Mediaboss Marketing

Despite the passage of many months of investigation and observation, the most remarkable thing about the COVID-19 virus is how little anyone truly knows about it. Unless of course, you consider how much certain segments of the population think they do know about it.

There is nothing historically unique about recognized experts finding themselves befuddled and divided over novel phenomena, nor is there anything unusual about other groups of citizens thinking they have a better handle on things.

What is weird, though, is how impervious to reason and common sense both groups are becoming. There is an extremist element among certain civil authorities, along with many scientific and medical experts, who are doubling down on the need for ever-increasing government restrictions and social control. At the other end, there is an extremist civil libertarian element that is doubling down on their demands for freedom from any precautions at all.

The expert/authoritarian extremists have taken to arguing that this pandemic can (and perhaps should) alter human civilization forever, before we all go extinct, or something close to it. The layman/libertarian extremists counter that we have to throw off the yoke of public health busybodies and opportunistic tyrants through pointed defiance before were all serfs, slaves and lab animals permanently existing at the pleasure of power-mad technocrats.

There ought to be a middle ground, and I suspect there is. It appears the majority of Americans (and the majority of the human race) are concerned, but not terrified; cautious, but not obsessed. Weve all been through influenza epidemics before, and this one doesnt seem much worse than some of those. Common sense dictates that COVID-19 casualty rates are comparable to other strains we have experienced not in spite of unusually stringent mass precautions, but because of them.

It has become apparent in places such as China, Iran and Brazil, where large segments of the population were either oblivious or unconvinced of the danger of business-as-usual living, that this virus has proven far deadlier and more virulent than the average seasonal flu. But in much of the rest of the world, the simple regimens of masking, sanitizing and social distancing have demonstrably kept casualties to levels capably handled by medical systems.

But the extremists seem unimpressed. The expert/authoritarian types maintain these precautions are the only thing holding the lid on, and they have to be redoubled and extended indefinitely to prevent global human catastrophe. The layman/libertarian types either think the threat has passed or was a hoax all along, and that things must go back to normal immediately or they never will again.

In the face of these alternatives, we can only hope most people can intellectually locate some middle way in which to continue going on about their lives. Yes, the expert/authoritarians have a point in that the virus could come roaring back if it is suddenly ignored, and an even better point that it could mutate over time and worsen this autumn and beyond. These are very plausible scenarios.

But the layman/libertarians also have a point in that technocratic elites and civil authorities do not rule by divine right, and if they cant bring themselves to trust the majority of our species to make their own basic survival decisions, then life for the masses is hardly worth living (or certainly worth risking in a return to normalcy, or even revolution, for the cause of freedom.)

But if history proves anything, its that neither group of extremists is likely to be rewarded by future events with clear vindication. The human race will probably survive, as will earthly pockets of American-styled self-determination and liberty at least so long as neither minority of extremists gets the upper hand.

Meanwhile, the rest of us would do well to keep an open mind and remain adaptable to changing circumstances. This virus could soon subside like all of the others, drag on for another season or mutate into something different. And if the Chinese communists allowed it to spread on purpose, theres always the possibility theyve got something even worse in the works. We must be ready to change, but not precipitously.

It is the human condition to perpetually live with calculations of acceptable risk. (Usually at the subconscious level.) For example, about as many Americans died in driving accidents last year as in the entire Korean War. Yes, we could cut this in half by driving slower, or to zero by giving up motor vehicles entirely. But how many of us would seriously consider such measures? Those casualties are not only known and predictable, but a tacitly acceptable risk (and cost) of having and driving our vehicles as we are accustomed.

Public health crises are much the same. So long as the casualty numbers, tragic though they are, remain near normal levels, and we can continue to have meaningful lives, we may conclude were thinking and behaving reasonably. Even if an extremist minority of chicken-littles and free spirits around us refuse.

Here is the original post:
Edmonds: Extremism in the face of COVID-19 is not reasonable - Wyoming Tribune

LITTLETON, CO Coloradans have a lot of voting to do this year a few months after the March presidential primary has ended, the June primary is coming up.

Elections officials in Arapahoe, Douglas and Jefferson counties have issued the following important information for voters:

Which seats are up for election?

Sample ballots for the Republican, Democratic, and Libertarian primaries:

Important dates:

Drop Boxes: The 24-hour drop boxes remain the most efficient and secure way to return your ballot, officials said. Find the latest locations:

Mail: Voters can also use the U.S. mail to return their ballots. Postmarks do not count, so if you choose to mail your ballot, officials recommend doing so at least eight days before Election Day.

Vote Centers: Few voters will need to vote in person, officials said. In light of COVID-19, elections officials are taking special precautions with in-person vote centers and are still finalizing sites that will officer adequate social distancing. Jefferson County will post locations at VoteJeffco when they're ready, officials said. Arapahoe County vote centers can be found here, and Douglas County centers can be found here. In the meantime, residents are encouraged to register to vote or update their registration at GoVoteColorado to receive a ballot in the mail, officials said.

Continue reading here:
June State Primary: What Littleton Voters Need To Know - Patch.com

The Boogaloos are mobilizing to the front lines of the nationwide protest movement. They are coming armed with mainly assault rifles and traveling where the protests are.

The Boogaloos are an emerging extremist group that has yet to be truly categorized. In a world of Antifa and looters vs. protestors, they are confounding efforts to phase out agitators looting businesses.

Boogaloos are a sect of libertarianism.

Libertarian historian George Woodcock defines libertarianism as the philosophy that fundamentally doubts authority and advocates transforming society by reform or revolution.

However, some pockets of the group have espoused white supremacy while others reject it. But they have an affinity for toting guns in public and a boogaloo rallying cry. This is commonly viewed as code for another US civil war.

The movement started in obscure online platforms but is now growing on mainstream platforms. During this moment of protest, it is starting to move offline. Boogaloos resemble the militia movement which has historically been a force for promoting violence.

The Antifa movement in the United States is a left-wing, anti-fascist political activist movement that comprises autonomous activist groups. They aim to achieve their political objectives through the use of direct action rather than through policy reform.

In Los Angeles, roving bands of thieves drove around in cars and communicated by cellphone, identifying businesses to loot.

Three former US servicemen and self-proclaimed members of the far-right boogaloo movement were arrested on domestic terrorism charges. They are accused of carrying unregistered firearms and trying to spark violence during protests against police brutality.

According to the Clark Country Detention Center records: Stephen Parshall, 35, Andrew Lynam Jr., 23, and William Loomis, 40, are each being held on $1 million bond.

A preliminary hearing will be held on June 17.

The three white male defendants previously served in the US Navy, US Army, and US Air Force.

Reports also noted that the men self-identified as part of the Boogaloo movement.

The men planned to sow discord at a protest in Nevada in early April. One of the men said the group was not joking around.

Also, that is was for people who wanted to overthrow the United States government.

Peaceful protests are looking to create change through nonviolence. However, extremist groups are galvanizing on their momentum to create a civil war.

Read this article:
Anti-Government 'Boogaloos' are Showing Up at Protests Armed to Incite Civil War - The Source

The killing of George Floyd by Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin ignited nationwide protests. While we advise jurors to withhold judgment until presentation of all the evidence, video of the incident seems definitive. Mr. Floyd joins a much too long list of minority victims of police violence. Justice may be served in Minneapolis. The four officers involved were fired the next day and Mr. Chauvin charged with second degree murder within a week. The other three officers were charged with aiding and abetting second degree murder. Does this render the protests moot? Not necessarily. Mr. Chauvin was not charged with first degree murder, and the charges could be reduced when attention focuses elsewhere.

I am something of an anomaly, a law-and-order libertarian. I have great respect for police because of the injustice of crime. When someone takes your belongings whether milk money or a car we naturally feel the injustice. Bullies and criminals violate the social peace. The police respond to our calls for help. Bullies and criminals terrify many of us, but not the police.

Police use of excessive force is a danger for all Americans. Minorities, however, have far more such encounters. Jason Riley is a member of the Wall Street Journals editorial board guest. In Please Stop Helping Us, Mr. Riley details his encounters with the police as a law-abiding youth, often for nothing more than driving while black. He observes, Was I profiled based on negative stereotypes about young black men? Almost certainly. But then everyone profiles based on limited knowledge, including me.

I have never faced such discrimination nor experienced the ensuing reactions. Mr. Riley did not letting profiling poison his life view, and this is admirable. I also appreciate that some young men will show resentment, which might provoke police wrath. Minorities bear the brunt of police mistakes, like Breonna Taylor, killed in a botched police raid this March.

We should hold police officers to an extremely high standard because they can use deadly force. We should also remember how police officers experience encounters with us. Ninety-nine point nine percent of traffic stops will be routine, but an officer never knows when a confrontation might occur.

Minimizing inevitable tragic accidents provides a first place for change. Yale law professor Stephen Carter tells his first year students to never push for a law they would not want people killed to enforce. Mr. Floyd was apprehended for spending a counterfeit $20; Eric Garner was killed in 2014 while evading New Yorks cigarette taxes. We should not criminalize so many things.

I believe that the Derek Chauvins are a miniscule fraction of police officers. We lack institutional controls on misbehavior. Police officers have a common interest in disciplining their bad apples, but this rarely happens.

Misbehavior is likely tolerated because police officers, like fire fighters or soldiers, depend on each other in matters of life-and-death. I have never served in such positions and may not appreciate this need to trust colleagues. Nevertheless, bad apples abuse toleration; Mr. Chauvin ruined the other officers lives in addition to ending Mr. Floyds life.

Police unions vigorously defend and enforce privacy rules shielding rogue officers. A retired New York Police commander wrote that, The unions, at least in New York City, outright just protect, protect, protect the cops. Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison cites the Minneapolis police union as contributing to the departments problems.

Asset forfeiture laws and militarization also contribute. Police departments can seize and keep cars, money and other property from people not convicted of crimes, often minorities unable to contest seizure. For decades, police departments have received surplus military equipment. Militarization and policing for profit must make officers feel like part of an army of occupation, not public servants.

Law enforcement is a noble profession when the police protect and serve citizens. Police should get the benefit of the doubt when using force but this is only possible if departments fire miscreant officers. Some encouraging incidents have occurred this past week. In Genesee County, Michigan, Sheriff Chris Swanson took off his riot gear and walked and talked with protestors. The cycle of violence will never end if police and citizens view each other as adversaries.

Daniel Sutter is the Charles G. Koch Professor of Economics with the Manuel H. Johnson Center for Political Economy at Troy University and host of Econversations on TrojanVision. The opinions expressed in this column are the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Troy University.

See original here:
Will these things ever change? - The Troy Messenger - Troy Messenger

When I joined the military, some 50 years ago, I swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution. Never did I dream that troops taking that same oath would be ordered under any circumstance to violate the Constitutional rights of their fellow citizensmuch less to provide a bizarre photo op for the elected commander-in-chief, with military leadership standing alongside.

Under what circumstances may the government use lethal and non- or lesser-lethal force in the face of unlawful protests, riots, and looting? The answer is context dependent. But the use of such forcewhether exercised by state or federal armed forcesis always constrained by a fundamental constitutional principle of reasonableness, so long as no armed conflict exists. Although I agree with everything Mark Nevitt wrote in his Just Security article on the powers and limitations of the Presidents response to the recent protests, it is important to ground the discussion in constitutional norms rather than just Department of Defense understandings or policy which would apply to use of the US military as well as federal and state law enforcement authorities.

It is critical to understand the scope of the state and federal governments authority to use physical force against individuals. Although federal and state authorities generally have authority to control domestic violence and discretion to determine the means necessary to do so, they must exercise that authority and discretion reasonably under the U.S. Constitution. In fact, the use of force continuum to which law enforcement agencies generally adhere as policy should be understood to be a constitutional requirement.

The Use of Force and the Constitution

All uses of lethal and non- or lesser-lethal physical force by government agents must be reasonable under the circumstances. This is not only wise policy, it is a constitutional demand. Reasonableness is required either by the Fourth Amendment or by the general constitutional demand that all government action be reasonable and non-arbitrary. In this context, the latter reasonableness requirementthat all government action be reasonable and non-arbitrarycan also be based in the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments which protect against government infringements of personal liberty, including the infliction of physical injury.

Although not all measures to control crowds, riots, or looting necessarily implicate the Fourth Amendment, some certainly would. The Fourth Amendment protects [t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable search and seizures. Searches and seizures always entail the use of some measure of actual or constructive forcebroadly construedagainst persons and property.

The Fourth Amendment requires that all searches and seizures be reasonable. Courts interpret this requirement contextually. Reasonableness has substantive and procedural components. Substantively, there must be a legitimate constitutional basis for a search or seizure. Procedurally, both must always be conducted or executed reasonably. Measures adopted to control riots, looting, and crowds typically restrict or deprive individual movement, and therefore implicate arrests and other seizures.

Arrests involve substantial restraints on ones freedom of movement, typically taking someone from a public or private place where they have a right to be and placing them in government custody. Substantively, arrests require probable cause that the individual committed a crime. Procedurally, police may make arrests without a warrant for any crime committed in the officers presence or for a felony committed outside of an officers presence. Additionally, police may use only reasonable force to effect an arrest.

Seizures occur when someones movement is temporarily restricted in some meaningful way by an intentional show or use of government authority, including force short of an arrest. Substantively, in a law enforcement context, seizures are constitutional if they are based upon a reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot or if there is some other specific, legitimate law enforcement purpose. Criminal behavior could include looting, assault, trespassing or a curfew violation. Other legitimate purposes for a temporary stop might include checking identification for a limited access area (such as by verifying press credentials, employment or residency) or seeking information related to a recent crime in the area. Procedurally, seizures are constitutional if the measures taken to effect a seizure, and during it, are reasonable under the circumstances. For example, stopping a suspicious person and conducting a non-intrusive frisk for weapons is appropriate if there is a reasonable suspicion both that the person may be involved in criminal activity and that they are armed and potentially dangerous.

Riot- and crowd-control measures include arrests and seizures, but not all measures would necessarily involve one or the other. Often, in these situations, an individuals movement or behavior is restricted or limited in some way, but they are free to leavein Fourth Amendment termsto go somewhere or do something else. A seizure occurs only when an individual is temporarily and intentionally immobilized, whether voluntarily or involuntarily, by a government agent. Efforts to effect a seizure or arrest must always be reasonable under a totality of the circumstances.

Notwithstanding the Fourth Amendment, there is also a strong argument that all government action must be reasonable in order to be constitutional. Generally speaking, government action must be reasonably calculated to achieve (or rationally related to) a legitimate government purpose. The government action must also be a reasonable and permissible means of achieving that legitimate purpose. As Justice Marshall wrote in McCulloch v. Maryland:

Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the Constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, are Constitutional.

This is a general principle of constitutional law. Government action must be appropriate and plainly adapted to its alleged purpose. Not only must it not be prohibited by the Constitutions text, it must be consistent with the Constitution. Every use of physical force not amounting to a search or seizure must also, therefore, be reasonably directed to a legitimate end and reasonably necessary under a totality of the circumstances.

The Insurrection Act Does Not Alter These Constitutional Requirements.

The Insurrection Act allows a president broad discretion to use as much of the federal armed forces and state national guard units as he or she deems necessary to quell insurrections against the authority of a state or to remove substantial interferences with the enforcement of federal laws. A president could invoke either of these justifications in response to widespread riots and looting.

These statutes allow a president to take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination or conspiracy. Despite this broad language, the president may not authorize the armed forces to do anything he would like. Although the exigencies of a situation may require some deference to on-the-spot judgement calls, Congress cannot empower a president to violate specifically applicable aspects of the Constitution. The requirement that the use of all physical force be reasonable under the circumstances is one such specifically applicable constitutional requirement.

Recent Examples

Unreasonable use of lethal force that violates the Fourth Amendment.

The President has infamously tweeted that when the looting starts, the shooting starts. In Tennessee v. Garner, the Supreme Court held that the use of lethal force to stop a fleeing suspected felon is a Fourth Amendment seizure that must be reasonable. In this context, lethal force is reasonable only if the suspect presents a threat of serious harm to the officers or others. Shooting unarmed looters who are not engaging in any form of violence against a person would therefore clearly violate the Fourth Amendment as interpreted by the Supreme Court.

Unreasonable use of non-lethal force that violates the Fourth Amendment.

A viral video on social media apparently shows Minneapolis law enforcement shooting several people with rubber bullets or paint balls to force them to go inside a house rather than stand on a private porch. The officers were allegedly enforcing a curfew order. That order, however, prohibited only travel on public streets or places (with certain exceptions not relevant here). Violating the order is a misdemeanor. The curfew is likely a constitutionally reasonable response to the disorder and turmoil that has been taking place in Minneapolis. The Citys website containing the order specifically clarified, however, that people may be outside a home as long as they were on private property.

Under these circumstances, the use of non-lethal force to compel someone on private property to go inside a home was not rationally related to enforcing the curfew order. It also appears to lack any other basis in law and was undertaken without warning. Police were apparently shouting that people go inside their homes. When these individuals did not do so and continued recording, an officer said only light em up before the police fired. No additional warning and no explanation for the over-enforcement of curfew order were given. It would therefore amount to an unreasonable use of non-lethal force. Because the purpose was to confine someone in their home, and doing so is likely a seizure, it also violated the Fourth Amendment. The officers undertaking this action are guilty of an assault. The city is also subject to a civil action under federal law.

Another viral video shows several Georgia police officers apparently arresting two college students inside a car, smashing the cars windows and using tasers on both individuals despite no visible resistance. Under these circumstances, the use of force would not reasonably necessary to effectuate the arrest to enforce the curfew order. Indeed, two days later, the Georgia chief of police fired two of the officers pictured in the video, and the Atlanta mayor condemned the officers actions.

Unreasonable uses of force not implicating the Fourth Amendment.

On Saturday night, May 31, 2020, there were reports of Minneapolis police firing rubber bullets and using tear gas and flash-bang devices to disperse allegedly peaceful crowds or protesters, all without warning. Numerous videos indicate that reporters and their cameramen have been pushed and shoved without warning despite their obvious status. And police in Washington D.C. reportedly used rubber bullets and tear gas to break up peaceful protesters outside the White House this past Monday night on June 1, 2020. This included a now-viral video of police and/or national guard, without warning, striking an Australian reporter and her cameraman with a baton and riot shield, respectively, before also being shot with rubber bullets. And several videos from New York City and Los Angeles over the past week seem to show police driving cars into protesters.

Lets assume the police were correct that a lawful government directive or purpose required the people affected to disperse or leave the area at the time and place that these forcible measures were used. Using such non-, lesser-, or potentially-lethal force without prior warning would be unreasonable if less stringent measures were feasible. Invasions of liberty and personal integrity such as occurred in these incidents must have some specific justification, including the absence or failure of feasible, less-intrusive coercive measures.

These examples do not involve a Fourth Amendment search or seizure. Not only were the individuals free to leavemeaning they were not seized under court precedentthey were forced to do so. But even assuming that end was appropriate, can we say the use of tear gas, flash-bang grenades and less- or non-lethal bullets was proper? Can we say that potentially grievously injuring a person by running into them with a car is a reasonable response? Was it consistent with the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution? Absent some reasonable justification for failing to use lesser coercive measures, the answer is almost certainly no.

Because reasonableness surrounding the use of physical force is a constitutional requirement, nothing in the Insurrection Act would change the above legal analysis. It does not matter if the government agents are members of the national guard or federal armed forces or of the city police or state troopers. Whether acting under state or federal authority, the U.S. Constitution imposes the same constraints.

* * *

The authority to quell riots and looting must be exercised responsibly, meaning reasonably, at every level. All law enforcement officers, members of the National Guard and members of the federal armed forces must be told and trained to use force only when necessary and only when it reasonably appears that lesser means of coercion are not feasible under the circumstances or have failed. Warnings should be given before using physical force when possible. The Department of Justice and many law enforcement agencies refer to this as the use of force continuum. The continuum is not merely policy, however. It must be understood as a constitutional demand. Reasonableness is determined by what a government agent reasonably perceived in good faith under a totality of the circumstances. Those who have sworn to protect this country and its population have been vested with great power and must therefore show great restraint in the use of physical force.

Read more from the original source:
The US Constitution and Limits on Detention and Use of Force in Handling Civil Unrest - Just Security