Jesse Ventura Talks About Homeland Security “Gestapo,” Hollywood Secrets & More
http://www.prisonplanet.com/ventura-warns-of-homeland-security-gestapo-takeover-of-america.html
In an exclusive new video for Prison Planet.tv subscribers, former Governor Jesse Ventura warns that Homeland Security is rapidly becoming the American Gestapo, as Ventura still fumes over the fact that the feds tried to stop him from filming the JFK memorial at Arlington Cemetery.
Former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura visited Austin, Texas last week to work on the next season of his hit TV show “Conspiracy Theory.” Alex Jones had a chance to catch up with the governor while driving around for the shoot.
While the show is top secret until it airs, Jesse did disclose some of the harassment he and his crew have received during production, including being barred by the Army from filming Kennedy’s eternal flame at Arlington National Cemetery.
When Ventura’s production team attempted to go through the proper channels to get permission to film the JFK memorial, they were refused on the basis that that the Army didn’t like the content of Ventura’s show. They were also lied to when the feds told Ventura that the Kennedy family held jurisdiction over who was allowed to film the memorial, a claim vehemently denied by a Kennedy family spokesman.
Ventura refuses to let the issue drop and is calling for the individual who made the decision to be fired on the basis that he is allowing his personal political viewpoints to interfere with his job.
Duration : 0:14:39
Toronto G20 protests: ‘Police State’ Resistance or Vandalism?
Around 10 thousand people took part in the protests against those summits – more than six hundred of them were arrested after rallies turned violent. The demonstrators accuse the leaders of the world’s largest economies of turning a blind eye to the problems of those who are in need. And many of the protesters say the local security crackdown was a violation of their rights.
Duration : 0:3:16
Tyranny Response Team Exposes the D.C. POLICE STATE: Capitol Building
The Police State is Here!
Members of the South New Jersey Tyranny Response Team recently took a trip to Washington DC. It was a simple trip planned just to take a look at the monuments and museums. No protests were scheduled, nor had any new or notable threats been issued during the time we were there.
Despite this we were met with an amazingly large and intimidating police state. Police were literally standing on every corner in many areas of the city. We noted police from at least 5 different law enforcement agencies. At no time did we feel comfortable, but not because of the criminals, because of those that were supposedly there to protect us. Cameras were hidden or concealed at every location imaginable, sirens could be heard throughout most of the trip and police with assault rifles glared at us from atop the capitol building.
Our capitol should represent and be a demonstration of liberty and freedom. It should be a representation of all of America.
Sadly, it is… America has become a police state.
In Part 3 you will witness the unnecessary security at the Capitol building’s visitor center and you will clearly see police armed with assault rifles glare at American Citizens through binoculars.
Duration : 0:3:11
Shopping Nightmare
I was arrested for Trespassing on 3/19 and 6 weeks later charged with battery and disorderly conduct. The stories of the Security Guard from Jewel Foods and Monterrey Security guards was totally different from what they wrote in their incident report, the Chicago Police Report was different, their written statements were different and on 5/16/2009 their testimony in court was totally different from all the evidence. I was found not Guilty of Trespassing, Battery and Disorderly Conduct.
This entire incident started because I questioned the customer service of Jewel Foods and I was denied a manager by the Jewel Foods Security Guard. When the Guard denied me a manager he smiled as if it was a joke. I told the security guard, “What do I have to do? Do I have to go down the street and get some of my rich white friends and come back so you can open up the self check out line? That comment made the Jewel Security Guard mad and he followed me to the grocery line and blocked me in, knocked my orange juice out of my hands, grabbed me by the arms and pushed me out of the line. I was pushed to register #3 where I was picked up and slammed to the concrete floor where I yelled for help because I was in pain. I was dragged from register #3 to Register #10 by a Jewel Food Security Guard by one handcuff which cut into my skin and I was dragged by a Monterrey Security Guard by the other arm. I was yelling because I was in pain because of the slam to the floor and the handcuff cutting into my skin while I was being dragged. The security guards were trying to pull me into the Loss Prevention Office which the customer did not allow that to happen because they witnessed the security guard touching me for no reason.
A customer called 911 and once the Chicago Police arrived the customers were trying to explain to them what happen but refused to listen. The customer who called 911 tried to explain to the Chicago Police Officer he called 911 and the officer choose not to listen. In the Chicago Police Report it states, The Reporting Officer Was responding to a battery: The customer who called said, “They are beating this guy up in front of Jewel.” I’m wondering why did the Chicago Police refused to take a statement from the customer? Did the Chicago Police look at the video evidence?
I went to court on 4/30 to fight the Charges of Criminal Trespassing and the Jewel Foods filed an additional charge of Battery and Disorderly Conduct.
3/19 Criminal Trespassing to Land: “KNOWINGLY REMAINED UPON THE LAND OF JEWEL FOODS LOCATED AT 1224 S. WABASH AFTERRECIEVING NOTICE FROM OWNER/OCCUPANT.AGENT TO DEPART.”
4/30 Battery: The Security Guard signed a complaint in Court claiming Battery. “Intentionally or knowingly without legal justification made contact of an insulting or provoking nature with the complainant in that the defendant swung fist at complaint hitting complainant in the arm.”
4/30 Disorderly Conduct: The Cashier signed a complaint in Court claiming Disorderly Conduct. Knowingly acted in such an unreasonable manner as to disturb another and to provoke a breach of the peach in that the defendant was screaming and yelling which prevented the complainant from performing her duties as a cashier for Jewel.
Go to Youtube and type in “Jewel-Osco Security Guard Gone Wild”
Video #1 and 2 will show the Security Guard following me to the grocery line.
Video # 3 will show the Security Guard grabbing me and pushing me out of the Grocery Line.
Video # 4 will show the Security Guard lifting me up from behind and slamming me to the floor.
Video # 4, #5 and #6 will show I was dragged by the security guards.
Video # 7 will show I was dragged and jerked by the handcuff and arrested by the Chicago Police Officers.
The Trespassing Charges
The security guard told the judge he told me in the Grocery Line that if I could not keep quiet he would have to tell me to leave. The Judge asked the Security Guard, “So you gave the defendant a condition?” The security guard said, “Yes.”
1st My attorney asked the security guard to read the Trespassing Warning in court and when he read the warning he did not know what time it was given to me. There’s two different times on the warning.. 1st It states it was given to me at 1:15am and 2nd It states it was given to me at 1:25am. There was no way I received any Trespassing warning because at 1:15am I was grabbed and pushed out of the line and slammed to the floor at. Then I was dragged from register 3 to 10 by one handcuff.
2nd The trespassing warning also state, “The above named person was advised that if he/she returns to said premises that he/she would be in violation of this Trespass Warning and be subject to arrest.” In order for the Trespassing Warning to be valid I had to leave and come back onto the Premises I was band from.
3rd My attorney asked the security guard the following question to show I was illegally detain with warning.
A: Where was my client standing? The security guard replied in line.
B: What was on my Client left side? The security guard replied, a pop machine and a candy rack.
C: What was on my Client Right side? The security guard said the self-check out line.
D: Who was standing behind my Client? The security guard said he was.
F: My attorney said, “If my client wanted leave out of the store would he go in the direction you were standing which is behind my client or would he go in the direction the customer were facing. Better yet, would it be easier to say the only Exits would be in the front of the store and not the back? The security guard said the only Exit would be the front of the store?
My attorney said, if you were blocking his rear, the pop machine and the candy rack is blocking his left, the self-check out line was blocking his right and the 10 to 15 customers in front of my client was blocking his front which prevented him from Exiting the Store, please explain to the courts if you gave my client a trespassing warning to leave, how was he going to leave if he was blocked in? The security guard could not answer.
4th The security guard said they gave the Trespassing Warning to the Chicago Police after I was arrested and assumed they gave it to me.
5th In Jewel and Monterrey Security they lied about the security guard was telling me to leave several times and that never occurred.
6th The Security Guard from Monterrey Security was asked why did he sign his name on the Trespassing Warning as a witness? He said I was in the parking lot and I did not know what was going on?
The charges were dropped because it showed he blocked me in, he had no reason to stop follow me to the grocery line which he told the judge he did not follow me, the times were wrong and in order for the trespassing warning to be valid he would have to word it correctly, give it to me directly and time must match.
Battery Charges:
1: The Video Evidence shows I never swung at anyone.
2: The Judge looked at the Video Evidence and said, “It clearly shows the security guard grabbed the defendant and there is not proof of the defendant swinging according the the video evidence.”
3: The Security Guard from Monterrey Security wrote in his statement, “At this point the man dropped to the ground of his own will and started to scream.”
4. In court the Security Guard told the Judge he could not remember because it’s been so long but later said, “1st it look like he dropped to the ground on his own. 2nd it look like Christopher Mendoza laid him on the ground and 3rd I did not have a clear view.”
5. The video evidence shows I was slammed to the floor by Jewel Loss Prevention and Monterrey Security Guard was standing directly in front of me.
On May 16, 2008 Christopher Mendoza told the Judge that I swung at him with a bag of Pistachios Nuts and when he blocked my swing with his arm and the Pistachios Nuts when everywhere on the floor. The Monterrey Security Guard support the story also.
March 19, 2007 Christopher Mendoza wrote in his Loss Prevention Incident Report, “He Gestured as if he was going to strike me, I blocked his arem and tried to handcuff the subject. Kerry Kielbon (Monterrey Security) assisted me.”
March 19, 2007 Christopher Mendoza told the Chicago Police, “At this time subject was asked to leave premise, subject refused stating he would make a scene if security touched him subject was asked again to leave and refused, at this point security attempted to place subject into customdy, scuffle ensued while handcuffs were being placed on offender.”
April 30, 2007 Christopher Mendoza filed a complaint in court stating, “Intentionally or knowingly without legal justification made contact of an insulting or provoking nature with the Complainant in that: The defendant swung fist at complainant hitting complainant in the arm.
May 16, 2008 Christopher Mendoza told the judge I swung toward his face with a bag of Pistachios and he blocked the swing with his arm which made the bag of Pistachios fall on the floor.
My attorney asked where did the allege swing take place and the security guard was not able to give that information. My attorney asked did this take place after you tried to arrest my client or before you tried to arrest my client? The Security Guard from Jewel Foods said, “It took place before I tried to arrest him.” So my attorney said we should be able to see Pistachios Nuts everywhere on the floor, Correct? The Jewel Food Security Guard agreed?
We showed the Video Evidence from Line #1 Which show no punches were thrown and it clearly showed he grabbed me and pushed me out of the line. We paused the video which showed I had Pistachios in my hand and we showed the floor area where Pistachios show have been and there were not Pistachios on the floor because I had the bag in my hand. We showed Video Evidence from Line #3 which show the Jewel Foods Security Guard picking me up from behind which holding my arms in the air. We pause the video and it showed I had Pistachios in my hands and there were not Pistachios on the floor. We were about to show more of the video and the Judge said, “That’s Enough.” I’m sure she was in disbelief of what happen and the video showed they were lying..
The judge looked at the video and said, It clearly shows the security guard grabbing the defending and pushing him out of the line. There is no proof showing the defendant swing at anyone and there are no Pistachios on the floor.
The Jewel Security guard was asked if I was handcuff and he replied, “No”. The video evidence showed the security guard dragging me from lane #3 to lane #4 and you see customers taking pictures with their phones because he was dragging and jerking me by the handcuff.
Disorderly Conduct:
The Jewel Food Cashier claimed my yelling for help and 911 stopped her from doing her job. The video evidence clearly show she never stop working and did not witnessed the incident.
The cashier wrote the following statement on 4/3/2007: “I was the only line open and the line was long and customers were complaining about the line but there was no help I had no extra bodies to perform the job.”
The cashier did not show up to court on April 1, 2008 and on May 16, 2008 my attorney asked to have the disorderly charge dropped but a Manager in the Loss Prevention Department said Linda Williams passed away. The Judge allowed the Disorderly Conduct to stay because the Loss Prevention Manager stood in her place. The charges were later dismissed because there was no proof of Disorderly Conduct I did not need to show any video evidence to prove my innocence.
Jewel Foods and Monterrey Security tried to intimidate me not to come to court and I was harassed for about 8 months. I was also told by the Loss Prevention Manager if I sign a letter no to file Civil Suit they would drop the charges. The Loss Prevention Manager also stated, ” Beside, I’m 22 and Zero when I come to court.” I told him the charges are weak and false and I’m going to fight this in court.
On May 16, 2008 I was offered a plea of 3 months supervision from Jewel Food Loss Prevention. I was also offered to plea no Contest and to stay out of Jewel. I told my attorney no because I did not do anything wrong and I would rather fight this in court.
On May 16, 2008 I was found Not Guilty of all the charges filed against me.
I was found not Guilty of Criminal Trespassing to Land
I was found not Guilty of Disorderly Conduct
I was found not Guilty of Battery
The Court Transcript will show the Security Guards lied from day 1 and 95% of their statement was conflicting.
Joseph Robinson Jr
It’s All About People, Process, and Technology. Technology is Dead Last in the Order of Importance When it Comes to Security
The recent and explosive growth of the Internet and technology has brought many good things such as e-commerce, collaborative computing, online markets and new avenues of sharing and distributing information. But each side has its counterpart, and with the technological advances came hackers. With this dark side and the many security breaches that are associated with it, companies, governments and individuals are afraid of hackers breaking into their servers or networks, stealing valuable data, collecting passwords and intercepting financial and credit card information.
And many times this can become reality. Recently, there has been a flurry of security breaches among large organizations such as Western Union, that reported a security breach on their Web site that let loose the credit-and debit-card information for 15,700 customers. Another recent hacker case is a 16-year-old youth, who admitted hacking into military and NASA computer networks. His activities caused a three-week shutdown of NASA’s systems and a security breach of a military computer network which protects against conventional, biological, chemical and nuclear-weapon attacks. That’s just a small sampling of actual hacks. Most industry watchers agree that only a handful of security breaches are ever reported.
For a long time, most computer network crackers hacked a system for the same reason: “Because it’s there.” But that’s no longer the only reason or even the dominant one. More hackers now do it because “It’s where the money is.” In the past decade, hackers have changed from script kiddies who hacked websites and spread worms to professionals sponsored by foreign governments and organized crime. Modern hackers want more than infamy. They exploit new technologies to crack systems or hack into computer systems and hold data for ransom. Hackers today commit real crimes, sometimes for significant financial gain.
To safeguard themselves from the modern hackers, most companies and government agencies that want to uncover network and system security vulnerabilities have two choices: they can hire a team of penetration experts to scan and probe their systems and uncover their vulnerabilities, or they can wait for a malicious hacker to come by and exploit them. Unfortunately, many times it is the latter. A security analysis or penetration test, performed by a security consultant, would produce a report or security posture assessment, detailing all vulnerabilities found and the actions needed to remedy them and minimize the risk of being the victim of a successful hack attack.
The security consultant or penetration expert can be a “white hacker”, someone who uses ethical hacking to discover vulnerabilities within a network or a reformed “black hacker”, who once was an active part of the dark side and used to exploit the identified security holes. The subject of whether it is ethical to use former hackers to evaluate a network’s security is a topic that is often hotly debated – and for many reasons.
Ethical hackers or security consultants typically have very strong programming and computer networking skills and have been in the computer and networking business for several years. Their base knowledge and expertise is augmented with detailed knowledge of the hardware and software, project management skills and methodology which are necessary for the actual vulnerability testing, as well as when reporting after the test was performed. In addition to that, ethical hacking seminars, courses and certifications are being offered to IT professional to broaden their horizon and skills in these fields. But many times these hacking courses and seminars only provide a very limited insight, outdated hacking or only basic hacking techniques. Their main purpose is to educate professionals but not to create a new generation of hackers. The goal is to fill security holes, not exploit them.
A disadvantage that white hackers or security consultants have over hackers is the real world experience and the insight knowledge. There are many things that cannot be taught in a seminar or learned from a book. The most obvious advantage former hackers have, is the real world hacking experience. As each network system differs based on various network defenses and configurations, the hack approach will be unique and only someone with plenty of real world hacking experience can efficiently go from using one technique to another as required by the present situation.
Another positive aspect of hiring reformed hackers as security consultants is that staying up on the latest security exploits, vulnerabilities and countermeasures is part of their job. A good hacker has a level of security knowledge that goes far beyond that of most other IT professionals. Keeping up with the latest exploits and countermeasures is a full time job and although the IT professional has an acceptable level of security knowledge, they must focus most of their attention on the day to day responsibilities of keeping the network up and running. To make up these “deficiencies” many white hackers and security consultants rely on automated and commercial vulnerability and penetration software, that can provide needed security reports, but their functions are limited. The huge differences can be seen when comparing the results from an automated scan and a hacker assessment or professional penetration test.
But before a company makes the decision to hire a reformed hacker, one needs to evaluate the negative sides. Certainly there are several types of hackers that can be found. One kind oft them are the “gray hats” – the unpaid tinkerers who find flaws to improve security for everyone. They are the best hackers, because their passion for tinkering drives their excellence and they do not break the laws. The black hat hackers – the criminals – break the law and feel justified doing it. They are the kind of hackers who seek to increase their fame in the hacker community, while others want to prove at any cost that their targets’ security is vulnerable. Black hats wreak havoc not only by their own actions but also by drawing attention to weaknesses that they and cybercriminals can exploit. The last and worst kinds of hackers are the cybercriminals, who perpetrate the worst crimes. They are paid to use existing tools and techniques to steal confidential personal, government or industry information, and particularly financial data. Cybercriminals usually work for foreign governments, organized crime or independently.
The probably biggest negative in the decision making process is trust. Which hacker will you hire and how much can you trust them? The main premise of security is deciding who you trust and then locking out everyone else. When hiring a hacker as a security consultant, because of network’s security concerns, paradoxically the trust goes to the criminal. Not only is it the trust factor that plays a major role in the decision making process but also the impact the decision might have on customers and shareholder. How will the customers react, if they knew a former criminal was hired to test the security of a system or database that contains all personal and financial information? Someone with a questionable morale and judgment, is not someone who should have control of a corporate network with sensitive data. In most cases hackers, and that is what makes them hackers, do not appreciate or respect standard business processes and structures. A disgruntled hacker with inside knowledge of a company’s networks could create a nightmare scenario.
Hackers are like adventurers, motivated by intellectual curiosity. “The more secure you make your systems, the more you attract them. The hacker mind-set is like exploring space, except they’re exploring the network. If that essential curiosity on finding out how things work, which is what causes people to be hackers, goes away, then you don’t necessarily want that person as a hacker or security consultant. However, just because a hacker has the desire and capabilities to explore a network, does not necessarily make them prepared to build a secure network and fix identified vulnerabilities. Breaking into things, does not always mean knowing how to fix them. These are two different skill sets. Once security threats have been identified, these need to be communicated including the potential business processes affected by the vulnerability, along with a list of impact assessments and countermeasures. Besides technical knowledge, the hacker will need to have experience in business processes and management, to relay his findings to the company.
Another hey factor to consider before making a decision who to hire as a security consultant, is to know that no computer system is ever completely secure, especially when considering the human factor. Spending astronomical amounts of money pursuing total security, by hiring security consultants and eventually becoming dependent on them, is not going to help. Some corporations in some industries must guard against intrusions from tech-hungry foreign governments – in particular China, France, Israel, Japan, Germany and Russia – that converted their cold-war spy machinery into “economic espionage” units, but that does not apply to all businesses. A realistic set of goals of what to expect from a security consultant need to be set first.
But no matter what the decision is and if the company hires a professional security consultant or a reformed hacker, the real threat will be still there. Any hacker, who wants to exploit a system will always try to use the path of least resistance. This path of least resistance is often through the front door. The front to door can be “identified” as the area over which businesses may have the least control: people. People are the weakest but first link when it comes to security. With good social engineering skills and not very well trained employees, disgruntled workers and ex-employees, a hacker can get enough information to access a system, insert malicious codes that contain keystroke and network sniffers and other means to collect information. The hacker just “exchanged” his keyboard with social engineering. And this is a part of security where a highly educated security consultant or a reformed hacker will not be able to help you.
Dasha Deckwerth
http://www.articlesbase.com/security-articles/its-all-about-people-process-and-technology-technology-is-dead-last-in-the-order-of-importance-when-it-comes-to-security-703665.html
Is the FCC trying to censor the alternative news and free speech on the internet?
I heard a rumor that the FCC wanted to put a peice of hardware, maybe like a proxy server, to regulate, filter, and monitor internet traffic. Is this a violation of the 4th amendment? I think that if a person is caught doing something wrong then perhaps this is fine. but to do it like this, I think is wrong. please dont sideball the question and bring up the patriot act. i think that is unconstitutional and a violation of the 4th amendment also. i just want to know more about this move by the obama appointed FCC chairman. or any other details anyone has to offer.
obviously, cencoring freedom of speech is a violation of the 1st amendment. forgot to mention that.
I am aware of emails, attachments, and cryptography, stegnography, SHA-1, PKI, Rijndael, AES, and many other technologies. Not to mention the military grade COMSEC equipment I have used to implement encryption. I am a security professional. This is not new to me. Unfortunately, you are wrong in thinking it would cost the government billions. It would cost the taxpayer billions and the internet users billions. Its simple. A device would be put inbetween the internet user’s home and the ISP. Yup, you guessed it. The internet user would have to pay for that device and additional taxes; I am sure, if this were in place. Someone else please?
there are politicians moving to make this provision. If people dont like it, they need to get off there duffs, call, email, or mail a letter to their congressman and tell them they dont want censorship. This is America! Land of the free! Home of the brave!! we cherish our right to free speech and it is not at the liberty of the government that it should be removed! in ANY shape or form!! however, if someone is making threats they violate other peoples life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness and the arm of the law should try that individual in a court of law. If a person is suspected of illegal activity and only WITH a warrant should that person’s activities be monitored. this is in accordance with the 4th amendment and the Patriot Act. Correct me if I am wrong, please.
Police Search And Seizure – How Does It Help The Society?
Search and Seizure procedure is a well known phenomenon in the police department. This procedure is absolutely legal and it allows any official from the law enforcement department to conduct a search on one’s individual property in suspicions of any kind of criminal activity or for any crime committed by an individual. There are several rules to be followed when carrying out a search and seizure procedure. Unauthorized search and seizure cannot be carried out by any police official, and it is condemned. Everyone has his right to claim his privacy and can question when it is invaded. Anyone whose property is going to be checked can actually claim a warrant, in which case, a warrant must be submitted before the raid is conducted.
The United States Constitution has put the search and seizure procedure in the fourth amendment act. The violation of the fourth amendment act is pretty common in the society. This act gives the assurance that the any citizen can claim security against the whole idea of seizure. There must be a very valid reason for the search warrant to be issued by the judge in the court. The warrants are not always issued when there is a lack of evidence in the case. Fourth amendment is a weird rule with certain requirements that have to be brought in when the court deals with the search and seizure procedure.
If a search warrant was issued, and if there is a valid reason behind it, there are certain things that can question the fidelity of the warrant. And it’s the duty to assure the individual that a proper procedure has been carried over to get the consent of the concerned authorities to carry the search out. In case there is no warrant, a search can be conducted with the consent of the person whose place is being raided. There are no points to state that a search is voluntary. The court decides if the case given is valid or not after lookin into the situation. The law enforcement people don’t have the necessity to inform the concerned person about the search. In case there is another party involved, who is the owner of the property, then, they have all the right to give a permission to search the house without the present tenant’s permission. The search and seizure procedure was institued in such a way that the government has the maximum hold over the rule, anyone who is suspected can be searched without prior information, all that is required is a proper notice to the concerned authorities as to why the procedure is going to be carried out on that particular individual.
The whole idea behind this search and seizure procedure is to ensure that the community is protected from all sorts of wrong happenings. It is true that ones privacy needs to be respected, and nobody wants to go home with a feeling that his rights have been overstepped, but, this is seen in a more wider perspective as a society, and not as an individual. This is the reason for which the fourth amendment was coined. It is always wise for you to keep yourself aware about all the rights that you have and what can be done to protect it. The best idea to protect yourself from all these hassles is to be a citizen who abides by the law, so that you will stay out of trouble.
Abhishek Agarwal
http://www.articlesbase.com/home-security-articles/police-search-and-seizure-how-does-it-help-the-society-753970.html
When Taking the Police Test Why Do Some Police Candidates Have an Unfair Advantage?
Copyright (c) 2008 Don Cirillo
Why do friends and relatives of police officers do well on police judgment/situation questions and have an unfair advantage? Although it’s a federal mandate that you’re not required to know police procedures when taking law enforcement entrance exams, many test makers conclude that police procedures are just common sense. They’re usually included in the test in some form. The reason: they measure two very important traits needed for police work: JUDGMENT and COMMON SENSE.
But here’s THE DILEMMA: to really do well on these judgment questions you need more than just common sense. The reason police friends and relatives do well, is that they’re familiar with police language and police thinking. This gives them a DECISIVE EDGE when they choose answers to these questions.
Ideally, you shouldn’t need to know police procedures and policies or the law; you should just be able to interpret them. Realistically, if you know the basic philosophies of police procedures before taking the test, answering the questions becomes much easier.
To Answer Police Situational Questions You Must Think Like a Police Officer
If you had a friend or relative who was on the police force they could help you THINK LIKE a police officer and give YOU an edge when answering police situational questions.
In this article I will give you some important tips and strategies on how to handle difficult police situation questions. The goal is to help you THINK LIKE a police officer. It will not only give you an edge for the written test, but also will help you with the ORAL INTERVIEW.
On the test you’ll be given police procedures and asked to apply them to situations. You’ll be tested on your ability to remember information, analyze data and apply it using common sense, good judgment and the ability to solve problems.
Most police procedure questions ask: What would YOU do if Assume you’re a police officer. How would you respond? The questions are based on ACTUAL POLICE SITUATIONS.
For instance: What would you do if you saw a man walking down the street dressed only in a baseball hat, (naked) carrying a baseball bat? Arrest him? On what charge? What would you do?
The first thing you should do is to ask questions and try to determine what happened. He may be a victim of a crime. Don’t jump to conclusions.
TIP: Do the most important things first! It’s IMPORTANT TO PRIORITIZE your response to the situation. It’s also important to familiarize yourself with the role of a police officer in the particular police department you hope to join. Each department has a definite set of priorities that govern a cop’s decision-making process.
Here are some important factors you should know when answering police judgment questions.
1. Protect the welfare of citizens, victims, and fellow officers. ALWAYS tend to and assist anyone who is in danger, injured, wounded or in the line of fire, etc. Help anyone in danger. Repeat, your most important job is to always assist and protect endangered people FIRST. This includes victims of crimes, injured persons, physically endangered persons and potential victims.
2. Secure public order. Keep the peace against acts of aggression, riots, armed suspects and destruction of property.
3. Uphold the laws. Arrest those who violate the laws, protect crime scenes and preserve evidence. Enforce laws, investigate violations of law and make arrests when necessary.
4. Help those needing assistance. This duty focuses on people not in immediate danger, such as non-injured victims of crimes, the mentally ill, the homeless, neglected children and lost or stranded persons.
5. Maintain order on your beat. Check your beat for suspects and suspicious activity. Investigate suspicious persons, potential hazards, etc. Know your beat by becoming familiar with the physical structure, the streets, the buildings and the people, especially the criminal element.
6. Maintain proper flow of traffic. Make sure damaged traffic signs and lights are repaired. Make sure proper direction of traffic is conducted with the use of traffic cones and traffic officers until repairs are made.
Based on using the police priority factor, what do you do in the following situation?
You are a police officer is working a security guard detail at the state fair. Which of the following situations do you handle first?
1. There is a crowd forming around two unarmed teenagers arguing.
2. A dumpster sitting next to the main tent pavilion is on fire.
3. The Ferris wheel is stuck in midair with people still on it.
4. A man, who is obviously drunk, has passed out and is lying by the ticket booth.
The correct answer is 2: The dumpster on fire should be dealt with first. It is sitting next to the main tent pavilion and is possibly a danger to many people.
The Value of Police Hierarchy The police officer’s job is extremely hard at times. He/she is expected to make quick decisions in situations involving conflicting values.
For instance:
It may be necessary to choose between allowing dangerous criminals escape or risking serious injury to a hostage.
Some departments set clear parameters for many of these types of situations. But, because of all the unforeseen situations officers face on a daily basis, these parameters cannot cover every possible type of situation.
That is why law enforcement agencies test your practical judgment and common sense so intensely. It’s also why it is SO IMPORTANT you know the priority list used by police agencies before you take your test. YOU MUST KNOW what they consider the order of importance to successfully answer police situational questions. The Police Hierarchy List You’ll notice Police Hierarchy is similar to the Police Priority list but they’re not the same.
While Police Priority is concerned with order of importance, Police Hierarchy deals with rank and authority. LEARN THEM BOTH if you want to do well on police situation questions. Plus, it will go a long way in helping you make good decisions when you become a law enforcement officer. Here is the most commonly used Police Hierarchy:
1. PROTECTING LIFE AND LIMB IS #1. Always take action first on those things that pose a threat to someone’s safety and tend to injured people: performing first aid, calling for an ambulance, etc.
2. Obeying orders in emergency situations is the #2 priority.
Obeying orders should be done at all times. The only exception is when the order interferes with the protection of life and limb or violates the law.
3. Protecting property.
4. Obeying orders in non-emergency situations.
5. Maintaining your assigned duties.
6. Being efficient in getting the job done.
7. Avoiding the blame i.e. earning praise and respect.
Using Police Hierarchy and Common-Sense
Situation: You are assigned to a particular area during an emergency situation and ordered by your supervisor to stay at this location. But, by leaving this location, you can help a severely injured person and possibly save that person’s life.
What do you do? You are justified in choosing to leave your assigned area to help the injured person, even though you are disobeying the supervisors order — provided that leaving your assigned area will not result in other lives being put in danger or lost.
Always remember protection of life is the #1 priority.
By thinking about the Police Hierarchy and Police Priorities it will help you “Think Like a Police Officer” and make answering police situational questions much easier.
Summary
When answering Police Judgment Questions read carefully but don’t read anything into the situation. Think like a COP. Think about the police priority list. Keep in mind things like “safety first” and using the least amount of force to get the job done. And always USE COMMON SENSE.
Don Cirillo
http://www.articlesbase.com/politics-articles/when-taking-the-police-test-why-do-some-police-candidates-have-an-unfair-advantage-688939.html
Prison Planet Eugenics 1/6 – (GeoEngineeering) Homeland Security Blimps are not UFO’s
Alex Jones lays out the details on the truth concerning Homeland Security Blimps and the false reporting of UFO’s in this segment about geoengineering and teraforming and the preparations of establishing a prison planet through eugenics.
Duration : 0:10:30