Add a rally, forum, town hall, or other event to collect RSVPs, give attendees directions and more.
Add events from your existing Ning or MeetUp groups to share with other FreedomConnector activists.
Let other FreedomConnector activists join your cause to mobilize for freedom!
VOTE NOW: What should Republicans' Top Legislative Priority Be?
Repeal the ObamaCare individual mandate
Stop the NSA's warrantless spying on Americans
Refuse to reauthorize the Import-Export Bank
Stop the ObamaCare bailouts of insurance companies
View poll and comments »
"And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force."
The root word of violence is violate. To violate is "to take away, interfere with, or ignore (something, such as a person's rights or privacy) in an unfair or illegal way."
Despite what we have been taught, violence does not always imply the use of physical weapons such as guns, knives, bombs, or clubs. It is possible to be violent simply by using words.
Our nation, once purposed to be modeled after God's Kingdom, has been stolen from us. We have been violated, not with physical weapons, but by the use of words, laws, ridicule, and indoctrination.
There are two spiritual kingdoms: the kingdom of darkness and the kingdom of light. They are in an eternal struggle for dominance in the natural world. Most people are oblivious to this battle.
Let me stop right here a second. I know what many of you are thinking…that this natural world is beyond redemption. Part of me tends to agree with that position…that we are about to get what we deserve. Most of the American church has chosen to hide and wait. But the other part of me causes me to follow the command of my Father to "Occupy until I return." Our choices today seem to be fight or flight. Occupy is an action verb.
Militant is another one of those words that scares Christians because it is manly. We tend to believe that "love" is the greatest weapon…and it is…but "loving" people while they rob you blind borders on insanity. Real men defend things.
"Militant" is defined as "having or showing a desire or willingness to use strong, extreme, and sometimes forceful methods to achieve something."
Military: "of or relating to ground or sometimes ground and air forces." It is time to man-up Brothers.
Like it or not, God has armed forces and "the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strongholds." Spiritually-armed, masculine Christians fight a natural war with "spiritual weaponry."
But Christians have bought a lie. We have swallowed the bait that Christians are not supposed to be aggressive…forceful…warriors. The idea that we are in the world but we are not OF the world doesn't mean we are not to fight. Christians are instructed to bring spiritual weapons to the battle. Spiritual weapons can be violent…they tear down, penetrate, uproot. Those are aggressive, war-like words.
Christians are losing the culture war. Every institution in America is now under the control of those who hate God. Our public schools, government, universities, entertainment, legal, media, political parties, and churches are under the control of the kingdom of darkness.
How has this happened? The kingdom of darkness does its work in the dark. They have seized every one of our institutions without firing a shot. They have used their weapons of lies and deceit to violate and destroy all that is good. They have invaded every Godly institution, bombarded us with lies, and stolen the future of our children and grandchildren.
They have been militant. As a result, we have been violated. They have taken from our children what was rightfully theirs. The Kingdom of God has suffered violence. It is time to drop the sissified Gospel and reinvigorate the masculine side of our faith.
Let's face it. There is absolutely no institution in modern America that Christianity has controlling influence over.
They slaughter unborn babies and force us to pay for it. They sell their little body-parts for personal gain. The command you to bake homo-cakes and demand you violate your conscience.
American Christianity will lead you to Heaven while it lets the world go to hell.
The haters of God have become emboldened. They have no conscience, no mercy, and no remorse. They get caught selling baby parts and become outraged at the one who made the film for doing it "secretly." Everything our opponents do is rooted in deceit.
Christians must become more focused…more aggressive with our faith if we are to save Western Civilization. The idea that one can win by surrendering is a doctrine of demons that has infiltrated the American Christian mindset.
"Have nothing to do with the unfruitful works of darkness but rather expose them." Sadly, for the most part, we are taught to embrace, encourage, and love those who practice such fruitless acts. Abortion is the destruction of fruit. Divorce destroys fruit. Homosexuality is fruitless. God hates them all.
I know this will cause some of you to gasp, but Paul, in Romans 1, speaking on behalf of Jesus, warned us that those who practice such things "are worthy of death." But he didn't just point the proverbial finger at the one who engages in the act, but also to those who "take pleasure" in those who do it.
Evil is real and some people are evil. It is time we faced up to it. Loving the sinner and hating the sin hasn't worked. That was Gandhi's suggestion, not our Lord's. Loving sinners more than we hate their sin validates our own shortcomings. Jesus called us to "be perfect," not "love the sinner."
People are flocking to Donald Trump because he is violent and militant in his language. The church needs some militant, violent, Christian Donald Trumps. It is time to man-up.
Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2015/07/christ...
Hurricane Guillermo has entered the Central Pacific with sustained maximum winds of 105 mph and is expected to weaken into a tropical storm that threatens the Hawaiian islands by the middle of the week.
At 11 p.m. Saturday, Guillermo was about 925 miles east-southeast of Hilo, and 1,135 miles east-southeast of Honolulu, moving west-northwest 14 mph, according to the Central Pacific Hurricane Center. Hurricane-force winds extend up to 30 miles from the center and tropical storm-force winds of 39 mph or more extend up to 140 miles, forecasters said.
The Category 2 hurricane has prompted a high-surf advisory for the eastern shores of Oahu, Hawaii island, Kauai and Maui from noon Sunday through 6 p.m. Thursday. Forecasters warned that the surf will become life-threatening on Monday for eastern shores.
The latest five-day forecast has Guillermo as a tropical storm as it skirts just north of the Hawaiian islands Wednesday and Thursday.
"I would encourage people now to pick up some extra water, nonperishable goods, some things you would need in case the system is stronger than what is currently anticipated," said Jon Jelsema, a senior forecaster with the Central Pacific Hurricane Center. "It certainly doesn't hurt to have preparations in place ... If it's going to make a direct impact, there's going to be stuff flying off the shelves and it might be too late ... Even if you don't use the supplies, it's a long hurricane season."
Moderate to fresh tradewinds will continue through Monday, then weaken by Tuesday as Guillermo disrupts the flow, the National Weather Service said.
Showers will increase as remnant moisture associated with former Tropical Depression 8E reaches the islands overnight and Sunday, with best chances of rain over windward and southeastern portions of the Big Island.
The forecast for this week will be highly dependent on the eventual track of Guillermo, the agency said, but wet weather can be expected across the islands Tuesday night through Thursday night. A small craft advisory remains in effect for the waters south of Maui and Hawaii island until 6 p.m. Sunday, with east winds of 23 to 29 mph and seas of seven to 11 feet.
In May, the Central Pacific Hurricane Center said there is a 70 percent chance of a busier-than-usual hurricane season, with five to eight storms. The normal season has four or five storms.
Driving the activity in large measure is a persistent El Nino, associated with higher-than-normal sea surface temperatures in the eastern tropical Pacific.
The hurricane season in the North Pacific lasts from June 1 to November 30. Two of Hawaii's most destructive hurricanes, Iwa in 1982 and Iniki in 1992, came late in the season.
The center warns that hurricanes not only pack high winds, but can also cause torrential rains that lead to flash flooding and abnormally high waves and storm surge. Each of these alone can pose a serious threat to life and property, the center said.
Iniki's high waves and storm surge, for instance, devastated the south shore of Kauai to elevations over 20 feet above sea level.
Exclusive: Chuck Norris offers 'Jiu-Jitsu idea' to 'make America great again'
The GOP has a record 17 candidates running for president. Many Americans are looking forward to this first presidential debate on Thursday night to see who comes out on top. But win or lose, I believe Abraham Lincoln had an idea that could rally the country around a single candidate who announced it and could clinch the nomination by doing so.
As a six-time undefeated world karate champion, I – as well as any long-term title holder – will tell you that we obtained our rank not by simply approaching every competition the same way. We achieved it – among other things – by repeatedly mastering our opponents’ strategies and by leveraging their weaknesses and strengths against our own.
In a column a few years ago, I introduced a martial arts practice that does just that. The art of Jiu-Jitsu uses an opponent’s weight and strength to your own advantage. I believe this is what the GOP candidates must do in the coming 2016 presidential election.
So herein lies my political Jiu-Jitsu idea. After a fair fight for the GOP nomination, why can’t the GOP contenders join together with an unparalleled strategy that could send any Democrat competitor into tailspins? Why can’t the winner create a united front and say, “A vote for one of us is a vote for all of us”? Why can’t they create a presidential cabinet that would utilize all their skill sets to resurrect our republic? Why should the next GOP president try to sell the American public on new, obscure Cabinet members when these candidates have been vetted before our eyes for months? I can’t think of any preceding presidential race where an idea like this is more needed than now to ensure a GOP win.
RELATED NEWS STORY: RNC, Chuck Norris agree: Civility please!
One of the frustrations that many share about the present field of GOP candidates is that most of them bring a significant strength needed for the presidency but alone aren’t the total presidential package.
So, why not pool those strengths by pledging to try and coalesce them in a 2016 presidential Cabinet? Who cannot see how their collective leadership gifts could bring better synergy among every branch of government, rally our divided nation, and lead our country to a new prosperous era?
What do YOU think? Sound off on having all GOP candidates in winner’s cabinet. Take part in the WND poll
It’s not my original idea, but Abraham Lincoln’s. The idea is captured in a book called ‘Team of Rivals.” It tells how Lincoln appointed his opponents on his presidential cabinet, because he needed all of them to unify and restore the country.
Chuck Norris provides real solutions to our county’s problems and a way to reawaken the American dream in his best-seller, “Black Belt Patriotism.”
The complete title of the book is: “Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln,” by Doris Kearns Goodwin, Pulitzer Prize-winning author and presidential historian. The book itself is political genius, and I believe outlines the crucial strategy not only needed to rally the present GOP base but also win the White House and save our republic.
Let me highlight a few critical points from Goodwin’s book review in the New York Times:
As these internal Republican feuds suggest, the party in the 1860s was a coalition of politicians who only a few years earlier had been Whigs (Lincoln, Seward, Bates), Democrats (Blair, Secretary of the Navy Gideon Welles and Vice President Hannibal Hamlin), Free Soilers (Chase), or had flirted with the short-lived anti-immigrant American Party, or Know Nothings (Cameron and Bates). In addition, several cabinet members personally disliked each other: Blair and Chase, Seward and Welles, Chase and Seward, Blair and Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton, who replaced Cameron in January 1862. Lincoln’s “political genius” enabled him to herd these political cats and keep them driving toward ultimate victory.
How did he do it? Goodwin deals with this question better than any other writer. Part of the answer lay in Lincoln’s steadfastness of purpose, which inspired subordinates to overcome their petty rivalries. Part of it lay in his superb sense of timing and his sensitivity to the pulse of public opinion as he moved to bring along a divided people to the support of “a new birth of freedom.” And part of it lay in Lincoln’s ability to rise above personal slights, his talent for getting along with men of clashing ideologies and personalities who could not get along with each other.
No idea is without its limitations or faults. For example, one difference in Lincoln’s strategic move from my proposal is that he appointed these rivals after he became president. I realize that a candidate or nominee cannot appoint cabinet members before taking office, but he could pledge to extend an invitation to other candidates and challenge them to be willing to serve their country whether they won the nomination or not.
If I were one of the GOP candidates, I would pause a debate where all of them are present and say, “I have a pledge to make to the country and a challenge to make to the other presidential candidates. If our political party appoints me as its nominee, I will pledge to extend an invitation to all these other presidential candidates to be a part of my administration. And if they joined me and I win, I promise to extend an invitation to appoint each of them to a post that will utilize their greatest strength and simultaneously create a dream team that will make this country great again. In fact, as an act of leadership humility and love for our country, I would commit even now to do the same for anyone else who was elected president.”
The big question today is: Is there a Lincoln on the present political GOP landscape who can discern these unique times, is willing to go against the flow, strategize outside the box and demonstrate servant leadership through a “Team of Rivals” course of action?
Today’s GOP presidential competitors are truly a unique blend of gifted and talented people. You may not want to see all of them in the Oval Office, but wouldn’t you want to see most help the next president and country in some position? Wouldn’t you like to hear them pledge – win or lose – that they will serve in our country’s next administration if asked?
Pledging to be on this GOP political dream team would also be a true test of all the contenders’ patriotism and servant leadership. Do they love and want to save our country enough to take a second, third, fourth, fifth, etc., seat among the presidential administration? Then prove it!
Abraham Lincoln said, “I am not bound to win, but I am bound to be true. I am not bound to succeed, but I am bound to live by the light that I have. I must stand with anybody that stands right, and stand with him while he is right, and part with him when he goes wrong.”
Lincoln also said, “A house divided against itself cannot stand.”
Yes, your tax dollars are going to arm, train, and feed neo-Nazis in Ukraine. That’s what we bought into when Washington decided to launch a regime change operationin that bedraggled corner of southeastern Europe. Your money is also going to prop up the country’s war-stricken economy – albeit not before corrupt government officials rake their cut off the top.
Dmytro Korchynsky, who heads a group of several far-right “volunteers” gathered together in “St. Mary’s Battalion,” declares his goal of organizing a “Christian Taliban” that will put Ukraine in the forefront of an effort to “lead the crusades,” adding: “ Our mission is not only to kick out the occupiers, but also revenge. Moscow must burn.”
That’s a goal American neocons and their liberal enablers can get behind, but Korchynsky’s invocation of the Taliban ought to make the rest of us step back from that precipice. For it was the US, in the throes of the last cold war, that coalesced, funded, trained, and armed what later became the Afghan Taliban – and we all know where that road led.
Once again, in our endless search for foreign monsters to destroy, we’re creating yet more foreign monsters who will provide the next excuse for future crusades. It’s a perpetual motion machine of foreign policy madness – and the War Party likes it that way.
WASHINGTON — The shooting looked bad. But that is when the professor is at his best. A black motorist, pulled to the side of the road for a turn-signal violation, had stuffed his hand into his pocket. The white officer yelled for him to take it out. When the driver started to comply, the officer shot him dead.
The driver was unarmed.
Taking the stand at a public inquest, William J. Lewinski, the psychology professor, explained that the officer had no choice but to act.
“In simple terms,” the district attorney in Portland, Ore., asked, “if I see the gun, I’m dead?”
“In simple terms, that’s it,” Dr. Lewinski replied.
When police officers shoot people under questionable circumstances, Dr. Lewinski is often there to defend their actions. Among the most influential voices on the subject, he has testified in or consulted in nearly 200 cases over the last decade or so and has helped justify countless shootings around the country.
His conclusions are consistent: The officer acted appropriately, even when shooting an unarmed person. Even when shooting someone in the back. Even when witness testimony, forensic evidence or video footage contradicts the officer’s story.
He has appeared as an expert witness in criminal trials, civil cases and disciplinary hearings, and before grand juries, where such testimony is given in secret and goes unchallenged. In addition, his company, the Force Science Institute, has trained tens of thousands of police officers on how to think differently about police shootings that might appear excessive.
A string of deadly police encounters in Ferguson, Mo.; North Charleston, S.C.; and most recently in Cincinnati, have prompted a national reconsideration of how officers use force and provoked calls for them to slow down and defuse conflicts. But the debate has also left many police officers feeling unfairly maligned and suspicious of new policies that they say could put them at risk. Dr. Lewinski says his research clearly shows that officers often cannot wait to act.
“We’re telling officers, ‘Look for cover and then read the threat,’ ” he told a class of Los Angeles County deputy sheriffs recently. “Sorry, too damn late.”
A former Minnesota State professor, he says his testimony and training are based on hard science, but his research has been roundly criticized by experts. An editor for The American Journal of Psychology called his work “pseudoscience.” The Justice Department denounced his findings as “lacking in both foundation and reliability.” Civil rights lawyers say he is selling dangerous ideas.
“People die because of this stuff,” said John Burton, a California lawyer who specializes in police misconduct cases. “When they give these cops a pass, it just ripples through the system.”
Many policing experts are for hire, but Dr. Lewinski is unique in that he conducts his own research, trains officers and internal investigators, and testifies at trial. In the protests that have followed police shootings, demonstrators have often asked why officers are so rarely punished for shootings that seem unwarranted. Dr. Lewinski is part of the answer.
An Expert on the Stand
While his testimony at times has proved insufficient to persuade a jury, his record includes many high-profile wins.
“He won’t give an inch on cross-examination,” said Elden Rosenthal, a lawyer who represented the family of James Jahar Perez, the man killed in the 2004 Portland shooting. In that case, Dr. Lewinski also testified before the grand jury, which brought no charges. Defense lawyers like Dr. Lewinski, Mr. Rosenthal said. “They know that he’s battle-hardened in the courtroom, so you know exactly what you’re getting.”
Dr. Lewinski, 70, is affable and confident in his research, but not so polished as to sound like a salesman. In testimony on the stand, for which he charges nearly $1,000 an hour, he offers winding answers to questions and seldom appears flustered. He sprinkles scientific explanations with sports analogies.
“A batter can’t wait for a ball to cross home plate before deciding whether that’s something to swing at,” he told the Los Angeles deputy sheriffs. “Make sense? Officers have to make a prediction based on cues.”
Of course, it follows that batters will sometimes swing at bad pitches, and that officers will sometimes shoot unarmed people.
Much of the criticism of his work, Dr. Lewinski said, amounts to politics. In 2012, for example, just seven months after the Justice Department excoriated him and his methods, department officials paid him $55,000 to help defend a federal drug agent who shot and killed an unarmed 18-year-old in California. Then last year, as part of a settlement over excessive force in the Seattle Police Department, the Justice Department endorsed sending officers to Mr. Lewinski for training. And in January, he was paid $15,000 to train federal marshals.
If the science is there, Dr. Lewinski said, he does not shy away from offering opinions in controversial cases. He said he was working on behalf of one of two Albuquerque officers who face murder charges in last year’s shooting death of a mentally ill homeless man. He has testified in many racially charged cases involving white officers who shot black suspects, such as the 2009 case in which a Bay Area transit officer shot and killed Oscar Grant, an unarmed black man, at close range.
Dr. Lewinski said he was not trying to explain away every shooting. But when he testifies, it is almost always in defense of police shootings. Officers are his target audience — he publishes a newsletter on police use of force that he says has nearly one million subscribers — and his research was devised for them. “The science is based on trying to keep officers safe,” he said.
Dr. Lewinski, who grew up in Canada, got his doctorate in 1988 from the Union for Experimenting Colleges and Universities, an accredited but alternative Cincinnati school offering accelerated programs and flexible schedules. He designed his curriculum and named his program police psychology, a specialty not available elsewhere.
‘Invalid and Unreliable’
In 1990, a police shooting in Minneapolis changed the course of his career. Dan May, a white police officer, shot and killed Tycel Nelson, a black 17-year-old. Officer May said he fired after the teenager turned toward him and raised a handgun. But an autopsy showed he was shot in the back.
Dr. Lewinski was intrigued by the apparent contradiction. “We really need to get into the dynamics of how this unfolds,” he remembers thinking. “We need a lot better research.”
He began by videotaping students as they raised handguns and then quickly turned their backs. On average, that move took about half a second. By the time an officer returned fire, Dr. Lewinski concluded, a suspect could have turned his back.
He summarized his findings in 1999 in The Police Marksman, a popular magazine for officers. The next year, it published an expanded study, in which Dr. Lewinski timed students as they fired while turning, running or sitting with a gun at their side, as if stashed in a car’s console.
Suspects, he concluded, could reach, fire and move remarkably fast. But faster than an officer could react? In 2002, a third study concluded that it takes the average officer about a second and a half to draw from a holster, aim and fire.
Together, the studies appeared to support the idea that officers were at a serious disadvantage. The studies are the foundation for much of his work over the past decade.
Because he published in a police magazine and not a scientific journal, Dr. Lewinski was not subjected to the peer-review process. But in separate cases in 2011 and 2012, the Justice Department and a private lawyer asked Lisa Fournier, a Washington State University professor and an American Journal of Psychology editor, to review Dr. Lewinski’s studies. She said they lacked basic elements of legitimate research, such as control groups, and drew conclusions that were unsupported by the data.
“In summary, this study is invalid and unreliable,” she wrote in court documents in 2012. “In my opinion, this study questions the ability of Mr. Lewinski to apply relevant and reliable data to answer a question or support an argument.”
Dr. Lewinski said he chose to publish his findings in the magazine because it reached so many officers who would never read a scientific journal. If he were doing it over, he said in an interview, he would have published his early studies in academic journals and summarized them elsewhere for officers. But he said it was unfair for Dr. Fournier to criticize his research based on summaries written for a general audience.While opposing lawyers and experts found his research controversial, they were particularly frustrated by Dr. Lewinski’s tendency to get inside people’s heads. Time and again, his reports to defense lawyers seem to make conclusive statements about what officers saw, what they did not, and what they cannot remember.
Often, these details are hotly disputed. For example, in a 2009 case that revolved around whether a Texas sheriff’s deputy felt threatened by a car coming at him, Dr. Lewinski said that the officer was so focused on firing to stop the threat, he did not immediately recognize that the car had passed him.
Such gaps in observation and memory, he says, can be explained by a phenomenon called inattentional blindness, in which the brain is so focused on one task that it blocks out everything else. When an officer’s version of events is disproved by video or forensic evidence, Dr. Lewinski says, inattentional blindness may be to blame. It is human nature, he says, to try to fill in the blanks.
“Whenever the cop says something that’s helpful, it’s as good as gold,” said Mr. Burton, the California lawyer. “But when a cop says something that’s inconvenient, it’s a result of this memory loss.”
Experts say Dr. Lewinski is too sure of himself on the subject. “I hate the fact that it’s being used in this way,” said Arien Mack, one of two psychologists who coined the term inattentional blindness. “When we work in a lab, we ask them if they saw something. They have no motivation to lie. A police officer involved in a shooting certainly has a reason to lie.”
Dr. Lewinski acknowledged that there was no clear way to distinguish inattentional blindness from lying. He said he had tried to present it as a possibility, not a conclusion.
Almost as soon as his research was published, lawyers took notice and asked him to explain his work to juries.
In Los Angeles, he helped authorities explain the still-controversial fatal shooting of Anthony Dwain Lee, a Hollywood actor who was shot through a window by a police officer at a Halloween party in 2000. The actor carried a fake gun as part of his costume. Mr. Lee was shot several times in the back. The officer was not charged.
The city settled a lawsuit over the shooting for $225,000, but Mr. Lewinski still teaches the case as an example of a justified shooting that unfairly tarnished a good officer who “was shooting to save his own life.”
In September 2001, a Cincinnati judge acquitted a police officer, Stephen Roach, in the shooting death of an unarmed black man after a chase. The officer said he believed the man, Timothy Thomas, 19, was reaching for a gun. Dr. Lewinski testified, and the judge said he found his analysis credible. The prosecutor, Stephen McIntosh, however, told The Columbus Dispatch that Dr. Lewinski’s “radical” views could be used to justify nearly any police shooting.
If that’s the sort of direction we, as a society, are going,” the prosecutor said, “I have a lot of disappointment.”Since then, Dr. Lewinski has testified in many dozens of cases in state and federal court, becoming a hero to many officers who feel that politics, not science or safety, drives police policy. For example, departments often require officers to consider less-lethal options such as pepper spray, stun guns and beanbag guns before drawing their firearms.
“These have come about because of political pressure,” said Les Robbins, the executive director of the Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs. In an interview, Mr. Robbins recalled how he used to keep his gun drawn and hidden behind his leg during most traffic stops. “We used to be able to use the baton and hit people where we felt necessary to get them to comply. Those days are gone.”
Positions of Authority
Dr. Lewinski and his company have provided training for dozens of departments, including in Cincinnati, Las Vegas, Milwaukee and Seattle. His messages often conflict, in both substance and tone, with the training now recommended by the Justice Department and police organizations.
The Police Executive Research Forum, a group that counts most major city police chiefs as members, has called for greater restraint from officers and slower, better decision making. Chuck Wexler, its director, said he is troubled by Dr. Lewinski’s teachings. He added that even as chiefs changed their use-of-force policies, many did not know what their officers were taught in academies and private sessions.
“It’s not that chiefs don’t care,” he said. “It’s rare that a chief has time to sit at the academy and see what’s being taught.”
Regardless of what, if any, policy changes emerge from the current national debate, civil right lawyers say one thing will not change: Jurors want to believe police officers, and Dr. Lewinski’s research tells them that they can.
On a cold night in early 2003, for instance, Robert Murtha, an officer in Hartford, Conn., shot three times at the driver of a car. He said the vehicle had sped directly at him, knocking him to the ground as he fired. Video from a nearby police cruiser told another story. The officer had not been struck. He had fired through the driver’s-side window as the car passed him.
Officer Murtha’s story was so obviously incorrect that he was arrested on charges of assault and fabricating evidence. If officers can get away with shooting people and lying about it, the prosecutor declared, “the system is doomed.”
“There was no way around it — Murtha was dead wrong,” his lawyer, Hugh F. Keefe, recalled recently. But the officer was “bright, articulate and truthful,” Mr. Keefe said. Jurors needed an explanation for how the officer could be so wrong and still be innocent.
Dr. Lewinski testified at trial. The jury deliberated less than one full day. The officer was acquitted of all charges.
Your support keeps freedom alive!