warpedskydiver

Unless AQ is using Dr. Germ to try and manipulate the Virus

I hope the perps get justice, the kind they deserve.

I thought you were going to say Persian Sausage!!!

A gold rosary

4 of 10

You scored: 10 / 10 Total points: 100 The average score for this quiz: 4 / 10 I was just lucky

Ill 2nd that. And I can understand your point, and would not want anyone to force you to have to change. I just wish all anti gun advocates would simply do as you do, instead of trying to force their will upon everyone else.

Santa is a fag? What did he say...Ho Ho Mo?

Bush bashing where else?

Hey if it almost flies, people will jump it!

Hundreds remember Pave Low helicopter The MH-53 Pave Low will be decommissioned in October to make way for new aircraft GREG DAVENPORT Monday December 3rd, 2007 HURLBURT FIELD — Hundreds turned out at the Hurlburt Field Memorial Air Park on Monday for a retirement ceremony — not for a person, but for the MH-53M Pave Low IV helicopter 68-10928. The dedication of “Aircraft 928” to the air park was an important step in honoring an airframe that is scheduled for decommission next October, according to 1st Special Operations Wing commander Col. Brad Webb. “This is a great day for pilots and maintainers. The MH-53 has an outstanding legacy,” said Webb, who flew the MH-53 for 20 years. “(The decommissioning of the MH-53) pulls at your heart strings. If it needs to be to be in a place of honor, this is the place.” MARK KULAW | Daily News MH-53M Pave Low IV tail number 68-10928 sits on display at the Hurlburt Field Memorial Air Park prior to Monday’s dedication ceremony. photo gallery: http://www.nwfdailynews.emeraldcoastphotoswest.com/mycapture/folder.asp?event=384342 The MH-53 is being decommissioned to make way for new military aircraft coming into the arsenal. Lt. Gen. Donald Wurster, commander of Air Force Special Operations Command, noted that airmen have earned 13 Air Force Crosses and more than 140 Silver Stars in the MH-53. “(The MH-53) is just a remarkable piece of equipment,” Wurster said. “If you look at the influence these aircraft have had … it’s a privilege for me to be here.” Guest speaker retired Maj. Gen. Rich Comer, former 16th Special Operations Wing commander and MH-53 pilot, recalled the Mayaguez Incident and the assault on Koh Tang Island, in which Aircraft 928 and her crew earned a Silver Star. Comer said as a young pilot he had a lot of firsts during that mission and he learned a valuable lesson: The crews that operate the MH-53 are truly the heart and soul of the aircraft. “People are Pave Low,” the retired major general said. “The people that went out on the Mayaguez (mission) – of those 18 crews, 26 of the pilots were lieutenants. You older guys are veterans, (but) the younger ones are more important that the old ones. They’ll be the ones flying most of the (missions).” Aircraft 928 was bid farewell by the last man to fly her, Maj. Frank Cooper of the 20th Special Operations Squadron. Then a plaque with the history of the MH-53 was unveiled while two MH-53 helicopters flew by. Lt. Col. Vincent Becklund, 20th Special Operations Squadron commander, said the moment was bittersweet. While he was happy to see the MH-53 get honored, it reminded him that he is also responsible for the deactivation of his own squadron, which should be gone around the same time that the MH-53 is decommissioned. He insists that even though the airframe is going away, his airmen see a silver lining in the whole situation. “The guys are truly proud to fly the Pave Low, but what they really want to be is AFSOC,” Becklund explained. “The good thing is AFSOC is going like crazy (right now). I have 10 guys making the transition to CV-22s.”

We should all contact the Discovery Channel and propose a program....HOW CHUCK BLUE RUINED MY LIFE. Not that he ruined mine, he just didn't get a chance yet. But hey if they want to air "How William Shatner changed the Universe" then they would definately jump on the Chuck Bandwagon. Besides Chuck never drowned a wife. Can you imagine Chuck starring as the Captain of the Enterprise in " Startrek, The Fucked Up Generation"?

So...you're telling me that was only a dream? And all the follow-up action was only a dream, too? I could have sworn....damn, and I was so proud of myself. File your AAR and be done with it!

Someone should find Liam...

The answer is "D" all of the above.

Guns and booze are a great combination for college parties Sounds like an interesting guy. His book is out of print, but available on the used market. We had lots of interesting students at Cambridge in the '60s, like Eric Idle, Graham Chapman and John Cleese, Stephen Hawking, Brian Josephson, Arianna Stassinopoulos (now Huffington), Sonia Antonia Maino (now Ghandi), most of Pink Floyd, and me. I was the only one that took up skydiving, though. Too bad you did not turn out half as interesting as the rest of those other fine students.

Well, let me explain: In football, each side gets a turn with the ball. In baseball each side gets to pitch and to bat. In a marathon everyone gets to go the same distance. At the USPA nationals each team gets the same rules. In the America's Cup each boat is built to the same rules and runs the same course. These are all sports, that is the way sports work. So IF you want to call hunting a sport, the animal should have the same opportunity to kill you as you have to kill it. Please show me where I called it a sport, and if you are involved in a sport where people are trying to kill you, please do tell us all how that goes. Are you a space shuttle door gunner? Or just a regular old Commando? I am of the belief you are spouting crap again.

Too easy. If it's sport you're after the other side should have an opportunity to kill you.Quote Please, do tell us how that goes.

Merry Christmas to all Gunslingers, Wingnuts, Bellhops, and Popeye wanna be's. Thanks to all servicemen of the US Military, and those of our allies. Merry Christmas to you all, and wishes for your triumphant, safe return.

Justice Clinton? President Taft went on to the Supreme Court. Maybe Mrs. Clinton will park her husband there. BY DOUGLAS W. KMIEC Sunday, December 16, 2007 12:01 a.m. EST Hillary Clinton's commanding lead in the polls has diminished, and with Oprah Winfrey stumping for Barack Obama, she's called increasingly on the "star power" of husband Bill. But the ubiquitous presence of the former president on the campaign prompts a question: What will Hillary do with Bill if she is elected? Of course, one might say Hillary has been wondering what to do with Bill for quite some time. But Mr. Clinton's prominent role in his wife's campaign--whether going head to head with Oprah for airtime or defending Hillary from "swift-boat-like attacks" from rival Democrats--has renewed the question: What exactly will he be doing on Jan. 21, 2009? Several job ideas have already been floated. He might be appointed by Gov. Eliot Spitzer of New York to serve the remainder of Mrs. Clinton's U.S. Senate term. While there is precedent for former presidents--even a former impeached president (Andrew Johnson) returning to the national legislative body--few close to former President Clinton think being one of 100 would satisfy his boundless persona. In any event, Gov. Spitzer is already under some considerable pressure to appoint a minority to Sen. Clinton's seat, and even though Mr. Clinton was described by writer Toni Morrison as "the first black president," that won't cut it with the practitioners of identity politics. Mr. Clinton has also been contemplated for something dubbed "ambassador to the world." But the federal government's anti-nepotism law would likely preclude her naming Bill to her cabinet. The issue of Mr. Clinton's potential role has a serious side for Democrats already concerned about her persistently high negatives. The notion that Mr. Clinton will be a "shadow president," effectively circumventing the constitutional limitations on presidential service, presents a campaign opportunity for the GOP. So if neither a Senate nor executive position will do, what does work? While it's probably not something the Hillary campaign would want us to contemplate, we should remember that there are three branches of government, and that it is widely anticipated that there will be one or more vacancies on the Supreme Court during the next presidential term. Before dismissing the possibility of Justice William Jefferson Clinton, it is worth recalling a bit of history--most notably, the history of another former president who landed on the Supreme Court, William Howard Taft. Taft would come to love his fellow justices and the court so much that he later described them as his ideals "that typify on earth what we shall meet hereafter in heaven under a just God." That seems a little strong for Bill Clinton, but Taft and Mr. Clinton are not without their similarities. For example, both started out in life as law professors--Taft at the University of Cincinnati and Mr. Clinton at the University of Arkansas. Mr. Clinton also shares with Taft a warm, gregarious personality that is well received at home and abroad. There are also differences. Taft never had his law license suspended (Mr. Clinton's suspension for "serious misconduct" formally ended in 2006), and Taft had extensive judicial service on lower courts before the presidency. Indeed, Taft always preferred the judiciary over the executive office, assessing his own presidential term as "a very humdrum, uninteresting administration" that failed to "attract the attention or enthusiasm of anybody." President Clinton's service, by no one's calculus, was uninteresting. The attractiveness of the high bench to Bill Clinton might well increase once he familiarized himself with the details. The former president could not help but admire how Taft personally mapped out a Machiavellian strategy for appointment. Among other things, Taft as president deliberately chose appointees of advanced age. This was especially true of Edward Douglass White. Taft named him chief justice at the age of 65, passing over Charles Evans Hughes, a far more logical choice and a vibrant 48. It's too much of a stretch to see either of Mr. Clinton's appointments in the same light, though when Hillary would be in the oval office, both Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg will be in their 70s and John Paul Stevens pushing 90. It would be untrue and insulting to the integrity of all three to think of them as just biding their time, but back in 1920, it was reasonably clear that Justice White was, in the words of the historians, "keeping the seat warm for Taft." While Taft did manage to angle the center seat, mercifully that would not appear to be in the cards for Mr. Clinton. Notwithstanding a curious and worrisome summer seizure, Chief Justice John Roberts seems young, vigorous and at the start of a long tenure. So why would Bill Clinton take the lesser job of associate justice? Well, instead of being one of a 100 he would be one of nine. And like the late Associate Justice William Brennan, he would have the personality to influence outcomes on the court--especially given its currently teetering 5-to-4 composition--disproportionately to his single vote. Moreover, his influence on the bench could extend well beyond "the marble palace." Taft, for instance, reshaped the entire federal judiciary for decades to follow. Would anyone doubt a Justice Clinton's ability and inclination to remake a federal bench in a manner calculated to erase its current edge of Reagan and Bush appointees? Or that his influence would be limited to chatting up whomever Hillary is thinking of naming as attorney general? In short, a seat on the Supreme Court solves Sen. Clinton's dilemma of what to do with her husband if she becomes president. It keeps Bill formally out of the White House and structurally out of the executive branch. And lest that dampen Mr. Clinton's interest, he might be reassured by Taft's practice of continuing to advise the president on the substance of legislation and to lobby to sustain various presidential vetoes. True, some of this activity would be seen as well beyond the precepts of modern judicial ethics, but even if Justice Clinton stayed solely within his judicial role, his impact need hardly be minimal. During Taft's service, the court called the shots in government getting its own building and for the first time winning virtually complete control of its own docket. How much more opportunity would be knocking for a Justice Clinton with an Iraq-induced, Democrat-controlled Congress? There's no need to take this comparison further at this point. Former President Clinton will no doubt guffaw at the possibility of judicial service, but then, hasn't he already stated, "I will serve in whatever capacity she deems most appropriate"? William Howard Taft's biographer, Jeffrey B. Morris, writes that no Supreme Court justice "has proven as audacious in conceiving his role, for Taft had treated his job as an American Lord Chancellor--managing a system, framing legislation and putting it through, selecting judges, as well as presiding over a court and deciding cases." No justice that is until perhaps Justice William Jefferson Clinton? Only time will tell.

Agreed, and if anyone goes in, DO NOT TAKE SOMEONE WITH YOU.

OK then let' switch that to razor blades in the soles of boots, and molotov cocktails.

The rush to clear police in shootings By Sam Roe, David Heinzmann and Steve Mills | Tribune staff reporters December 5, 2007 TRIBUNE INVESTIGATION: SHIELDED FROM THE TRUTH On a summer night in 2003, two patrol cars pulled over a driver in front of his South Side home for running a stop sign. Thinking police had chased the car earlier that night, four officers drew their guns and ordered the driver out. The man's mother screamed from the sidewalk: "He can't walk! He's paralyzed! He can't get out of the car!" When one officer thought the driver raised a gun, he opened fire, shooting the driver five times before reloading and shooting him once more. Eight hours later, as Cornelius Ware, a 20-year-old paraplegic who drove by pushing the pedals with a wooden cane, lay gravely wounded in the hospital, police supervisors cleared the officer of any wrongdoing. They didn't check the direction of the bullets. They didn't interview all the witnesses, two of whom said they saw Ware's hands raised in surrender. And they didn't wait for the autopsy report, which showed two of the bullets struck him in the back of his hands. Authorities never challenged that preliminary conclusion, even when contradictory information emerged in the days and months that followed. Far from an egregious exception, the Chicago Police Department's handling of the Ware case fits a pattern of officials rushing to clear officers who shoot civilians, an eight-month Tribune investigation found. The inquiry, which reviewed available records for more than 200 police shooting cases over the last decade, found that these cursory police investigations create a separate standard of justice and fuel the fear among some citizens that officers can shoot people with impunity. In at least a dozen cases, police shot civilians in the back or from behind. But in the Ware case, as in many other police shootings, it took a civil suit for the troubling details of the case to emerge publicly. Shootings are rarely easy calls. Officers face potentially life-or-death situations that require an instantaneous decision: to shoot or not to shoot. In many instances the use of deadly force is justified, and that decision saves lives. But other times, police have shot innocent, unarmed people. How a police shooting investigation works: Local law enforcement officials conduct an inquiry into every police shooting. AT THE SCENE Numerous Chicago police officers rush to the scene, each with an assigned duty, from controlling the crowd to interviewing witnesses. They make sure the name of the officer who fired is not broadcast over the police radio. AT THE ROUNDTABLE A short time later, the officers and others head to a police area headquarters for a roundtable meeting. Panel members include police commanders, one or two prosecutors from the Cook County state's attorney?s office, one or two investiga- tors from the Office of Professional Standards. A union representative also attends. AFTER THE ROUNDTABLE The roundtable completes its work often within an hour. Detectives finish their investigation in days or weeks while the Office of Professional Standards, recently renamed the Independent Police Review Authority, can take months until its investigation is complete. Until recently, the office had reported to the police superintendent. It is now independent, but its recommendations are not binding. Those shootings have helped fuel public outcry over excessive force and misconduct. In announcing his selection of FBI official Jody Weis as the city's new top cop, Mayor Richard Daley last week acknowledged the need to repair the department's credibility. The mayor's recent attempts at reform have focused almost exclusively on the Office of Professional Standards, the civilian oversight agency that until recently was part of the Police Department. But the Tribune's investigation found that while the agency's lack of resources and expertise has made it ineffective, the problem goes deeper than one office. Law enforcement officials at all levels, from the detectives who investigate cases to the superintendent, as well as the state's attorney's office, have failed to properly police the police. Promises to improve the system also haven't touched another fundamental flaw: the hasty meetings, known as roundtables, led by police commanders in the charged hours after a Chicago officer shoots a civilian. Witnesses are not sworn. The discussions are not recorded. When the sessions conclude, officials nearly always decide the officer was justified in pulling the trigger. And if evidence eventually contradicts the officers' versions of events, the Tribune found that cases aren't reopened and the officers escape serious punishment. Chicago police shoot a civilian on average once every 10 days. More than 100 people have been killed in the last decade; 250 others have been injured. But only a tiny fraction of shootings are ruled unjustified -- less than 1 percent, police records and court testimony indicate. Despite these rulings, police shootings have led to $59 million in settlements and civil judgments against the city in the last decade, including nearly $8 million from just two jury verdicts in recent months. The newspaper reviewed thousands of pages of documents from authorities' internal investigative files, Cook County medical examiner autopsies and depositions from lawsuits filed after police shootings. The paper sought complete case files, but the Police Department denied a Freedom of Information Act request for its records on such cases. The combination of this secrecy and the perfunctory investigation of police shootings means that it is virtually impossible to determine how many were in fact legitimate. The Tribune this summer filed a motion in federal court, still pending, that seeks to unseal more than 50 police shooting files turned over in a lawsuit filed by the estate of a man who was shot and killed by a Chicago police officer in 2002. Wrongful death lawsuits often prompt the only full accounting of shootings and the internal investigations that follow. In a recent suit filed by Ware's family, a veteran detective who has been the lead investigator in numerous police shootings testified that she handles too many cases to go back and re-interview officers and reconsider roundtable rulings when autopsies and other test results shed new light. "Once a case is closed, it's closed," said Sylvia VanWitzenburg. "Your testimony is, once you close out a [police shooting] case, no matter what new information comes in, you're not going to go back and review it?" asked the attorney representing Ware's family. "Correct," she replied. Shot in the back All police shootings of civilians prompt an array of questions, but none do so more than when an officer fires at someone from behind. In the 12 cases the Tribune found where Chicago police shot a civilian in the back, sometimes at close range, the department returned the officers to duty, according to records from police and the Office of Professional Standards, or OPS. In five of those cases, forensic evidence cast doubt on the officer's account. To ensure officers don't wrongly pull the trigger, police departments set restrictions on when lethal force can be used. Chicago police may use such force only as a last resort "to prevent death or great bodily harm to the [officer] or to another person," according to the department's general orders. In certain instances, officers also may shoot if a suspect is trying to escape while using a deadly weapon or endangering the life of another person. In preparing new recruits to make such shoot-don't shoot decisions, they go through exercises such as traffic stops played out in the academy parking lot or simulated gunmen holding hostages. But this training for recruits was put in place within the last five years. The majority of the department's 13,000 officers only have to qualify each year with their gun on the firing range. On the street, when a shooting is inappropriate, autopsies can help reveal the contradictions in a police officer's version of how it occurred. But it's up to police and OPS investigators to make that connection and follow up. Edmund Donoghue, former chief medical examiner in Cook County, said he was not surprised to see cursory investigations. "When you see this stuff going on for 30 years, you don't expect much," said Donoghue, who retired last year. "Come on. This is Chicago." The autopsy of Cornelius Ware became a key part of his family's lawsuit against the city. He was shot on South Loomis Boulevard at 7:35 p.m. on Aug. 18, 2003. The lead police investigator, VanWitzenburg, later testified that she arrived about a half hour later to find the four officers involved -- part of a plainclothes unit that had worked closely together for two years -- huddled with a sergeant and union representative. VanWitzenburg said she did not interview the officers separately or ask them detailed questions, but simply listened to the group explain what happened. The proper investigative technique, according to interim Chicago Police Supt. Dana Starks "is to separate witnesses no matter who they are." But that's not always done, the Tribune found. In fact, allowing officers to talk to each other after a shooting has been permitted by department rules since they were rewritten in 1999. A police spokeswoman could not explain this week why the change occurred. In the Ware case, when VanWitzenburg did speak with officers individually hours later at the police station, she said she did not question them as much as take statements. She also took no notes, she said, committing each witness statement to memory and sometime later recording those words in what would become the main report on the shooting. VanWitzenburg could not be reached for comment. Three of Ware's brothers who witnessed the shooting -- a 15-year-old and 13-year-old twins -- all told detectives at the scene that their brother had his hands up. But in their final report completed weeks later, police recorded these witness statements much differently. A statement by one of the twins that he saw his brother "raise his hands" and a statement by the other twin that Ware had his "hands up" were changed to the twins saying their brother "put his hands together" before being shot. VanWitzenburg later testified that she did no further investigation after the roundtable. The subsequent inquiry by OPS, recently renamed the Independent Police Review Authority, was even less thorough. The case's lead investigator, James Lukas, acknowledged in a sworn deposition that he did not conduct a single interview. He said he simply reviewed the roundtable proceedings and other police reports -- common practice, he testified, because the oversight agency frequently relies on the police to do a good job investigating officers. Lukas said each shooting is unique, however, and that his office might conduct more interviews in some cases than others. Eighteen days after Ware was shot, he died of his injuries. The autopsy showed he had been hit, among other locations, in the back of each hand, lending support to the argument that he had his hands in the air in surrender. But police did not re-interview the officers to find out how that could have happened. Officer Anthony Blake, who fired the shots, could not be reached for comment for this article. Blake told investigators that he fired his gun because Ware pointed a weapon at his partner. Blake also said he never heard Ware's relatives shouting that he was paralyzed. When the Ware family sued in 2004, Blake testified and contradicted himself about why he had his gun drawn and when he fired his weapon. All four officers at the scene said they thought they saw a gun in Ware's hand, and police said they recovered a loaded revolver in his car. But no blood was found on the weapon, even though Ware was purportedly holding it when he was shot in both hands; Ware family attorneys argued that police planted the gun to cover up a bad shooting. At the end of a trial early this year, the jury sided with the Wares. Before jurors were asked to decide how much money the family should receive in damages, the city agreed to pay $5.3 million -- one of the largest settlements in a Chicago police shooting. In a deposition prior to trial, VanWitzenburg was asked if she reviewed the autopsy records documenting Ware's bullet wounds to determine if Blake was telling the truth. "To this day," she said, "I don't know what were entry [wounds] and what were exit." 'A way to quickly justify cases' The roundtable, held inside a detective-area headquarters in the immediate aftermath of a police shooting, is supposed to provide a timely and preliminary review. "There's no way in the world that an investigation can be immediately closed right then and there," Starks said, "when we know ... there's still forensics out and still witnesses who need to be interviewed." But the Tribune found that instead of being a launching point for a thorough investigation, the roundtable can set the tone for the frequently superficial inquiry that follows. "To me, the roundtable is just a way to quickly justify cases," said Thomas Smith, chief investigator for OPS from 1998 to 2002, when he left the agency. Roundtable proceedings are generally secret. Minutes aren't kept. Many participants throw away their handwritten notes. And city attorneys, often with the consent of plaintiffs' lawyers, successfully have sought to place protective orders on court files in dozens of cases to keep certain records, including roundtable reports from public view. But the Tribune obtained official roundtable reports in dozens of cases prepared by commanders as well as detective summaries of the proceedings. Both provide a rare inside look at the meetings. Roundtables usually begin with the lead detective giving an overview of the shooting, referring to a hand-drawn diagram on the blackboard or grease board. Basic physical evidence often is not available or is sometimes neglected. Witnesses are brought in one at a time to give brief statements, but these are not under oath or recorded. Sometimes, key witnesses aren't even there. The Cook County state's attorney's office sends prosecutors to the roundtable, but they often are passive observers. Michael Oppenheimer, a prosecutor in the state's attorney's office from 1990 to 2003, said he attended numerous roundtables and that he was told by his superiors not to ask questions. He said he and other prosecutors were there as "window dressing" to lend an air of credibility to the process. "The brevity of the investigation is unbelievable. It's just faulty," said Oppenheimer, now a private attorney representing plaintiffs in civil rights suits, including a man shot by police. Even those still in the ranks of law enforcement express misgivings about the roundtable. In an interview, State's Atty. Richard Devine rejected the notion that prosecutors stood by as bad shootings were ruled justified. But he acknowledged that assistant state's attorneys may have been unsure about their role in the process. "I do think a lot of assistants were up in the air," he said. Devine said he had considered pulling his office out of the process altogether and now says he hopes to improve it by staying in. But he declined to say how. Under the current roundtable system, the assistant deputy police superintendent in attendance must complete a report on the evidence before the end of the work shift. At that point, the police inquiry virtually ends, though detectives still can continue to follow leads. OPS investigators look into every police shooting, but these inquiries sometimes consist of little more than rehashing the brief roundtable proceedings. An officer's fatal shooting of Lajuanzo Brooks outside a South Side tavern in 2001 ultimately led to a $650,000 payout from the city. The suit also shed light on how internal investigations can skim over key evidence during and after the roundtable. Brooks, 21, allegedly approached Officer Robert Haile, who was off duty, and a friend just before closing time at Reese's Lounge, pulled a gun and demanded money. The officer said he drew his gun and yelled "Police!" Haile told police detectives that Brooks continued to point his gun at him, so Haile opened fire. According to Haile, Brooks was facing him at this point, only 2 to 3 feet away. The officer said that as he was shooting, Brooks lunged toward and past him, with the officer shifting his feet to keep Brooks in front of him. Six hours later, after the roundtable, Haile was cleared of wrongdoing. But this decision was made before all of the physical evidence was in hand. The autopsy on Brooks wouldn't be complete until later that morning. The fingerprints wouldn't come back for two months. The morning of the roundtable, Eupil Choi, Cook County's deputy chief medical examiner, began the autopsy. He saw that Brooks had several bullet wounds on his body. By studying the tiny skin abrasions around each hole, he could determine which one was a bullet entry point and which one was an exit wound. He concluded Brooks was shot three times: twice in the back and once in the back of the neck. In his deposition for a lawsuit filed by Brooks' family, Choi said he could not say how Brooks and Haile were positioned when the shots were fired. But he said the wounds were consistent with Brooks being shot from behind. Yet investigators for the Office of Professional Standards never sought to explain the seeming discrepancy between the autopsy and Haile's statements. Other evidence was coming in that raised questions about the shooting. Police recovered two prints off the gun that Brooks allegedly used in an attempt to rob Haile. They did not match up to Brooks. The OPS investigators never interviewed the officer. Haile could not be reached to comment for this article. Smith, the chief investigator at OPS at the time, signed off on the shooting as justified. Smith acknowledged in an interview that the office neglected to fully follow through on the case. He said that was partly due to the office's limited resources. Today, it is budgeted for 85 positions. Despite the mayor's pledges to improve the system, 24 of those positions remain vacant, 15 of them for investigators. That means the investigators who remain carry average loads of 30 shooting and other cases, three times what officials there recommend. Ignoring evidence Even in instances where investigators aggressively did their job, police officials have ignored recommendations for serious punishment of officers. Officer David Rodriguez asserted that he shot Herbert McCarter in the abdomen in a struggle over the officer's gun in December 1999. But Smith concluded Rodriguez lied and recommended his firing, according to Smith and a lawsuit filed by McCarter. Key to that recommendation: medical records showing that McCarter actually had been shot in the back, and gunshot residue tests on his clothes indicating he had not been shot at close range. Rodriguez, who declined to comment, remains a police officer. According to McCarter's lawsuit, no disciplinary action was taken despite the OPS chief investigator's conclusion. McCarter, however, was charged with aggravated battery of a police officer. He was found guilty and sentenced to 5 years in prison. In his 2006 lawsuit, McCarter alleged that city officials hid the OPS conclusions and recommendation from his lawyer in his criminal trial. The city settled McCarter's lawsuit for $90,000 this year. Rodriguez also was sued for an incident after the 1998 Chicago Bulls triumph in the NBA Finals. With streets all over the city filled with revelers, Rodriguez was one of several officers outside a liquor store on the West Side. When a car jumped the curb, officers opened fire, spraying the car with dozens of bullets. Six people were shot, including a 15-year-old boy who lost an eye. An investigation found the officers, including Rodriguez, justified in the shooting. This spring, the city settled the two lawsuits that stemmed from that shooting. The price tag: a total of $4 million.

Well the mere fact that the USA has a bigger slice of the dregs of the human race, we of course shall always have these problems. In the end the abhorrent behavior that most anti gun and gun rights advocates despise will become mainstream and so prevalent that all will be victims, some by choice, and some by circumstance.

Please show me the place where you got the information that says there are two million dead from the so called "civil war" in Iraq.