Mediaboss Marketing

Scot Dutcher is standing in the gap between solid investigations of legitimate animal mistreatment and those that are misguided. As a former staffer at the Colorado Department of Agricultures Bureau of Animal Protection, Dutcher was involved in cases involving alleged livestock mistreatment.

After 15 years assisting law enforcement in various cases, he has a deep understanding of the states animal care statutes as well as the criminal and civil animal neglect statutes.

He has created AgNav Consulting to work with law enforcement agencies investigating livestock neglect, to provide training to law enforcement and key farm and ranch employees. Training topics run the gamut from recognizing and determining an animals body condition score to basic animal nutrition, to humane euthanasia. Providing training to law enforcement to identify which allegations are legitimate is key, and training regarding the necessary evidence in a legitimate investigation help both producers facing bogus charges and law enforcement faced with differentiating between the two.

Covert surveillance, the term he prefers when referring to the undercover videos filmed on operations by activists, ought not be confused with investigations. Dutcher said groups filming are doing so to advance their agenda and he has tips and advice for managers and owners facing this threat.

Support Local JournalismDonate

On-farm assessments are a service Dutcher can provide, offering feedback to owners or managers regarding the placement of no trespassing signage, gates, and things, like sick pens, for example, that would be better located out of sight from a public road. Making simple changes to avoid being a target of extremists can be an effective first step for many operations, especially in Colorado, a state he said is second perhaps only to California in the number of active animal rights extremists and activists.

When hiring employees, Dutcher said a simple Google search can provide a look into any connections or interactions an individual could have to animal rights groups, especially on social media. If no data appears at all, that could also be a red flag.

From a legislation standpoint, Colorado Senate bill 20-104 is one that a number of groups have monitored closely. According to the summary, the bill grants additional duties and powers to bureau of animal protection agents, including the authority to conduct investigations; to take possession of and impound any animal that the agent has probable cause to believe is a victim of cruelty to animals. The bill is currently under consideration and is in limbo with the current Senate recess. In Colorado, Bureau of Animal Protection agencies are non-profit, employees of such groups as the Colorado Humane Society, SPCA, and the Larimer Humane Society.

Dutcher is strongly opposed to any bill that grants criminal authority powers to non-profits.

I understand why theyre in favor of it, but it is not going to do agriculture any favors, he said. It gives non-profits criminal authority.

Morgan County Sheriff Dave Martin said in a previous interview that he supports the bill because his department doesnt have the trailers and equipment necessary to impound or transport animals to rescues or sale barns, as is often necessary. Dutcher said that is where he can serve law enforcement with transport assistance and ensuring that the claims are legitimate, and the investigation gathers important evidence.

Thats what Im here for, to assist the sheriffs departments doing the investigations, where the criminal authority is and should remain, he said.

No other non-profits in the state, he said, have that type of authority, especially to impound an animal to potentially gain monetarily from the seizure. It is, he said, a clear conflict of interest.

In the court system, Dutcher can serve as an expert witness either for the prosecution in legitimate animal neglect or mistreatment cases (he avoids the term cruelty as it is not clearly defined in statute) or assist the defense in a case that is not legitimate to avoid wrongful prosecution.

Its so important that we, to the extent that we can, stick up for and stand behind good agricultural producers, he said. There are so many challenges facing agriculture right now and it seems like all the additional regulations and animal care challenges fall to the producer and he is the least capable of passing those increased production costs on to the consumer because the market determines what he gets for his product.

THE STAND

Misplaced authority, conflicts of interest, legislation pushed by extremist groups, and animal welfare are all the made-for-the-big-screen subjects of The Stand at Paxton County, currently streaming on Netflix. Trent Loos, a Nebraska rancher and radio host appears in the film. The film is inspired by the story of longtime North Dakota rancher Gary Dassinger.

According to Protect the Harvest, Forrest Films produced The Stand at Paxton County to tell the important story that serves as a warning to ranchers. Dassinger, who raised Quarter Horses for over 40 years, faced the seizure and sale of his animals, criminal charges, and a 20-year prison sentence in 2017 for what essentially amounted to false claims.

Measure 5, an initiated state statute was defeated by North Dakota voters, but an amended version became law in 2013. Law enforcement trained by the Humane Society of the United States on the enforcement of the law, seized livestock based on the behavior and claims of a disgruntled employee.

Loos said he dug into the case several years ago after a call from a neighbor of Dassingers in Stark County, North Dakota.

I did dig into it and I found out the sheriff and the local veterinarian, who had an ax to grind against Gary Dassinger for an old issue, were trying to make an example of him as an animal abuser, Loos said.

The first time Loos said he heard of a similar situation was in Colorado when a producer from the Western Slope stopped him after he spoke to an ag group. The producer was pulling a calf from a heifer in a pasture near the road. Loos said the producer was using OB chains and hooks, commonplace for assisting in a calving.

All of a sudden a deputy sheriff pulls up there with siren blaring, lights on, and pulls his weapon and asks this rancher to get away from that animal, he said. There had been a report that there was some sort of suspicious activity taking place and the deputy was so ignorant when he arrived and saw a rancher pulling a calf, he drew his weapon and asked him to get away from the animal.

Loos said it sounds absurd, but it falls into what he said Dassinger fell victim to, which is the Open Fields Doctrine. The Open Fields Doctrine allows search and seizure without a warrant in areas like pastures, wooded areas, open water and vacant lots despite the presence of no trespassing signage, fences or gates. Though some states have rejected the law, many maintain that the Fourth Amendment does not protect such areas.

Gabel is an assistant editor and reporter for The Fence Post. She can be reached at rgabel@thefencepost.com or (970) 768-0024.

Read more from the original source:
Standing in the Gap: Extremists, legislation, and Netflix - Fence Post

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is suing a California police department for using excessive force to arrest a teenager who walked through a residential neighborhood while on his way to get prom tickets.

A lawsuit states that the interaction between then-high school student Pablo Simental Jr. and officers with the Delano Police Department (DPD) occurred on April 11, 2019. Simental and three of his friends were walking to Wonderful College Prep Academy to get prom tickets. The trip took them through a residential neighborhood.

While in the neighborhood, the suit alleges that DPD officers, including Ruben Ozuna, Michael Strand, and Guadalupe Contreras, approached the teens and began to question them. The teens invoked their right to remain silent.

That's when the lawsuit says the officers used excessive force on the teens, some of which was captured on video and shared on social media.

The lawsuit alleges that the officers purposefully veered their patrol vehicle toward the teens, almost hitting them, and began conducting arrests for jaywalking. The behavior worsened after the Simental and the other teens pulled their cellphones out and began to film the officers. The officers reportedly tried to take the phones by force, forcing some teens to the ground and handcuffing them. Ozuna ran toward Simental, body-slammed him, and put his body on top of Simental to handcuff him tightly.

The lawsuit says this caused "severe pain."

Though criminal charges were not filed against Simental in court, he remained in jail for several hours with his hands cuffed tightly behind his back.

Following the incident, Simental received a letter stating that the DPD conducted an investigation and exonerated the officers of misconduct.

The ACLU is now suing the officers and the city for damages in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Californiaarguing that the defendants violated Simental's First Amendment right against retaliation by reacting with force when the teens questioned the officers and recorded their actions. The ACLU also argues that the defendants violated Simental's Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable seizure and excessive force.

The DPD issued the following statement last year about the events, admitting to using force:

The Delano Police Department is aware of videos posted to Facebook showing officers making several arrests on the 2400 block of Liverno Drive. These subjects were initially found in the roadway and refused officers' orders to move. Officers attempted to detain them however, they refused to comply. Force was then used to make arrests, some of which can be seen in the video.

Whether Simental and his friends were simply walking through a neighborhood or jaywalking, like the cops claim, neither action is ever egregious enough for force to be used in such a manner.

See the original post here:
Lawsuit Alleges California Cops Used Excessive Force on Teens for Walking Through a Neighborhood - Reason

As Ive noted before, the words fascist and fascism are generally overused. That may, however, be due for a change.

Originally, those terms referred to a political and economic system that arose in Europe during the middle part of the last century. Contrary to popular myth, fascism was a form of statism and therefore an ideology of the left a first cousin to socialism and communism.

No less an authority than Benito Mussolini referred to fascism as the third way, meaning another statist alternative to those other two (truly) deplorable isms.

The key difference is that, under fascism, the means of production remain ostensibly in private hands. The government simply regulates all industries in order to make them do what it wants, essentially picking winners and losers.

These days, if fascist has come to mean anything more than I dont like your politics, it is authoritarian or heavy-handed. However, the term is most often used to insult ones political opponents. Paradoxically, this is especially prevalent on the left. The irony of masked thugs employing Brownshirt tactics while calling themselves anti-fascist cannot be lost on any rational person.

In the United States, fascism has long been part of the Progressive DNA, dating back to Woodrow Wilson and American entertainers, industrialists and intellectuals of the 1920s and 30s, many of whom initially embraced fascist rhetoric.

But never has the lefts incipient fascism been more apparent than during the current coronavirus panic, as Progressive politicians across the country have seized the opportunity to implement authoritarian, unconstitutional diktats in furtherance of statist goals, such as universal basic income and Medicaid for all.

While red states slowly open for business, blue states like Michigan, Oregon, and Illinois are extending lockdowns into the summer, perhaps beyond. Californias beaches remain closed while Floridas welcome residents and vacationers alike.

Meanwhile, Progressive governors, mayors, and judges have attempted to ban religious services, peaceful protests and other public gatherings, in direct contravention of the First Amendment. Several have floated the idea of blowing up the Fourth Amendment, too, by requiring mandatory tracking or vaccinations.

So, my anti-fascist friends, who exactly is being heavy-handed and authoritarian now? Who is subordinating the rights of individuals to the supposed needs of the state? Who is picking economic winners and losers by declaring some peoples livelihoods non-essential?

Ill give you a hint: Its not Donald Trump, and its not most Republican governors.

As a Georgian, Im grateful for the courageous, rational, and (above all) constitutional leadership of Gov. Brian Kemp during this time of turmoil and uncertainty. I cant imagine the nightmare if we were now being ruled by his Progressive opponent in the last election. Georgia could easily be another Illinois or Oregon.

Thats something to keep in mind next time you vote. Obviously, Progressive Democrats cannot be trusted with power. In times of crisis, their inner fascist just surges to the top.

Now, more than ever, the world needs trustworthy reportingbut good journalism isnt free.Please support us by subscribing or making a contribution today.

Rob Jenkins is a college professor. The views expressed here are his own. You can email Rob at rob.jenkins@outlook.com.

See the original post:
JENKINS: Now we know who the real fascists are - Gwinnettdailypost.com

WASHINGTON The plan for a pandemic drone didnt last long in Westport, Conn.

Within days in late April, the police department of the coastal town outside New York City reversed course on using drone-mounted cameras to scan crowds for fevers and coughs.

The department had said it would use the technology at beaches, train stations, recreation areas and shopping centers. Biometric readings would help the department understand population patterns and respond to potential health threats.

Feedback from some of the towns 28,000 residents was quick and laden with concern, Lt. Anthony Prezioso said, so the department canned the program.

This is not really a time to divide people, Prezioso said. If this was an issue that would create more angst and division among our community, it wasnt the time.

At least 40 law enforcement agencies across the country have used drones in the past few months for coronavirus-related purposes, according to a Stateline review of police websites and news reports. Law enforcement drones have hovered over a homeless encampment to invite people to get a free health assessment, flown over parks to check for social distancing and broadcast messages asking crowds to disperse.

But as in Westport, drones raise the question of what surveillance the public will accept in a tense time. The new measures monitoring social distance, scanning crowds, testing temperatures also worry civil liberties advocates and some in the drone industry.

This is not a time to be, in my opinion, ramrodding the aircraft into the air, said Matt Dunlevy, who owns SkySkopes, a Grand Forks, N.D.-based drone company.

SkySkopes is testing how drones can be used to deliver supplies or spray disinfectant across areas such as playgrounds, gyms and stadiums. It is also doing limited indoor testing with a thermal imaging camera.

I think that this is a time to take particular care as to how drones are used, Dunlevy said. I would personally encourage all drone operators to make sure that they take the utmost care and operate with the utmost sensitivity.

Roughly 1,100 law enforcement agencies have acquired drones over the past few years, according to research by the Center for the Study of the Drone at Bard College in New York. Agencies tout their uses for evaluating crime scenes and searching for missing persons.

The Federal Aviation Administration requires drone pilots to be certified and keep drones in sight and not above people, with some exceptions. As long as its rules are followed, the agency doesnt regulate how a drone is used.

I think its so cool that all these agencies are doing stuff, said Ian Gregor, a spokesperson for the FAA. We wrote the authorizations and regulations broadly. When we wrote them, we had no idea wed be seeing this kind of public health agency use.

Since 2013, at least 44 states have enacted laws addressing drones, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. For example, some states bar flights over correctional facilities.

At least 18 states require law enforcement agencies to get a search warrant to use a drone for surveillance or to conduct a search, the group said.

But those laws leave room for uses such as crowd surveillance and broadcasting social distancing messages, experts said.

Either of those use cases dont violate the Fourth Amendment because people in public places dont have a reasonable expectation of privacy, said Gregory S. McNeal, a professor of law and public policy at Pepperdine University in California.

The other bigger question is whether we as a society want drones flying around as the enforcers of these bureaucratic rules, whether by blaring these commands by speaker, or by other means, McNeal said. Thats less of a legal question and more of a social acceptance question.

Civil liberties advocates worry that the pandemic will push law enforcement agencies to go to extreme lengths to adopt fast-moving technology.

In a rush to do something, we need to be very cognizant that hastily implemented systems could pose unnecessary and significant risks to privacy, civil rights and civil liberties, said Kara Gross, legislative director and senior policy counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida.

Gross pointed to similar civil liberties discussions amid expanded government surveillance after 9/11. In times of crisis we are seeing our country relax protections for individuals, she said.

Do we really want to live in a state where we have this ever-present eye in the sky thats collecting information about individuals, about their private, personal health? Gross said.

Matthew Guariglia, a policy analyst with Electronic Frontier Foundation, a nonprofit digital rights group based in San Francisco, said he was skeptical of the accuracy of thermal imaging cameras and questioned their use by law enforcement rather than public health officials. But even sending a drone with loudspeakers toward a crowd gave him pause.

It normalizes policing and governance by robot, he said.

And, he warned, even if a technology is adopted under the guise of short-term use, its less likely to be removed after the crisis.

It might be for policing social distancing now, but in seven or eight months it might be sending that drone over protests against a presidential election, Guariglia said.

The CEO of the company behind the Westport drone program, while commending the departments decision to back out, said he thinks other police departments will give it a try.

They did the right thing by being transparent about it and providing the community a chance to voice their concern, said Cameron Chell, CEO of Draganfly. The Saskatchewan, Canada-based company with offices in Los Angeles and Raleigh, North Carolina, has been working with public safety agencies for about 15 years.

The thermal imaging software was developed in partnership with the University of South Australia and Australias defense department, he said. It can detect body temperatures, respiratory rates and heart rates from 190 feet away. The cameras dont have facial recognition abilities, he said.

It could provide us real-world information instead of guesses, Chell said.

Chell said hes working with both law enforcement agencies and private industry groups to start more pilot programs. He declined to name any of the groups.

Police in another Connecticut town, Meriden, started a drone program a few months ago with plans to use it to investigate crash scenes and search for missing people. Instead, police have used it to hover over two large parks and see whether residents are social distancing.

In one snapshot, you can see areas of concern, said Sgt. Jeff Herget. On the first Sunday in May a warm, spring day the parks were full of families walking and hiking, he said.

Using a speaker on the drone, the police played four or five announcements over about six hours reminding groups to keep a safe distance apart.

Reactions were mixed. Many people at the park responded positively and wanted to see how the drone worked, Herget said, but online commenters were less supportive.

Of ways to use the drones, he said, I dont think any of us thought wed be doing social distancing.

2020 Stateline.org

Visit Stateline.org at http://www.stateline.org

Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

PHOTO (for help with images, contact 312-222-4194): CORONAVIRUS-POLICE-DRONES

Continue reading here:
Did that drone just tell us to stay 6 feet apart? - yoursun.com

Asked to define what crimes Donald Trump is alleging Barack Obama and other former members of his administration committed under his "Obamagate" conspiracy theory, the president's top spokeswoman instead focused on alleged "wrongdoing."

When pressed, White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany only mentioned one potential crime: The leaking of the identity of Michael Flynn, Mr Trump's first national security adviser to reporters that showed up in articles indicating the retired Army three-star general was the subject of a federal probe.

Instead, Ms McEnany pointed to the highly disputed "dossier" of negative information compiled by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele, which has been disputed by Mr Trump and his team.

Sharing the full story, not just the headlines

Ms McEnany, who is an attorney, complained about "wrongdoing" by the FBI.

She complained that Foreign Surveillance Intelligence Act court warrants were improperly issued so federal investigators could monitor communications involving members the 2016 Trump campaign.

Additionally, she contended that Sally Yates, a former senior Justice Department official, was "stunned" when then-President Barack Obama informed her of a federal probe of Mr Flynn.

But only once, contending that a leak of Mr Flynn's name to reporters, did she mention a possible criminal act because, she said, such a leak might have been "a violation of his (Flynn's) Fourth Amendment rights."

Cornell Law School defines that amendment to the US Constitution this way: "The Fourth Amendment originally enforced the notion that "each man's home is his castle", secure from unreasonable searches and seizures of property by the government. It protects against arbitrary arrests, and is the basis of the law regarding search warrants, stop-and-frisk, safety inspections, wiretaps, and other forms of surveillance, as well as being central to many other criminal law topics and to privacy law."

Mr Trump alleged unspecified criminal actions by former Obama administration officials in a tweet last weekend, writing: "The biggest political crime in American history, by far!"

But on Monday, when asked to spell out those alleged crimes during a press conference, Mr Trump could not or would not.

"You know what the crime is. The crime is very obvious to everybody. All you have to do is read the newspapers, except yours," he told a Washington Post reporter.

"Obamagate" is a web of complicated and semi-related actions and investigations by and ordered by then-Obama administration officials. Mr Trump, cobbling them together, alleges they prove a push inside the Obama administration to take down his 2016 presidential bid and then hobble his presidency. Mr Obama has responded with a one-word tweet: "Vote."

More here:
Trump's spokeswoman focuses on 'wrongdoing' rather than crimes when pressed on 'Obamagate' charges - The Independent