Reported

Oh. Boy.
Philly’s police union president, John McNesby, may have spoken a little too honestly during a recent rally in support of his police officer brethren. While many local residents may forgive his decision to defend the local police force during a period of time that they are seen as controversial, they’ll likely not forgive any over the top rhetoric that could be seen as tainted with racism or bigotry. McNesby’s most recent remarks during a heated public speech, could be seen as crossing the line.
“(They’re) a pack of rabid animals,” McNesby said on Friday during a pro-police rally at the Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 5 headquarters. “When you go to work each day, you shouldn’t have to worry that a pack of rabid animals will suddenly show up at your home and openly threaten your family. These are not activists, they are racist hate groups determined to instigate violence.”
“ ”
McNesby’s statement and the rally came in the wake of an ongoing dispute in Philadelphia where a police offcer is under fire after shooting a man as he fled from the officer. While BlackLivesMatter activists want to paint the situation as yet another instance of police brutality, and yet another example of a white officer targeting and shooting a black man… the local P.D. says that’s not at all what happened in this case.
Protests kicked off back in June when Officer Ryan Pownall shot 30-year old Ryan Jones as he fled from the officer. Pownall pulled Jones over for riding an illegal dirt bike on a city street. When the officer patted down the suspect he felt a handgun in the man’s waistband. 
A witness who was in the back of Pownall’s police car said he saw the officer pull his gun and then tell the man not to touch the gun in his waistband. The man then struggled with the officer before pulling his gun from his waistband, but the witness says Jones then dropped the gun, and began to run away. That’s when Pownall fired his gun, hitting the man in the back with two of his shots. Jones later died at a nearby hospital. Police did find a fully-loaded handgun at the scene and have not, as of yet, offered a different version of the story then the witness has described, though the shooting is still under investigation. This is the second time that Officer Pownall has been the center of controversy for shooting a man in the back:
Black Lives Matter, along with others, have been protesting the shooting for weeks. In July, the group marched on the Police Administration Building and City Hall demanding a larger investigation.
Pownall was called a “racist, bigot pig cop” and Khalif said he has “a murderous spirit” — referring to another shooting that the officer was involved. That 2010 shooting left Carnell Williams-Carney paralyzed when a bullet hit him in the back. The shooting was ruled justified and Williams-Carney lost a federal lawsuit against police.
McNesby’s comments about the protesters being a “pack of rabid animals,” comes less than a week after he called their leader “a punk” who should have been arrested for protesting without a permit. When pressed by the media about calling the BLM leader a “punk,” McNesby said, “I can’t use the words I want. To take it to someone’s house, a police officer’s house, he doesn’t have any respect. He’s a two-bit punk who doesn’t have the respect of decent protesters, if there is any in this city.”
McNesby has gotten riled up by the latest protests because the Black Lives Matter protesters (and their leaders in particular) have been using heated, aggressive, and sometimes violent-sounding rhetoric. For example, last week BLM leaders argued that they knew where Pownall lived before insinuating that they might pay the officer and his family a visit. “We have something in the tank,” the BLM leader said. “There is nothing off the table, including coming back to the police officer’s home.”
Both sides should probably consider modulating their rhetoric, but I don’t expect we’ll see anyone do so.












Commentary by Bishop E.W. Jackson | Wednesday, September 13, 2017 @ 12:27 PM


Reported 

Published by ClashDaily.com | on September 13, 2017
















According to the 

Reported 


















































































Reported by 

at UC Berkeley was assaulted by antifa members who accused him of merely looking like a white man. He was told that he 



















Reported 








Reported 

States already do this in the context of child and elder abuse, requiring teachers, administrators, school nurses, and coaches to report suspected abuse to appropriate law enforcement agencies. Failure to report can trigger civil and criminal penalties against the individual and penalties against the institution.
These proposals would take the pressure off colleges to conduct quasi-criminal proceedings, which college administrators are ill equipped to do. No one would expect a college tribunal to handle a murder on campus.
It makes no sense for a college to handle other serious crimes such as sexual assaults and rapes. Rapists are criminals, not just college students who violate a school’s honor code. They should be prosecuted in criminal court, and if found guilty, punished accordingly, including having to register as convicted sex offenders.
But the Obama-era guidance led colleges to steer students away from reporting crimes to the authorities, and required use of the low “preponderance of the evidence” standard of proof when investigating and disciplining students accused of sexual assault.
This led to colleges barring an accused student from reviewing the evidence against him or cross-examining his accuser; refusing to allow an accused to hire an attorney or, when attorneys were permitted, prohibiting them from speaking on the accused’s behalf; and implementing other procedures that fly in the face of the protections typically afforded to someone accused of a crime.
The guidance letter received criticism from liberal and conservative quarters, from law professors to think tank scholars to members of Congress and many others.
Law professors at the University of Pennsylvania wrote that this “approach exerts improper pressure upon universities to adopt procedures that do not afford fundamental fairness,” and that “due process of law is not window dressing.”
Harvard law professors similarly decried the procedures as “overwhelmingly stacked against the accused” and which were “in no way” required by federal law. It also led to numerous lawsuits filed by students who were punished in these kangaroo courts.
In her speech, DeVos stated, “The notion that a school must diminish due process rights to better serve the ‘victim’ only creates more victims.”
Instead, due process must be “the foundation of any system of justice that seeks a fair outcome. Due process either protects everyone, or it protects no one.”
Sexual assault investigations and adjudications are serious issues that involve complicated procedures designed to get at the truth and prevent further harm to victims and those falsely accused.
Compound this complexity with a massive federal bureaucracy and various interest groups with their own agendas, and it is little wonder that alleged victims, alleged perpetrators, and universities themselves are often left with no clear idea of their rights and responsibilities under the law.
Reversing the ill-advised Obama-era guidance is the first step to ensure that sexual assaults are properly investigated and adjudicated by trained professionals, leaving college administrators, as DeVos said, “to focus on what they do best: educate.”
Commentary By
Hans von Spakovsky/ @HvonSpakovsky
Hans von Spakovsky is an authority on a wide range of issues—including civil rights, civil justice, the First Amendment, immigration, the rule of law and government reform—as a senior legal fellow in The Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies and manager of the think tank’s Election Law Reform Initiative. Read his research.
Elizabeth Slattery/ @EHSlattery
Elizabeth Slattery writes about the rule of law, the proper role of the courts, civil rights and equal protection, and the scope of constitutional provisions such as the Commerce Clause and the Recess Appointments Clause as a legal fellow in the Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies. Read her research.