Super 'Dela

occupyallstreets:

San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee is considering a stop-and-frisk policy as a way to reduce gun violence.

Lee told the San Francisco Chronicle’s editorial board: ”I think we have to get to the guns. I know we have to find a different way to get to these weapons, and I’m very willing to consider what other cities are doing.”

Lee, a former civil rights attorney, acknowledged that such policies can be controversial, but said, “we have to get the guns.”

He told the board that he had a good conversation recently with New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg about that city’s controversial stop-and-frisk policy.

Many who oppose such policies believe they unfairly target Latino and African American citizens. Supervisor Malia Cohen, who represents the Bayview-Hunters Point neighborhood, said the news was alarming.

According to a recent New York Times article, of the nearly 686,000 people stopped by New York police officers last year, 84 percent were black or Latino and 88 percent of the stops did not lead to an arrest or summons. In a letter to the Times, Donna Lieberman, executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, wrote that while police may be able to stop citizens under certain circumstances, officers can then frisk them only according to another set of specific guidelines.

“Despite this limitation,” Lieberman wrote, “56 percent of those stopped by the New York Police Department in 2011 were frisked. Those frisks produced a weapon less than 2 percent of the time.”

San Francisco Police Chief Greg Suhr seemed to downplay the possibility of the city implementing a stop-and-frisk policy in an interview with the Chronicle’s C.W. Nevius.

“When (Lee) hears ‘stop and frisk,’ I think what he wants is engaged officers,” Suhr said. “He wants them talking to people. I’m not sure he understands the problems in New York City” with stop and frisk.

‘Cause they have to get the guns away from the American citizens. The right to bear arms is dangerous to them. Never mind just being responsible about how guns are handed out or used. No. Instead they want to start a stop and rape… I mean frisk… a stop and frisk policy. That way they can scare people into forfeiting even more rights in the name of bullshit. Ever thought that stop and frisk isn’t going to stop the people who would be committing gun crimes from committing those crimes. It would just make them more cautious and more open to covering their tracks when they do. Not to mention it would just alienate hundreds more people. What dumbasses.

I can not tell you how pissed off reading things like this makes me.

(via politicsd00d)

dallalicious:

“Do you see a theme here? We are being de-humanized by both parties in our Government. They already took away your right to Liberty under the Patriot Act, and Paul Ryan and his cronies are making the Pursuit of Happiness a game for the top 1% only, and now we have Eric Holder saying that the right to Life is not so much a guarantee under the constitution as it is a sort of conditional privilege - as long as you don’t piss off anyone in power.”

midknightdreams:

http://www.dnainfo.com/20111115/downtown/dnainfo-journalists-arrested-while-covering-ows-police-raids

It is quite disappointing that journalists are being arrested. They aren’t the paparazzi. Depriving the press of covering the movement but inviting them to come see and write about the mess…

Follow up to: http://www.dnainfo.com/20111115/downtown/ousted-protesters-surge-back-zuccotti-park-take-over-canal-street-lot#ixzz1dnlXG0jJ

(Source: ciphersofaheartonfire)

difference-is-happy:

All I hear from the media is noise about how the #Occupy movement lacks coherency and has failed to articulate its demands. But these kinds of complaints completely miss the point of what this movement is really about.

First of all, “coherency” is irrelevant, because this is not about replacing…

anti-propaganda:

‘The police will be given a public order power allowing them to clear the streets and tell the public to leave an area during a riot or other disorder, under proposals for curfews outlined by the Home Office.

The power entitles a police superintendent to declare a specific district a public “no go” area for a limited time – for the first time since the Riot Act was removed from the statute book for England and Wales in 1973.

A Home Office consultation paper published on Thursday stops short of making it a criminal offence to be outdoors in a curfew zone, but says it would be an offence to refuse a police instruction to leave the area. It leaves open the question of what penalty might be imposed.’

(via politicsd00d)