Cage, yes mate you are correct when you say that there are many injustices in the world, there are... however, injustices have ALWAYS been here and ALWAYS will be here.. why? Simply because not everyone agrees on what constitutes justice.
These are emotive topics indeed, and one's view if often biased by one's experiences or one's view of the world.. it is important to try and take the emotion out of these arguments and look at the facts, this in itself is difficult because we are not robots, we are humans and are emotive..
I do not profess to know more than the next person, and I welcome all views, especially those that are not in line with mine, this is how I learn...honest debate is healthy, agreed.
F*ck the union guy!!!
...what's up with chicago , huh..?
Published on Jun 6, 2012 by TheLeakSource
Chicago Police and the Independent Police Review Authority are investigating, after an officer used a stun gun on a pregnant woman, after she tore up a parking ticket during an argument with police in the Roseland neighborhood.
Police confirmed there was an incident at 103rd Street and Michigan Avenue, in the parking lot of a Walgreens, around 8:25 p.m. Tuesday. They said two adults were arrested, and police used a stun gun on a woman during the incident.
But the woman, 30-year-old Tiffany Rent, said police had no cause to use a stun gun on her, and that police were verbally abusive after shocking her.
At eight months pregnant, Rent said she was still in pain as she left South Misdemeanor Court, behind the Area South police headquarters, at 727 E. 111th St.
Her sister, Sharita Rent, said Tiffany was trying to console her young daughter when she pulled into the handicapped space in the Walgreens parking lot, but that police pounced the minute she pulled in.
"She pulled up in a handicapped space. The police came behind her, and she said they blocked her in. She asked them, were they writing her a ticket, and they told her yes," Sharita Rent said. "She tried to explain to them what happened, as far as her little getting out of the car, and her trying to calm her down and console her, and the guy gave her a ticket for $200. She ripped the ticket up, tore it in half, and threw it on the ground."
CBS 2′s Jim Williams reports Tiffany Rent admitted a police officer gave her a ticket for parking in the handicapped spot, and she tore it up, but she insisted that what came next was not justified.
"I got scared, and closed the door. I didn't hit him. I didn't mean to harm him, or anything. He Tasered me through the window," she said.
She was taken to Roseland Hospital, where she claims other officers mocked her.
"They were laughing. They said ... I know she's pregnant. Then one of the other officers said I deserve it. Another officer said, 'Go get Jesse Jackson,'" she said. "They were all laughing, like it was so funny."
The police report alleges Rent cursed the officer and threw the shredded ticket in his face, then tried to drive off, despite the officer's warning that she not move.
Police Supt. Garry McCarthy would only say the incident is being investigated, but did describe why an officer -- theoretically -- might have used a stun gun.
"First of all, you can't always tell if somebody's pregnant. You want to use it where you're overcoming an assault, or preventing escape," he said.
He added, "That policy has been in effect for quite some time. Whether or not the policy has been adhered to is going to be examined separately from the investigation into the use of force."
Tiffany Rent was ticketed for illegally parking in a handicapped spot and charged with misdemeanor resisting arrest and simple assault. Also arrested was Joseph Hobbs, Rent's boyfriend and the father of the child, who scuffled with officers. He was also charged with resisting arrest and simple assault.
Rent was taken to Roseland Community Hospital, and it appeared that the baby was unharmed, police told the Tribune. But Rent has lost three babies in the past, her family told the Chicago Tribune.
Rent's mother said she can't believe her daughter deserved to be stunned.
"She's a nice, caring, giving person. Yeah, she's real sweet. She's real sweet. That's what I don't understand why they would do that to her," Tonie Rent said.
McCarthy said the Independent Police Review Authority is investigating Rent's complaint of excessive force. As part of that investigation, the IPRA is looking at surveillance video from the Walgreen's parking lot.
and see how they like it ?
Maybe they will think twice about stopping people with Ron Paul bumper stickers,
Institute For Justice
“Policing for Profit” Report Documents the Nationwide Abuse of Civil Forfeiture
Each State & Feds Graded on Forfeiture Laws & Practice; Only Three States Earn Grades of B or Better
Arlington, Va.—It’s called policing for profit and it’s happening all across America.
Police and prosecutors’ offices seize private property—often without ever charging the owners with a crime, much less convicting them of one—then keep or sell what they’ve taken and use the profits to fund their budgets. And considering law enforcement officials in most states don’t report the value of what they collect or how that bounty is spent, the issue raises serious questions about both government transparency and accountability.
Under state and federal civil asset forfeiture laws, law enforcement agencies can seize and keep property suspected of involvement in criminal activity. Unlike criminal asset forfeiture, however, with civil forfeiture, a property owner need not be found guilty of a crime—or even charged—to permanently lose her cash, car, home or other property.
According to the Institute for Justice—whose fight against eminent domain abuse raised that issue to national prominence—civil asset forfeiture is one of the worst abuses of property rights in our nation today. The Institute for Justice today released a first-of-its-kind national study on civil forfeiture abuse. The report—Policing for Profit: The Abuse of Civil Asset Forfeiture (http://www.ij.org/PolicingForProfit)—is the most comprehensive national study to examine the use and abuse of civil asset forfeiture and the first study to grade the civil forfeiture laws of all 50 states and the federal government. The report finds, not surprisingly, that by giving law enforcement a direct financial incentive in pursuing forfeitures and stacking the legal deck against property owners, most state and federal laws encourage policing for profit rather than seeking the neutral administration of justice. (For additional resources on this report, visit: http://www.ij.org/PolicingForProfit. For a brief video on this topic, visit: http://www.ij.org/Forfeiture.
Government at every level is in on the take and the problem is growing. For example, in 2008, for the first time in its history, the Department of Justice’s forfeiture fund topped $1 billion in assets taken from property owners and now available to law enforcement. State data reveal that state and local law enforcement also use forfeiture extensively: From 2001 to 2002, currency forfeitures alone in just nine states totaled more than $70 million. Considering this measure excludes cars and other forfeited property as well as forfeiture estimates from many states for which data were unreliable or that did not make data available for those years, this already-large figure represents just the tip of the forfeiture iceberg.
Laws Stacked Against Property Owners
The report demonstrates that legal procedures make civil forfeiture relatively easy for most governments and difficult for many property owners to fight. The vast majority of states and the federal government use a standard of proof—what is needed to successfully prosecute a forfeiture action—lower than the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard required to prove an individual was guilty of the criminal activity that supposedly justified the taking of his property. Given that situation, it is not surprising that upwards of 80 percent of forfeitures at the federal level occur absent a prosecution. Likewise, many jurisdictions provide an “innocent owner” defense that allows owners to get their property back if they had no idea it was involved in a crime. But in most places, owners bear the burden of establishing their innocence.
“Americans are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, but civil forfeiture turns that principle on its head,” said Institute for Justice Senior Attorney Scott Bullock, a co-author of the report. “With civil forfeiture, your property is guilty until you prove it innocent.”
Grading Forfeiture Laws and How Government Evades Them
In Policing for Profit, IJ grades each state on its forfeiture laws and other measures of abuse. Only three states (Maine, North Dakota and Vermont) earned a grade of B or better. Maine earned the highest grade, an A-, largely because all forfeiture revenues go to the state’s general fund, not directly into law enforcement coffers. On the other end of the spectrum, states like Texas and Georgia both earned a D- because their laws make forfeiture easy and profitable for law enforcement—with 90 and 100 percent of proceeds awarded to the agencies that seized the property.
Federal forfeiture law makes the problem worse with so-called “equitable sharing.” Under these arrangements, state and local officials can hand over forfeiture prosecutions to the federal government and then receive up to 80 percent of the proceeds—even when state law bans or limits the profit incentive. Equitable sharing payments to states have nearly doubled from 2000 to 2008, from a little more than $200 million to $400 million.
“Our results show that law enforcement is acting in pursuit of profit: Agencies are using federal law as a loophole to circumvent more restrictive and less profitable state laws,” said Marian Williams, Ph.D., assistant professor of government and justice studies at Appalachian State University and a co-author of the report. “This
finding is consistent with a growing body of scholarly research, news reports and even testimonials from law enforcement officers about civil asset forfeiture practices.”
• Six states earned an F and 29 states receive a D for their laws alone.
• Lax federal laws earn the federal government a law grade of D-.
• Eight states receive a B or higher for their laws: Indiana, Maine, Maryland, Missouri, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio and Vermont. But extensive use of equitable sharing pulls down the final grades of five of those states: Indiana (C+), Maryland (C+), Missouri (C+), North Carolina (C+) and Ohio (C-).
• The lowest-graded states overall, combining both poor laws and aggressive use of equitable sharing, are Georgia, Michigan, Texas, Virginia and West Virginia. Each received overall grades of D-.
Policing for Profit was co-authored by IJ’s Scott Bullock and criminal justice researchers Drs. Marian Williams and Jefferson Holcomb of Appalachian State University and Tomislav Kovandzic of the University of Texas at Dallas. The university professors examined equitable-sharing data and found clear evidence that law enforcement is acting in pursuit of profit. When state laws make forfeiture harder and less profitable, state and local law enforcement engages in more equitable sharing to circumvent the state laws. New York, for example, has an average grade for its forfeiture laws as rated by IJ—but is one of the most aggressive states for equitable sharing, earning it a D.
Bullock said, “If you want reforms that will end policing for profit, you must recognize two realities. First, states should not incentivize forfeiture through laws that make it easy and profitable, as most do. But second, even when those laws are tightened, the research findings are clear: Police are using equitable sharing through the federal government as a loophole to pursue forfeitures that under state law wouldn’t be allowed or wouldn’t provide as much return. The only way, therefore, to end this growing and unaccountable use of government power is through real reforms that truly remove the profit motive and protect innocent citizens.”
The Institute for Justice recommends that, first, law enforcement should be required to convict people before taking their property. Law enforcement agencies could still prosecute criminals and forfeit their ill-gotten possessions—but the rights of innocent property owners would be protected. Second, police and prosecutors shouldn’t be paid on commission. To end the perverse profit incentive, forfeiture revenue must be placed in a neutral fund, like a state’s general fund. It should also be tracked and reported so law enforcement is held publicly accountable. Finally, equitable sharing must be abolished to ensure that when states act to limit forfeiture abuse, law enforcement cannot evade the new rules and continue pocketing forfeiture money.
“Police and prosecutors should not be profiting at the expense of private property rights, and the Institute for Justice will use every tool at our disposal to expose this injustice and bring it to an end,” said IJ President and General Counsel Chip Mellor.