Outrage Building as SC Police Taser 86 Year Old Combative Negro, Putting Him in Intensive Care

ALBERT CHATFIELD, AGE 86. HAS TROUBLE FUNCTIONING SOMETIMES.

No, the outrage isn’t because a Negro had the nerve to attack police officers, whose race has not been verified. The outrage is because the police used a taser on him.

I guess next time, to save trouble, they should just shoot the SOB?

According to Albert Chatfield’s fambly, he dindu nuffins.

Herald Online

WILLIAMSBURG COUNTY, SC
An 86-year-old South Carolina man was in intensive care Thursday after being shocked with a Taser by a Kingstree police officer during a traffic stop, according to an attorney representing the motorist.

Albert Chatfield was taken to McLeod Regional Medical Center in Florence on Monday with a broken nose, lacerations to his face and head and bleeding in three spots on his brain, said state Rep. Justin Bamberg, an attorney who is representing Chatfield.

Kingstree Police Chief James Barr Jr. said an officer used the Taser after Chatfield exited his vehicle, began yelling at officers, and started stepping backward towards traffic.

Officers stopped Chatfield after a 911 caller reported just before 8 a.m. Monday that a driver in a white SUV was tailgating a car and not allowing the driver to turn, Barr told The State newspaper on Thursday. Two officers in separate patrol cars spotted Chatfield’s white Ford Explorer in the town limits.

Barr said he would not identify the officers involved, citing the ongoing investigation. However, officer Stephen Sweikata wrote in an incident report that he pursued Chatfield. A copy of the incident report was provided to The State newspaper.

Chatfield is black. The report does not indicate the race of the two Kingstree officers.

Sweikata saw Chatfield’s SUV and started to make a U-turn to follow him, but Chatfield made a U-turn to avoid the officer, the report states.

“Mr. Chatfield took them on a quarter-of-a-mile chase before he stopped,” Barr said. “Once his vehicle came to a stop, he jumped out of his vehicle and headed toward law enforcement in a rage. Officers were giving him commands to stand down and stop.”

Chatfield continued yelling at the officers on the side of the road and “took up a fighting stance” against Sweikata, the report states.

“He was just hollering, really not making sense,” Barr said.

Sweikata deployed his Taser on Chatfield, with the prongs striking Chatfield in the chest and rib areas, the report states. Barr said the officer shocked Chatfield for one five-second cycle.

Chatfield fell onto his back, was handcuffed and moved away from traffic, according to Barr and the incident report. He appeared to be disoriented but was still responsive and communicating when EMS arrived, Barr said.

The incident report describes Chatfield as 5-foot-9 and 173 pounds. When asked why the officers did not physically subdue Chatfield, Barr said the Taser was the last resort because of Chatfield’s stance toward officers and the danger he posed to himself by stepping closer to traffic. No charges have been filed.

Bamberg, the attorney representing Chatfield, said his client was not armed and never fought with the officers.

“Unless the officers reasonably felt that Mr. Chatfield was a threat of serious bodily injury to themselves or to a third party, they should not have tased him in the first place,” he said.

He noted that the incident report says Chatfield was “walking/jogging” backward in the lanes of traffic, and questioned how he could be aggressive with officers if he was backing away from them.

“It’s my understanding he was never close enough to touch anybody, nor did he act like he was about to attack anybody,” Bamberg said. “He just wasn’t listening.”

Chatfield was taken to Williamsburg Regional Hospital and later airlifted to McLeod Regional Medical Center.

At McLeod, Chatfield was put into a medically-induced coma, which he is now out of, Bamberg said. He cannot talk beyond mumbles and groans, and has a pacemaker which doctors are still testing to see if it was damaged by the Taser.

“Him being tased did not cause the medical condition that he was having,” Barr said. “He was having some preexisting conditions that the family knew some of.”

Chatfield’s daughter told a doctor at Williamsburg Regional that her father “had acted out with her” Saturday, and that she believed he was not taking his prescribed medication, according to the police incident report.

“At 86 years old, he’s in his right mind most of the time but he will also have periods of confusion or paranoia,” Bamberg said. “That is what they are referring to with regard to his condition.”

Each officer was wearing a body camera that was working and activated during the traffic stop, Barr said. There also is dashcam footage of the incident, he said.

Barr said no footage will be released while the case is under investigation. The State newspaper has requested a copy of the footage under the state’s Freedom of Information Act.

Kingstree, a town of about 3,200 residents, is located about 80 miles east of Columbia.

Breaking! Ohio State University Bans Richard Spencer from Speaking

This post was unplanned, but while researching my main post on Richard Spencer today, the following Newsweek item appeared in my list of Spencer stories.

Excerpt from Newsweek

Ohio State University has denied a request to rent space for white nationalist provocateur Richard Spencer to speak on campus, citing security concerns.

An appearance by Spencer at the University of Florida Friday sparked protests, with anti-racism demonstrators confronting white supremacists at the event and jeering at Spencer as he attempted to make a speech.

Three men who had reportedly been making Nazi salutes were arrested Friday and charged with attempted murder after firing at protesters at the event.

“The university has deemed that it is not presently able to accommodate Mr. [Cameron] Padgett’s request to rent space at the university due to substantial risk to public safety, as well as material and substantial disruption to the work and discipline of the university,” a lawyer representing Ohio State said in a letter to an attorney representing Spencer’s associates and obtained by the Associated Press.

Attorneys working for Spencer associate Padgett said they would launch a legal challenge to any attempt to prevent the planned appearance at Ohio State University.

Padgett sued Penn State University on Friday after officials rejected a request for Spencer to appear there, as well. The University of Cincinnati last week ultimately decided they would “uphold the First Amendment” and allow Spencer to speak, after a threat of a lawsuit from Bristow.

Eventually, Spencer will be speaking because OSU and PSU will lose in court.

Judge Susan Bolton Screws Sheriff Joe Arpaio One More Time–Denies Conviction Erasure

In Texas a person convicted of certain crimes can have his conviction expunged if he stays out of trouble and pays the state a hefty fee.

I’m not sure about Arizona, where Sheriff Joe is based. But he’s looking to have his conviction erased.

His lawyers will have to figure out the next steps to take. The man would never have been convicted were it not for vindictive liberal judge Susan Bolton.

Tucson

Saying the president can’t erase facts, a federal judge on Thursday rejected a bid by former Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio to have all record of his criminal conviction wiped out.

Susan Bolton said she already dismissed the criminal contempt case against Arpaio following the decision by President Trump to issue a pardon. That saved the former sheriff, who had been found guilty, from the possibility of going to jail for up to six months.

But Bolton rebuffed Arpaio’s claim that the pardon also entitled him to have the entire conviction erased.

“The power to pardon is an executive prerogative of mercy, not of judicial record-keeping,” Bolton wrote, quoting earlier court precedent.

“The pardon undoubtedly spared defendant from any punishment that might otherwise have been imposed,” the judge continued. “It did not, however, revise the historical facts of this case.”

Arpaio, however, is not willing to simply enjoy his freedom.

“It’s not going to be dropped,” he told Capitol Media Services.

Jack Wilenchik, one of his attorneys, said the relief the sheriff is seeking is important.

He said Arpaio intended to appeal his conviction, if for no other reason than Bolton had said he was not entitled to a jury trial. Wilenchik said he believes Arpaio would have won.

But now, with the pardon, there’s no opportunity to appeal, meaning the record of the conviction remains. And that, he said would be something that could be used against the former sheriff in any future criminal or civil case.

OBSERVE THE FAMOUS PINK UNDERWEAR IN JOE’S JAIL.

The conviction stems from the years’ old case filed against Arpaio and the department he led, accusing the agency of having policies of stopping motorists who look like they might be in the country illegally, whether or not they had violated any state laws. Deputies then would hand the people over to federal immigration officials.

U.S. District Judge Murray Snow found Arpaio and the department guilty of illegal racial profiling and he ordered it to stop. Snow later concluded the department violated his orders and referred Arpaio, two aides and a former attorney for charges of criminal contempt.

The Department of Justice, then under President Obama, decided to pursue only Arpaio. And Bolton, who handled that case, used his own words and press releases to show he intentionally ignored Snow’s orders.

But before he could be sentenced, Trump interceded. And Bolton concluded that ended the case.

Wilenchik, however, said that’s not enough.

He said the conviction should be nullified. And Wilenchik said Bolton is misstating his arguments in asking that any evidence of the case against Arpaio be wiped out.

“We’re not asking to undo facts,” he said.

“We’re not asking for expungement,” Wilenchik continued. “There’s no such thing in federal law.”

What Wilenchik said he does want is a recognition that the case is now legally moot. He said it’s no different than if someone dies before sentencing or having a chance to appeal.

“The whole case gets undone,” he said, with the conviction nullified.

But Bolton said that’s not the way things work. She said the right of the president to pardon the former sheriff is different — and separate from — what actually occurred in court.

More to the point, she said what Arpaio wants ignores the legal nature of a pardon.

First, she said, it must be accepted. At that point, Bolton wrote, the defendant is no longer subject to punishment and all of his or her civil rights are restored.

“It does not erase a judgment of conviction, or its underlying legal and factual findings,” Bolton said. In fact, the judge said there is case law showing that a pardon carries an imputation of guilt — and that acceptance is “a confession of it.”

In this case, Bolton said, Trump issued the pardon and Arpaio accepted it. And as she reads the law, that ends the case, but does not entitle the former sheriff to have his underlying conviction wiped out.

That conviction apparently has not dimmed the former sheriff’s political pull. On Thursday, when contacted by Capitol Media Services, he was in California, campaigning on behalf of congressional candidate Omar Navarro who hopes to unseat incumbent Democrat Maxine Waters.

Saying the president can’t erase facts, a federal judge this afternoon rejected a bid by former Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio to have all records of his criminal conviction wiped out.

Susan Bolton said she already dismissed the criminal contempt case against Arpaio following the decision by President Trump to issue a pardon. That saved the former sheriff, who had been found guilty, from the possibility of going to jail.

But Bolton rebuffed Arpaio’s claim that the pardon also entitled him to have the entire conviction erased.

“The power to pardon is an executive prerogative of mercy, not of judicial record-keeping,” Bolton wrote, quoting earlier court precedent.

“The pardon undoubtedly spared defendant from any punishment that might otherwise have been imposed,” the judge continued. “It did not, however, revise the historical facts of this case.”

Alabama Senate Candidate Roy Moore Puts God First

If the people of Alabama are wise enough to send Roy Moore to the United States Senate, I guarantee you there will be constant turmoil that will shake the cultural elites to their souls.

The thought of an Alabama country boy in the United States Senate disgusts them. The fact that he can out think and outsmart them makes it worse. But worst of all in their minds, he puts God first.

This excerpt is about half the 2,500 word source article.

MSN

Senate candidate Roy Moore believes in the “sovereignty of God,” an idea that he believes certain rules, laws and even Supreme Court opinions have run afoul of.

In an interview with TIME magazine, the Alabama Republican said that he thinks judges who rule in favor of gay marriage should be removed from the bench, argued that it was “providence” that he won the primary against incumbent Sen. Luther Strange and said he often tells his critics that they need to think about biblical principles.

“I talk to liberals, and I tell them this,” he said. “I say, ‘you should be recognizing the sovereignty of God.’ That’s what gives you the right to believe what you want. That’s in the first four Commandments.”

Continue reading

Nonwhite Judge Blocks Trump’s Latest Travel Ban

JUDGE DERRICK WATSON. BLOCKED EARLIER TRAVEL BAN TOO.

Wikipedia tells us that Judge Derrick Watson, who is determined to prevent any travel ban at all from ever taking place for any reason, is an Obama appointee. He is a Native Hawaiian.

He’s also not surprisingly allegedly received threats for his unconcern with public safety.

So, back goes the Attorney General’s office to the Supreme Court, which really needs to excoriate this little Hawaiian worn.

ABC News

A federal judge in Hawaii blocked most of President Donald Trump’s latest travel ban Tuesday, just hours before it was set to take effect, saying the revised order “suffers from precisely the same maladies as its predecessor.”

It was the third set of travel restrictions issued by the president to be thwarted, in whole or in part, by the courts.

U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson issued the ruling after the ban on a set of mostly Muslim countries was challenged by the state of Hawaii, which warned that the restrictions would separate families and undermine the recruiting of diverse college students.

White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders called the ruling “dangerously flawed” and said it “undercuts the president’s efforts to keep the American people safe.” The Justice Department said it will quickly appeal.

At issue was a ban, announced in September and set to go into effect early Wednesday, on travelers from Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Syria and Yemen, along with some Venezuelan government officials and their families.

The Trump administration said the ban was based on an assessment of each country’s security situation and willingness to share information with the U.S.

Watson, appointed to the bench by President Barack Obama, said the new restrictions ignore a federal appeals court ruling against Trump’s previous ban.

The latest version “plainly discriminates based on nationality in the manner that the 9th Circuit has found antithetical to … the founding principles of this nation,” Watson wrote.

The judge’s ruling applies only to the six Muslim-majority countries on the list. It does not affect the restrictions against North Korea or Venezuela, because Hawaii did not ask for that.

“This is the third time Hawaii has gone to court to stop President Trump from issuing a travel ban that discriminates against people based on their nation of origin or religion,” Hawaii Attorney General Doug Chin said in a statement. “Today is another victory for the rule of law.”

Hawaii argued the updated ban was a continuation of Trump’s campaign call for a ban on Muslims, despite the addition of two countries without a Muslim majority.

Watson noted that Hawaii had argued Trump did not back down from that call, listing in the ruling a series of June tweets “in which (Trump) complained about how the Justice Department had submitted a ‘watered down, politically correct version’ to the Supreme Court.”

Other courts that weighed the travel ban have cited Trump’s comments about banning Muslims, including the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Virginia and a federal judge in Maryland. Watson also referred to a Trump campaign statement in his previous ruling.

His Tuesday ruling said the new ban, like its predecessor, fails to show that nationality alone makes a person a greater security risk to the U.S.

“The categorical restrictions on entire populations of men, women and children, based upon nationality, are a poor fit for the issues regarding the sharing of ‘public-safety and terrorism-related information’ that the president identifies,” Watson wrote.

He said the ban is inconsistent in the way some countries are included or left out. For example, Iraq failed to meet the security benchmark but was omitted from the ban. Somalia met the information-sharing benchmark but was included.

Watson found fault with what sorts of visitors are barred. For instance, all tourists and business travelers from Libya are excluded from the U.S., but student visitors were allowed.

The judge said he would set an expedited hearing to determine whether the temporary restraining order blocking the ban should be extended. It comes as other courts weigh challenges to the ban.

In Maryland, the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups are seeking to block the visa and entry restrictions. Washington state, Massachusetts, California, Oregon, New York and Maryland are challenging the order in front of the same federal judge in Seattle who struck down Trump’s initial ban in January.

That ban — aimed mostly at Muslim-majority countries — led to chaos and confusion at airports nationwide and triggered several lawsuits, including one from Hawaii.

When Trump revised the ban, Hawaii challenged that version, too, and Watson agreed it discriminated on the basis of nationality and religion. A subsequent U.S. Supreme Court ruling allowed the administration to partially reinstate restrictions against Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen and against all refugees.

Hawaii then successfully challenged the government’s definition of which relatives of people already living in the U.S. would be allowed into the country, and Watson ordered the list expanded.

Nonwhites shouldn’t be judges except for their own peoples. This one wants to create chaos, justifying it with that liberal catchall, “inclusion.”

Lawyer Disbarred for Criticizing Faggots is Asking for Law License Back, Still Must Pay $3.5 Million Judgement

ANDREW SHERVILL. DESTROYED BY LEGAL SYSTEM FOR CRITICIZING GAYS.

This is one of the most incredible stories you’re ever likely to read.

It proves that there is no rule of law in America. The court system is populated by (((Communists))) who will destroy you if you give them a chance.

An anti-gay blogger who thought he had First Amendment rights has been utterly reduced to nothing. He had been a successful attorney, but he didn’t count on how the law is what an evil cabal of filth says it is.

Mlive

ANN ARBOR, MI – A former state assistant attorney general known for his anti-gay writing about a former University of Michigan student body president is appealing the Michigan Attorney Discipline Board’s decision to revoke his law license.

Andrew Shirvell, whose disbarment was ordered by the board in March, has a hearing for a petition for review on Wednesday, Oct. 18, before the Michigan Attorney Discipline Board.

In October 2016, the Michigan Attorney Discipline Board said the former state assistant attorney general committed misconduct when he harassed Christopher Armstrong, the university’s first openly gay student body president. Shirvell was fired in 2010.

Shirvell believes the panel responsible for revoking his law license back in March was biased against him.

“Given that my case is one of the most politically-charged to have ever come before a Hearing Panel … I cannot imagine a more biased panel of attorneys who sat in judgment of me,” Shirvell said in a news release. “With Donald Trump now in the White House, conservative Christians like me will no longer tolerate
being railroaded by the liberal elite. It is time for the Michigan Attorney Discipline Board to overturn the Hearing Panel’s biased determinations and restore my law license.”

In 2012, a jury found Shirvell had stalked, defamed and invaded Armstrong’s privacy and Shirvell was ordered to pay $4.5 million.

The U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the judgment against Shirvell in February 2015.

The court of appeal’s decision came with a dismissal of damages awarded for false light invasion of privacy, but he still owed Armstrong $3.5 million stemming from the 2012 jury verdict.

In January 2015, the state of appeals court denied Shirvell’s request for unemployment benefits, saying his firing by then-attorney general Mike Cox was justified because Shirvell’s Facebook posts and gay-bashing blog negatively impacted the agency’s credibility.

At the time, Cox said Shirvell was not fired for exercising his First Amendment rights, but for lying to investigators during a disciplinary hearing and for posting attacks online during work hours.

Shirvell expressed his views as a private citizen, but the court said the First Amendment did not protect him because the state provided evidence that his conduct affected government services.

The background on this travesty of justice can be read in this 2010 CNN article. It shows that Shervill did nothing that any decent person wouldn’t do.

My mind is still reeling over this case. It deserves much more attention than its gotten from the alt-right and conservative Christians.

Harvey Weinstein expelled from motion picture academy

At least some of the pukes who gave the boot to Harvey knew exactly what he had been doing and said nothing.

These hypocrites do not deserve a break. Let (((Hollywood))) continue to devour more of its own.

We see how quickly Jews will turn on their fellow Jews when the chips are down and shekels are at stake.

Excerpt from Los Angeles Times

mbattled film mogul Harvey Weinstein — a once-dominant force in the Academy Awards who rewrote the rules of Oscar campaigning — has been expelled from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences in response to mounting allegations of sexual harassment and assault against him.

The film academy’s 54-member board of governors, which includes such industry luminaries as Steven Spielberg, Tom Hanks, Kathleen Kennedy and Whoopi Goldberg, voted in an emergency meeting on Saturday morning to remove Weinstein from the organization’s ranks in an unprecedented public rebuke of a prominent industry figure. The move marked the latest blow in Weinstein’s stunning downfall and, in symbolic terms, amounts to a virtual expulsion from Hollywood itself.

In removing Weinstein from its ranks, the academy said in a statement, “We do so not simply to separate ourselves from someone who does not merit the respect of his colleagues but also to send a message that the era of willful ignorance and shameful complicity in sexually predatory behavior and workplace harassment in our industry is over. What’s at issue here is a deeply troubling problem that has no place in our society. The Board continues to work to establish ethical standards of conduct that all Academy members will be expected to exemplify.”

Since reports of Weinstein’s alleged misconduct toward dozens of women first surfaced in the New York Times on Oct. 5, the academy had been under increasing pressure to take action against him. On Tuesday, the National Organization for Women publicly called for Weinstein’s removal, stating, “A sexual predator doesn’t deserve the privilege of an academy membership — and all the opportunities to wield outsize power that come with it.”

Don’t give the Clintons and other high profile Democrats a pass either.

Twenty-one members of the film academy’s board are women — as is its chief executive, Dawn Hudson — and in recent years the organization has taken steps to dramatically increase the number of women in its historically overwhelmingly male ranks.

In the past several days, a number of academy members expressed their feelings both privately and publicly that Weinstein had no place in the film industry’s most prestigious organization. CBS Films President Terry Press, who regularly battled Weinstein on the awards trail during her tenure as a marketing executive at DreamWorks, vowed in a Facebook post to quit the academy if he was allowed to remain. “The idea that anyone would give him a second chance or entertain the notion that he can change is beyond absurd,” wrote Press.

Even Weinstein’s brother, Bob — with whom he ran Miramax Films and then Weinstein Co. — said in an interview published Saturday in the Hollywood Reporter that he felt the academy should expel him, adding that he planned to write a note to the group to that effect.

But within the academy some wrestled with the decision, fearing that it could set a precedent that would require the academy to police its members’ behavior going forward. As many have pointed out in recent days, other Hollywood figures who have come under attack for their treatment of women — including Bill Cosby, Roman Polanski and Mel Gibson — remain members of the academy in good standing.

The academy’s bylaws give the board of governors free rein to expel members “for cause,” but that power has very rarely been exercised. The last member to be banished from the group was actor Carmine Caridi, who was booted in 2004 for sharing promotional copies of films that were later pirated. Sources close to the academy say that other members had been more quietly suspended in years past for selling their tickets to the Oscars ceremony, but nothing ever rose to the level of attention surrounding Weinstein.

You see the problem:

It’s time to clean house.

As Trump would say, “Drain the swamp.”