Fierce Patriots

Conservative Political News

  • Subscribe

<![CDATA[Police]]>

The FBI Response to the Texas Synagogue Attack Is Absolutely Sick

by Leave a Comment

Yesterday, news of a hostage situation in a Texas synagogue rocked the nation. Shortly after, due to the assailant’s admission on a Facebook Live stream, we had an identity and a motive.

The man holding a rabbi and other Jews hostage was a Pakistani named Muhammad Siddiqui. He was demanding the release of his anti-Semitic sister, Aafia Siddiqui, who is currently in prison for trying to kill US military personnel. The Islamist community has made the terrorist a living martyr, with CAIR hosting many rallies seeking her freedom.

Thankfully, due to the actions of the local police and the SWAT team that was present, the hostage-taker was killed and everyone is now safe. As per usual, that left the FBI to march in and take things over, and the response they gave is one of the most disgusting things I’ve ever seen from a law enforcement agency.

This absolute gaslighting garbage has to stop. The hostage-taker was an Islamist who specifically chose to hold Jews hostage in order to secure the release of a convicted terrorist, who herself was a rabid anti-Semite. Further, Muhammad Siddiqui admitted on his Facebook Live stream why he chose his target and why he was doing what he was doing. Yet, the FBI’s response is to assert that they are “continuing to work to find a motive”? As if he attacked a synagogue by sheer chance?

With all due respect, and the FBI is owed none, are you freaking kidding me?

If I’ve written once, I’ve written it a dozen times, and I’ll continue to write it until things change: The FBI needs to be disbanded. This agency continues to have no credibility, as they actively seek to protect the current administration, push political narratives, and lie to the faces of the American public. FBI Director Christopher Wray is a disgrace, but the problems within the bureau are not just relegated to the top echelon of leadership. Things are rotten to the core.

And because the FBI did what it did, that gave the media a green light to completely obfuscate from what happened at this Texas synagogue. It was just a random act of violence, completely detached from the Jewish community, perpetrated by a man with an “English accent.”

This follows a pattern of absurdity where the FBI refuses to talk motive when it might be politically inconvenient. Whether it’s the Waukesha massacre, the Las Vegas shooting, or this, it’s impossible to ignore how this always seems to happen. Let’s just say that the FBI should no longer exist, and once Congress disbands it and everyone is safely out of that ugly building, it should be knocked to the ground, with something actually worthwhile built in its place.

I’ll leave it at that, so as to stop myself from getting in trouble.

Seattle Police Improperly Faked Reports of Armed Proud Boys Near CHOP in 2020

by Leave a Comment

During the summer of 2020, the Seattle Capitol Hill area was occupied by the BLM and named the CHAZ (Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone) and then the CHOP (Capitol Hill Occupied Protest). The BLM wouldn’t let the police into the area generally, and the police were left up the creek without a paddle with how to deal with some of the issues that the occupation created. It was an incredibly violent and dangerous situation.

But, now there’s word that the Seattle police did something to try to blunt the BLM action that could be extremely problematic. Multiple members of the force faked sightings of armed Proud Boys on the police scanners, knowing that the CHOP folks would be listening and that it might scare them away from certain areas. According to the Seattle Times, it was an “approved misinformation” technique, from bosses — not just a random move by officers.

According to the Office of Police Accountability, this, not surprisingly, didn’t improve the situation; it made things worse, “The use of the Proud Boys when it was known that the transmissions would be monitored took a volatile situation and made it even more so,” OPA Director Andrew Myerberg said. He said it “added fuel to the fire.”

The mastermind behind this ruse was SPD Captain Bryan Grenon. He said he came up with it as “an innocent way” to distract the protesters. He said there wasn’t any intent to put out a false narrative about the Proud Boys or to “cause alarm.”

Oh. But meanwhile, you jacked up people who were already off and doing unhinged things like occupying the area, with the thought that they were about to be attacked? What do you think they would do in response? How do you think they would respond to a Proud Boy, if one happened to accidentally walk into this fake ruse area? This stoked the potential threat to the Proud Boys as well, if they made the BLM think they were being stalked.

Converge Media’s Omari Salisbury said that caused more of the BLM folks to arm themselves.

You may recall they had multiple shootings in the CHOP, including one that allegedly involved the BLM security people who allegedly fired on two teens in a car, killing 16-year-old Antonio Mays and critically injuring a 14-year-old. So, did the ruse play any factor in the thought pattern of the CHOP people that they might be under attack? Meanwhile, where’s the investigation into that shooting and what the BLM was doing shooting up a car?

While the OPA said that the ruse was improper action on the part of the police, no one is getting punished for it. The guy behind it, Grenon, is retired. OPA said the officers who followed Grenon’s directions would not be punished.

88-Year-Old Man Killed By Police During Wellness Check

by Leave a Comment

Sometimes, when families or friends don’t hear from someone for a while, they’ll call the police and ask them to do a wellness check. Basically, they just want to make sure the person in question is doing alright.

In theory, these are about as safe and routine as anything gets in law enforcement. After all, they’re not actually needing to enforce any laws. They’re just making sure some elderly person isn’t piled up on the floor with a broken hip or something.

At least, that’s in theory.

In reality, things can go sideways in just about anything a police officer does.

A Hillsborough County sheriff’s deputy was “forced to use deadly force” Tuesday, killing an 88-year-old man in Florida while conducting a wellness check, police said . The victim, Ronald Ehrich, was armed .

…

A neighbor called authorities after noticing the garage door to Ehrich’s home had been open for two days, according to the sheriff’s department. When Deputy Officer Anastacia Castillo arrived on the scene, she entered the house and tried making contact with Ehrich.

She allegedly encountered Ehrich in a second-floor bedroom, and he brandished a firearm and threatened to shoot, police said.

Castillo was reportedly cornered and repeatedly told Ehrich that she was a deputy, but ultimately was forced to shoot the man.

I’ve got questions about this, of course, but the sheriff’s department says they’ll be releasing Castillo’s bodycam footage. Assuming it’s complete, those should be answered soon enough.

However, it seems likely that Ehrich was having some kind of mental health issue, which is why he wasn’t behaving normally, such as closing his garage. When Castillo walked into the home, she stepped into something no one could have expected.

The thing is, though, a lot of average citizens go and check on elderly friends and family, too. We knock on the door and, if no one answers and the door is unlocked, we step in and call out their names. We look around to make sure they’re not collapsed or unconscious or anything. Any of us could be cornered by someone who isn’t in their right mind, someone who doesn’t recognize us in that moment and is willing to kill us.

I pray none of you are in such a situation because that would be especially tough for someone who actually knows the elderly person. It was likely bad enough for Castillo as it stood, but if this had been someone she knew and cared about?

That’s something I don’t even want to think about.

Unfortunately, though, there are those out there who would rather that elderly person in their right mind kill you than you be able to defend yourself. After all, they don’t want people like you or me having guns in the first place.

Of course, I’m going to hope I don’t see another story like this in my lifetime because this is the epitome of tragedy. Let’s hope this isn’t the start of some horrifying trend or anything. My heart goes out to Ehrich’s family and to Deputy Castillo.

Study Finds That More Police Leads To Fewer Crimes

by Leave a Comment

When it comes to those with an anti-police sentiment, they often try to claim that policing doesn’t actually reduce crime. In their minds, the presence of a law enforcement officer is irrelevant, that crime exists completely outside of time and space or something.

Many have tried to argue that there’s no evidence that more police actually has any impact on reducing crime, which sure doesn’t sound right to my ears. I mean, more police means a greater chance of catching criminals in the act. It means greater police presence which means more concern among criminals about getting caught. How can the evidence not suggest otherwise?

The truth is that there is evidence, they just don’t want to acknowledge it.

Now, there’s more such evidence.

Despite the predictable talking points from Philadelphia’s second-term mayor, research shows that the city’s policies respective to the deployment of the Philadelphia Police Department, and District Attorney Krasner’s abysmally low rate of prosecution and pretrial confinement are the true cause of the dangerous rise in violent crime.

A recent academic study proves what the public safety community has previously warned regarding policies that decrease proactive policing strategies or have defunded portions of police department budgets altogether: that “hands off” policing policies have caused an increase in crime.

In the spring of 2021, Dr. Sarit Weisburd, an assistant professor with the Eitan Berglas School of Economics at Tel Aviv University in Israel, studied the issue of the impact of police deterrence in the United States. Dr. Weisburd published a study called, “Police Presence, Rapid Response Rates, and Crime Prevention,” which found a 10% decrease in police presence results in a 7% increase in crime.

This study proves what both news reports and the FBI’s annual Uniform Crime Report have shown throughout the United States, that violent crime in America’s cities has surged since a series of riots in the summer of 2020.

“From my research, I do find that officer presence is important for creating deterrence,” Weisburd said. “It just really creates this complicated problem where, on the one hand, you want officers in different locations to create deterrence.”

This isn’t rocket science. The mechanisms here are very simple to understand.

For better or worse, the more police you have on the street, the greater the deterrence effect on crime. Criminals, by nature, don’t want to be caught. They’re all convinced they won’t be. They think they can get away with it.

Yet that confidence grows when there are fewer officers patrolling the area the crooks intend to target. After all, they know that if they see an officer now, they won’t see him again for hours, so they’ll be sure they can get away with their crime.

With more officers on the street, we see that confidence drop. There are too many police around for them to think they can get away with it as easily. Some will, of course, but others will see the risk as too great and will instead step back and think of something else.

Again, it’s not rocket science.

Unfortunately, this is yet another bit of evidence that anti-police activists will ignore because it’s inconvenient.

Will “Wrong Gun” Plea Work In Daunte Wright Case?

by Leave a Comment

Once again, a police officer in the Minneapolis area is going to go on trial for killing a black man. Once again, we expect to see a lot of media attention focused on a trial–there’s a lot of that going around right now–and we’ll likely see the armchair experts opine on things they know little about.

But is the death of Daunte Wright manslaughter, as the prosecution alleges?

Or, will the officer’s claim that she made a simple mistake actually hold water?

When a suburban Minneapolis police officer shot and killed Daunte Wright in April, her reaction on body-camera video seemed to instantly establish the key facts of the case: “I grabbed the wrong (expletive) gun,” Kim Potter said. “I’m going to go to prison.”

But legal experts say a conviction for Potter, who says she meant to pull her Taser, isn’t as certain as it might seem — at least on the most serious charge she faces, first-degree manslaughter. Jury selection begins Tuesday.

…

Potter, who resigned two days after the shooting, says she made an innocent mistake when she reached for her pistol instead of her Taser. But prosecutors, including the leader of the team that got Chauvin convicted for murder, say Wright’s death was manslaughter and that Potter, an experienced officer who was trained to know better, should go to prison.

The big questions for the jury will be whether Potter’s actions rose to recklessness or culpable negligence, as the law requires. Defense attorneys also argue that Wright was responsible for his own death because he tried to drive off from a traffic stop and could have dragged an officer to his death if Potter hadn’t intervened.

“What we have basically is an innocent mistake,” defense attorney Earl Gray said in a preview of his arguments. “That she wasn’t culpably negligent and that she didn’t cause the death of Mr. Wright. He caused his death himself.”

The argument is that Wright endangered officers by trying to escape arrest after Potter and another officer pulled him over for an expired tag and learned of an arrest warrant for Wright over a weapons charge.

And that may well be true. After all, the video of the incident makes it clear that Wright was trying to get away by getting back in his car, a potentially lethal weapon.

However, the video also shows that Wright didn’t appear to be trying to hit any of the officers–though that may have changed–and that Potter clearly didn’t intend to deploy her firearm.

As the above-linked article notes:

Prosecutors allege that Potter committed first-degree manslaughter by causing Wright’s death while committing a misdemeanor crime, namely recklessly handling a gun, when death was reasonably foreseeable. The second-degree manslaughter count alleges that she acted with culpable negligence. Neither charge requires the intent to kill.

The fact that she pulled her gun instead of her taser may well rise to the level of culpable negligence.

After all, there’s a reason many departments require tasers to be worn in a completely different manner than firearms. The idea is to prevent this from happening. It’s unclear if Potter’s department had such a policy in place, but since we’ve not heard one way or the other, I’d imagine it didn’t. That doesn’t absolve Potter, though.

Honestly, I don’t see Potter walking away on this one. Yes, Daunte Wright was a wanted criminal who was caught during a routine traffic stop. Yes, he screwed up by the numbers by trying to get away from the police when they were trying to arrest him. But should he have died from that?

We’ll have to see how the case actually goes once it’s in court.