Onslow County Deputy Sheriff Natalie Barber reportedly told Carlos Jaramillo, a former United States Marine, to give up his cell phone when she caught him recording her from his porch last Saturday night.
The incident began when Deputy Barber was investigating a dispute over some neighborhood dogs in Onslow County, N.C. Deputy Barber refused to accept Jaramillo’s VA card as identification, but demanded to see his driver's license (video below).
Jaramillo told Deputy Barber that he was going to record her on his cell phone “for my safety,” but the officer yelled back, “For my safety, put the phone down. I’m telling you to put the phone down!”
Deputy Barber grabbed the cell phone from Jaramillo and handcuffed him in front of his family, reports PhotographyisNotaCrime.com.
Deputy Barber also took Jaramillo's son’s cell phone when he tried filming her handcuffing his father. However, Jaramillo's son was able to record more video with his mom's cell phone from behind a screen door.
All three video recordings have been made public by Jaramillo's family and seemingly contradict Deputy Barber's claims that Jaramillo was “being aggressive” and “causing commotion and distracting me from doing my job.”
Amazingly, the Onslow County Sheriff’s Department told Jaramillo that Deputy Barber did the right thing because she supposedly feared for her life, notes RawStory.com.
Prominent New York City lawyer Stanley Cohen pleaded guilty to impeding the IRS yesterday. The openly anti-government Cohen has defended disadvantaged people and political activists in New York City for over 30 years now.
Most recently, he defended Osama Bin Laden’s son-in-law Sulaiman Abu Ghaith as he was put on trial for his role as al-Qaeda’s spokesman over the last decade.
In a lengthy message linked to Cohen’s Twitter account, the lawyer says he is pleading guilty to impeding the IRS. He reiterates that this is not a case of tax evasion.
Cohen says his problems with the federal agency started 10 year ago, when prosecutors tried to frame the legal assistance he provided to al-Qaeda members as providing material assistance to terrorists.
Since then, Cohen claims, he has spent well over $600,000 fighting bogus allegations from federal agents and prosecutors. He says the fight simply isn’t worth it anymore, and he hopes to serve roughly one year in prison and put the so-called “witch hunt” behind him.
Cohen will lose his law license of 31 years upon his guilty plea. He plans to reapply for the license upon his release. When reached by the New York Times, prosecutors declined to comment on the announcement.
It’s time to find out who the closet psychopaths among us are.
In his book The Wisdom of Psychopaths: What Saints, Spies, and Serial Killers Can Teach Us About Success, author Kevin Dutton compiles a list of which professions are the most and least appealing to psychopaths.
The findings are about what you’d expect. Professions like CEO, lawyer, and police officer appeal to people with psychopathic inclinations. On the other hand, jobs requiring lots of empathy and human connection don’t attract many of these people at all. The least likely list bears professions like nurse, teacher, and therapist.
Here’s the full list, courtesy of Time:
By the way, don’t read this list and think people in these professions are one bad day away from hacking you to death. Though many people conjure up images in their head of Hollywood-style serial killers when they think of psychopaths, the personality disorder manifests itself in a number of different ways.
One standard definition for psychopathy says the disorder is marked by enduring antisocial behavior, diminished empathy and remorse, and disinhibited or bold behavior.
The increased popularity of electronic cigarettes has presented both lawmakers and business owners with difficult situations. Although the products are referred to as cigarettes, the electronic devices emit nicotine in the form of vapor rather than smoke. The relative safety regarding an individual’s personal health is still under review, but the lack of smoke and smell makes the e-cigarettes much safer for indoor use.
Thus far, there have been few laws passed regarding the use of electronic cigarettes. The technology is simply too new. According to the Examiner, however, a man in upstate New York was recently given a traffic ticket for “vaping” an electronic cigarette while driving.
The man, Jason Dewing, was given the ticket on a technicality. Although using an electronic cigarette while driving is not illegal, using a “portable electronic device” while a vehicle is in motion is prohibited.
This law was undoubtedly created to regulate the dangerous use of cell phones while driving. In fact, that’s what the officer that pulled Dewing over suspected him of doing.
“The officer truly believed I had a cell phone in my hand when he pulled me over,” Dewing said, according to the Liberty Crier.
Still, the judge presiding over his case claimed that an e-cigarette could be classified as an electronic device. Despite his protests, Dewing was found guilty in court of violating New York traffic law 1225-d on March 20, 2014. He plans to take his case to an appeals court, further explaining that he was using an e-cigarette rather than a cell phone. Dewing believes he has a strong case.
“The way the law is written, an e-cigarette cannot make a call nor can it send text or data; therefore, it cannot be a portable electronic device,” he said.
Several major cities, including New York, Los Angeles and San Francisco, have begun passing laws that treat electronic cigarettes similar to their regular counterparts by banning them for indoor use.
Michigan has passed a string of laws targeting the state's welfare recipients throughout the past few months. In December, for instance, Gov. Rick Snyder signed a bill into law that prohibits welfare recipients from withdrawing cash from ATMs in liquor stores, horse tracks, and strip clubs. The latest and most high-profile piece of legislation targeting the specific segment of the population is the bill that would allow for suspicion-based drug testing of welfare recipients.
The latest version of the bill, which has been under consideration and revision for several months, would require the Department of Human Services to set up a pilot version of the program in three counties.
According to the Battle Creek Enquirer, the Senate advanced the bill on a 25-11 straight party line vote, with Republicans supporting the testing and Democrats voting against it.
The bill is significant because it allows the state government to administer a drug test to any individual whom it suspects of using illicit substances. If those individuals test positively or refuse to undergo the test, they risk losing their benefits. The law only affects adults, and children of drug-abusing parents continue to receive welfare benefits even if their families are cut off.
Michigan attempted to pass a similar bill allowing for random drug testing of welfare recipients in 1999, but that law was ruled unconstitutional after it was challenged by the ACLU.
Today marks the first day Michigan’s new abortion insurance law takes place, affecting thousands of individuals throughout the state. The law requires Michigan residents and businesses to purchase additional health coverage add-ons in order to cover abortions.
Insurers had two months — since the bill became law in December — to alert the state whether or not they would be offering the new coverage. According to CBS, only seven of the state’s 45 insurers plan to sell the supplemental abortion plans. These seven insurers, however, only plan to sell the abortion policies to employers. If an individual wishes to join to the health care market, the additional abortion policies are currently unavailable. This is true regardless of whether the individual enters the market using the new federal health care exchanges.
The law was created as a way to keep abortion legal in the state of Michigan while appealing to those who disapprove of the practice by removing the funding from their premiums. According to The Detroit Free Press, however, “the majority of elective abortions in Michigan and nationwide are already paid out of pocket.” In fact, only 3 percent of the abortions that took place in Michigan in 2012 were covered by insurance funds. If that is true, then Michigan’s new law does little besides limit access to the procedure.
Supporters of the law have admitted that they do not expect the abortion rate to decline as a result of the new legislation. Critics have claimed that the law requires women to pay extra for a surgical procedure that they may not need, referring to the legislation as the “rape insurance bill.”
It is still unclear exactly how the law will affect women, the abortion rate, and a variety of other factors throughout the state.
In 2013, Brian Cooper was accused of sexually assaulting and killing Alisha Bromfield.
Convicting Cooper of sexual assault proved to be fairly simple. Unfortunately, the jury could not decide on the murder charge because he was drunk during the attack.
Bromfield's family is now trying to overturn a Wisconsin law which prevents a first-degree murder conviction when someone is drunk because "a killer's intent can't be proved if intoxicated," reports The Daily Mail.
Cooper allegedly strangled Bromfield because she refused to rekindle their relationship.
After Bromfield died, Cooper sexually assaulted her body. Bromfield was six months pregnant.
Both Bromfield and her unborn baby girl died in the attack.
According to Jury foreman Mark A. Hagen, the jury's main disagreement was over the meaning of a line in the instructions they were given.
The instructions read: "If the defendant was so intoxicated that the defendant did not intend to kill Alisha Bromfield, you must find the defendant not guilty of first-degree intentional homicide."
Cooper has never denied killing Bromfield, and his defense at trial was that the alcohol he consumed inhibited his ability to form intent.
"This bill is to eliminate voluntary intoxication as a defense for criminal liability," the post read.
The petition gained 6,300 signatures in 48 hours. It will go to the House, Senate, and the Governor of Wisconsin.
"Being drunk is no excuse for murder. We are trying to get a law passed that amends voluntary intoxication that it cannot be used as a defense for murdering," Sherry Anicich, Bromfield's mother, told CBS Chicago.
Cooper will be retried on murder charges for the deaths of Bromfield and her unborn child on May 5.
The House Judiciary Committee of the Kentucky Legislature passed a bill on March 6 that would give law enforcement more leeway and stronger penalties to curb dog fighting.
House Bill 408 is co-sponsored by Rep. Joni Jenkins, D-Shively, and Rep. John Tilley, D-Hopkinsville, and would enable law enforcement to charge more individuals involved in dog fighting with animal cruelty in the first degree, which is a felony.
Those who could be charged include:
(1) Dog owners who know, or should know, that their animal is being used to fight other animals for pleasure or profit;
(2) Those who help to organize the fights; and
(3) Those who train, breed, or otherwise keep animals and their offspring for fighting.
Rep. Jenkins explained that HB 408 would allow law enforcement officers to consider dog fighting paraphernalia, such as weights and sticks typically used to train dogs for fighting as evidence in an animal-cruelty case.
Currently, law enforcement can only pursue charges once a dog fight has taken place.
“It’s very secretive,” Jenkins said. “The actual fights are hard to know about and to investigate.”
Note: The legislation would not apply to police dogs, dogs involved in field trials, guard dogs or other working dogs trained to attack under specific circumstances, although some lawmakers indicated they may file floor amendments to clarify that point.
HB 408 now goes to the full House for consideration.
The Legislative Research Commission advises that anyone can visit lrc.ky.gov or call toll-free 1-866-840-2835 for the latest on the status of bills.
To leave a message for any legislator, call the General Assembly’s toll-free Message Line at 1-800-372-7181.
You may write to any legislator by name at Capitol Annex, 702 Capitol Avenue, Frankfort, Ky., 40601.
Source: Kentucky Forward
A Gulfport, Mississippi woman claims she’s been fighting Walgreens after a local store denied her request to have copies of Bible scriptures made. Kelly Taylor, 48, says she was initially told that her online copy order was denied because of technical issues, but according to her account, they later changed their reasoning, saying that it infringed on copyright laws.
The initial response from the store read, “"Hello Kelly! Due to a technical issue we were unable to process your print order at this time. For more details, contact a photo team associate -- they’re happy to help! Just have your order number handy."
When Taylor called the store to see what the problem was, she was told they couldn’t print out the scripture quotes because of copyright issues.
“I told the lady my Father wrote them and who exactly would I get the approval from?” said Taylor. "I’ve seen so many Bible verses printed out - surely they didn’t all get permission from the publisher.”
A Walgreens spokesperson made a statement to Fox News defending their decision.
"Speaking for the company, I can tell you that the document in question contained not only text but an artist’s graphic design featuring images of the sky, clouds and stars. It is possible that our employee had concerns about copyright protection for the artist’s work," said company spokesman James W. Graham. "In any case, we decided any copyright concerns could be addressed by asking the customer to sign a waiver. We were sorry for the inconvenience this caused our customer and we printed the document for her at no charge."
Even though Taylor now has her images, she says, “We’re praying that Walgreens learns that the Bible doesn’t belong to anyone, it belongs to everyone,” and hopes the company learns from this experience.
A Kansas lawmaker is proposing a controversial bill that would allow parents, teachers, and caregivers to spank children hard enough to leave marks.
Democratic House member Gail Finney says that the new bill would allow for an adult to give up to 10 strikes of the hand and would make it OK if that spanking left marks or bruises on the child. In addition, the bill would allow for parents to give others permission to spank their children. The current Kansas law allows for spanking, but does not allow for it to leave a mark on a child. The new bill would expand on this law.
"This bill basically defines a spanking along with necessary reasonable physical restraint that goes with discipline, all of which has always been legal," said McPherson Deputy County Attorney Britt Colle, who proposed the bill to Finney. "This bill clarifies what parents can and cannot do. By defining what is legal, it also defines what is not."
While there are many who support this bill, some experts say that spanking isn’t as effective as it used to be.
"20, 30 years ago, we didn't sit in car seats, and we do now, said pediatric nurse practitioner and child abuse specialist Amy Terreros to KCTV. “So maybe they did spank or were spanked as a child, but now we have research that shows it is less effective than time out. It tends to lead to more aggressive behavior with a child.”
Fellow lawmakers say they aren’t sure that the House committee would even consider this bill, so the chance of it ever being made law is up in the air.