Petition Closed

Murder in the Streets, We have become the Prisoners of Freedom

This petition had 13 supporters

Polizeiwissenschaft: The Psychological Science of Police and Authority

My name is Derek R Speed, I've spent the last 19 years studying Psychology and Human Behavior, I specialize in the Psychological Study Of Authority.

  The purpose of this petition, is to move the Human Family, back to freedom, rather than closer to tyranny. Freedom, never has been, nor ever will be, something you enforce. This petition, is to show my fellow members of the Human Family, a very simple psychological fact, Authority, is Authority. Authority is a self serving institution, whether you be the taliban, ISIS or a police officer, a person in a position of authority will resort to physical violence to obtain obedience from you. The following Psychological Experiment, will clearly and definitively show, 61-66% of people, put into a position of Authority over another person, or peoples, will abuse that authority, regardless of the social hierarchy in which the authority originates, or represents.

    Regardless of Nation, type of Government, communist, fascist, socialist, capitalist or tyrannical, like ISIS,  61- 66% of people will abuse their authority, any change they get, all they need is permission, from a Government, Superior, or an individual perceived to being in a higher rank or position. We live in a world of relentless brutality by authorities, minorities being murdered in the streets in the name of freedom, and "Public Safety". This petition, is designed to determine who is for "Public Safety", and who is for "Obedience". This petition, will weed out the Corrupt, the Punitive Authoritarians, and Racists who currently hold a position of Authority over other peoples, and are a direct threat, to Public Safety.

   I will be going over several Psychological Experiments, that have conclusive results, these results will show Punitive Authoritarian Personality Disorder is very real, and, abuse of authority, does, absolutely result in psychological disorders of the abused. We live in a world, of Mental Health problems, as seen by the mass advertising campaigns of ironically enough, the Government of Canada. They feel it's best to treat the problems, rather than educating themselves about the cause of those problems.These experiments will show conclusively, that excessive use and authority and abuse in societies leads to psychological disorders, from bipolar disorder, to PTSD and depression.

The Psychological State of the Union
Punitive Authoritarian Personality Disorder

Dr Stanley Milgram 1961:Teacher/Learner Experiment; Yale University.

Pay very close attention to three factors in this experiment. Three individuals were involved in the experiment: Keep in mind, it's doesn't matter what society or social hierarchy the results are the same Globally.

1. The one running the experiment, A.K.A. the "1%".

2. The "subject" of the experiment. Remember, the "subject(s)" is unaware of the experiment, A.K.A. "Society".

3. "The Confederate". A.K.A. the "Government".Two Parts,
1.)Elected Political Officials (highly funded by the 1%)

2.) Police, Judges, Crown Attorneys, Jail Guards, Military. (The Psychological Scapegoat, thinks or are being led to believe by the 1% and the confederate running the experiment, that this is harmless to do, the experiment, is the Justice System, which in turn creates scapegoat for, part 1, or the Elected Political Officials. In turn, gives the Experimenter, two levels of scapegoat safety for the experiment.) The experiment is democracy, A.K.A. "The Matrix".

As you know, Soldiers, are suffering from PTSD, police officers, are also starting to develop this disorder. Think of soldiers and police, as the "Teacher" in this experiment. They are not permitted to question orders. Society is the learner, but, the shocks being inflicted, aren't fake.These shocks, are becoming more and more impunitive, and strictly enforced.

The United States Governments S.E.R.E., C.I.A. program, ran by Gray Swigert, A.K.A. James Mitchell is a prime example of this structure.The S.E.R.E. programs, was reverse engineered by James Mitchell and his partner Bruce Jesson, former air force psychologists.It was used as torture tactics at Guantanamo Bay. This program blatantly violated the Geneva Convention, and nobody in government was held accountable.They did however, have a scapegoat.

The Milgram experiment on obedience to authority figures was a series of social psychology experiments conducted by Yale University psychologist Stanley Milgram. They measured the willingness of study participants to obey an authority figure who instructed them to perform acts conflicting with their personal conscience. Milgram first described his research in 1963 in an article published in the Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology[1] and later discussed his findings in greater depth in his 1974 book, Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View.[2]

The experiments began in July 1961, in the basement of Linsly-Chittenden Hall at Yale University,[3] three months after the start of the trial of German Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann in Jerusalem. Milgram devised his psychological study to answer the popular question at that particular time: "Could it be that Eichmann and his million accomplices in the Holocaust were just following orders? Could we call them all accomplices?"[4] The experiments have been repeated many times in the following years with consistent results within differing societies, although not with the same percentages around the globe.

The Experiment

Three individuals were involved: the one running the experiment, the subject of the experiment (a volunteer), and a confederate pretending to be a volunteer. These three people fill three distinct roles: the Experimenter (an authoritative role), the Teacher (a role intended to obey the orders of the Experimenter), and the Learner (the recipient of stimulus from the Teacher). The subject and the actor both drew slips of paper to determine their roles, but unknown to the subject, both slips said "teacher". The actor would always claim to have drawn the slip that read "learner", thus guaranteeing that the subject would always be the "teacher". At this point, the "teacher" and "learner" were separated into different rooms where they could communicate but not see each other. In one version of the experiment, the confederate was sure to mention to the participant that he had a heart condition.[1] Pay very close attention to the fact, that the teacher and the learner, are "separated" purpose, to protect the teacher from psychological trauma? Or from imminent conflict based on Canon's Fight or Flight response? Does that mean that people or Confederates are in fact being used to protect the experimenter from the psychological trauma of inflicting pain for obedience? Thus creating a two part scapegoat system used by government, elected political officials, and the police that protect them from the experiment.

At some point prior to the actual test, the "teacher" was given a sample electric shock from the electroshock generator in order to experience firsthand what the shock that the "learner" would supposedly receive during the experiment would feel like. The "teacher" was then given a list of word pairs that he was to teach the learner. The teacher began by reading the list of word pairs to the learner. The teacher would then read the first word of each pair and read four possible answers. The learner would press a button to indicate his response. If the answer was incorrect, the teacher would administer a shock to the learner, with the voltage increasing in 15-volt increments for each wrong answer. If correct, the teacher would read the next word pair.[1]

The subjects believed that for each wrong answer, the learner was receiving actual shocks. In reality, there were no shocks. After the confederate was separated from the subject, the confederate set up a tape recorder integrated with the electroshock generator, which played prerecorded sounds for each shock level. After a number of voltage-level increases, the actor started to bang on the wall that separated him from the subject. After several times banging on the wall and complaining about his heart condition, all responses by the learner would cease.[1]

At this point, many people indicated their desire to stop the experiment and check on the learner. Some test subjects paused at 135 volts and began to question the purpose of the experiment. Most continued after being assured that they would not be held responsible. A few subjects began to laugh nervously or exhibit other signs of extreme stress once they heard the screams of pain coming from the learner.[1] "Post Traumatic Stress Disorder" How many police officers are held accountable for killing people? Soldiers are killing people, politicians (confederates) are not.

If at any time the subject indicated his desire to halt the experiment, he was given a succession of verbal prods by the experimenter, in this order:[1]

The following, from the definition of schizophrenia, can be the part of the definition that refers to auditory hallucinations:

Please continue.
The experiment requires that you continue.“Become strong again in spirit, strong in will, strong in endurance, strong to bear all sacrificesAdolf Hitler.
It is absolutely essential that you continue.“Strength lies not in defense but in attack.” Adolf Hitler
You have no other choice, you must go on."We will not tire, we will not falter, and we will not fail." George Bush.
If the subject still wished to stop after all four successive verbal prods, the experiment was halted. Otherwise, it was halted after the subject had given the maximum 450-volt shock three times in succession.[1]

My father is the jailhouse. My father is your system... I am only what you made me. I am only a reflection of you. Charles Manson. For the record, Charles Manson, through no part of his own, his parents were alcoholics, was for the most part, raised in group homes and juvenile detention centers, and was relentlessly subjected to Authoritarian Physical and Psychological abuse. This will be made clear, when I discuss The Stanford Prison Experiment.

"Punitive Authoritarian Personality Disorder" An adapted personality style derived from the power and responsibility of authority. Elected Government Officials, and the 1% who fund them". A God Complex, so to speak.

The experimenter also gave special prods if the teacher made specific comments. If the teacher asked whether the learner might suffer permanent physical harm, the experimenter replied, "Although the shocks may be painful, there is no permanent tissue damage, so please go on." If the teacher said that the learner clearly wants to stop, the experimenter replied, "Whether the learner likes it or not, you must go on until he has learned all the word pairs correctly, so please go on."


Before conducting the experiment, Milgram polled fourteen Yale University senior-year psychology majors to predict the behavior of 100 hypothetical teachers. All of the poll respondents believed that only a very small fraction of teachers (the range was from zero to 3 out of 100, with an average of 1.2) would be prepared to inflict the maximum voltage. Milgram also informally polled his colleagues and found that they, too, believed very few subjects would progress beyond a very strong shock.[1] Milgram also polled forty psychiatrists from a medical school, and they believed that by the tenth shock, when the victim demands to be free, most subjects would stop the experiment. They predicted that by the 300-volt shock, when the victim refuses to answer, only 3.73 percent of the subjects would still continue and, they believed that "only a little over one-tenth of one percent of the subjects would administer the highest shock on the board."[6]

In Milgram's first set of experiments, 65 percent (26 of 40) of experiment participants administered the experiment's final massive 450-volt shock,

1) Currents of approximately 0.2 A are potentially fatal, because they can make the heart fibrillate, or beat in an uncontrolled manner.

2) At currents as low as 60 to 100 milliamperes, low-voltage (110-220 volts), 60-hertz alternating current traveling through the chest for a split second can cause life-threatening irregular heart rhythms. About 300-500 milliamperes of direct current is needed to have the same effect

3) The damage caused by electric shock depends on the current flowing through the body -- 1 mA can be felt; 5 mA is painful. Above 15 mA, a person loses muscle control, and 70 mA can be fatal

[1] though many were very uncomfortable doing so; at some point, every participant paused and questioned the experiment; some said they would refund the money they were paid for participating in the experiment. Throughout the experiment, subjects displayed varying degrees of tension and stress. Subjects were sweating, trembling, stuttering, biting their lips, groaning, digging their fingernails into their skin, and some were even having nervous laughing fits or seizures.[1] This is how Soldiers and Police officers develop PTSD.

Milgram summarized the experiment in his 1974 article, "The Perils of Obedience", writing:

The legal and philosophic aspects of obedience are of enormous importance, but they say very little about how most people behave in concrete situations. I set up a simple experiment at Yale University to test how much pain an ordinary citizen would inflict on another person simply because he was ordered to by an experimental scientist. Stark authority was pitted against the subjects' [participants'] strongest moral imperatives against hurting others, and, with the subjects' [participants'] ears ringing with the screams of the victims, authority won more often than not. The extreme willingness of adults to go to almost any lengths on the command of an authority constitutes the chief finding of the study and the fact most urgently demanding explanation.

Ordinary people, simply doing their jobs, and without any particular hostility on their part, can become agents in a terrible destructive process. Moreover, even when the destructive effects of their work become patently clear, and they are asked to carry out actions incompatible with fundamental standards of morality, relatively few people have the resources needed to resist authority.[7]

The original Simulated Shock Generator and Event Recorder, or shock box, is located in the Archives of the History of American Psychology.

Later, Milgram and other psychologists performed variations of the experiment throughout the world, with similar results.[8] Milgram later investigated the effect of the experiment's locale on obedience levels by holding an experiment in an unregistered, backstreet office in a bustling city, as opposed to at Yale, a respectable university. The level of obedience, "although somewhat reduced, was not significantly lower." What made more of a difference was the proximity of the "learner" and the experimenter. There were also variations tested involving groups.

Thomas Blass of the University of Maryland, Baltimore County performed a meta-analysis on the results of repeated performances of the experiment. He found that the percentage of participants who are prepared to inflict fatal voltages remains remarkably constant, 61–66 percent, regardless of time or country.

The participants who refused to administer the final shocks neither insisted that the experiment itself be terminated, nor left the room to check the health of the victim without requesting permission to leave, as per Milgram's notes and recollections, when fellow psychologist Philip Zimbardo asked him about that point.

Milgram created a documentary film titled Obedience showing the experiment and its results. He also produced a series of five social psychology films, some of which dealt with his experiments.

All police officers, have explicit permission from their police chiefs to inflict the final massive shock, of 450 volts, enough to kill anybody.Only 34-39% of those officers, will question those orders. This experiment clearly proves beyond any doubt, in any court of law, that anybody put into a position of authority over another person or peoples, will abuse that authority any chance they get, they already have permission, it's called Police Training.

  This petition, is to require all active police officers and police chiefs to be subjected to mandatory psychological testing, this is without question, the best way to remove the corrupt, the abusive, and the violent from policing.

And yet, the Justice System rages on and on, with ever increasing impunity and enforcement. The elected Government officials know this, they are making billions of dollars from it. The idealism of war, rages on and on with people being used as ponzi's, yes ponzi's, not a patsy, not a pawn, because this is just one big ponzi scheme, in a game of economics. Coming home from deployment, psychologically destroyed and killing themselves in anxiety of guilt, brought upon by the experimenter, and their confederates. All of which suffer no psychological damages, or feel any form of guilt for what they have done, because they didn't actually do anything did they.The advantage of controlling the people, from the day they're born, with a design, make them gullible enough to believe an idea, with an outlandish presentation and thundering anthems and bright wavy flags, and fireworks for effect.


The Stanford Prison Experiment

Zimbardo and his team aimed to test the hypothesis that the inherent personality traits of prisoners and guards are the chief cause of abusive behavior in prison. Participants were recruited and told they would participate in a two-week prison simulation. The team selected the 24 males whom they deemed to be the most psychologically stable and healthy.[6] These participants were predominantly white[7] and of the middle class.[8] The group was intentionally selected to exclude those with criminal backgrounds, psychological impairments, or medical problems. They all agreed to participate in a 7- to 14-day period and received $15 per day.[9]

The experiment was conducted in the basement of Jordan Hall (Stanford's psychology building). 12 of the 24 participants were assigned the role of prisoner (9 plus 3 alternates), while the other 12 were assigned the role of guard (also 9 plus 3 alternates). Zimbardo took on the role of the superintendent, and an undergraduate research assistant the role of the warden. Zimbardo designed the experiment in order to induce disorientation, depersonalization, and deindividuation in the participants.

The researchers held an orientation session for guards the day before the experiment, during which guards were instructed not to physically harm the prisoners or withhold food or drink. In the footage of the study, Zimbardo can be seen talking to the guards: "You can create in the prisoners feelings of boredom, a sense of fear to some degree, you can create a notion of arbitrariness that their life is totally controlled by us, by the system, you, me, and they'll have no privacy ... We're going to take away their individuality in various ways. In general what all this leads to is a sense of powerlessness. That is, in this situation we'll have all the power and they'll have none."[10]

The researchers provided the guards with wooden batons to establish their status,[11] clothing similar to that of an actual prison guard (khaki shirt and pants from a local military surplus store), and mirrored sunglasses to prevent eye contact. Prisoners wore uncomfortable, ill-fitting smocks and stocking caps, as well as a chain around one ankle. Guards were instructed to call prisoners by their assigned numbers, sewn on their uniforms, instead of by name.

The prisoners were "arrested" at their homes and "charged" with armed robbery. The local Palo Alto police department assisted Zimbardo with the arrests and conducted full booking procedures on the prisoners, which included fingerprinting and taking mug shots. The prisoners were transported to the mock prison from the police station, where they were strip searched and given their new identities.

The small mock prison cells were set up to hold three prisoners each. There was a small corridor for the prison yard, a closet for solitary confinement, and a bigger room across from the prisoners for the guards and warden. The prisoners were to stay in their cells and the yard all day and night until the end of the study. The guards worked in teams of three for eight-hour shifts. The guards did not have to stay on site after their shift.


After a relatively uneventful first day, on the second day the prisoners in Cell 1 blockaded their cell door with their beds and took off their stocking caps, refusing to come out or follow the guards' instructions. Guards from other shifts volunteered to work extra hours, to assist in subduing the revolt, and subsequently attacked the prisoners with fire extinguishers without being supervised by the research staff. Finding that handling nine cell mates with only three guards per shift was challenging, one of the guards suggested they use psychological tactics to control them. They set up a "privilege cell" in which prisoners who were not involved in the riot were treated with special rewards, such as higher quality meals. The "privileged" inmates chose not to eat the meal in commiseration with their fellow prisoners.

After only 36 hours, one prisoner began to act "crazy", as Zimbardo described: "#8612 then began to act crazy, to scream, to curse, to go into a rage that seemed out of control. It took quite a while before we became convinced that he was really suffering and that we had to release him."

Guards forced the prisoners to repeat their assigned numbers[12] to reinforce the idea that this was their new identity. Guards soon used these prisoner counts to harass the prisoners, using physical punishment such as protracted exercise for errors in the prisoner count. Sanitary conditions declined rapidly, exacerbated by the guards' refusal to allow some prisoners to urinate or defecate anywhere but in a bucket placed in their cell. As punishment, the guards would not let the prisoners empty the sanitation bucket. Mattresses were a valued item in the prison, so the guards would punish prisoners by removing their mattresses, leaving them to sleep on concrete. Some prisoners were forced to be naked as a method of degradation. Several guards became increasingly cruel as the experiment continued; experimenters reported that approximately one-third of the guards exhibited genuine sadistic tendencies. Most of the guards were upset when the experiment concluded after only six days.

Zimbardo mentions his own absorption in the experiment. On the fourth day, some of the guards stated they heard a rumor that the released prisoner was going to come back with his friends and free the remaining inmates. Zimbardo and the guards disassembled the prison and moved it onto a different floor of the building. Zimbardo himself waited in the basement, in case the released prisoner showed up, and planned to tell him that the experiment had been terminated. The released prisoner never returned, and the prison was rebuilt in the basement.

Zimbardo argued that the prisoners had internalized their roles, since some had stated they would accept "parole" even if it would mean forfeiting their pay, despite the fact that quitting would have achieved the same result without the delay involved in waiting for their parole requests to be granted or denied.[13] Zimbardo argued they had no reason for continued participation in the experiment after having lost all monetary compensation, yet they did, because they had internalized the prisoner identity.

Prisoner No. 416, a newly admitted stand-by prisoner, expressed concern about the treatment of the other prisoners. The guards responded with more abuse. When he refused to eat his sausages, saying he was on a hunger strike, guards confined him to "solitary confinement", a dark closet: "the guards then instructed the other prisoners to repeatedly punch on the door while shouting at 416."[14] The guards said he would be released from solitary confinement only if the prisoners gave up their blankets and slept on their bare mattresses, which all but one refused to do.

Zimbardo aborted the experiment early when Christina Maslach, a graduate student in psychology whom he was dating (and later married),[15] objected to the conditions of the prison after she was introduced to the experiment to conduct interviews. Zimbardo noted that, of more than 50 people who had observed the experiment, Maslach was the only one who questioned its morality. After only six days of a planned two weeks' duration, the experiment was discontinued.[13]

On August 20, 1971, Zimbardo announced the end of the experiment to the participants.

The experiment's results favor situational attribution of behavior over dispositional attribution (a result caused by internal characteristics). It seemed that the situation, rather than their individual personalities, caused the participants' behavior. Is Democracy and its justice system, the "situation" that police currently need to exercise their authority over anybody they so choose?  Using this interpretation, the results are compatible with those of the Milgram experiment, where random participants complied with orders to administer seemingly dangerous and potentially lethal electric shocks to a shill.[16]

The experiment has also been used to illustrate cognitive dissonance theory and the power of authority.

Shortly after the study was completed, there were bloody revolts at both the San Quentin and Attica prison facilities, and Zimbardo reported his findings on the experiment to the U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary.

Participants' behavior was modified due to the fact that they were watched as opposed to a lurking variable (Hawthorne effect).[17] Even knowing they were being observed, guards and prisoners acted differently than normal. Some guards felt the need to show their dominance even when it was not necessary.

Zimbardo instructed the guards before the experiment to disrespect the prisoners in various ways. For example, they had to refer to prisoners by number rather than by name. This, according to Zimbardo, was intended to diminish the prisoners' individuality.[18] With no control, prisoners learned they had little effect on what happened to them, ultimately causing them to stop responding, and give up.[19] Quick to realize that the guards were the highest in the hierarchy, prisoners began to accept their roles as less important human beings.

The uniforms were given to all participants to erase individual identity, and participants were randomly chosen to be either a prisoner or guard to reduce individuality.[19]

A strength of the study is that it has altered the way US prisons are run. For example, juveniles accused of federal crimes are no longer housed before trial with adult prisoners, due to the risk of violence against them.[17]

The fact that Zimbardo was in a relationship with and eventually married Christina Maslach, creates an element of bias in the experiment. This was refuted by 

Psychologists Alex Haslam and Steve Reicher conducted the BBC Prison Study in 2002 and was published in 2006.[30] This was a partial replication of the Stanford prison experiment conducted with the assistance of the BBC, which broadcast events in the study in a documentary series called The Experiment. Their results and conclusions differed from Zimbardo's and led to a number of publications on tyranny, stress, and leadership. The results were published in leading academic journals such as British Journal of Social Psychology, Journal of Applied Psychology, Social Psychology Quarterly, and Personality and Social Psychology Review. The BBC Prison Study is now taught as a core study on the UK A-level Psychology OCR syllabus.

While Haslam and Reicher's procedure was not a direct replication of Zimbardo's, their study casts further doubt on the generality of his conclusions. Specifically, it questions the notion that people slip mindlessly into role and the idea that the dynamics of evil are in any way banal. Their research also points to the importance of leadership in the emergence of tyranny of the form displayed by Zimbardo when briefing guards in the Stanford experiment.[31][32]


When acts of prisoner torture and abuse at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq were publicized in March 2004, Zimbardo himself, who paid close attention to the details of the story, was struck by the similarity with his own experiment. He was dismayed by official military and government representatives' shifting the blame for the torture and abuses in the Abu Ghraib American military prison on to "a few bad apples" rather than acknowledging the possibly systemic problems of a formally established military incarceration system. Those "Bad Apples" would be Bruce Jessen and James Mitchell, a.k.a Gray Swigert.

Eventually, Zimbardo became involved with the defense team of lawyers representing one of the Abu Ghraib prison guards, Staff Sergeant Ivan "Chip" Frederick. He was granted full access to all investigation and background reports, and testified as an expert witness in SSG Frederick's court martial, which resulted in an eight-year prison sentence for Frederick in October 2004. (Scapegoat)

Zimbardo drew from his participation in the Frederick case to write the book The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil, published by Random House in 2007, which deals with the striking similarities between his own Stanford Prison Experiment and the Abu Ghraib abuses.[14]

Police Training

  I have a book called "Understanding Human Behavior for Effective Police Work" I am going to describe to you, another psychological experiment called "Selye's General Adaptation Syndrome"

Subject: Sammy Yatim,18 years old, shot and killed by police.

"Last Action Hero Syndrome"

TORONTO - An 18-year-old man on a stopped TTC streetcar was fatally shot by a Toronto Police officer shortly after midnight Saturday on Dundas St. W. near Bathurst St., the Special Investigations Unit said.

And a man who witnessed the incident posted a video of the event to YouTube shortly afterwards.

Martin Baron, 47, was trying to cross the street to his Bellwoods Ave. home with his wife and 19-year-old son when they encountered the halted 505 streetcar.

“We saw suddenly cops coming around the front with guns, we thought ‘Oh! Back up, back up,’” Baron recounted.

He recorded the incident, standing roughly 15 metres away and saw a person on the streetcar holding a knife, he said.

“We heard the cops just yelling over and over, ‘Drop the knife, drop the knife!’” Baron said.

Then he heard nine gunshots followed by what sounded like a stun gun.

“A cop entered the back doors of the streetcar, went up to the front and soon after that I could see them performing CPR,” he said.

But Baron said he never saw any attempt by the man to attack the police officers while he was there, nor did he see any other weapon.

He uploaded the video to YouTube around an hour following the shooting and used Twitter to say, “To witness a shooting is horrible, but in front of your house?”

The province’s Special Investigations Unit is probing the shooting, as it does any time a civilian is seriously injured or killed through an interaction with police.

Police were alerted to a man on a westbound streetcar near Dundas St. W. and Bellwoods Ave. around 12:10 a.m. Saturday, the SIU said.

“What we understand is that there was an interaction involving the male and officers with the Toronto Police Service,” SIU spokesman Jasbir Brar said near the scene of the shooting. “As part of that interaction, a police firearm was discharged and the male was struck.”

The victim was taken to St. Michael’s Hospital, where he was pronounced dead. Family members identified him to the Toronto Sun as Sammy Yatim.

Yatim's uncle Majed Yatim told the Sun the teen had "no history of any mental illness except maybe teenage angst."

The SIU would not confirm the number of shots fired or the deployment of a stun gun.

When asked about the video, Brar said she had not seen it but investigators “are working to identify that video.”

“Exactly how many shots were fired, what weapons in terms of what the deceased was holding, that’s again a part of the investigation,” she said. “I really can’t comment on whether (the shooting was) a warranted reaction or an unwarranted reaction.”

A TTC spokesman confirmed passengers had emptied the streetcar by the time of the shooting.

SIU director Ian Scott encouraged witnesses to contact the agency.

“We would be grateful if anyone who witnessed this incident would contact the SIU, particularly those with video imagery,” he said.

Anyone with information should call the SIU at 416-622-2342 or 1-800-787-8529, ext. 2342.

As you can see, this was on a TTC Streetcar, public transit system, these public transit systems have to function, on a very tight schedule for maximizing profits. Thus, this situation, was ended "efficiently" so as it did not interrupt "service". Why do you think S.W.A.T. Teams and police special units train so much? So they can be as efficient as possible, particularly when you're in society, and not in your home. If this person was in his home when this happened, the outcome would have been completely different. Better question, why are police being trained, the same way soldiers are being trained? What's the difference between S.W.A.T training and Special forces Training? Thus, the police forces are now being trained to use deadly force, as are soldiers.They are supposed to be police officers to keep the "peace" the most efficient way to achieve peace, is to execute?

 Selye's "General Adaptation Syndrome" In the face of any serious stressor or stressful situation similar to this, the person or the 18 year old kid, will go through three stages. When the Police arrive on the seen, he will enter Stage 1, the "Alarm" stage. The police presence have now escalated his stressor, they're instantaneously adding more stress, to an already stressful situation for this particular person. Combine stress, anxiety, and fear, they can become a deadly factor. The second stage, or "Stage 2", is "Resistance" This particular stressor has now become a direct threat to this person freedom, and self, or person, this is how police will be perceived by anybody in this situation. You should expect resistance to be equivalent to a fight to the death, this person is in a heightened cognitive emotional state, with a potential for mind altering alcohol, or pharmaceutical drugs. Screaming, yelling, arguing, threatening are inevitable, this is NOT ABNORMAL human behaviour, nor is it a crime.

The next stage, is "Stage 3", or "Exhaustion" The resistance stage, with a continuous state of heightened cognitive awareness will burn muscle energy, the heart rate is accelerated, for long periods of time and will inevitably lead to the need to rest. This stressor, or this situation is equivalent to a consistent workout, of a physical nature, in other words, this person could be sitting on the TTC Streetcar, but his heart rate is elevated to that as if he were running a marathon. Here's the problem, a marathon, doesn't take 15 minutes to run, those three stages, don't happen in a very efficient (12:35) twelve minutes thirty five seconds, for maximum policing efficiency. How hard is that to comprehend? This may take several hours, what is the rush? Are you all in a hurry? Have to make a few hundred dollars in TTC fares? You have to understand, when the citizens see nothing but shit like this in the news, every time the police pull you over for a traffic ticket, is now become a direct threat to your life. These police officers have become psychologically unstable, and were probably psychologically unstable before they became police officers. 

 From my personal psychological perspective, Punitive Authoritarian Personality Disorder, and Last Action Hero Syndrome, are very similar to a psychological disorder called Munchausen Syndrome.

Munchausen syndrome by proxy (MSbP or MbP) is a term often used when a caregiver or spouse fabricates, exaggerates, or induces mental or physical health problems in those who are in their care, with the primary motive of gaining attention or sympathy from others. When Police Officers "Take Down' a "Bad guy" like Sammy Yatim, they are praised by fellow officers. [1] Its name is derived from the term Munchausen syndrome, a psychiatric factitious disorder wherein those affected feign disease, illness, or psychological trauma to draw attention, sympathy, or reassurance to themselves. However, unlike in Munchausen syndrome, in MSbP, the deception involves not themselves, but rather someone under the person's care. MSbP is primarily distinguished from other forms of abuse or neglect by the motives of the perpetrator. Some experts consider it to be an elusive, potentially lethal, and frequently misunderstood form of child abuse[2] or medical neglect.[3] However, others consider the concept to be problematic, since it is based largely on supposition regarding a person's motives, which can be open to radically different interpretations.[4][5]

In short my fellow members of the Human Family, its time, Murder in the Streets, stop, permanently. As you can see by the conclusive psychological facts, it's time to see if both the Government, and the police themselves, truly care about Public Safety, or protecting a platform of Punitive Authoritarianism. Authority, is Authority, it's a self serving institution, as it's sole purpose is to maintain itself. What's the difference between the Taliban shooting Malala Yousefsai in the head, for refusing to be obedient to them, from Sammy Yatim being shot 9 times and promptly tasered for good measure, for refusing to be obedient to police? Shades of Black

  There are several measures that can be taken, to better treat the systemic problem of both police brutality and police corruption. Mandatory Psychological Testing for all active police officers,and Police Chiefs  the purpose, is to weed out, the 61-66 percentile. Active police officers, who have been subjected to mandatory psychological testing, fail those tests, they will then be promptly subjected to a Polygraph Examination. The polygraph examination, will determine if any active police officer, has ever blatantly and fragrantly abused their authority, utilizing their authority to falsify reports to obtain convictions in court.

  If both the test and the polygraph examination fail, they will be redirected for employment to the armed forces, sent over seas, whereas the people they intend to bully, and kill, have guns, and they shoot back. There is a difference between policing people, and killing people.

The second measure that can be taken, is to drastically reduce the amount of police "engagement" in society as a whole, always remember, Freedom, is not something you enforce. A prime example of this, would be Sandra Bland,:

Sandra Bland[edit]
Sandra Annette Bland (February 7, 1987 – July 13, 2015) was from Naperville, Illinois, a suburb of Chicago, and was one of five sisters. She attended Willowbrook High School in Villa Park, Illinois, then Prairie View A&M University outside Hempstead in Waller County, Texas, where she was a member of the Sigma Gamma Rhosorority. She graduated in 2009 with a degree in agriculture.[11][12] At Prairie View, she was recruited as a summer counselor for three years, played in a band, and volunteered for a senior citizens advocacy group.[11]

Bland returned to Illinois in 2009. She worked in administration for Cook's, a food-service equipment supplier, a job she left not long before her death. She had been due to start a temporary job on August 3, 2015, with Prairie View as a summer program associate.[13]

In January 2015, Bland began posting videos about many subjects, including police brutality against blacks.[11] In one post she wrote, "In the news that we've seen as of late, you could stand there, surrender to the cops, and still be killed."[14] She has been described as a civil rights activist in Chicago, and a part of the Black Lives Matter movement.[15][16] Bland had at least ten previous encounters with police in Illinois and Texas, and owed $7,579 in fines.[17]

Sandra Bland was a 28-year-old black woman who was found hanged in a jail cell in Waller County, Texas, on July 13, 2015, three days after being arrested during a traffic stop.[1] Her death, which was ruled a suicide, was followed by protests against her arrest, disputing the cause of death, and alleging racial violence against her.[2][3]

Bland was pulled over for a traffic violation on July 10 by state trooper Brian Encinia. The exchange escalated, resulting in Bland's arrest and charge for assaulting a police officer. The arrest was partially recorded by Encinia's dashcam and by a bystander's cell phone. After authorities reviewed the dashcam footage, Encinia was placed on administrative leave for failing to follow proper traffic stop procedures.[4][5]

Texas authorities and the FBI conducted an investigation into Bland's death[4][6] and determined the Waller County jail did not follow required policies, including time checks on inmates and ensuring that employees had completed required mental health training.[7]

In December 2015, a grand jury declined to indict the county sheriff and jail staff for a felony relating to Bland's death. In January 2016, Encinia was indicted for perjury for making false statements about the circumstances surrounding Bland's arrest and he was subsequently fired by the Texas Department of Public Safety.[8] In September 2016, Bland's mother settled a wrongful death lawsuit against the county jail and police department for $1.9 million and some procedural changes.[9][10]

  We all now live in a society of absolute fear of authority, ANYBODY can be killed by a police officer, for as much as failing to signal your turn. I would like to remind everybody, that the only person who was affected by Sandra Bland failing to signal her turn, was the police officer sent out, to specifically scrutinize your daily lives, with frivolous laws and the punitive enforcement of them. The Government, has never proven beyond a reasonable doubt, in their own court of law, that taking peoples money, changes either their behavior, or their future, or anybody else's for that matter. We must adapt a no harm, no foul approach to policing. Police, are emergency services, thus, our government must be held accountable for utilizing them as such, and not an Alternative Revenue Generation Regime. As follows:

When the federal government investigates a police department, it’s usually looking at allegations that officers use excessive force or racially profile residents.

Last week, the Department of Justice (DOJ) said that it was coming to the rural Louisiana town of Ville Platte, to investigate the police department and the Evangeline Parish Sheriff’s Office, which is also headquartered in the town. It said it would look into allegations that the officers detain residents in their jails without proper cause.

This appears to be the first time the DOJ has opened a “pattern or practice investigation” solely into the practice of improper detentions. Under this type of probe, the Justice Department looks for constitutional violations. If it finds any, the department has the power to sue law enforcement agencies to correct them.

It’s not clear whether a specific incident prompted the investigation; the Department of Justice is notoriously tight-lipped about its motives for targeting a particular law enforcement agency. In its announcement, the DOJ said it was looking into allegations that law enforcement in Ville Platte improperly keep people in jail under “investigative holds” — detained without charges while officials investigate a crime.

“A Monetary Windfall for the City”
But civil-rights activists in Louisiana say that improper detentions are only part of a broader problem in Ville Platte, a city in which they say residents are cited for frivolous violations, excessively fined and put in jail when they cannot pay.

It’s a system that on its face appears similar to some of what Justice Department officials found in Ferguson, Mo., where the police department, at the behest of the city, regularly ticketed mostly African-American residents for violations like “manner of walking in roadway,” and then funneled that money into the city coffers. Those who couldn’t pay were sent to jail.

The difference is that in Ferguson, Justice Department officials didn’t start out looking for what they ultimately found to be an entrenched, discriminatory system of fees and fines.

Ville Platte, a town of roughly 7,400, has a documented history of ticketing and jailing residents for improper reasons.

Arthur Sampson, a veteran and retired local NAACP leader, told FRONTLINE that he had filed complaints with the Justice Department for years about the practice. In 2011, he filed a lawsuit with the American Civil Liberties Union over a curfew the city had imposed in January of that year. The new law required pedestrians — but not drivers — to be indoors after 10 p.m. or face jail time or a $200 fine, a measure that disproportionately impacted low-income residents.

Under the curfew, people couldn’t walk their dogs, go to the corner store or visit their friends at night, unless they had a car.

Police soon began making arrests, sweeping up “hundreds” of residents every night just for being outside after 10 p.m., according to the complaint. The mayor, Jennifer Vidrine, said at the time that she had imposed the curfew in response to a series of car break-ins, and that it would last for 60 days. The city council extended it three times.

The bevy of new fines from curfew violators created a “monetary windfall for the city,” the complaint said, “and thus, a tremendous incentive to continue the curfew.”

It’s not clear how much revenue the ordinances generated, but they did appear to exact a toll on some residents. In February 2011, the Ville Platte Gazette published the list of bench warrants issued by the city court for the previous two months. A full 60 percent of those were cited for a failure to pay fines, a charge that rarely appeared in bench warrants in preceding months, according to a review of warrants published in the local paper.

To settle Sampson’s suit, the city entered into a legally binding agreement to do away with the curfew, and avoid imposing a new one unless it was deemed necessary for the city. In the deal, the city denied any wrongdoing.

“Appropriate Dress” Laws
But there are still other troubling rules on the books, say civil rights advocates. “They have a lot of overly punitive and some idiosyncratic ordinances that lead to incarcerating people for things that shouldn’t be infractions at all,” said Marjorie Esman, the Louisiana ACLU’s executive director. Esman said she has been following events in Ville Platte for several years.

One is a ban on sagging pants. Specifically, the city’s municipal code requires that pants be “size appropriate and secured at the waist to prevent the pants from falling more than three inches below the hips (crest of the ilium) causing exposure of the person or the person’s undergarments.”

The city also requires residents to wear “something reflective as an outer garment such as an armband, or parka” when walking after dark.”The reflective material is to be visible from all directions,” a town ordinance reads. “This will enable drivers to see the walking resident more clearly.”

The police began enforcing that ordinance in January 2011, at the same time as the curfew, according to city council meeting minutes.

The penalty for violating either rule is a fine with a maximum penalty of $200 — and 30 days in jail for those who can’t pay it.

Sampson said low-income residents, most of them African-American, don’t have reflective clothing and are more likely to be affected by the law. More than 54 percent of Ville Platte’s residents are black; the rest are almost all white. About 39 percent of all residents live in poverty.

Residents who can’t pay the fee are put on probation, where they must pay a fine of $35 each month until they pay off the full ticket fee.

Some people just give up trying to cover the mounting costs and ask for jail time, Sampson said. “It’s a racket,” he said. “Something needs to be done about the injustice that’s been going on here.”

City Judge Greg Vidrine, who has been in office since January and is not related to the mayor, said that fines for violating minor ordinances, such as the reflective clothing rule, don’t usually incur the maximum $200 fine. He also said that the court works with people who are trying to pay their debts. So far, he said, he wasn’t aware of anyone who had to serve jail time for failing to pay while he has been on the bench.

But it could happen, he said. “What’s the alternative? Not having the money to pay the fine should not grant you license to break the law.”

Vidrine said he couldn’t say whether or not the law was improper, as civil-rights advocates have argued. “All I can say is that it is in place right now,” he said. “Like all our laws, you may not agree with it, but as a citizen within our limits you are bound to follow it. It’s the duty of the police and the entire judicial system to enforce the laws that are currently in place.”

Neal Lartigue, the police chief, said, “As far as I’m concerned, the department is running correctly.” He said that the department would cooperate “100 percent” with the federal investigation, but declined to comment further, referring questions about the reasons for the probe to the DOJ. “I’m the victim here,” he said. “I’m the one that is a suspect.”

Neither the mayor nor the sheriff’s department returned phone calls seeking a comment. A DOJ spokeswoman declined to comment beyond the initial press release announcing the investigation.

In a statement to the local paper, Mayor Vidrine said the city would “comply and cooperate 100 percent” with the Justice Department officials. “Our goal will be to take any corrective measures which they recommend or mandate in reference to their findings,” she said. “Protecting and serving the citizens of our community is the priority here and that will not be compromised.”


 It's time to determine whether your Government views you as a human being, or just another number, that produces tax revenue. Transparency seems to be a popular word amongst most Governments now, in this day and age, this petition WILL TEST that. If both your Government, and your police don't endorse this petition, in any way shape or form, you know exactly what they are, Corrupt, Punitive Authoritarians, whose sole purpose is to retain tenure, of the current status as an elected member of Government, Police Officer, and Police Chief.

What does Tyranny, Slavery, Servitude, Oppression and OBEDIENCE all have in common? Authority. What does every Psychological Disorder on earth have in common? None of the people suffering from them, are an authority, as you can see, that is NOT a coincidence. When the State robs the poor of liberty, life and finances, it's called Law Enforcement, When the poor fight back, it's called Revolution

“The right of Revolution is an inherent one. When people are oppressed by their government, it is a natural right they enjoy to relieve themselves of the oppression if they are strong enough, either by withdrawing from it, or by overthrowing it and substituting a government more acceptable.”
                                  — President Ulysses S. Grant (1885)

Sign the REVOLUTION, or, just sit back and wait for it to be an extremely violent one.









Today: Derek is counting on you

Derek Speed needs your help with “Derek Speed: STOP Police Corruption and Brutality”. Join Derek and 12 supporters today.