You Won't Believe How Many People Are Killed by the Police Every Year

It seems like I can't go a single day without hearing about someone being shot and killed by a police officer. It's become so commonplace in America, that the news rarely makes national headlines unless police abuse is suspected; and sometimes not even then. Unless you follow organizations like Copblock, you'll only hear about a fraction of the police shootings that actually occur.
 
While it appears the U.S. has an incredibly violent police force, many would argue that our cops pale in comparison to police departments around the world. A Recent study from Brazil appears to confirm that belief.

SAO PAULO—A study by a public safety NGO says that Brazilian police killed more than 11,000 people between 2009 and 2013 for an average of six killings a day

The study was released Tuesday by the Sao Paulo-based Brazilian Forum on Public Safety.
It says police nationwide killed 11,197 people over the past five years, while law enforcement agents in the United States killed 11,090 people over the past 30 years.

“The empirical evidence shows that Brazilian police make abusive use of lethal force to respond to crime and violence,” the report says.

If this is true, than America's law enforcement agencies don't seem as bad as they're made out to be. Police in third world nations like Brazil routinely kill more citizens than our cops do. At least, that's what the official numbers say. While it remains to be seen how accurate this study is, one thing is for sure; our cops kill way more people every year than the official statistics show.

That's because, as insane as it might sound, police departments aren't required to report these statistics. As you might expect, the official numbers are pretty watered down. According to the FBI, police kill around 400 people per year, and that is only the number of “justified homicides”. If you can believe it, the government doesn't bother to report “unjustified” homicides, and they also don't report 'arrest related' deaths. As in, people killed by tasers or having a heart attack during a swat raid, etc.

So if we want to know how many people the police kill every year, justified or not, we'll never get a straight answer from the government (big surprise there). There are however, several private organizations that track this data.

Given this vacuum, attention has recently turned to some excellent nongovernmental attempts to compile this data, including the Fatal Encounters database, the recently created Gun Violence Archive and a new database created by Deadspin.

But one recent effort stood out for its apparent comprehensiveness: The Killed By Police Facebook page, which aggregates links to news articles on police-related killings and keeps a running tally on the number of victims. The creator of the page does not seek to determine whether police killings are justifiable; each post “merely documents the occurrence of a death.” He told FiveThirtyEight that he was an instructor on nonviolent physical-intervention techniques and that he prefers to remain anonymous.

Killed by Police had listed more than 1,450 deaths caused by law-enforcement officers since its launch, on May 1, 2013, through Sunday. That works out to about three per day, or 1,100 a year.

Ouch. 1,100 per year. Still, I'm sure there are some optimists out there who would point out that it's still half as many casualties as Brazil. However if you compare our data to the rest of the developed world, our police kill many times more than most western countries, even if you look at it on a per-capita basis. It could be argued that these countries don't arm their cops to same degree, but even that doesn't really account for our high mortality rates. As any gun enthusiast will tell you, having a gun doesn't make you killer.

Simply put, our police have developed a 'trigger happy' culture. They've been trained to be killers, and they've been taught to treat all citizens with suspicion. They act like they're a foreign army, occupying our cities and treating us like the enemy.

Our police are rapidly turning into third world thugs that will someday make the cops in Brazil blush. Until we can rein in this violent culture, our situation is only going to get worst from here.

Delivered By The Daily Sheeple

"That is a Coward Pointing a Gun at Me" Veteran Refuses to Submit During Police Standoff

If you've ever had the rare opportunity of having the police draw their guns on you for no apparent reason, you know how absolutely terrifying it can be. It's a completely helpless experience that catches you off guard in the worst possible way, because there's nothing you can do about it. If someone were to mug you, you would at least have the option to fight the mugger or run away. It's unexpected, but at least you can react to it.

Not so if the police decide to draw down on you. It flies in the face of your natural fear response to fight or flight, because you can neither fight nor flee. You can't even freeze up like a deer in the headlights, for that may also get you slapped with a “resisting arrest” charge, or worst. The only thing left to do is submit, which is something every normal human being should not do in any other dangerous situation. You must submit, or you will certainly be hurt or killed.

Full disclosure here, I've had the police draw their guns on me, and it was not a fun time.

Back in 2009 I was standing in a parking lot late at night, talking to a friend on my cell phone. Out of nowhere, three squad cars pull up with their lights on. I couldn't imagine what they were looking for, but I never would have guessed it would be me. Next thing I know, I see 3 flashlights pointed at my face, and several cops are screaming at me, telling me to put the cell phone down.

I told my friend I'd call him back.

They ordered me to walk backwards towards them with my hands behind my head. They had me get on my knees as they searched me. And of course, they didn't find anything but my identification. One of the officers later explained that I matched the description of somebody in the neighborhood. A local resident had called 9/11 and said that a white male dressed in black, was waiving a gun around and threatening to shoot someone (it was the first and last time I ever wore black pants and a black shirt together).

Since then, I've seen hundreds of cell phone videos depicting the police and their domineering antics. None of them reminded me of that night, until I saw this footage on The Free Thought Project earlier today. The clip shows an intense exchange between Alejandro Natividad, and the La Quinta, California police. There was nothing violent or aggressive that led up to this event. Alejandro's friend and driver was apparently stoned and a little out of his head, and had stopped in the middle of traffic. This garnered the attention of the deputy, who then approached the car to talk to them.

After a short conversation, the driver sped up and then pulled over on the corner. They both got out of the car, as the deputy caught up with them. When he arrived, he almost immediately drew his weapon, and demanded that they lay down on the ground. Alejandro absolutely refused.

You can see about a minute in as the camera begins to shake, that he was afraid for his life. He does everything he can to talk to the deputy, and asks him to put his weapon down. He refuses to get down on the ground as more police officers show up. He refuses to submit, even as he begins to cry. He just stands his ground, and continues to film what he must have known may be his last moments. If he's seen any other encounter with the police, he had no reason to think that this would end well for him.

After lots of pleading and reassuring the cops that he wasn't a threat, the police begin to holster their weapons. He was handcuffed, but later released without charges. When interviewed by the Free Thought Project, and asked why he didn't submit to the demands of the police, he replied “...I was afraid and if I was going to get harmed I’d much rather take it standing than on my face.”

When the police drew their weapons on me, I did what most people would do, and submitted. Alejandro Natividad on the other hand, did not fight, did not flee, and did not submit, which is more courageous than any of those actions put together.

Delivered By The Daily Sheeple

Body Cameras are NOT Going to Stop Police Abuse and Corruption

The riots and protests that swept through Ferguson this summer left a huge impression on the minds of the average American. The masses got to see with their own eyes, police brutality and corruption on a massive scale. For the very first time, those events forced the mainstream media to recognize the widespread militarization of our local police.

After the dust settled, people wanted something to be done. They demanded something be done. What could we do to cut through the thin blue line, and rein in these heavily armed cowboy cops?

For most, the answer lies in equipping them with body cams. If the police are forced to record every action, we can catch them in act. Even better, the threat of being caught will keep them from abusing their power in the first place. So far there's been a few police departments that have enacted this protocol with spectacular results.

When the city of Rialto California equipped their police officers with body cams, the use of force by police was reduced by 60 percent, and the number of complaints against the department dropped by 88 percent. “Problem solved!” you might be thinking. We can finally penetrate the thin blue line. We the public, can finally hold them accountable for their actions.

Unfortunately, there's a few hiccups in that plan. For starters, it isn't going curb police corruption. Sure, we'll catch a few hotheads here and there, but by and large, I don't expect it to have any measurable effect. There's one simple fact that the proponents of body cams are ignoring.

When a cop does something truly heinous, those body cams have a tendency to “malfunction”. Footage tends to “get lost” and sometimes officers “forget” to turn them on. Take the case of Mark Byrge who had a traffic accident in Utah, and a rather painful encounter with the local police.

Byrge . . . made a single request of his captors: Owing to several back surgeries and the implantation of a $50,000 Spinal Cord Stimulator (SCS), Mark asked that the officers cuff him in front.

While explaining his condition, Mark very slowly and carefully lifted his shirt in order to display an iPod-sized rectangular lump in his lower right back.

Neither Mark’s cooperation nor his explanation made an impression on Gianfelice.
“Don’t tell me how to do my job – put your hands behind your back!” barked Gianfelice, instructing his trainee officer, Jennifer Nakai, to apply the cuffs. Before being shackled, Mark called his wife Tina to tell her he was being arrested.

Byrge says Gianfelice then pushed into the squad car and pushed him up against the seat, which Byrge says destroyed his medical device. According to medical scans of the device taken later, it stopped functioning while Byrge was in Gianfelice’s custody. The device had been implanted to treat chronic pain in Byrge’s leg. When it stopped functioning, Byrge’s leg began seizing. Gianfelice apparently took this as a sign of resisting, and so subjected Byrge to more abuse.

So what about the footage found on the body cameras that those cops were wearing? Nobody knows. Either there was a malfunction in all three cameras or they weren't turned on. The dash cam footage from the squad cars is also missing. That's not suspicious at all right?

Truth be told, even if there isn't some kind of malfunction or the footage isn't lost, the police still have a lot of control over access to these videos. They have to be. The nature of their job means that they're going to be documenting people when they are at their most vulnerable. Those cameras are going to catch scenes that most private citizens would not want the public to see. That same power that is needed to protect the privacy of the average citizen is going to make footage of police transgressions, very hard to get a hold of.

Unless a bystander films the police doing something bad, and it calls the official report into question, there's a good chance that the body cam footage will never see the light of day. The same police department that's responsible for police abuse, is also going to be responsible for the evidence of that abuse. It's a case of “who's watching the watchmen?” so to speak.

If a police department is concerned about police abuse, then these cameras will help them keep an eye on their officers. It'll stop the small stuff I'm sure. If however, a police officer does something truly terrible, something so bad it could be career ending, then there's a good chance no one is going to see it. If the department is corrupt, then no amount of technology is going to change that.

It seems like there's one more aspect of body cameras that no one has considered, but has me deeply concerned. Even if these cameras can stop unlawful police abuse, it cannot stop police abuse that is lawful. By that I mean, it will do nothing to stop the cops from enforcing unfair laws. It's not going to stop the drug war, or traffic quotas. It's not going to stop the police from shooting you with tasers if you refuse to comply. It's not going to stop them seizing your assets on a whim. It's not going to stop them shooting your dog if he barks at them.

In short, it does absolutely nothing to stop an oppressive government, because all of these things are legal. In fact, I think it will do the opposite. I think it may turn our police into the perfect enforcers of government policy.

Think about this. How often do you see a video of a cop doing something good? Every now and then a video will start trending on facebook, showing a cop respecting someone's rights, or helping someone less fortunate. They're usually quite popular, because they're also quite rare. And after seeing so many police abuse videos, we love seeing cops that are great human beings.

So why are these videos so rare? There's got to be a thousand police abuse videos, for every video of a cop doing the right thing. Somehow I seriously doubt that vicious police officers outnumber the good guys by a thousand to one.

The reason you almost never hear about cops doing good things, is because there's no reason to record it. I doubt most people think to pull out their phones unless they think something bad is going to happen. If anything, filming such actions might get the cop into serious trouble, especially if doing the right thing means breaking the laws they're supposed to enforce.

You never see a video of a cop letting a traffic ticket slide. You never see cops giving a drunk guy a lift home, instead of dumping him in jail for the night. You never see a cop finding pot on a teenager, but pretending he didn't see it because he doesn't want to ruin his life. And if a cop stops an old lady, and discovers he or she is packing a pistol without a permit, you'll never see the video of him letting it go because he knows the neighborhood is so dangerous. It's the good deeds that you'll never see.

Maybe I'm just naive, but I'd like to think that there's still a lot of good people in law enforcement. Like any institution, there's good guys and bad guys. But, if you force them to wear body cameras, you're forcing them to follow every law, and there's so many laws on the books, that we're all guilty of something. The state has made sure to enact so many vague and arbitrary laws, that any of us could be arrested at any time.

My point being, there's a lot potential for this to be used against the public. I foresee this technology being used, not to prevent police abuses, but to watch over the shoulder of every police officer. Put a bureaucrat in every department, whose sole job is to stare at live feeds of body cams all day. Make sure officer so and so is doing his job, even when his job becomes unethical. Make sure he's generating his monthly quota, busting jaywalkers and loiterers all day. Make sure he's busing every homeless person to the edge of the city limits.
Maybe they'll give that bureaucrat a live mic to, so he can whisper orders every minute of the day. “don't let that protester out of your sight. That dog is looking at you funny, shoot him. That citizen is parked in the red, taze him. That woman is filming you, book her and send her to county.”

What a nightmare.

Remember, for every cop who joined the force so he could hurt citizens with impunity, there's another cop who joined because he thought he could make the world a better place. If these cameras end up being used to enforce the law rather than protecting our rights, it will drive away every “good cop” from the field. There will be no human beings left in our police departments. There will only be yes-men and sadists

Forcing the police to wear body cameras won't stop the militarization of our police, and it won't end the corruption and abuse. If anything, it's going to turn police officers into nothing more than mobile spy cameras for Big Brother. The only thing that will put an end to the abuse, is ordinary citizens filming and documenting the police with their own cameras, and letting the world see it. We've seen what the government does with technology, and it's almost never been good. Why should we expect it to be any different this time around?

Technology in the hands of the government is tyranny. Technology in the hands of the people, is freedom.

Delivered By The Daily Sheeple

 Don't Attend a Protest Without Taking These Essentials With You

As the events that unfolded in Ferguson begin to fade away from the news cycle, we should stop and take a good look around at own communities, because the militarization of the police is no isolated incident. For many years, towns and cities across America have been facing this growing threat within their political offices and police departments. We should ask ourselves, how far are we willing to go to secure our rights? If the police and bureaucrats in your community begin to overstep their bounds, would you take your outrage to the streets?

If you ever decide to engage in a peaceful protest for any reason, you should entertain the possibility that it may become violent at any time. Perhaps the police will overreact, or opportunistic criminals may use the protest as cover to loot stores and private residences. No matter who is at fault, a decent protest can turn ugly on a dime. If this occurs, there's a few things you don't want to leave your home without.

Clothing


No matter what time of the year it is, you should always wear long sleeves and long pants to a protest. It seems like every image I see of a protest in the U.S. contains at least one person who looks like they're dressed for a picnic. If the police decide to fire off their tear gas, you'll immediately regret your decision to wear your short shorts to the picket line. Tear gas isn't just an eye and mouth irritant, but a skin irritant as well, and a good pair of jeans with a long sleeve shirt will provide a decent barrier between you and the gas.

If it's hot out, suck it up, wear cotton, and bring more water because there isn't really any other way around this. Being exposed to tear gas is a lot like getting a sunburn. While the pain in your eyes and mouth will normally subside within an hour or two, your skin may still burn for several days. Also, be sure and bring an extra t-shirt to change into. Tear gas can really cling to clothing, and continue to burn you until you find a new set of clothes.

Being fully dressed will also have the added benefit of protecting you from the sun, which you'll need because you probably don't want to wear sunscreen. Any oil based lotion or sunscreen will trap the tear gas and adhere it to your skin, making it extremely difficult to remove. If you must use sunscreen, find a water based product rather than the typical oil based sunscreens.

Respirator

CS gas, also known as tear gas, isn't actually a gas at all. It's usually either an aerosol containing very fine particles of a volatile solvent, or a concentrated form of capsaicin. While you can buy a gas mask and a filter specifically designed for tear gas, these tend to be pretty pricey. Most standard respirators you find at the hardware store will successfully filter out tear gas. Look for anything that is rated N100, which means it will filter out nearly 100 percent of any particulate matter in the air.

I would actually advise against buying a full blown gas mask for a protest. In my experience, the eyepiece will give you poor peripheral vision, and they tend to fog up, so you'll want your eye and lung protection to be separate pieces. They will also make the simple act of breathing very difficult, so any simple activity (like running for your life) will be absolutely exhausting

In addition, gas masks will have you standing out from the crowd. I suspect that when riot cops see someone wearing a military style gas mask (which are also pretty intimidating), they see that person as a “veteran” protester and an agitator. It may be a better idea to buy something a little more innocuous like a disposable respirator.

Goggles

Having a separate pair of goggles will be an essential addition to your respirator. You'll want something that can quickly and easily give you a perfect seal around your eyes, like swimming goggles. Modern swim gear also has the added advantage of having great peripheral vision and anti-fogging treatments. If you suspect the police will use rubber bullets, you may also want to opt for shatterproof goggles. Whatever you do though, DO NOT wear contact lenses to a protest, or at least take them out if things start going south. They have a tendency to collect and trap the irritants in tear gas, and may even cause blindness.

First Aid

There seems to be a lot of different opinions on how to treat an exposure to tear gas, so it's difficult to judge what works best. One treatment that seems to be very consistent and popular, is a 50/50 mix of Maalox and water. Having a little spray bottle of this can be used to relieve the burning sensation in your eyes and mouth.
As for physical injuries, a first aid kit would be an obvious choice, but you'll want something specific to the injuries you may face in a riot. Bring some tampons or a maxi pad in case you receive an open wound from a rubber bullet or baton. The absorptive qualities of these feminine products work wonders on serious injuries, and can quickly stop the bleeding.

Sports Gear

While the goggles should work to protect your eyes from gas and rubber bullets, there are several more spots on your body you should keep in mind. Although cops are trained to aim for the torso with rubber bullets, these projectiles are also inherently inaccurate, so they can end up landing in the more vulnerable parts of your body.

To protect your head, something like a hard hat used in construction should work well. Personally, I'd probably take a bicycle helmet, for the same reason I wouldn't wear a gas mask. It's a pretty innocuous object that wouldn't look out of place, and you can strap it to your backpack or purse for safe keeping. Just don't be the guy walking around in an army helmet. You'll stand out to the cops in a really bad way.

The neck is another extremely vulnerable region that you'll want to consider. A rubber bullet to the jugular could feasibly rupture a vein or crush your windpipe (the more I talk about this, the more I wonder if rubber bullets should be considered “non-lethal”) so you may want to buy one of the neck guards that are used by hockey players. Many of these are very small, and easy to stow away in a backpack.

And guys? don't leave home without an athletic cup.

Delivered By Ready Nutrition

Do the Gun Grabbers Have Anything Convincing Left to Say?

I've been a supporter of the Second Amendment for as long as I can remember. Despite this, I usually hold my tongue when it comes to gun rights. Most of the people I've encountered who want to restrict gun rights, aren't really bad people. They want full auto bans, background checks, magazine limits, etc. I get it. I don't agree with it, but I understand their fears. Frankly, I don't care if you have a case of hand grenades and a dirty bomb under your bed. It's not really any of my business. I have what is considered, a rather extreme opinion of weapon rights, and I understand if even members of the pro Second Amendment crowd would disagree with me on some points. So if I were to engage with every person who disagrees with me on this topic, I'd probably never get any sleep.

However, sometimes I encounter an opinion so asinine, that I can't help but take a swing at it. Such is this recent Huffington Post article by Michelle Kraus (no relation to yours truly), titled “America is Nervous-We Must Lay Down Our Arms”. The title alone is nauseating, and I can't get past the first paragraph without taking a shot of vodka. Hopefully I won't be wasted by the time we finish, so let's make this quick. She begins by saying:

There are far too many loose guns floating around the United States of America. What are we doing? This is not the world our forefathers conceived when they wrote the Second Amendment. Violence begets violence, and with no reasonable measures for arms control, our country is rapidly becoming militarized. The police are reacting to threats.

Oh. The police are reacting to threats are they? Like all those gentle dogs they can't stop shooting? Or those homeless people who have been beaten, or even executed by the police? Or how about shooting senior citizens with bean bags? I sure feel safe knowing the police are “reacting to threats” for me. And what exactly is the author suggesting here? That arms control is somehow going to demilitarize the police?

Every angry or troubled soul could be carrying a concealed weapon and usually is.

What's you're definition of an angry and troubled soul? Isn't that a little vague? I mean, I feel angry and troubled after reading your article, and I've never concealed a gun on my person. Read “police reacting to threats” to find out why.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, we have the right to bear arms per the Second Amendment, but that was signed into law way before assault rifles were even a glimmer on the horizon. We are at an impasse in our country, society and culture, and must find a way to resolution.

Ya well they couldn't have predicted things like the internet or even radio. Should we do away with the first amendment, just because the medium it is used on has changed since the 18th century?

Indeed guns are part of large sectors of our country often passed down through the generations -- father to son. But it seems that our reality has changed. Too many novices are running wild and getting access to high powered weaponry. Last week, another young, white mentally impaired woman was killed by the police right in San Jose, California. The weapon she was brandishing turned out to have been a power drill that had been painted to look like an assault weapon.

Wait a minute. What's the connection between unstable people attaining firearms, and a woman painting a drill to look like a gun? That story sounds more like she was attempting a “suicide by cop”. What's your angle here?

Maybe, if the culture wasn't running wild with illegal guns, the murder rate and gang activity so high in this locale -- the police would have reacted differently. Yikes we sure don't know and thank goodness don't have to make those decisions every day.

Are you for real? I know I criticize the police a lot, but that woman painted a somewhat gun shaped object, to look more like a gun, told the police it was a gun, and claimed to be holding her family hostage. Police training is pretty uniform across the nation, so she stood a pretty good chance of being shot in any neighborhood. This has absolutely nothing to do with bad guys getting illegal firearms.

Look, the economy is still in the toilet for many Americans. Times are tough and income inequality still prevails. Funds have been cut from mental health services in many states, and unfortunately many are going untreated -- proverbially falling through the cracks. Americans are nervous in this world of troubles. What's going to happen to them? Is the US going back to war? And if so where -- Iraq, Afghanistan, the Middle East, or even Russia? Will folks be able to afford gasoline if this happens? Why are hybrids so expensive?

Jesus. You decide to ramble on about the problems our world is facing, and you think the cost of a hybrid is one of them? You must be reading the Huffington Post more than you write for them.

Is the next airplane going to fall from the sky and where? What does it take to stay safe and keep your family safe? Sadly, this is the environment that allows racism and prejudice to fester and get a toe hold to dig in.

So you're going lump the price of gasoline and foreign wars, with income inequality and mental health services. I had no idea that those were the key factors that turn good Americans into rabid xenophobes. Quick, somebody call the Nobel Foundation. Michelle Kraus has once and for all, ended racism in America.

Certainly, we know that we have got tough choices coming down the road. Turning the police into soldiers is not the answer as evidenced in Ferguson, Missouri, nor is denying generational family traditions. But maybe there's just an opening big enough to consider enacting the simplest of laws that control the supply chain of weapons in this country.

I'll give the author this. There's one thing that is consistent throughout the article. She wants the citizens as well the police to be disarmed or “demilitarized” in some capacity. I still don't agree with it, but at least it's consistent. Ideology aside, let's get down to practical matters. So you want citizens to give up their weapons, but you want a demilitarized police to enforce it? The gun culture is pretty hardcore Michelle. They're not giving up anything. The level of non-compliance among gun owners is astounding. As seen in Connecticut and New York earlier this year, the vast majority of gun owners (including many law enforcement officials) have refused to go along with stricter mandates.

And on the police side of things, I'm not so sure that you even know why our police have become so militarized. Look at every other country that has become a police state. They arm and train their police to become soldiers and warriors rather than peacekeepers, because the government isn't interested in peace. They're preparing to deal with non-compliant citizens of all kinds, including gun owners. Your vision of a meagerly armed population and a demilitarized police force are about as pleasant as Prozac, and just as far removed from reality.

You know, we lived through Prohibition, and now track liquor and its sale.

Ya, but unlike guns, I don't see the government putting serial numbers on bottles of Jack, telling me how many shots I'm allowed to have, or demanding a 10 day waiting period on every purchase. I mean, alcohol kills more people a year than firearms do, but does it sound reasonable to restrict it the same way you would with guns? If you know anything about prohibition, then the answer should be no.

Marijuana is leaning toward legalization around the country. Can't we step back from the random acts of violence in our streets, towns and cities?

Do you think most acts of violence are random? No wonder you support gun control. You actually believe that without the guns, there would be less violence. Like If somebody has a gun, and they just have some random urge to kill, now they can do it with a gun? Is that where all this crime is coming from?

This might be the time to take action on gun control safety, and really turn a search light on what's become of our public safety officers. We have to do better than this.

Well you go take action on gun control, and I'll go pick flowers or something, because I don't have a single worry in the world. If the rest of the gun control movement can argue as persuasively as you do, then I have no fears of ever losing my rights.

Delivered By The Daily Sheeple

It's Official: Being Poor in America Has Been Outlawed

As they say, you can always judge a society by how they treat their weakest members. So I shudder to think of how future generations will judge our society. We've become a nation that discards our poor like they are trash, and anyone who doesn't “fit in” is segregated from the herd.

The police are now fining homeless folks for any arbitrary offense they can think of, and city councils across the country are making it illegal to sleep in public. They've gone so far as to make it illegal to camp, or even sit or lay down in certain public areas. Worst of all, many cities are making it illegal, or prohibitively expensive to give food to the homeless. According to an interview from The Independent, with a former police chief involved in a charity dedicated to feeding the poor:

The homeless are an embarrassment for the town, said Arnold Abbott, a 90-year-old former police chief from Pennsylvania and director of Love Thy Neighbor, an organization that has been feeding homeless here for over 20 years. Five times the city has tried and failed in court to stop him serving meals each Wednesday on the beach beneath the tourist strip.
The town, he said, really wants the homeless to go away. “They would like to put them in a bus and send them to Miami or Palm Beach. It’s very close to ethnic cleansing. But they are not going to succeed.”

Thank god there are still some people willing to do the right thing, even if it means breaking the law. In other cities, you now need a 500$ permit from the health department to give away food, or perhaps you'll have to spend 800$ to rent the park every time you try to hand out food there. On the surface, it's bad enough that they are making it so difficult to help out those in need, but when you take the homeless out of the equation, it starts to sound really asinine. To the city councils out there that are perpetuating these laws, are you really going to make it illegal for one consenting adult to buy a sandwich, and voluntarily give it away for free to another adult who wants it? When it's phrased that way, doesn't it just sound utterly contemptible and insane?

In LA, things may be about to get downright draconian. If this whistleblower is to be trusted, then the city of Los Angeles is preparing to force their homeless population into internment camps. Of course it would never be called that. They would simply be referred to as 'low cost housing' or maybe they'll just call it a homeless shelter, but with the caveat that once you enter, you wouldn't be allowed to leave. This would probably be disastrous for anyone entering the facility, as many homeless shelters are notoriously awful and dangerous places. After all, if most shelters provided a safe and healthy environment, would there really be that many people on the streets? So they're going to make a “homeless shelter” that you're not allowed to leave? I'm sure that place will just be a ray of sunshine won't it? But as you'll see next, finding alternatives to a shelter can end disastrously if you have a family.

Last month, a family in Houston had their kids taken away by CPS, when it was discovered that the family had been living in a storage unit for the past three years. The family had fallen on hard times after the father had lost his welding job, and after getting a job with maintenance at the storage facility, decided that living in a unit there would be far safer for his family than a homeless shelter. By all appearances, these are otherwise lawful and caring adults just trying to provide the best they can for their family in a difficult economy.

There were no reports of abuse, and the unit had air conditioning and two computers. While it lacked running water, if they've lived their for 3 years without anyone getting severely ill, then it's safe to assume that they're doing their “business” in a proper bathroom somewhere else. They obviously have permission from the owners of the storage facility to live there, or they would have been kicked out a long time ago. So what's the problem? What did they do to deserve this?

They happened to be poor, that's what they did. This is what it means to live in America now. If you fail to achieve a certain income, then you are now at the mercy of the authorities (or God knows who else on the streets). And if you really think about it, if the government is going to treat the poor like this, then there is no reason to have a government in the first place. I thought that the main reason we have a government, is because life without them would be hell. It would be a chaotic place where the weak are indiscriminately killed, or are abused and exploited by the strong. At least that's what we've been told.

If the poor are being treated this way, then our modern society is just as much of a Darwinian struggle as it was for our primitive ancestors. If that's the case, can we even call what we live under, a government? Keep in mind, I'm not asking the government to step in and help. I'm not asking for them to provide free housing or increase welfare entitlements. I'm asking them to stay out of the way. How could you make it so difficult for private citizens to help each other out?

Perhaps what I said at first was wrong. Maybe our society isn't so bad. Future generations won't judge us for how we treat our fellow man. Plenty of private citizens have done their part to help the homeless.

No. They'll judge our government, for breaking up families, fining people with no money, starving them, and then throwing them into internment camps.