National Security or too much big brother?

There are lawsuits abound regarding cellular telephone companies sharing "our" private information with the federal government under the guise of national security. The U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights provides American citizens with certain protections, but when does government cross the line? We have felt the long term effects of terrorism and have witnessed what inaction can do to our society. Should we give up certain rights to be protected? Can we trust that our government will always do the right thing?

"Before believing in anyone else, believe in yourself." Dr. BLR

Blue wall of silence vs. snitching...what is the difference

The controversy in the "hood" regarding snitching is causing problems for law enforcement. Criminals can sometimes bank on the silence of victims and/or witnesses to keep their mouths closed. Conversely, police officers rely on the maintenance of the blue wall of silence to cover up their transgressions. The differences may be subtle, but the ramifications of both are detrimental to our society. Is there a difference?

" Your reticence can cause someone their life; only you know if it's worth it." Dr. BLR

What are the real causes of crime?

The history of the causes of crime dates back hundreds of years. The difference between now and then is evolution. As a society, we have come a long way; however, the problem of crime still exists. Why does this phenomenon still occur? I posit that economics are at the forefront of why individuals commit crime. The day when money is not revered will be the day when crime will decrease. Just my opinion.

"Leave a legacy so that your deeds can be revered." Dr. BLR

Stamping out corruption or selective enforcement.

In a world that is strife with corruption, why would someone question the United States government for locking up violators of the public's trust. Recently, the New Jersey, U.S Attorney General held a press conference to announce the arrest of politicians that were caught in an eighteen months investigation into official corruption. The allegations charged several politicians with accepting bribes to either look the other way in their official capacity or to smooth the way for public projects to move forward. Regardless of the allegations, these individuals needed to be brought to justice. Or should they?



Upon closer inspection, it was noted that the perpetrators are from predominately minority communities. Does this excuse their behavior? Of course not, but the amount of money that they are accused of accepting leads one to question the motivation. It should not be a secret that the U.S Attorney General has bigger aspirations and his zero tolerance regarding crime should be a strong selling point. However, is it okay to go after the little guy and let the big guy receive a pass? I don't know, but from an outsider's perspective this has the appearance of just being a numbers game. A quantity over quality approach to justice. While it is very difficult to bring these sort of cases to court, the fact that these individuals were paraded around simply wreaks of selective enforcement. What say you?

Check out the following website:

http://potw.news.yahoo.com/s/potw/40/somebodys-watching-you

" Champion the cause of the tacit victim that you would champion for yourself." Dr. BLR

Bringing ethics back to policing.

The job of the law enforcement officer is unappreciated and unrewarding. The stress that accompanies the profession can actually lead to life long medical conditions. High blood pressure, excessive weight gain, divorce, alcoholism, drug abuse and suicide are just some of the realities of a police officer's life. Should society be a little more empathetic to these officers when they cross the line? Should society excuse a police officer when they drink a bit too much after working an afternoon shift and wrap their car around a tree? Or should society be be a little lenient when a police officer goes home and beats his spouse because they just don't understand what the officer has to deal with on a daily basis?

The author may be a bit too close to this subject matter, so please chime in. Check out this website and judge for yourself. http://www.badcopnews.com/


"Don't expect others to be like you because you may be disappointed." Dr. BLR

Proactive or reactive justice; wake up people.

In the proceeding days after the horrific killings in Newark, N.J., leaders in the law enforcement community began to take a serious stance against crime. The Essex County Sheriff and New Jersey Attorney General were the most boisterous individuals to speak out. The Essex County Sheriff reported that he would be willing to suspend the constitution to apprehend the felons responsible for the execution style killings of the Newark students. The Attorney General went so far as to enact legislation to have "alleged" illegal aliens questioned regarding their immigration status if they are arrested. It appears that reaction is in vogue rather than proaction. Communities must step up and fight for their right to live in a crime free environment. It's your decision, what are you going to do?


" Do not be a casual observer in the game of life; get in the game." Dr. BLR.

Kill another criminal or the law gone awry.

The State of Texas is at it again. In the coming days another person of color will be killed due to the death penalty. For the record, the author is against any type of "government sanctioned execution." However, please do not misconstrue this to mean that the author is a bleeding heart liberal . . . more of a vigilante comes to mind; excuse the digression.

Some facts on the case:

Kenneth Foster Jr., was just 19-years-old when Mauriceo Brown, a passenger in the car Foster was driving, shot Michael LaHood in San Antonio more than a decade ago. New testimony shows that Foster did not play a major role in the crime. Though Foster, Brown, Julius Steen, and Dewayne Dillard, were all traveling together that night and had committed two armed robberies prior to LaHood's murder, Steen and Dillard have stated that Foster could not have anticipated the crime. Brown, who was executed for the murder in 2006, also said that Foster did not know he was planning to kill LaHood. The men all maintain that Foster, who had borrowed the car from his grandfather, repeatedly pleaded with the group to go home before they encountered LaHood. He also tried to drive away when he heard the gunshots, but Steen and Dillard made him stop and wait for Brown. Steen received a 35-year-to-life sentence for the crime, and Dillard was given a life sentence. Foster was sentenced to death under the Texas Law of Parties that permits a person involved in a crime to be held accountable for the actions committed by someone else.

The punishment does not fit the crime, but the courts feel otherwise. This case is reminiscent of the movie "Minority Report" starring Tom Cruise, no pun intended with the title. The premise for the movie is that law enforcement has the ability to anticipate what a criminal is going to do and take them into custody before actually committing the crime. The intentions are good, but a bit premature in the execution. The same case can be made for the television program "To catch a predator." The intentions are good, but entrapment is not the answer.

The courts rendered an appropriate decision regarding the killer and the other accomplices. What happened to Mr. Foster? Mr. Foster is what is called an example. This is a very strong message that the courts are sending to potential criminals. Will it be a deterrent? If the death penalty has not done so by now, this decision will not make any difference.


Update: The Governor of Texas gave a stay of execution to Mr. Foster and commuted his sentence to life in prison. Fortunately, cooler heads prevailed. Now this man will have a long time to think about how he was given a second chance at life. Let's hope he will do something special with the rest of his life.

"The weak and defenseless need someone to illuminate their concerns." Dr. BLR