Category Archives: Business relations

articles pertaining to companies and worklife

America’s war on itself

Recent events have done nothing more than demonstrate the problem that has been ignored for many years. While many of us have known that this day would arrive, the vast majority sat in the comfort of their own homes, completely ignorant of what was about to come. Today, we’re going to review the rapid progression on the “war” against the American people. This is a war brought fourth by corporations and our very own government.

Election fiasco

It should be obvious that the vast majority believe the election was rigged. While our platform has always been critical of Trump, we were even more critical of the idea of having “mail-in” votes. The concept of mailing in your vote simply left to many variables for things to go wrong. While I’m not willing to blatantly state that the election was rigged, I am willing to entertain the idea that it is very likely. Even with that aside, even with my criticism of Donald Trump, I believe, without doubt, that he is being completely railroaded by Nancy Pelosi and her “goons.”

In recent months, we saw the first impeachment process against Trump. Let’s face the reality about that process, it was a bogus situation with nothing less than ill intent. Of course, this wasn’t the last attempt to destroy the now former president. In recent weeks, in a highly controversial and potentially illegal move, we witnessed a second impeachment. This process was based on the grounds that Trump incited a riot at the capital. But did he? Well, the tweets that they are using say nothing about condoning a riot. In fact, the term didn’t even appear in the tweets; the fact is, we simply could not find any tweet to which President Trump encouraged a riot. But what about the riot itself?

Mainstream media has really bitten into this one. We know things were stolen from the capital. We know that people were killed during this riot. But what many people don’t know is how this group successfully bypassed heavily armed Security, law enforcement, and even Secret Service agents to get into this building. For that, you only have to search for videos, which are being spread all over the internet. What we see in these videos are the police opening barricades to allow the protestors in. Police are seen talking with the protestors, interacting with these “dangerous” thugs. What I’m saying here should be clear: they got in because the police literally opened the doors for them. Because of these videos, some people are lead to believe that this was actually a bait to justify impeachment.

The second impeachment is highly questionable, at best. While it would still have to go court, even with the votes already being cast, Trump will no longer be in office when this happens. This would make him the first President to ever be impeached after already being removed from his position. Of course, the second impeachment is also a first. Meanwhile, as a result of this, tensions are quickly reaching a boiling point. I no longer believe that the possibility of civil war, I now wonder when it will happen.

Further tension arose with the questionable removal of Trump from social media. While many people are surprised and shocked by this, they really shouldn’t be. For years, Facebook has taken a stance to shutdown independent media platforms, or anybody who spoke against their supported political figure; Twitter is known to do the same, though not as extreme as Facebook. The basic point is: they’ve been censoring people for years now, with no accountability, and it’s not going to stop just because of who the person is. For those who are absolutely outraged by this, questions regarding our constitutional rights arise. Can a company do this? Well, that’s tricky. Technically, they are private companies. However, as I’ve said many times before, a company who is on the stock market falls into the category of being “public domain.”

Rather or not they can do this doesn’t mean they won’t. As our own government continues to put the nails into the coffin of our democracy, at the expense of the American people, we can expect to see many more reactions. The capital riot is just the start of what could very well become an outright war. While the government has the ability to prevent this, I don’t believe they will. If anything, I believe this is exactly what they’ve been wanting to happen. After all, anybody who’s observant can see that this tension has been slowly boiling for many years now.

Are retailers violating the HIPAA ACT?

With the COVID situation running rampant, it shouldn’t be a surprise that your medical information is now being forced to be presented to employers. Failing to do so is met with consequences, loss of employment, or even suspension without pay. However, some employers, such as Dollar Tree, have taken this a step further. They not only ask for your medical information, they are accused of asking for information pertaining to related to the employee. With this accusation, a member of our team applied, got the job, and tested this theory out. This article is going to present information provided to us by a former employee and the results of what we learned first hand.

HIPAA

The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability (HIPAA) Act was designed in 1996 with the purpose of protecting sensitive medical information. With this act, doctors are forbidden from divulging information of any patient without having prior written consent. However, the act expands beyond that aspect. With the HIPAA Act, patients have control of their medical information, they can choose who to provide this information to, and it limits what medical information an employer can obtain; this last portion is where our article is primarily focused.

While this act doesn’t necessarily pertain to employers, there are aspects of it that do. For instance, under the HIPPA Act, an employee is not required to divulge their medical files, or even diagnosis and treatment. While we are currently in a pandemic, this changes nothing as the HIPPA Act simply does not address situations such as this. An employer asking an employee the results of a Covid test could be taken as a violation as, once again, a patient is not required to give the employee their diagnosis or treatment information. This brings us to the retail industry, who seem to ask their employees for this very piece of vital information.

Retails intrusive questions

With the information we had obtained from a source, our platform decided to go “inside” and find out for ourselves. For this, a member of our team applied at a local “Dollar Tree.” This location was selected because it was the company that we had gotten the complaint about. Like magic, the application was approved and we had our feet in the door. At this point, the investigation commenced.

The first night was uneventful. No questions were asked, just the typical “pre-opening” work. Shelves were stocked, boxes were stored, that sort of thing. Our new insider had begun to question rather or not the accusations were, in fact, even true. After working for hours, we had initially thought the investigation was a fluke. This conclusion didn’t last long, however. Prior to the insider’s employment, we had already established that if they did ask any of the questions, they were to answer at least one of them with “yes.”

The reason behind this was simply to see what the store would do in this situation. We already had established that answering “no” gave you the “right” to work, we wanted the other end of the spectrum. On night two, our insider reports that they arrived at the store. Upon entering, they were immediately stopped and asked some questions. Because this was being recorded, we are providing the very questions that were asked. We are also providing the response given by our insider.

The questions

Q: Have you been around anybody who has tested positive for Covid?

A: If I had been, there is no way that I could possibly know, so I’m going to say no. It is important to note that the employer is marked with (Q) while our insider is marked with (A.)

Q: In the past 24 hours, have you been around anybody who has been tested for Covid?

A: Yes.

Q: Wait, you’ve been around somebody who got tested for Covid?

A: Yeah.

Q: Do you know the results of their tests? (Highlighted as this question potentially violates HIPPA.)

A: No, I don’t know their tests results. Why?

Q: Because that means you can’t come into work.

A: What do you mean I can’t come to work, why not?

Q: Because you’re putting the entire store at risk.

A: Uh, okay, that makes no sense but whatever.

It’s important to note a few things within these questions. The first is the redundancy of the first question. If this had not been our insider, but another employee, they would already be at a high risk of exposure, they’re working retail. The second thing to note is what HIPAA says about asking for test results: they aren’t permitted to know what a diagnosis or treatment is. If the test were to be a positive, the employer is not permitted to know this as the patient would be diagnosed with Covid. Branching beyond that, the employer is also not permitted to know what the treatment plan for the said diagnosis is. Essentially, asking this question is a legal situation in the making. With a good attorney, this company could face a rather hefty penalty.

While all of the questions are intrusive, the specific question asking for test results, especially regarding those not employed with the company, is the smoking gun for any “litigation-happy” disgruntled employee. Expanding beyond the questions, we are left with one unanswered question: why the inconsistency?  On the first night of employment, our insider received no questions prior to their shift. However, on the second night, they were questioned. If the employers policy regarding “safety” was so serious, wouldn’t they be asking these intrusive questions prior to every shift?

While this subject, especially now, remains highly controversial, it is one that should be discussed. The question asking, “how far is to far?” is simply not asked enough. In this year alone, we have seen some of the worst violations to our rights than at any point in America’s history. Our right to religious freedom being a primary example. During this time, we saw ministers being arrested simply for refusing to cease with the practice of their religious freedoms, in the way that their religions required. But the violations didn’t start, nor did they end, there. For now, we will simply ask this one question: Will Americans ever say “enough is enough?”

 

Editorial Statement

Due to the backlash on Twitter, we are clarifying that this article is purely opinion. We are asking a question, noted by the title, and are simply responding with our thoughts. While the companies may not be violating HIPAA, by requesting information of people, who are not employed with them, we can at least establish that the privacy of those individuals have been violated.

Evading accountability: The report

In law enforcement, report writing is essential. Not only does it provide information involving various situations, it also works as a legal document, which can be used within the court system. On the dark side of things, this simple report can actually work in getting an officer out of trouble. Though it sounds farfetched, it’s not. Today, I am going to reveal to everybody how that can work. This isn’t coming from researched information. instead, this is coming from first hand information resulting from my time working within the system.

When writing a report, especially in instances to which use of force is used, the way the report is written can help or hurt that officer. This fact is so important that departments devote an entire training course on how reports are to be written. Included within that training is how to avoid having that report come back on the officer. The best way to explain this is to simply provide you a scenario.

In this example, we have a victim who has been body slammed by an officer. The victim was compliant and unarmed. Now, if the officer was being honest, the report would read something like this:

On (date) I intercepted (Victim’s name,) regarding complaints of (situation.) The individual was complying to orders when officer (name) proceeded to use less than lethal force. In this force, the individual was slammed to the ground, at which time they were cuffed.

Now, the way the above report is written, will vary depending on the officer. However, this version of events isn’t what people generally see. As you can imagine, the above would place fault for any injuries onto the department, as well as the officer. This is why the police are trained on how to word their reports. For this reason, you will never see the above report. However, what you will see is this:

On (date) I intercepted (Victim’s name,) regarding complaints of (situation.) The individual wasn’t complying  to orders. at this point, officer (name) proceeded to assist (name) to the ground and cuffed.

Notice the wording. In a report, rather than stating that the individual was “body-slammed,” the police will simply state that they “assisted” a person to the ground. This may not sound like a big deal but in the courts, that could mean the difference between doing your job and being charged with assault. Should the victim sue the department, this report would again be used to protect the officers involved.

This tactic is used in virtually every encounter that involves police. It doesn’t just include them, however. Every division of law enforcement, including the correctional system, utilize this method of report writing. In situations where an officer does make a report implicating abuse from other officers, another system of misinformation is utilized. The “Blue Brotherhood,” which we will be writing about in the near future, cannot be violated without consequence. An officer who writes a report, placing fault on a department or another officer, is faced with two separate situations.

To begin with, the officer will not be able to submit their report. When attempting to do so, the department will simply refuse to accept it until they modify it. Once the report has been altered, using the “appropriate” words, it can then be submitted. However, this doesn’t change the fact that this officer had violated the blue code. From this point forward, they face a real possibility of being targeted by not only other officers, but by those in charge.

The departments are about covering themselves, even if that means covering up their tracks. Because investigations are conducted by “internal affairs,” the methods used for writing these reports are never questioned. As a result, there is no accountability. Furthermore, officers who generally violate policy, or even the law, face no consequences for doing so. For this, and many other reasons, the way to which these reports are written do matter. As I said, it can come back to haunt the officer if done incorrectly.

Journalism vs. Facebook

At this point, I’m not even going to pretend to be surprised that this article would eventually come. In fact, I doubt that anybody who reads it would be. Facebook is a company that has a notorious history of censoring people. Rather it be for political reasons, what they classify as “spam,” or simply cleaning house of freelance journalists, Facebook has long since established its guilt. However, for the company, this guilt has not come without a price. With multiple lawsuits, one would think the company would make a few policy changes.  This has not been the case. If anything, Facebook appears to be tightening the reigns on the very policies that have gotten them sued in the first place.

On my personal profile, I have multiple freelance journalists. You maybe wondering what we all have in common, why I would even mention them. The one common ground we all share is that all of our accounts have been, in some way, censored by Facebook. Furthermore, when conducting this censorship, we are given no explanation as to why.

Though Facebook has restricted my account, notice that they do not give an actual reason as to why.

On 10/20/2020,  the journalist/founder of the platform “Discuss Global,” received a message like the one photographed above. in less than twenty four hours, I also received a message indicating that my account had been “restricted.” According to Facebook’s message, I had violated a policy. However, as you can see above, there is no example of what policy was violated, nor is there a copy of the violating post/comment. For those who have been on the platform for awhile, may recall the “journalistic purge.” This purge was the mass removal of dozens of independent journalistic platforms. Among these, “Cop Block” “The Daily Haze,” and “The free thought project.” It is almost as though Facebook is attempting to take down any journalist who is critical of Trump, something that I have in common with the other targeted journalists on my “friends” list.

Though I am given the option to appeal, doing so only brings up this error. This same event occurred when other journalists attempted to appeal.

While Facebook has given us the ability to appeal this “violation,” you can see for yourself what that appeal process brings. While Facebook continues to violate the rights of independent journalists, who don’t share their political views, earlier this year, the social media giant lost a class action lawsuit. you can read here for more information into that.

It’s commonly stated that Facebook is the perfect example of how socialism works. If you speak out against anything they support, they silence you. Perhaps, with all the lawsuits, Facebook should consider looking into their own policies and how they’re enforced before violating the rights of anybody who speaks out against their political agendas. Although this can be prevented, it would require that people take a stance against the platform.

Police department exposed

update

The Chief of police reached out to us, though she didn’t exactly answer our question. Below is that correspondence.

Chief: What are your questions about our policies?

WoC: Our platform was recently informed that your department rejected a potential application, partly on the grounds of an accusation to which an individual was found innocent. We know this because we were able to pull up this disposition. Though the individual involved has declined to comment on this, I thought I would touch base with you guys and find out how that was able to be used against this person, regardless of this disposition?

Chief: The individual you are talking about KNOWS why he was turned down. You have to tell the truth. I will be glad to talk to you I person. I will be in the office Monday.

At this point, the conversation was abruptly ended, she has not responded since this message.

—————————————

It was inevitable that this article would be written. In our current trend of exposing the “justice” system for all the glamorous corruption, it shouldn’t be to hard to conceive that we would begin targeting specific law enforcement agencies. Today, we are going after a small Oklahoma town, Earlsboro Police Department. This department was brought to our attention by a former applicant, denied a job on the basis of a charge, to which they were determined innocent. Upon conducting my own research into this department, it’s not all that surprising that they would had denied the individual’s application upon those grounds. After all, in 2018, the department was so corrupt it had gained state wide attention. Let’s review the Earlsboro Police Department.

History of abuse and corruption

As we have stated, this small town department is riddled with a past of corruption. In 2015, officer Michael Young, who is believed to still be with the department, targeted a freelance journalist. The journalist, associated with the organization “Cop Block,” had been filming the officer’s interaction with another citizen. To see that video, just click this link.  The situation, based upon the video, is rather disturbing.

It shows officer Young parked in front of a residence, lights enabled. Upon leaving, he does a U-turn. When getting to the corner, where the journalist is located, he stops at the stop sign. However, he doesn’t simply drive away. Instead, Young sits at this sign, blocking potential traffic. This goes on for several minutes.  Finally, after blocking the road for several minutes, officer Young decides to engage the journalist. The fact that the officer chose to even engage somebody, filming on a public road, is already questionable. But as we’ve said, this department doesn’t exactly operate with the legal scope.

More controversy hit the department in 2018. The former chief of police, Troy Magers found himself the centerfold of this event. Though this controversy was aimed at the private life of Magers, it spoke loudly for his character. So, we are going to give a quick rundown of the situation.

The former chief had rented a house. Upon leaving the residence, the home owner found it to be a complete wreck. Trash, feces, urine, roaches littered the home, it looked as if a hoarder had been living there. Though there is much debate as to why he was removed, one allegation is it was over sexual harassment claims and abuse of power. Though we haven’t been able to confirm the reasons leading up to his removal, we did find that he has an extensive history of misdemeanors and civil litigations dating back to the 1990’s. This leads us to our current question: If the EPD allowed this man to apart of the department, why did their current Chief of Police, Candie, deny a man who was found to be innocent of his charge?

Allegations against the former Chief of police didn’t just stop at how he destroyed a rental home. We were able to make contact with a man who had lived in the town during this time. According to this contact, the former chief had made a point of targeting a young woman and her children. In fact, the harassment had become so severe that she had allegedly bought a gun to protect her family from the police. Ultimately, after the officer attempted to remove her children, she and her family, was forced to move from their home.

We reached out to the department, in attempt to get answers. However, what we found was that any comment we left was  hastily removed. To ensure our question was seen, and hopefully answered, we left it for them on a Google review (pictured below.) One thing we noticed when looking at their reviews, was their rating. 2.6 out of 5. While it’s not uncommon to see lower scores with any law enforcement agency, this is still remarkably low. Reviews accuse officers of theft  to inaction in a potential life threatening situation.

Because they continue to delete any questions asked by the WoC team, we made our questions in a very public way. Doing it like this also ensures that the department cannot delete it.
The record showing the background of the EPD former police Chief, Troy Magers.

We find it interesting that a man with such a record of misdemeanors and civil suits was qualified to be a chief, but a man who was innocent wasn’t qualified to join the department.  While the department has allegedly pulled the “legalities” card, when we review the history of their previous chief, that is something we find to be rather suspicious. While the department has now become more active within its local community, it doesn’t necessarily excuse it from its past. When policies are being created on the spot, when officers, who still remain with the department, hold a history of abuse and intimidation,  we have more than enough reason to believe that nothing has truly changed.

It is unfathomable to believe that such a small department could be more corrupt than those in bigger cities. While we don’t believe the corruption has stopped, simply changed hands, it does appear that the department has made some drastic changes. While we still can’t confirm officer Young’s employment with this specific agency, we are told by a source that he maybe working for another department.  Allegedly the entire department was wiped clean, alongside Chief Magers. According to sources, this was brought about from accusations of “sexual misconduct.” However, neither the city of Earlsboro, nor it’s police department, will confirm this. One thing that is clear is they are still enforcing a non-existent law. There is no law barring a person employment purely based upon an accusation. After all, accusations happen all the time, it’s the establishment of guilt that matters. Because our journalist does live within the same state as this department, they can rest assure that we are going to be watching them very closely in the days to come.

Always guilty

“The system is broken.” At some point you have probably heard this expression. What if I were to tell you that this statement is wrong? The very system that you believe to be broken, in fact, was maliciously designed so that no matter what, you pay for the crime. If it sounds completely insane, it’s not. For many people, wrongfully strung into the court system, this is the reality that they face, regardless of disposition.

For those who haven’t been through this auction for your freedom, the idea you have is probably along these lines: you are charged, you go to court. If you are found guilty, you do your time, and you’re free. Alternatively, you are found innocent and that’s simply the end of it. Well, that’s not entirely true, just ask any innocent person who has been charged with a crime. Regardless of the fact that they were found “innocent” of the charge, the reality for them is this: they still pay for that crime.

What many of these people harshly learn is that companies, government agencies, and so fourth, still hold that charge against them. Is this legal? Not really, but they still do it.  For these individuals, the concept of “innocent” simply does not exist. The embarrassment of being dragged into a courtroom, the loss of income, and people knowing what you were accused of but not accepting the disposition makes the words, “innocent until proven guilty” a lost luxury.

However, there is a way to obtain that luxury again, at least that’s the glimmer of light. The downside to it is in that it is going to cost you hundreds of dollars to do so. So, let’s break this court system down. For this breakdown, I’m going to presume innocence. You are charged with a crime. You are dragged to a courtroom for months, or even years on end. Finally, you get the verdict “innocent.” You think the humiliation is over, it’s not. Now, you have this charge on your background, still very publicly visible to those who look.

While it should be the responsibility of the court to remove this, when you were found innocent, they won’t. You have to spend money to bribe these political parasites into doing that. Without the bribe, your life spins into chaos. Every job you apply for, sees this charge. Although they see the disposition of that charge, it generally doesn’t matter. You’re denied jobs regardless. Meanwhile, these law enforcement agencies, judges, and various other parasitic leeches are banking off of this flawed system, all of it at your expense.

Once you pay the bribe, you get the expungement. However, that could take months to go through; it could also mean more court dates. The worst aspect to all of this is in the fact that the damage has already been done. While you’re left to deal with the broken pieces of your life, the cash cow within the (in)justice system continues it’s illusion that it is “for the people” rather than against them.

 

 

India based Media platform files false copyright claim

It goes to say that there are many predatorial media platforms. Distorting or outright fabricating truths is not an uncommon element. However, you would never expect one of these platforms to target an aspiring musician, simply trying to share their musical compositions. However, that is exactly what Manorama News TV, a platform based in India, did.

This content is for Basic and Gold Status members only.
Login Join Now

Injured employee mistreated?

Unless you’re completely out of your mind, the last thing in the world that you would want to do is injure yourself at work. With any sort of injury, there is a loss of income, dealing with legal things that you may not had expected, and the list goes on. This story is brought to...

This content is for Basic and Gold Status members only.
Login Join Now

Disabled individuals targeted?

It goes without say that we should all be entitled to medical care. For some people, this form of care means life or death. However, in all the splendor joys that 2020 has already provided us, we are finding that, for many people, medical care is outright being denied. In fact, for specific groups of people, they aren’t even being allowed in the door before being asked to leave the facility. Why? It all boils down to the mask mandate. I understand that many people will disagree with this article. I also understand that I will most likely catch a lot of grief for writing it, however, I simply refuse to sit back and watch as specific groups of disabled people continue to be targeted, denied their basic right to medical. After all, we have already seen other rights be stripped away, we’ll get into that also.

Mask Mandate

First, and foremost, it is important to understand that the mask mandate is that: a mandate. Although many people will try to claim this to be law, it’s not. The difference in a mandate and law comes down to a variety of factors, how it came to be is among them. While state and federal laws get run through every government house known to man, the mandate had never undergone such a process. Basically, this makes it unenforceable by law enforcement, though they are attempting to enforce it anyway. The issue in them enforcing it can be chalked down into what the very definition of their occupation: to uphold and enforce the law.

Initially, the mask mandate was a suggestion. Never intended to be required, the government composed a list of “safety” procedures for people to follow, if they so wished. However, what we ended up seeing completely opposed this initial stance. In a progressively slow measure, this request grew into the mandate. Some of the “safety” guidelines are as follow:

  1. Stay at least six feet apart from one another. Apparently, we are facing the only known virus in history that has a travel distance of six feet.
  2. Wear a mask. This is something we are going to really get into shortly.
  3. Avoid large crowds. Goes back to the whole six feet portion.

Enforcement vs. your rights

In enforcing this potential violation to the constitution, as well as civil liberties, we have seen the outright measures our very own government are willing to take. In the past several months, we have seen churches forced into closing their doors and their ministers arrested upon refusing to do so. If you aren’t well versed in the Constitution yet, let’s just recap, shall we?

Under the first amendment, you have the right to free speech, the press, religion, and so on. In regards to religion, the amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Hence where their idea of enforcement now becomes a problem.

By forcing religious institutions into closing their doors, they directly violated the first amendment. Regardless of the reason as to why this was done, it changes nothing in regards to the result. To take it further, those who refused to cease practicing within their religious institutions, were simply arrested. Never, in the history of the United States, has a minister been arrested for refusing to terminate their religious practices; of course, this is no longer a truthful statement.

Within the mask mandate, there are exemptions that must be noted. It is these exemptions that have lead to this article. The exemptions within themselves aren’t the problem, it’s how businesses treat individuals who are exempted that has become the problem.

  1. pre-existing respiratory conditions.
  2. seizures
  3. sensory disorders, such as those associated with autism.

The above are only a few examples of things that are exempted. Regardless of this, corporations, and even medical facilities, are making blanket policies that force everybody, exempted or not, to wear these masks. Furthermore, for those who are exempted, there doesn’t appear to be any form of help with fighting these illegal policies. So, let’s go ahead and arm our disabled friends with a few pieces of legal information that may be of assistance.

The ADA

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is quickly becoming a critical law to know. Within this law, there are protections that could translate into the enforcement of these corporate policies, as well as the mandate itself though the mandate has exemptions for this very reason. The two titles that we are going to specifically focus on are II and III of the ADA.

Title II

“Title II applies to State and local government entities, and, in subtitle A, protects qualified individuals with disabilities from discrimination on the basis of disability in services, programs, and activities provided by State and local government entities. Title II extends the prohibition on discrimination established by section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. 794, to all activities of State and local governments regardless of whether these entities receive Federal financial assistance.”

Title III

Title III focuses on private businesses (also known as public accommodations). All new construction and modifications must be accessible to individuals with disabilities. For existing facilities, barriers to services must be removed if it is readily achievable. Public accommodations include facilities such hotels, restaurants, bars, theaters, grocery stores, hardware stores, dry-cleaners, banks, professional offices of health care providers, lawyers, and accountants, hospitals, private bus or train stations, museums, libraries, zoos, amusement parks, places of education, day care centers, senior citizen centers, homeless shelters, gymnasiums, health spas, bowling alleys, and golf courses to name a few.

To read this in its entirety, please visit this link.

Essentially, these titles prevent corporations, etc. from denying disabled individuals services solely on the grounds of their disabilities. For those who are being denied, as we’ve recently seen, this act will quickly become your best friend in fighting these unjust policies.

The mandate has been met with such controversy that lawsuits are currently ongoing. States such as Ohio, Wisconsin, and Texas are just a few states to mention. Rather or not you are for, or against the mandate, one thing must be clear: For the disabled individuals who cannot wear such devices, life has become a much more difficult challenge than what was ever needed. Rather it requires a revocation, overhaul, or even clarification of the mandate, to resolve the issues that are apparently present, it is, without a doubt, that action must be taken.

Jacob Blake: shooting review

Update

It’s been discovered that Jacob Blake had a warrant. It’s possible this may have played into his encounter with police. Photos sent to us by an anonymous source

This article is my review of the shooting. In it, we have the video, as well as screenshots from that video. You may, or may not agree with my statements. Ultimately, it is up to you to make your own conclusion.

The video of the shooting.

From the video, we can see the events as they unfold. There are several problems that I have observed within the video, let’s just dive right into this situation.

Image one, showing the two involved officers.

From the very start of the video, two officers are seen holding weapons. While it is unclear if both are lethal force, we know that at least one officer has a pistol. At this point, Jacob is observed going to the driver side of his vehicle, where his children are currently located. Though one officer (left of the one pointing a weapon) maybe holding a taser, based on how he’s holding the weapon. I am left to question why the other officer has a pistol. At this point, Jacob shows no signs of aggression, though I cannot speak for events that may had arisen prior to the video.

Jacob makes a disasterous choice.

Upon arriving to his door, Jacob makes a choice that may prove fatal. For unknown reasons, he is seen bending to a 90° angle. While this may not seem like much, it was more than enough for officers to believe a threat was present. This is where things become very questionable. The officers are seen standing behind Jacob, placing them into a position of power. This means that, even in a hand-to-hand situation, the officers have the advantage as it is difficult to fight when your opponent is behind you. With this, I question the fact that this officer chose to open fire when he clearly could had taken Jacob down with no problem. After all, they are trained to do tactics such as this.

Even if Jacob had been reaching for a weapon, the officers would had been able to react faster than him. By the time Jacob could had grabbed the alleged weapon, turned around, and fired, he would had already been taken to the ground. This, if anything, demonstrates not only the flaw within their department’s training, but also a severe lack of competency from its officers.

Jacob attempts to get into his vehicle as the officer fires.

Seven shots were fired into Jacob’s back. In training, we are told to “fire to stop the action or threat.” After one, maybe even two, shots, any potential threat Jacob had posed, would had been eliminated. So why did this officer shoot seven rounds? Again, this is a reflection of incompetent training and officers. At this point, as he’s being fired upon, Jacob attempts to get into the vehicle. For this, I have three theories:

1. Jacob was trying to create a barrier between him and the officer’s hailstorm of bullets. The front seat, being the barrier, could had potentially stopped further bullets.

2. Jacob may had been trying to flee the scene. Bear in mind, he had children in that vehicle. These children already witnessed their father being shot, it is possible that he was trying to flee in hopes of getting them out of the situation.

3. Jacob was shot in the back, this os critical to understand. Vital organs, such as kidneys, liver, etc. could had been damaged. This means that, as he bled out, his vision, ability to walk, stand, or even speak could had been impaired. Sitting would had been his safest choice. If he was able to apply enough pressure to his back, he very well could had slowed the bleeding until actual help arrived.

Officers showing how little control they have.

As the gun toting officer fired, a woman is observed walking to the scene. At this point, the other officer has seemingly walked away. It is clear to me that these officers have very little self control, they can’t even control the location. In no respectful police agency would this woman be able to walk up onto a shooting scene like this. Where did the officer go? That’s a very good question.

The other officer returns.

Although the other officer did return to the scene, I am stunned to see that nothing is done about the woman. They just shot a man, her presence there paces her in immediate danger. The officers involved clearly lack the cobtrol to use their training, aside lethal force. They further demonstrate their incompetence by failing to secure the scene, something that is more apparant in this photo.

It is, with my own training and evaluation, that I believe these officers used excessive deadly force. Their position from Jacob gave them more than enough alternatives that a shooting could had easily been avoided. While an investigation will ensue, as per department protocol, I do hold my reservations as to rather or not justice will come. The key evidence to this will really boil down to one question: did Jacob have a lethal weapon to which he was attempting to retrieve? Based on the current evidence, within this video, I don’t believe that is the case. The fact that his children were literally next to him, in the very vehicle to which he was shot, only furthers my belief toward this.