Police said they would release more information about the incident before 11 a.m. today.

Lt. John Blair said the officer is the first Taylor officer to be killed in the line of duty. He described the officer as a veteran of the force.

“We lost a real good guy today,” Blair said. “It’s a rough day. There are a lot of long faces around here.”

Blair said the other man in the shooting was at Oakwood Hospital in Dearborn, but his condition wasn’t known.

Neighbors said the cop and another man traded gunshots, perhaps more than a dozen, though Taylor Police were not commenting on details of the incident this morning.

Several neighbors said the gunshots startled them awake around 6 a.m. Neighbors including Lakesha Campbell, 23, said they saw one young man injured, handcuffed and taken away on a stretcher while another neighbor, Jerome Wadsworth, 21, said he saw an injured police officer put into an ambulance and taken from the shooting scene.

“I saw the police officer laying on the ground by his squad car” in the parking lot of the Pine Street complex, said resident Valdez Green, 20. “He was laying out there for about five minutes before backup arrived.”

There was no immediate word on the condition of the other man. Michigan State Police and officers from Allen Park and Romulus were assisting Taylor Police at the scene.

It’s the same Taylor townhouse complex where two men killed 38-year-old mother Wendy Meinke in summer 2006. Both men, Jujuan Willis and Michael Johnson, are serving time in prison.

By MATT HELMS
FREE PRESS STAFF WRITE
Source: Detroit Free Press - Link to Article

The U.S. Supreme Court decision on Monday that struck down handgun restrictions imposed by the City of Chicago was seen as a major victory for gun-rights advocates. Higher-education leaders, however, are optimistic that the ruling will not undermine campus bans on firearms.

The immediate effect of the Supreme Court’s opinion is that campus gun restrictions are now open to challenge in federal courts, said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the law school at the University of California at Irvine.

But the Supreme Court made clear that an individual’s right to bear arms does not undermine state and local government bans in public spaces, such as schools and colleges, said Mr. Chemerinsky, who spoke on a panel at the annual meeting of the National Association of College and University Attorneys that discussed Supreme Court actions affecting higher education.

The majority opinion, written by Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., quoted the court’s 2008 ruling that undid the District of Columbia’s handgun ban: “We made it clear in Heller that our holding did not cast doubt on such longstanding regulatory measures as ‘prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill,’ ‘laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings.’”

“We repeat those assurances here,” Justice Alito wrote in the opinion released on Monday in the case McDonald v. City of Chicago.

Another speaker on the panel here, William E. Thro, university counsel at Christopher Newport University, said future legal challenges to campus gun bans could make distinctions between institutions that are self-contained and those that are in the midst of suburban or urban settings where public and private spaces are less distinct.

Derek P. Langhauser, general counsel for the Maine Community College System, agreed that most campus bans would survive court challenges because the ruling is meant primarily to safeguard the rights of individuals to protect themselves in their homes.

However, if campuses run into problems defending firearms restrictions, it will be because they cannot point to specific authority from their state government that gives the institution or its governing board the ability to make those restrictions, he said.

One example of that kind of case is playing out in Colorado, where the state’s Court of Appeals ruled in April that a lawsuit against gun restrictions on campuses could go forward. A lower court had dismissed the suit in deference to the University of Colorado regents’ policy-making authority, but a unanimous three-judge panel of the state appellate court reinstated it, saying the campus ban appeared to violate state weapons law. “Had the legislature intended to exempt universities, it knew how to do so,” the panel’s opinion states.

The Board of Regents recently voted to appeal that decision to the state’s Supreme Court.

While text-messaging and driving will be band and can result in a $100 fine the first time, dialing a cell phone is still very legal. The similarities of the two are what are causing all the questions. How are police officers going to tell the difference between dialing a number and sending a text message?  There really is not a definite answer to that question.

Texting and driving will be a primary offense, which means the police can pull over drivers just for using cell phones. At this point it is up to the officer’s judgment as to whether the driver was texting or making a call. Either way this it will be hard to prove that a driver was texting, which will make this law hard to enforce.

Surely this isn’t going to be an easy law to enforce, but that doesn’t mean it can’t be. Overall, texting and driving is a safety issue and with this law going into effect it could mean safer roads for drivers. Still, is there going to be a way to prove this and what will happen if tickets are handed out because of confusion?

What are your thought on the topics? Is this a good law to enforce and if so what is the best way for officers to enforce it? Please feel free to leave a comment, we appreciate everyone’s input.

The shooting took place during a raid of a home in search of a murder suspect. The details remain unclear as what to exactly happen, but it is believed the girl was shot by one of the participating officers.

Not much is certain at this point as to what exactly happened to cause the officer’s gun to be fired. The Detroit Police Department has turned over the investigation to the Michigan State Police.

There is contradicting evidence between the media and authorities, which has continued to grab the attention of people across the country. This is on top of, well known attorney, Geoffrey Fieger’s involvement who is representing the girl’s family and has filed a civil suit. Fieger filed lawsuits both in U.S. District Court and Wayne County Circuit Court which accused the Detroit Police Department for civil rights violations, gross negligence, and conspiracy to hide the facts of the tragedy.

We know this is a touchy subject, but want to know your thoughts on what took and is taken place surrounding this unfortunate event. There have been a lot of shootings lately in Detroit, involving both civilians and police officers as the victims.

How do you feel this should be handled as law enforcement professionals? What could, or should have been done to prevent this tragedy from happening? We invite all comments on this subject, but please remember to be respectful to the situation.

We want to send our condolences to the family of the Aiyana Stanley Jones and are terribly sorry for your loss.

Complete coverage of this event can be found in detail on the Detroit Free Press website.

Let us keep in mind that this is the same group of nine people that are awaiting trial for being charged with seditious conspiracy, attempting to use weapons of mass destruction and possession of a firearm in relation to a crime of violence. On top of this, there is also evidence linked to a devised plan to engage a war on government and law enforcement officials.

Based on the public’s interest of her decision made on Monday, Roberts has delayed the release until Wednesday, May 5^th. She has given prosecutors until 5 p.m. May 5^th to tell her whether or not their will be an appeal on her original decision.

“The United States is correct that it need not wait until people are killed before it arrests conspirators,” Roberts said in her decision. “But, the defendants are also correct: Their right to engage in hate-filled, venomous speech is a right that deserves First Amendment protection.”

If the militia members are released, Judge Roberts has imposed two-dozen bond restrictions that would limit each individual from going back out and starting this all over. To start, each individual will be on house arrest and be required to live an electronic monitoring and curfew. The members will also be required to hand over any and all firearms and permits that go with it. Also they have to turn over all of their firearms and permits that go with them. They are also not allowed to have any contact with co-defendants or other militia groups. Still, does that justify the fact of ruling for their release? We will find out at 5 pm today (May 5^th) of what the decision will be. What are some of your guys’ thoughts on the topic? Please feel free to share your comments with us, we appreciate your feedback.

Based in Lenawee County, Michigan the Hutaree, or Christian Warrior, were raided by federal authorities this past weekend (March 28-29). It is believed that this group was in the process of plotting attacks on local law enforcement officials. The raids resulted in the arrests of 9 Hutaree members on the charges of seditious conspiracy, plotting to levy war against the U.S., possessing a firearm during a crime of violence, teaching the use of explosives, and attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction (homemade bombs).

In an indictment released, prosecutors said the Hutaree have been conducting military-style training in the woods of Michigan since 2008. The members went through rigorous training learning how to shoot guns, conduct military like missions, and the making and setting off of bombs. Known as “Captain Hutaree”, 44-year-old David Brian Stone of Clayton, Michigan has been identified as the group’s leader. According to prosecutors David Stone had identified certain law enforcement officers near his home as potential Hutaree targets. The Hutaree, operating out of a double-wide trailer near rural Clayton, Michigan had discussed plans to murder a police officer to lure other officers to their fellow comrade’s funeral for an all out attack. It is believed that the Hutaree had several tactics to execute their plan. The plot members have discussed in order to set off bombs at a police funeral are using a fake 911 call to bait an officer to his death, killing an officer after a traffic stop, or attacking the family of an officer, according to the indictment. It is believed that this initial attack would act as a vehicle to intiate war on government officials and authorities.

The Hutaree viewed police officials as the “brotherhood’ and believed them to be enemies of Christ. The group has a strong foundation based on Christian beliefs and they consider themselves warriors ready to battle with Jesus against the forces of evil. The Hutaree website is decorated with biblical verses and quotes conveying their belief in the word of the Bible. It would appear that the Hutaree’s plotted war against the government stems from their religious faith.

The Hutaree website and other sources do not list or name any grievances against law enforcement and the government. Heidi Beirich, director of research at the Southern Poverty Law Center, said her group became aware of Hutaree last year while assembling their list of “patriot groups”. The Southern Poverty Law Center is a civil rights group that monitors extremism and those alike. According to their research the number of extremist anti-government groups jumped from 149 in 2008 to 512 in 2009.

This past Wednesday (March 31st) the Hutaree members appeared in court all entering not-guilty pleas. Eight of the members were arraigned in U.S. District Court in Detroit, while a ninth appeared in Indiana. In Detroit, federal prosecutors and defense lawyers battled back and forth arguing whether there was enough evidence to keep the Hutaree members in custody until trial.

Still this has to set off alarms not just here in Michigan, but throughout our nation. Thankfully we are sitting here today asking our selves “What if?” instead of possibly mourning the deaths of numerous officers and government officials.  What does this mean for law enforcement officers? How can they continue to protect the public when they have to worry about protecting their own lives? What are your thoughts on this situation and what as law enforcement officers should be done?

As of now there is one officer per 627 residents in Flint a number that would increase to one officer per 900 residents with the layoffs. Flint already has more residents per officer than Detroit, Lansing, Saginaw, and Grand Rapids, which will only increase with the cuts. The average for cities the size of Flint is about one officer for every 526 residents.

The layoffs come as a result from the standoff between Mayor Walling’s administration and the police unions. Walling’s reasoning for the layoff is based on the unions not agreeing to the concessions that are needed. The unions argue back that his administration ignores their cost saving alternatives and is asking for pay and benefit cuts that are unreasonable.

The potential effects of the police layoffs don’t end with smaller police forces. This will extend right into the streets and neighborhoods of the city’s residents. Having one cop for every 900 residents in a city with already one of the nation’s highest crime rates has to raise a concern for safety city-wide. The people, The Flint Journal spoke with said they have been scared for a long time and are worried with fewer police the crime will only increase.

Mayor Walling has voiced his commitment in providing the largest public safety force the city can afford and remains dedicated in reducing the city’s crime rate by 10 percent. Walling plans on implementing more efficient ways in providing police services. He is continually working with experts in the criminal justice department at Michigan State University to develop better strategies for a smaller police force. The changes have been suggested to be made through the use of new policing tools, tactics, technology, and old-fashioned foot patrols.

First and for most, the city has to think about its residents considering the cuts are directly effecting public safety. The best option would be for the Mayor’s administration and the unions to get back to negotiating for the sake of the people and keeping as many police officers as possible.

This news has the citizens of Flint worried with fear, searching for reassurance or their safety from the city. Without the luxury of having officers in special units the police work will pile up on the remaining officers. Naturally, it is assumed some aspects in policing will go neglected considering the day-to-day crime will be enough to overwhelm police forces.

There is also fear surrounding police officers that will be retained to protect the 900 residents each is accounted for. If the police get into a situation and it escalates will backup be available? How fast can they get there? Will it be too late? There are better chances with the layoffs that police officers will get put in situations where they are outnumbered. The possibility of crime increasing and situations turning dangerous is a lot greater.

Certainly Flint is not the only city facing the dilemma of public safety budget cuts. Layoffs can be seen across the nation as departments face the problem of recruiting qualified officers while having room in their diminishing budget to keep them on staff. The need for a better solution is rising. Not only will 57 police officers, dedicated to protecting the public be out of a job, but the citizens of Flint will be without 57 dedicated police officers.

What does this mean for the rest of the state’s police officers? Is this something that all departments should be worrying about? What are some alternative options to prevent this happening elsewhere? Please let us know we would appreciate your opinion.

What originally started as an experiment, the Medina Police Department, Ohio, is now utilizing Facebook to help solve crimes and obtain suspects. This has started a trend with all law enforcement agencies across Northeast Ohio. Fans of the agencies Facebook pages are calling in tips and suspects are turning themselves in.

The Medina Police Department has a total of 2,000 fans that can view their page and statuses. What is gathering the most attention is the Department’s “Photos” page. Here fans of the department can browse through an assortment of mugshots of suspects with active arrest warrants.

The Medina Police Chief Patrick Berarducci was even invited to speak in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee in Washington D.C. to discuss his department’s use of social media. Beraducci told Senator Patrick Leahy that Facebook is actually helping the department save money.

Geauga County Sheriff Dan McClelland is also utilizing Facebook in Ohio to help track down fugitives. McClelland’s personal profile page now includes 200 pictures of pictures and information of individuals that are wanted for civil warrants. The crimes and convictions include contempt, traffic issues, and unpaid child support.

This is the first step in attempt to post all 1,100 civil warrants on his page. The hope is fugitives will turn themselves in or people who know them will inform the deputies based on seeing their picture on Facebook. So far, one person has turned himself in and another has called in asking how to get his picture removed from the site.

McCelland’s page also contains still pictures from surveillance cameras of cars and suspects involved in unsolved crimes. The Facebook page provides a constant reminder where the criminals and friends of the criminal can always go check to see if they know anyone.

Are social media websites such as Facebook, more law enforcement agencies should consider? It may not be considering a traditional method in solving crimes and catching criminals. Although, it does make sense considering the massive population Facebook has and is continuing to accumulate. Is this going to continue to be a growing trend? And is it effective enough to compensate for time that could be spent elsewhere? What are your thoughts?

BY BILL SCHUETTE

Proposals that focus on those in prison or about to be released fall short when it comes to broad-based public safety reform. The focus of Michigan’s debate should be on how to improve the safety of Michigan citizens and families.

A report by the Council of State Governments makes clear why Michigan needs to reform its criminal justice system. In a comparison of Great Lakes states:

• Michigan has the highest rate of violent crime.

• Michigan has the highest rate of unsolved violent crime.

• Michigan has the fewest number of police officers per capita. In fact, Michigan has lost more than 1,900 law enforcement officers since 9/11.

• Michigan sends the fewest felons to prison per capita.

There’s no question that Michigan needs to get a handle on its budget for the Department of Corrections. But the cost of incarcerating a prisoner in Michigan averages around $32,800 per year. Ohio spends around $25,300 per prisoner per year. In Texas, the cost is $15,600 per prisoner per year, according to the Pew Center on the States, a division of the Pew Charitable Trusts.*

The Department of Corrections needs to adopt best practices, run prisons more efficiently, and look at bidding out services to save taxpayer funds. For example, Saginaw County jail food service costs are 50% of the food service costs of the DOC.

But the notion that we should control costs by paroling prisoners earlier puts members of the public at risk. Why? There is still a high rate of recidivism, whether a murderer or rapist is in 10 years or 20 years. Accordingly, the public is safer if violent felons are kept in prison longer.

Gov. Jennifer Granholm’s decision to close eight prisons and prison camps and parole more prisoners earlier means that Michigan has more criminals on the street and far fewer cops on the beat.

America’s military uses a variety of methods to maximize space and keep costs down. The Navy, for example, uses hot bunks, where sailors share sleeping space. Why are these practices OK for our fighting men and women but unacceptable for those who have committed violent crimes?

Finally, the Free Press proposal to restore good time for prisoner behavior would be the death knell for truth in sentencing. Truth in sentencing means that a prisoner will serve at least his or her minimum time. Before the implementation of this practice, some prisoners were back on the streets committing crimes before their minimum sentence had even been reached (and that is still sometimes the case for those prisoners sentenced before the implementation of truth in sentencing). Families, judges and especially victims need to know that those convicted of a crime will serve their minimum time.

Government’s No. 1 job is to keep streets safe, neighborhoods secure and our schools places of learning, not violence. The message to Lansing is clear: Don’t balance the budget on the backs of public safety.

Bill Schuette is a former Michigan Court of Appeals judge. He is campaigning for nomination as attorney general on the Republican ticket.

* This sentence was changed after the original posting to correct the name of the group that provided the statistics.

with Sgt. Betsy Brantner Smith

Officer Benjamin Kelly: The mindset to win a split-second confrontation

Maurice Clemmons’ body was probably still warm when I started getting text messages and e-mails from my friends in the Seattle/Tacoma area early Monday morning. The manhunt was over. The mainstream media reported that a “routine stolen vehicle check” had led to the righteous shooting death of Clemmons by Seattle Police Department’s Officer Benjamin L. Kelly, a five-year veteran assigned to the South Precinct. The Seattle Times  wrote that Kelly is “fortunate to be alive.”

I beg to differ. I believe Officer Kelly is alive because he trusted his instincts, employed his training, and had the mindset to win that split-second confrontation with Clemmons instead of becoming Clemmons’ fifth law enforcement victim.

The two-day manhunt involved hundreds of cops, including numerous SWAT teams going door-to-door looking for Clemmons and those who aided him in fleeing authorities. It ended the way so many high-profile cases do, with the actions of single patrol officer doing good police work. Working the night shift, Officer Kelly observed a 1990 Acura on the street with the hood up and the engine running. Kelly ran the plate and discovered that the car had been reported stolen only about two hours earlier and just a few blocks away. As he sat in his car filling out the report, he noticed a male approaching the driver’s side of the patrol car from behind. Kelly immediately exited his vehicle, recognized Clemmons and began issuing orders. When Clemmons didn’t comply and reached into his waistband, Kelly fired several shots, striking the cop-killer twice. Clemmons was pronounced dead on the scene a short while later.

Off-the-record comments from Sea/Tac-area cops leave no doubt that Maurice Clemmons intended to assassinate Officer Kelly in the same manner he gunned down the “Lakewood Four” two days earlier. It’s safe to say that the car was a trap, but Ben Kelly didn’t fall into the trap.

Instead, Ben Kelly ended this one-man war on Washington-area crime-fighters, allowing them to shift their focus to grieving for and honoring Sgt. Mark Renninger and Officers Tina Griswold, Greg Richards, and Ronald Owens. However, the war against law enforcement isn’t over, and some of us believe that it is just getting started.

Thirty-six hours after Clemmons gunned down four officers of the Lakewood police department, local papers started reporting that the police manhunt for Clemmons was causing “unease for black males between the ages of 20 and 50.” Are you kidding me? How about the unease, the sadness, and the terror he caused for American law enforcement officers, especially those in Washington State?

Law-abiding Black males didn’t have anything to worry about, but Maurice Clemmons sure did.

And if Clemmons had been white, would the media have reported that “white males” had cause to be uneasy? As Dave Smith wrote in an earlier article, “diversity, compassion, and understanding” rule the media in the Seattle area (as in most other regions of this country right now) and we must speak out against the nonsensical political correctness that may cause us to hesitate.

What if Officer Kelly had not reacted so quickly because he was afraid of causing the man he recognized as Maurice Clemmons “unease?”

Now is the time to review our history, to remember the frequent attacks on law enforcement officers in the ’60s and ’70s — when police officers  were seen as “the establishment” and evil-doers who considered themselves revolutionaries were simply bent on terrorizing cops. These maniacs used guns, explosives, and whatever methods they could improvise. They believed that if you weakened the peacekeepers, you weakened the law-abiding citizens and you eventually weakened the status quo. On top of that, we have the phenomena of the “copy cat,” someone who sees the attention given the tragedy and desperately seeks it for themselves. Maurice Clemmons was not a lone actor, he had a great deal of help from friends and family.

This was a premeditated act of terror that supersedes the media and family claims that Clemmons was mentally ill, the victim of a lousy childhood, or the product of an unfair justice system.

Now more than ever before we are targets — we are the hunted — but we need to make sure our mindset is always that of the hunter, the warrior, and the protector. Remember the basics of good police work, and if you’re not sure what that means, ask someone older, wiser and more experienced than you. Listen to those who policed thirty or forty years ago, and just like good cops did in the 1970s, read books that help you understand those who oppose us and oppose a free society—books like “The Anarchist’s Cookbook” and “Rules for Radicals.” Get yourself a back up gun, wear your body armor, keep your friends and family informed, and frequently check, maintain, and strengthen your most powerful weapon, your mind.

This is just the beginning.