “broken windows” policing. Spectrum News NY1.

61.

Weisburd, D., & Majmundar, M. K. (Eds.) (2018). Proactive policing: Effects on crime and communities. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. https://doi.org/10.17226/24928

62.

Tapp & Davis. (2022), see note 13.

63.

Harris, D. (2012). Hearing on “Ending Racial Profiling in America,” Testimony of David A. Harris. United States Senate Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights; Pierson et al. (2020), see note 49.

64.

Melamed (2019), see note 14; Missouri Attorney General. (2019). Vehicle stops executive summary; Muhammad et al. (2022), see note 10; Lofstrom et al. (2021), see note 14.

65.

Tapp & Davis (2022), see note 13; Muhammad et al. (2022), see note 10.

66.

This includes if the officer threatened force, handcuffed, pushed or grabbed, hit or kicked, used chemical or pepper spray, used an electroshock weapon, pointed or fired a gun, or used another type of physical force. Tapp & Davis (2022), see note 13.

67.

Tapp & Davis (2022), see note 13.

68.

Voigt, R., Camp, N.P., Prabhakaran, V., Hamilton, W.L., Hetey, R.C., Griffiths, C.M., Jurgens, D., Jurafsky, D., & Eberhardt, J.L. (2017). Language from police body camera footage. shows racial disparities in officer respect. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(25), 6521–6526.

69.

These data exclude the minority of killings by police that do not involve a firearm. Muhammad et al. (2022), see note 10.

70.

Edwards F, Lee H, Esposito M. (2019). Risk of being killed by police use of force in the United States by age, race-ethnicity, and sex. PNAS 116(34),16793–98.

71.

Black Rolebot DA Brooke Jenkins Warns of Abstract Harms from MAGA While Ignoring Reality that SF Cops Routinely Stop and Niggerize Black People w/Impunity on Behalf of Her Elite, White Liberal Masters

'I’m Not Resisting,’ Just Walking Across the Street:' Instead of Fighting Crime, a White SF Cop Niggerized and Attacked a Black Woman Allegedly Jaywalking, Causing Concussion, Separated Shoulder

ACCORDING TO FUNKTIONARY: 

Niggerized – “unsafe, unprotected, subjected and subjugated to random violence, hated for who you are to the point you become so scared that you defer to the powers that be while willing to consent to your own domination.” ~Dr. Cornel West.

From [HERE] A Black woman said she was violently arrested by police officers after being wrongfully stopped for jaywalking.

"What did I do wrong? I'm just walking across the street," Christiana Porter, 34, told KTVU on Monday.

Porter was accused of jaywalking in front of a San Francisco police car at 2nd Avenue and Geary Boulevard in the city's Richmond District on July 29.

Video footage showed Porter, wearing headphones and apparently unaware that an officer was attempting to stop her, walking across the street.

The officer is seen driving on the wrong side of Geary before exiting his vehicle. Porter moves away from the officer, and he pushes her against a wall.

In cellphone video taken by a bystander, Porter is heard screaming, "I'm not resisting."

"Honestly, as a Black woman, just trying to stay alive. I thought about my five kids, trying to make it home to my kids," she said.

More police cars arrived on the scene with their sirens blaring. Additional officers ran over to help.

"I just don't trust them no more," Porter said. "I seriously don't trust them. I feel like they abuse and use their power and authority to brutalize and just torment and harass civilians."

Officer Josh McFall later told a witness that Porter refused to comply with his orders, including refusing to show identification or to keep her hands out of her pockets or purse, where there potentially could have been a weapon.

"I didn't want it to go this way, but when people put me in that position, I don't have a choice," McFall told the bystander.

Porter said she is a domestic violence survivor and that the police have also left her traumatized and injured with a concussion, a separated shoulder, and nerve damage.

"I'm not a threat, I'm just trying to get my life back," she said through tears. "When I told him I was a survivor, he was just, 'I don't care, this doesn't matter right now.'"

Her attorneys said police department regulations bar officers from ticketing people for jaywalking unless there's an immediate danger of a crash or safety issue.

"There are more serious crimes that should be addressed by the San Francisco Police Department, especially since they claim they're understaffed," said attorney Lateef Gray.

Another attorney Treva Stewart said, "Especially with regards to Officer McFall, it's a contempt of cop. He was angry about something."

Assemblymember Phil Ting wrote a law that decriminalizes jaywalking, with some exceptions.

"If there's something happening that puts the pedestrian or the driver at risk, that's when there should be a citation," Ting said, speaking generally.

Is “Stop Resisting” a Warning from a Public Servant or a Precursor to Death by a Public Master? Corpus Christi Cops Repeatedly Punch a Black Man in the Face b/c He Resisted Their “Compliance Strikes”

ACCORDING TO FUNKTIONARY:

Cop Mantra – “Stop resisting arrest, stop resisting arrest, stop resisting arrest.” A pretense and precursor to murder. Everything cops say or do (including life-ending, life-wrecking abuses and/or rage-inducing bullying they routinely inflict on innocent people with impunity) needs to be looked at with extreme suspicion. Cops (patrolling predators) not only need to wear body-cameras, but they also need to be under surveillance 24/7. “If one million cobras were set loose on our city streets, wouldn’t you think it proper to know where each one was and what it was doing all the time?” ~Fred Woodworth

From [HERE] Cell phone video of an arrest by Corpus Christi Police officers is raising questions about excessive force. The video starts in the middle of an arrest of a Black man near the Wells Fargo ATM at the intersection of Airline Road and SPID.

Officers can be seen yelling at the man to "stop resisting" as at least two of the officers repeatedly punched the man in the face and body. 3NEWS counted at least 17 punches in the 49-second video.

"Why is he punching him in the face?"

You can also hear the reaction from the couple taking the video. At first they disagreed over whether the man was resisting. The woman said, "You are resisting, you fool," but then a few seconds later, the man watching with her said, "he's not resisting," and they grew quiet.

The punches continued, and the woman said, "That's excessive," and "why is he punching him in the f****** face?" The video then ends.

3NEWS asked if the man was combative at any point and tried to hit the officers. Lt. Gonzalez said she had not seen any of the body cam or dash cam footage. 3NEWS submitted a public records request for those videos.

Lt. Gonzalez did watch the cell phone video and said officers are allowed to punch suspects.

"We would call that a compliance strike," Lt. Gonzalez said. "There are a variety of different what we call compliance techniques that officers are trained in."

The couple believes the officers might need more training.

"There was obviously other ways they could have handled the situation," they said. "He wasn't hurting anybody at the time."

"The Corpus Christi Police Department is looking at the video, making sure that everything that the officers did is within policy and within their training."

Study of 125 Countries Finds ‘No Apparent Benefit’ From COVID injections

From [HERE] A new study by a team of Canadian researchers into excess mortality during the COVID-19 pandemicfound that patterns of excess death globally could not be explained by the virus, including long COVID.

The study, by researchers with Correlation Research in the Public Interest, examined excess mortality in 125 countries during the pandemic. It found that mortality patterns correlate closely with the imposition of restrictions such as lockdowns and with the COVID-19 vaccine rollout.

The investigation determined that pandemic-related restrictions resulted in 30 million deaths globally and that 17 million deaths can be attributed to the COVID-19 vaccines.

The researchers concluded that “nothing special would have occurred in terms of mortality had a pandemic not been declared and had the declaration not been acted upon.”

Joseph Hickey, Ph.D., one of the paper’s co-authors and president of Correlation, joined “The Defender In-Depth” this week to discuss the study’s findings and analyze the likely causes contributing to increases in excess deaths and overall mortality.

Excess death data ‘not compatible’ with ‘particularly virulent special pathogen’

Hickey explained that “all-cause mortality” refers to “the number of deaths without filtering by the cause of death” during a given period, while “excess deaths” refers to “how many deaths occurred that are above and beyond what would have been predicted” for a certain period.

Hickey and the study’s co-authors analyzed pre-pandemic raw data from 2015 to 2019, and data collected between 2020 and 2023. Hickey said the data, collected from 125 countries, found “a large amount of excess deaths.”

“We calculate that over the COVID period … about 0.39% of the global population died in excess. That compares to about 0.97%” during the 1918 Spanish Flu pandemic in 1918.

Hickey said this was “the largest non-war mortality event in 100 years” globally.

The study also found patterns of excess mortality across the world were “very heterogeneous,” as they varied “significantly from country to country,” across regions within the same country and across age groups. Hickey said:

“There are some countries that immediately following the declaration of the pandemic in March of 2020 had an enormous spike in … excess mortality that is very sharp, very fast and very narrow. But that does not occur in all countries.

“There are neighboring countries that don’t have that at all. There are countries that do not have any excess mortality throughout all of 2020, and it’s only in 2021 when the vaccines are rolled out, that they suddenly have excess. And that excess can be a sharp spike, or it can be a raised and sustained plateau.”

Noting that none of the countries had any excess deaths before the declaration of the pandemic, Hickey said this finding does not match the spread of a deadly virus.

“If you take the model of a new very deadly pathogen that is spreading around the world, you should not see this very high degree of heterogeneity … it’s simply not compatible with the hypothesis of a particularly virulent special pathogen,” he said.

“If there was a specifically virulent and dangerous pathogen that was spreading around the world, it would not wait for a political declaration of a pandemic to start causing excess mortality,” Hickey added.

Instead, “a much simpler, much more elegant explanation is that it’s differences in national policies, national measures of one kind or another that are responsible for these very different outcomes in excess mortality,” Hickey said. [MORE]

American Dental Association Pledges to Push Fluoridated Water Despite Court Finding that ‘Fluoride Causes Cognitive Damage to Children’

From [HERE] A landmark federal court ruling recently determined that fluoride levels in U.S. drinking water pose unnecessary risks to children’s IQ and cognitive development, validating what conspiracy theorists have warned about for decades.

Generations of people have been poisoned through the water supply without their consent. This toxic byproduct – hexafluorosilicic acid – has been dripped into most municipal water supplies for decades. The institutions that thought they knew what was best for everyone’s dental health have instead dumbed down entire generations of people, harming their IQ and cognitive development. This widespread dumbing down of human populations helps explain the lack of critical thinking skills in the 21st century.

None of these serious matters of public health seem important to institutions like the American Dental Association, however. In fact, the ADA immediately issued a statement, doubling down and defending water fluoridation.

Biased and stubborn American Dental Association defends fluoridated water

Some institutions, like the American Dental Association, are pushing back against the science and dismissing this federal court ruling, demanding that fluoride be considered safe for everyone, against all available evidence.

The ADA, representing some 159,000 dentists across the country, posits itself as “the premier source of oral health information.” The ADA claims that they have “promoted the art and science of dentistry since 1859” while advocating for the public’s health. But the ADA aren’t thinking about the big picture with fluoride and how it is destroying the cognitive abilities of those exposed on a daily basis.

Immediately after the court’s ruling, the ADA hastily wrote:

The American Dental Association (ADA) remains staunchly in support of community water fluoridation at optimal levels to help prevent tooth decay. The district court ruling against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) provides no scientific basis for the ADA to change its endorsement of community water fluoridation as safe and beneficial to oral health.

The ADA called the ruling and the barrage of social media posts that followed “pseudo-scientific information.” The ADA claims that social media users are spreading information that “is not always based on research conducted according to impartial and evidence based scientific methodology.” The ADA contends that “conclusions drawn from research are not always scientifically justifiable or without bias.” One might point out that the ADA is drawing their own biased conclusions from research that was validated in court. By ignoring the latest evidence on fluoride’s damage to children’s brains, the ADA might be guilty of spreading “pseudo-scientific information.” [MORE]

Federal Court Rules Fluoride in Water Poses an ‘Unreasonable Risk’ to Children, Reduces Their IQ

From [HERE] Several U.S. cities, towns and counties announced they will stop fluoridating their water in the aftermath of a landmark federal court ruling that found water fluoridation at current levels poses an “unreasonable risk” of reduced IQ in children.

Abilene, Texas; Yorktown and Somers, New York; and the Weber Basin Water Conservancy District in Utah are among those cities and districts that responded quickly to the Sept. 24 ruling by U.S. District Judge Edward Chen.

Chen ruled the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) can no longer ignore the risk fluoridation poses to human — especially children’s — health and that the agency must take regulatory action.

The ruling stemmed from a lawsuit filed in 2017 by Fluoride Action Network, Moms Against Fluoridation, Food & Water Watch and individual parents and children. It followed the publication of a key report by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ National Toxicology Program.

Rick North, board member of the Fluoride Action Network, told The Defender he expects more cities and towns to announce they will end the practice of fluoridation.

“Fluoridation is a house of cards and it’s going to fall,” North said. “It’s only a matter of when. Our job is to make the wind blow.” [MORE]

30 Lawmakers Sponsor Bill to End Liability Protection for Vaccine Makers

From [HERE] A bill introduced late last week in the U.S. House of Representatives would end the liability protections Congress gave vaccine makers under the 1986 Childhood Vaccine Injury Act.

Thirty Republican lawmakers signed on as co-sponsors to House Bill 9828, End the Vaccine Carveout Act. The proposed legislation would end the broad protection from liability for injuries resulting from vaccines listed on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Childhood Immunization Schedule.

“The … vaccine makers are criminal enterprises that have paid tens of billions in criminal penalties over the past decade,” Children’s Health Defense (CHD) founder and chairman on leave Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said in a statement on the bill.

Kennedy, who has long advocated for eliminating liability protection for vaccine manufacturers, added, “By freeing them from liability for negligence, the 1986 statute removed any incentive for these companies to make safe products. If we want safe and effective vaccines we need to end the liability shield.”

CHD, React19 and The American Family Project also supported the development of the bill, the press release said.

REACT19 founder Brianne Dressen, who experienced a debilitating COVID-19 vaccine injury as a volunteer in AstraZeneca’s clinical trial, announced the bill and its co-sponsors in a post on X, formerly Twitter.

“People harmed are long overdue for a compensation process that actually works, and it’s time for the drug companies to pick up the tab,” she said.

‘Complex sham compensation program’ in place since 1986 act

Congress passed the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act to address the risks of vaccines — which Congress and vaccine makers acknowledged had “unavoidable” side effects.

The act set up a “no-fault” system whereby instead of suing the manufacturers, people injured by vaccines can file a claim with the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP), which adjudicates the claims.

The VICP was meant to insulate vaccine makers from lawsuits that could bankrupt them while ensuring that injury victims had a straightforward, non-adversarial and fair path to compensation.

The program is funded by a 75-cent-per-dose tax, paid by vaccine makers, for every vaccine included in the program.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services administers the VICP, also known as the “vaccine court.” Court-appointed “special masters” — typically lawyers who previously represented the U.S. government — manage and decide the individual claims.

The proceedings are more informal than a typical courtroom. There is no judge or jury, and the rules of evidence, civil procedure and discovery do not apply.

In practice, getting compensation through the VICP has been notoriously difficult. Critics say the program has devolved to protect government agencies and corporations rather than the health of vaccinated children.

CHD CEO Mary Holland said the 1986 Childhood Vaccine Injury Act effectively left parents and children injured by vaccines with no substantive way to get any compensation while giving vaccine makers a free pass.

“For over 35 years, parents of children injured and killed by government-recommended vaccines have been left with no meaningful redress — only a complex, sham compensation program that pits grieving families against the government, while Big Pharma enjoys no liability,” she said.

“During that same time, chronic health conditions in children — autism, ADHD [attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder], severe allergies, asthma — have skyrocketed,” Holland said.

In some cases, people who are dissatisfied with the outcome of their case in the VICP, or who don’t get a timely decision, can sue the manufacturer for limited causes of action, such as fraud — as is the case in many of the over 200 gardasil injury lawsuits currently being argued against Merck in federal court. [MORE]

How Many Black Children Did Pfizer Kill with Its Drug "Oxbryta?" After Targeting Blacks, Pfizer Pulls Blood Cell Therapy Off Market Due to Deaths: Black Children Were at Greatest Risk

From [KARENKINGSTON] Pfizer targeted parents of African American children who had sickle cell disease with their OXBRYTA marketing. Yesterday, Pfizer announced OXBRYTA is being withdrawn from 35 countries due to deaths.

Immediately after the stock market closed on September 25, 2024, Pfizer announced that “it’s voluntarily withdrawing all lots of OXBRYTA for the treatment of sickle cell disease at this time, in all markets where it is approved. Pfizer is also discontinuing all active clinical trials for the drug and expanded access programs worldwide.” Sickle cell disease is a genetic disease that affects hemoglobin and the ability for red blood cells to carry oxygen causing red blood cells to ‘sickle’ or become deformed.

Per the website, OXBRYTA supports hemoglobin in order to prevent the breakdown of red blood cells.

Pfizer’s OXBRYTA marketing targeted African American parents whose children were diagnosed with sickle cell disease. [MORE]

Karen Kingston says Trump Outmaneuvered Big Pharma after being Mandated to Deliver COVID Shots. Is that Why Elites are Using Their Authorities and Media to Try to Silence and Kill Him?

From [KAREN KINGSTON] I’ve frequently been criticized for not condemning Trump for allowing the COVID-19 mRNA injections to come to market. As a former corporate executive who has written, reviewed, and negotiated well over a hundred contracts with large biopharma companies, I always asserted that President Trump had an extremely clean paper trail in regard to the Pfizer contract. 

Pfizer agreed to work independent of the US government and military in order to deliver safe and effective vaccines thereby forfeiting their derivative immunity in exchange for first-to-market and intellectual property rights in a growing multi-trillion-dollar industry.

When it came to negotiating the Pfizer contract, it appears that President Trump was not only exceptionally well-versed in the laws regulating emergency use authorized (EUA) products and U.S. laws regulating military contracts, but that he also leveraged his expertise in outsmarting and outmaneuvering unethical businessmen (aka con artists).  [MORE]

Assassin of Haitian President Linked to US Intel. Did US Authorities Murder Moïse b/c He Rejected MRNA COVID Shots? Poor Nation that Didnt Vax, Social Distance or Shut Down was Unaffected by Plandemic

HOW DID HAITI DEFEAT COVID W/ONLY 3% “VACCINATED” AND NO LOCKDOWNS, MASKS, SOCIAL DISTANCING OR FULL HOSPITALS?” LESS THAN 1000 DEAD FROM COVID IN POOR COUNTRY W/11 MILLION PEOPLE WHO DISBELIEVED HOAX

HAITI DIDN'T PARTICIPATE IN THE PLANDEMIC AND REMAINS UNAFFECTED; POOR COUNTRY W/11M PEOPLE DIDN'T SOCIALLY DISTANCE, WEAR MASKS AND 1% INJECTED. HOSPITALS AREN'T FULL OF COVID PATIENTS, ONLY 837 DEAD

SIMILAR TO HAITI AND SOME AFRICAN COUNTRIES THE OUTCOME IN THE AMISH COMMUNITY PROVES THAT NOT SHUTTING DOWN, MASKING OR TAKING THE "VACCINE" DIDN'T RESULT IN MORE COVID DEATHS

• Suspected “Well Financed" Assassins of Haitian President Moïse Trained by US, Linked to Pro-Coup Oligarchy

• Fed Court Sentences “Well Financed" Assassin who Murdered Haitian President Jovenel Moïse - Killed Shortly After He Rejected COVID Shots and Sought Real Vaccines [Haiti was Never Impacted by COVID]

From [FTP] South Florida businessman accused of funding the plot to assassinate former Haitian President Jovenel Moise received legal advice endorsing a mission to capture the head of state from a confidential informant of a US intelligence agency, court documents unveiled in July 2024 allege. According to the accused’s legal team, “the discovery received from The Government redacts the U.S. intelligence agency with which [the informant] is affiliated,” but “it is clear that he is a [confidential informant] for a U.S. Intelligence Agency.”

The businessman, Walter Veintemilla, and his company, Worldwide Capital Lending Group, stand accused of providing a $175,000 line of credit to Florida defense contractor CTU Security LLC, which reportedly carried out the assassination. 

On July 1, Veintemilla’s attorneys filed a pretrial motion to depose the alleged intelligence informant, “J.C.,” who is described as an Ecuadorian lawyer living in Bolivia. Veintemilla’s defense argues that testimony from “J.C.” would support their contention “that several investigative and administrative agencies of the United States Government were aware of the actions and intentions of his alleged co-conspirators in Haiti and supported those actions.”

Veintemilla’s co-defendants also joined in that motion to depose J.C. in Bolivia. Several of them, including Arcangel Pretel Ortiz and Antonio Intriago, were accused by the Bolivian government of plotting an aborted coup attempt in October 2020 against President Luis Arce. German Alejandro Rivera Garcia, a retired Colombian Army officer who helped lead the kill team in Haiti, was also present in Bolivia with this group. He was extradited to the US, pled guilty, and received a life sentence in late 2023. [MORE]

One week after Haiti's president was assassinated, the country's first shipment of COVID-19 vaccines finally arrived.

President Jovenel Moïse was allegedly shot a dozen times in his private residence on July 7. Prior to his murder Haiti, the poorest nation in the Western hemisphere, was the only nation that hadn’t vaccinated a single resident against Covid-19.

Haiti was among the 92 poor and middle-income countries offered doses under the Covax Facility. But the government initially declined AstraZeneca PLC shots, citing side effects and widespread fears in the population.

“Haiti did not reject the offer of vaccines from Covax,” Haiti Ministry of Health General Director Laure Adrien said in a telephone interview. “All we asked was that they change the vaccine they were providing us.” [MORE]

Lots of Problems in Haiti but COVID Isn’t 1 of Them: Doctor says Hospitals are Not Overrun w/COVID Patients in Crowded, Poor, Unvaccinated Country Not Practicing Social Distancing or Wearing Masks

Boris Johnson says COVID Lockdowns were “Medieval.” Is that One of the Reasons Elites Removed Him from Service?

From [HERE] Former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson has said he doubts lockdowns played a significant role in bringing the COVID-19 pandemic to an end.

In extracts released from his new memoir Unleashed, he describes the lockdowns as “literally medieval in their savagery and consequences,” and likened himself to King Canute attempting to “repel the waves of a highly contagious disease.”

He also says he believes the COVID-19 virus did originate in a laboratory in Wuhan, rather than a wet market.

At the British government’s COVID inquiry last December, Johnson said there were “appalling harms on either side of the decision” to lock down the country, and he apologised for any mistakes he and his government made.

Initially, according to the extracts, Johnson said he believe the lockdowns were reducing the spread of the virus.

“It was only later that I started to look at the curves of the pandemic around the world—the double hump that seemed to rise and fall irrespective of the approaches taken by governments,” he writes.

“There were always two waves, whether you were in China, where lockdowns were ruthlessly enforced, or in Sweden, where they took a more voluntary approach.”

He continues: “I am not saying that lockdowns achieved nothing; I am sure they had some effect. But were they decisive in beating back the ­disease, turning that wave down? All I can say is that I am no longer sure.”

Johnson goes on to say that the lockdowns showed Britain had “barely progressed” from the Elizabethan era, four hundred years ago, when theatres were closed and the number of mourners at funerals were limited to stop the spread of pestilence.

Three national lockdowns took place in Britain, from March 2020 to June 2020, from November 2020 to December 2020 and from January 2021 to May 2021.

Boris Johnson was forced to resign in 2022, after a series of scandals including so-called “Partygate,” when it was revealed the members of the government did not abide by the social-distancing restrictions imposed on the country.

Allies of Mr Johnson, such as Michael Gove, have suggested the lockdowns went totally against the former prime ministers “worldview.”

After Using Unscientific Nonsense to Destroy Jobs and Businesses w/COVID Lockdowns, Elite White Liberals in DC to Allow Evictions of Mostly Black People to Resume w/Rollback of City Tenant Protections

From [HERE] During the pandemic, emergency legislation made it easier for people falling on hard times to obtain rental assistance and stay in their homes or apartments.

Now, D.C. leaders say some are using the changes to delay their eviction, and those delays are impacting landlords that provide affordable housing in the city.

“The long-term continuation of these emergency policies, some of them becoming permanent policies, have put the affordable housing that we have invested so heavily in at risk, ” said D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser at a press conference on Monday.

Bowser joined D.C. Council Chair Phil Mendelson to announce emergency legislation that both said would roll back the Emergency Rental Assistance Program, or ERAP, to where it was before the pandemic.

The D.C. Council will take up the emergency legislation Tuesday, and Mendelson believes there is enough support among council members for the measure to pass.