This Little Light Of Mine

Sunday, June 1, 2014

Not All Cop Shoot Outs Are Justified

I hope these police officers get life!


A nighttime car chase in Cleveland that ended on a schoolyard where more than 100 shots were fired at the suspect’s vehicle appeared to be over when an officer opened fire again, a prosecutor said in announcing charges against the patrolman and five police supervisors.
Cleveland patrol officer Michael Brelo stood on the hood of the suspect’s car and fired at least 15 shots through the windshield — five fatal — at the two unarmed people inside, Cuyahoga County prosecutor Tim McGinty said Friday.
McGinty cited a U.S. Supreme Court ruling this week that said police can’t fire on suspects after a public safety threat has ended. He said the other officers on the scene had stopped firing after the November 2012 chase ended.


6 Cleveland officers indicted in deadly car chase

By MARK GILLISPIE, Associated Press | May 31, 2014 | Updated: May 31, 2014 4:28pm

  •  Cuyahoga County Prosecutor Tim McGinty makes a statement regarding the grand jury announcement of the deaths of Timothy Russell and Malissa Williams Friday, May 30, 2014, in Cleveland. A grand jury on Friday indicted six police officers involved in a November 2012 car chase that ended in the deaths of two unarmed people, was decried by critics as a racially motivated execution and is part of a wide-ranging federal investigation. The grand jury indicted a patrol officer on two charges of manslaughter and five supervisors on charges of dereliction of duty for failing to control the chase.
CLEVELAND (AP) — A police car chase that ended in a schoolyard with two unarmed suspects dying in a hail of 137 bullets is part of a wide-ranging federal investigation into the Cleveland Police Department's use of deadly force and its pursuit policies.
Six officers in the police department were indicted Friday on charges related to the chase, Cuyohoga County prosecutor Tim McGinty said. Patrol officer Michael Brelo, who the prosecutor said stood on the hood of the suspects' car and fired at least 15 shots through the windshield, has been charged with two counts of manslaughter. Five supervisors have been charged with dereliction of duty for failing to control the chase.
McGinty cited a U.S. Supreme Court ruling this week that said police can't fire on suspects after a public safety threat has ended. He said the other officers on the scene had stopped firing after the November 2012 chase ended.
"This was now a stop-and-shoot — no longer a chase-and-shoot," McGinty said. "The law does not allow for a stop-and-shoot."
Driver Timothy Russell was shot 23 times. Passenger Malissa Williams was shot 24 times. No gun was found on them or in their vehicle. The chase began when an officer thought he heard a gunshot from a car speeding by the police and courts complex, jumped into his patrol car and radioed for help. Police don't know why Russell didn't stop.
Brelo fired 49 shots. None of the other 12 officers who fired shots were indicted, McGinty said Friday.

The killings have been decried as a racially motivated execution — both victims were black — and are part of a larger federal investigation into the troubled police department.
The chase involved five dozen cruisers and wove through residential neighborhoods, onto Interstate 90 and eventually ended in East Cleveland. McGinty said the chase covered 20 miles over 23 minutes and reached speeds of 110 mph.
Safety director Michael McGrath said 104 of the 277 Cleveland officers on duty that night were involved.
The police union has defended the officers' actions and said the driver was trying to ram them. Capt. Brian Betley, the leader of theFraternal Order of Police, which represents police supervisors, told the (Cleveland) Plain Dealer that he was disappointed in the grand jury's findings.
In a statement Friday, Williams' family told the Plain Dealer they were grateful for prosecutors' work and stressed that now is the time for the community to heal.
"Now is the time for us to join and have positive dialogue about solutions," the family said. "We need to figure out how the police department can work better with the community and not against them."
The police department has been dealing with the fallout from the chase.
Police officials announced in March that the department will limit when and how long squad cars can chase suspects. The revamped policy was in the works before the deadly chase, but what happened did influence the new guidelines, Police Chief Calvin Williams said.
A review of the chase led to the discipline of 64 of the 104 officers involved in the chase for violations of department rules, McGrath said. Twelve supervisors were disciplined, including one who was fired and two who were demoted, McGrath said.
An investigation by the Ohio attorney general blamed police leadership and communications failures during the chase. McGinty said investigating the chase was complicated by the fact that Cleveland cruisers don't have video cameras.
The 43-year-old Russell had a criminal record including convictions for receiving stolen property and robbery. Williams, 30, had convictions for drug-related charges and attempted abduction.
The estates of Russell and Williams have sued the city, the mayor and police. The lawsuit, which is still ongoing, asks the court to order the city to make changes in police policies to prevent similar situations.
The supervisors indicted on misdemeanor dereliction of duty charges were Lt. Paul Wilson, Sgt. Patricia Coleman, Sgt. Randolph Dailey, Sgt. Michael Donegan and Sgt. Jason Edens.
Thank you to Jeannette Triplett for the heads up on this!

See Why GE Foods In The U.S. Are Illegal

(This is the very last paragraph of the following report. I wanted to open with it as it deserves saying twice!). 
Consequently, the marketing of GE foods in the U.S. is illegal because none of them is GRAS and none has undergone formal food additive approval. And it’s high time that the American people were informed of this fact.

WHY THE FDA’S POLICY ON GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOODS
IS FRAUDULENT AND ILLEGAL

Steven M. Druker, J.D.
Executive Director
Alliance for Bio-Integrity

Although most Americans (including those who serve in government) are unaware of it, genetically engineered foods are on the market only because the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has covered up the warnings of its own scientists, misrepresented the facts, and violated explicit mandates of U.S. law. The following points provide the details.

1. The Food Additive Amendment of the U.S. Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act institutes a precautionary approach and requires that new additives to food must be demonstrated safe before they are marketed. (21 U.S.C. Sec. 321)

2. An official Senate report described the intent of the amendment as follows: “While Congress did not want to unnecessarily stifle technological advances, it nevertheless intended that additives created through new technologies be proven safe before they go to market.” (S. Rep. 2422, 1958 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5301- 2)

3. Although the FDA admits that the various genetic materials implanted in bioengineered organisms are within the amendment’s purview, it claims they are exempt from testing because they are generally recognized as safe (GRAS). (Statement of Policy: Foods Derived From New Plant Varieties, May 29, 1992, Federal Register vol. 57, No. 104 at 22991)

4. However, the FDA’s regulations state that substances added to food that were not in use prior to 1958 cannot qualify as GRAS unless they meet two requirements. Not only must they be acknowledged as safe by an overwhelming consensus of experts, but this consensus must be based on “scientific procedures” – which ordinarily entail studies published in peer-reviewed journals. (21 CFR Sec. 170.30 (a-b))

5. FDA regulations further stipulate that these scientific procedures must provide a demonstration of safety and that GRAS substances "...require the same quantity and quality of scientific evidence as is required to obtain approval of the substance as a food additive." (21 CFR Sec. 170.30(b)) Thus, it’s clear that the GRAS exemption is not supposed to reduce the degree of testing but rather to relieve a producer from performing new tests for substances already known to be safe on the basis of previous ones.

6. Genetically engineered (GE) foods fail both requirements. There is substantial dispute among experts about their safety; and none has been confirmed safe through adequate testing.

7. As the FDA was developing its policy on GE foods during 1991-92, there was not even consensus about safety among its own experts. The predominant opinion was (a) that these new foods entail unique risks, especially the potential for unintended harmful side effects that are difficult to detect and (b) that none can be considered safe unless it has passed rigorous tests capable of screening for such effects. These scientists expressed their concerns in numerous memos to superiors – memos that only came to light in 1998 when the lawsuit led by the Alliance for Bio-Integrity forced the FDA to
divulge its files. [Copies of these FDA memos are posted on www.biointegrity.org]

8. For example, microbiologist Dr. Louis Pribyl stated: "There is a profound difference between the types of unexpected effects from traditional breeding and genetic engineering ...." He added that several aspects of gene- splicing ". . . may be more hazardous . . ." (FDA Document 4 at http://www.biointegrity.org) Similarly, Dr. E.J. Matthews of the FDA's Toxicology Group warned that ". . . genetically modified plants could ... contain unexpected high concentrations of plant toxicants...," and he cautioned that some of these toxicants could be unexpected and could "...be uniquely different chemicals that are usually expressed in unrelated plants." (FDA Document 2 at http://www.biointegrity.org) Citing the potential for such unintended dangers, the Director of FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) called for bioengineered products to be demonstrated safe prior to marketing. He stated: "... CVM believes that animal feeds derived from genetically modified plants present unique [emphasis added] animal and food safety concerns." (FDA Document 10 at http://www.biointegrity.org) He explained that residues of unexpected substances could make meat and milk products harmful to humans.

9. In light of these unique risks, agency scientists advised that GE foods should undergo special testing, including toxicological tests. (e.g. FDA Documents 2 and 6 at http://www.biointegrity.org)

10. The pervasiveness of the concerns within the scientific staff is attested by a memo from an FDA official who protested the agency was "... trying to fit a square peg into a round hole . . . [by] trying to force an ultimate conclusion that there is no difference between foods modified by genetic engineering and foods modified by traditional breeding practices." She declared: "The processes of genetic engineering and traditional breeding are different, and according to the technical experts in the agency, they lead to different risks." (FDA Document 1 at http://www.biointegrity.org)

11. Moreover, FDA officials knew there was not a consensus about the safety of GE foods among scientists outside the agency either. For instance, FDA's Biotechnology Coordinator acknowledged in a letter to a Canadian health official that there was no such consensus in the scientific community at large. He also admitted, "I think the question of the potential for some substances to cause allergenic reactions is particularly difficult to predict." (FDA Document 8 at http://www.biointegrity.org)

12. This lack of consensus in itself disqualifies GE foods from GRAS status. But even if consensus did exist, no GE food would qualify as GRAS because none has satisfactorily passed the level of testing that the law requires – and that the FDA experts stated is necessary. The agency’s files demonstrate that as of 1992, there was virtually no evidence to support safety, with one official’s memo to the Biotechnology Coordinator querying: " … are we asking the scientific experts to generate the basis for this policy statement in the absence of any data?” (FDA Document 1 at http://www.biointegrity.org) And the evidentiary base is still deficient because the FDA does not require any testing; and the tests relied on by the EU, Canada, and others do not adequately screen for the unexpected side effects about which the FDA scientists warned. The inadequacy of current testing has been pointed out by numerous experts, including the Royal Society of Canada and the Public Health Association of Australia. (Also see paragraph 27 below.)

13. Despite the ample evidence indicating a lack of consensus about safety, as well as the lack of requisite evidence to confirm it, the FDA’s decision-makers (who acknowledge they’ve been operating under a policy “to foster” the U.S. biotechnology industry) declared that as long as a GE food does not introduce a known toxin or allergen, they would presume that it’s GRAS – and can therefore be marketed without any testing. In doing so, they professed themselves “not aware of any information” showing that GE foods differ from others “in any meaningful way,” even though they had received extensive input from their scientists pointing out the significant differences and their serious implications. (The agency’s promotional policy was acknowledgement in “Genetically Engineered Foods,” FDA Consumer, Jan.-Feb. 1993, p.14. Its fraudulent denial of awareness appears in: Statement of Policy: Foods Derived From New Plant Varieties, May 29, 1992, Federal Register vol. 57, No. 104 at 22991)

14. Although many people have been made to believe that the U.S. district court in Alliance for Bio-Integrity v Shalala determined that GE foods are on the market legally, its decision actually highlights the extent to which their presence is contrary to the law. (Alliance for Bio-Integrity v. Shalala. 116 F. Supp. 2d 166 (D.D.C. 2000) at p. 179)

15. In her written opinion, the judge stated: “Plaintiffs have produced several documents showing significant disagreements among scientific experts.” (116 F.Supp.2d 166 (D.D.C. 2000) at 177) However, she ruled that the crucial issue was not whether GE foods were in fact GRAS at the time of the lawsuit (or were actually GRAS when the FDA issued its policy statement on GE foods in May 1992) but whether FDA administrators had acted arbitrarily in 1992 in presuming that they were GRAS. Therefore, because she held that the case hinged on this narrow procedural issue of whether there had been adequate rational basis for the FDA’s presumption, she said that any evidence showing lack of expert consensus at the time of the lawsuit was irrelevant, since it was not within the administrators’ purview when they formed their policy in 1992.

16. As for the evidence that had been within the FDA’s own files in 1992, she ruled that the administrators were free to disregard the opinions of subordinates when setting policy. (116 F.Supp.2d 166 (D.D.C. 2000) p.178) This conclusion seems odd, since the written opinions of the agency’s scientists represented far more than mere policy preferences. They constituted solid evidence that a significant number of experts did not recognize GE foods as safe. Further, the judge failed to mention the fact that the FDA’s biotechnology coordinator had admitted there was not a consensus within the scientific community, even though plaintiffs’ briefs had emphasized it and cited the relevant document.

17. She additionally disregarded the fact (which had also been clearly pointed out to her) that the FDA’s files demonstrated there was insufficient technical evidence about safety to support a presumption that GE foods are GRAS. Although her opinion initially acknowledged that such technical evidence is legally required, she never returned to the issue – a highly irregular outcome.

18. Therefore, because she ignored so much important evidence, her ruling is highly questionable. It’s also quite narrow. She did not determine that GE foods are (or ever were) truly GRAS. Nor did she determine that any has been demonstrated safe. She merely held that given the evidence before them in 1992, FDA officials had not acted arbitrarily in presuming that the foods were GRAS. Further, she emphasized that their presumption is, as a matter of law, rebuttable. (p.172)

19. This is a crucial point, because even if one believes that the FDA administrators had reasonable basis in 1992 to presume that all GE foods are GRAS, it’s obvious that their rebuttable presumption has been clearly and continuously rebutted – both by the ever-growing dispute among experts and the ongoing lack of adequate testing.

20. Moreover, the lack of consensus and the lack of evidence are glaringly apparent, as the next seven paragraphs amply demonstrate.

21. In the Alliance for Bio-Integrity lawsuit, nine of the plaintiffs were well-credentialed life scientists (including tenured professors at UC Berkeley, Rutgers, the University of Minnesota, and the NYU School of Medicine) who asserted they did not regard GE foods as safe. As noted in paragraph 15 above, the judge acknowledged we had demonstrated there were “significant disagreements among scientific experts.” This in itself established that as of May 1998, GE foods could not be considered GRAS.

22. The following year, the respected medical journal The Lancet strongly criticized the presumption that GE foods entail no greater risks of unexpected effects than conventional foods, stating that there are “good reasons to believe that specific risks may exist” and that “governments should never have allowed these products into the food chain without insisting on rigorous testing for effects on health.” (The Lancet, Volume 353, Issue 9167, Page 1811, 29 May 1999)

23. In 2001, an expert panel of the Royal Society of Canada issued a report declaring (a) that it is “scientifically unjustifiable” to presume that GE foods are safe and (b) that the “default presumption” for every GE food should be that the genetic alteration has induced unintended and potentially hazardous side effects. (“Elements of Precaution: Recommendations for the Regulation of Food Biotechnology in Canada; An Expert Panel Report on the Future of Food Biotechnology prepared by The Royal Society of Canada at the request of Health Canada Canadian Food Inspection Agency and Environment Canada” The Royal Society of Canada, January 2001) In describing the report’s criticism of the current approach to regulating GE foods, the Toronto Star stated: “The experts say this approach is fatally flawed … and exposes Canadians to several potential health risks, including toxicity and allergic reactions.” (Calamai, P., “Ottawa Rapped, Expert Study Considered Major Setback for Biotech Industry,” Toronto Star , February 5, 2001)

24. The British Medical Association has also expressed reservations about the safety of these novel products. As described in the British Medical Journal, the Association released a 2004 report stating that “more research is needed to show that genetically modified (GM) food crops and ingredients are safe for people and the environment and that they offer real benefits over traditionally grown foods.” (Kmietowicz, Z. “GM Foods Should Be Submitted to Further Studies, says BMA,” British Medical Journal, 2004 March 13; 328(7440): 602)

25. In October 2013, a large number of well-qualified experts signed a statement asserting that there is not a consensus about the safety of GE foods and that their safety has not been adequately demonstrated. As of December 10 of that year, the statement had 297 signatories. (http://www.ensser.org/increasing-public-information/no-scientific-consensus-on-gmo-safety/)

26. Thus, the absence of requisite consensus is irrefutable, especially in light of the fact that the FDA has, in court, established that an additive was not GRAS merely by producing testimony from two experts who did not regard it as safe. (United States v. Seven Cartons . . . Ferro-Lac, 293 F. Supp. 660, 664 (N.D. Il. 1968)


27. Further, not only has there never been a genuine consensus about the safety of GE foods, the evidentiary base on which such a consensus is legally required to rest has never existed either – and is still absent. This is well-attested by David Schubert, a professor at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies, who recently asserted: “As a medical research scientist who published a comprehensive, peer-reviewed critique of genetically modified food safety testing, I can state confidently that it is false to say such foods and the toxic chemicals they require are extensively tested and proved safe. No producer-independent safety testing, long-term or multigenerational rodent studies or epidemiological studies have been done to support the hypothesis that these foods are safe.” (Letter to the LA Times, October 28, 2012)

Consequently, the marketing of GE foods in the U.S. is illegal because none of them is GRAS and none has undergone formal food additive approval. And it’s high time that the American people were informed of this fact.