Controversial leader – who has endorsed extrajudicial executions of drug offenders – says he killed to show police officers ‘if I can do it, why can’t you?’
The Joy of Trump
Wednesday, December 21, 2016
Philippines president Rodrigo Duterte personally killed criminals
Philippines president Rodrigo Duterte says he personally killed criminals
Controversial leader – who has endorsed extrajudicial executions of drug offenders – says he killed to show police officers ‘if I can do it, why can’t you?’
Rodrigo Duterte has announced he personally killed suspected criminals when he was mayor of his home city of Davao in the Philippines, cruising the streets on a motorcycle and “looking for trouble”.
The country’s president made the comments in a speech late on Monday night as he discussed his campaign to eradicate illegal drugs, which has seen police and unknown assailants kill around 5,000 people since he became president on 30 June.
“In Davao I used to do it personally. Just to show to the guys [police officers] that if I can do it, why can’t you,” he was quoted as saying by AFP, talking of his two decades as mayor of the southern city of 1.5 million people.
“And I’d go around in Davao with a motorcycle, with a big bike around, and I would just patrol the streets, looking for trouble also.
“I was really looking for a confrontation so I could kill.”
The former mayor was nicknamed “Duterte Harry”, after the fictional and ruthless police inspector played by Clint Eastwood, for his support for vigilante death squads that killed hundreds of suspected criminals.
Duterte previously has both denied and acknowledged his involvement in the Davao death squads.
Since taking his bloody anti-crime campaign to the nation level, he has been criticised by the United States and United Nations, whose concerns have drawn only angry rebukes.
“If they say that I am to stop because of the human rights and guys … including Obama, sorry, I am not about to do that,” Duterte said in English during his speech at the presidential palace this week.
Duterte has a better relationship with US president-elect Donald Trump, who he said had praised his war on drugs during a phone call this month. This was not confirmed by Trump’s team.
As president Duterte has publicly encouraged civilians to kill drug addicts and said he will not prosecute police for extrajudicial executions. But he has also said he and his security forces will not break the law.
In October Duterte compared himself to Adolf Hitler and said he would be “happy to slaughter” three million drug addicts.
Since his election, police have reported killing 2,086 people in anti-drug operations. More than 3,000 others have been killed in unexplained circumstances, according to official figures.
Often masked assailants break into homes and kill people who have been tagged as drug traffickers or drug users. Human rights groups have warned of a breakdown in the rule of law with police and hired assassins operating with impunity.
A report by the Guardian in October cited a senior officer in the police force who claimed he led one of 10 special operations teams, each with 16 members, tasked with killing suspected drug users, dealers and criminals.
The officer claimed the hit squads are composed of active police officers and that the murders are conducted in such a way as to make them appear to be perpetrated by “vigilantes” to deliberately obscure police involvement and preclude investigation.
The report was later denied by the chief of police. Duterte has insisted police are killing only in self-defence while gangsters are murdering the other victims.
But he has also said he will not allow any police officers to go to jail if they are found guilty of murder in prosecuting his war on crime.
Agence France-Presse contributed to this report
https://www.theguardian.com/
One Stolen Gun's Path of Destruction in Chicago
A Glock used in five shootings that killed two people sits at the Homan Square police facility June 9, 2016, in Chicago.
(Armando L. Sanchez / Chicago Tribune)
One gun's journey — 42 bullets fired, 2 killed, 5 wounded
Gun Stolen from legal owner...
The story of the Glock's journey from safe to shoebox comes at a tumultuous time for Chicago as homicides spike to levels unseen in the city for two decades. Chicago police say the proliferation of guns plays a key role in the seemingly endless cycle of violence, particularly in impoverished pockets of the South and West sides.
As police battle the glut of firearms, the Glock illustrates the devastation — both human and financial — that a single gun can leave behind.
The Glock was what police call a gang gun, passed among its members as needed. Its devastation — unusual for one firearm in a year's time — was spread over a significant stretch of the South Side.
Guns get to Chicago in many ways.
In so-called straw purchases, those with a firearm owner's identification card can carve out a niche business buying guns in Illinois for felons barred from owning weapons because of their criminal records. Another option lies a few miles away over the border in Indiana, where gun shows require no background checks.
A study in 2015 by the University of Chicago Crime Lab found 60 percent of the newer guns recovered from gang members had come from out of state — half of those from Indiana. In separate interviews done at Cook County Jail, gun offenders said gangs sometimes tapped members to make buying trips.
"All they need is one person who got a gun card in the 'hood and everybody got (a gun)," the study quoted one inmate as saying.
For now, the Glock's journey has ended at the Homan Square police facility on the city's West Side. Sealed in a Manila envelope, it is stored on a metal shelf in the department's mammoth gun vault, a secure, fenced-in area that includes tens of thousands of guns taken off the street by police over the years.
Read More @ Source:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-chicago-violence-gang-gun-met-20161007-story.html
Monday, October 31, 2016
Monday, June 20, 2016
Sunday, June 19, 2016
Wax sculpture of Hitler on his knees sells for $17.2million
Consider a diamond-encrusted
platinum skull by artist Damien Hirst has been sold to an investment
group for the asking price of $100 million, a spokeswoman for Hirst's
London gallery White Cube said on Thursday.
The skull, cast from a 35-year-old 18th century European man but retaining the original teeth, is coated with 8,601 diamonds, including a large pink diamond worth more than four million pounds in the centre of its forehead.
The skull, cast from a 35-year-old 18th century European man but retaining the original teeth, is coated with 8,601 diamonds, including a large pink diamond worth more than four million pounds in the centre of its forehead.
Maurizio Cattelan's wax and resin sculpture of a diminutive Hitler on his knees is titled 'Him'
- The artwork, completed in 2001, fetched $17.2million at Christie's auction
- Cattelan, known as the art world's resident prankster, has created sculptures of historical figures like JFK and Pope John Paul II
- His fully-functional toilet cast in solid gold will be installed in Guggenheim bathroom this summer
A
statue of Hitler on his knees was auctioned for a record-setting $17.2
million on Sunday, the most for any work by Italian art world prankster
Maurizio Cattelan.
The
wax and resin statue titled Him, called 'one of the most shocking and
disquieting works of art to have emerged in the post-war era', had been
expected to fetch between $10million and $15million at the Christie's
auction in New York's Rockefeller Plaza.
The
previous record for a work by 55-year-old Cattelan was $7.9 million for
a statue featuring a wax statue of himself peeping out of a hole in the
floor.
The artwork 'Him', depicting Hitler on his
knees in prayer, fetched $17.2million today at a Christie's auction in
midtown New York. It is artist Maurizio Cattelan's most expensive work
thus far
Him, which
was completed in 2001, disrupts the viewer's expectations with its
size. From behind, the statue appears to be that of a young boy praying,
while the all too recognizable face creates an unsettling contrast
Him, which was completed in 2001, disrupts the viewer's expectations with its size.
From
behind, the statue appears to be that of a young boy praying, while the
all too recognizable face creates an unsettling contrast.
Cattelan,
who considered destroying the piece of work several times, said:
'Hitler is pure fear; it’s an image of terrible pain. It even hurts to
pronounce his name. And yet that name has conquered my memory, it lives
in my head, even if it remains taboo.
'Hitler
is everywhere, haunting the specter of history; and yet he is
unmentionable, irreproducible, wrapped in a blanket of silence.
'I’m
not trying to offend anyone. I don’t want to raise a new conflict or
create some publicity; I would just like that image to become a
territory for negotiation or a test for our psychoses.’
The
statue sparked controversy in 2012 when it was installed in a former
Warsaw ghetto, where thousands of Jews died under Nazi rule.
Some
accused the work of belittling the suffering of Jewish victims, while
others saw the piece as a reflection on evil and its many forms.
Maurizio Cattelan (pictured) is known as the art world's resident prankster and provocateur
The
controversial artist is known for taking on big names such as John F.
Kennedy, cast in one sculpture lying in a coffin, while the famous La
Nona Ora (The Ninth Hour) shows Pope John Paul II being crushed by a
meteor.
But Cattelan shrugs off claims he is a provocateur, saying: 'I actually think that reality is far more provocative than my art.
'I just take it; I’m always borrowing pieces — crumbs really — of everyday reality.
'If you think my work is provocative, it means that reality is extremely provocative, and we just don’t react to it.
'Maybe we no longer pay attention to the way we live in the world… We are anesthetized.’
Cattelan
declared he would retire after his landmark 2011 retrospective at the
Guggenheim Museum in New York, where his work was strung from the
ceiling into the atrium, leaving the galleries empty.
The
55-year-old made headline news in late April after it was revealed a
new site-specific work would be installed at the museum.
Titled
America, Cattelan will be installing a fully functional toilet, cast in
solid gold, at the Guggenheim for the use of its patrons.
He is known for taking
on big names such as John F. Kennedy and Pope John Paul II. Pictured,
his Guggenheim retrospective in 2011, which left the galleries empty as
his work hung from the ceiling
Civilian access to military-style weapons.
Sales spike but Colt is in bankruptcy???
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Robert Lewis <buddhha4@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 4:48 AM
Subject: Grenade Launcher?
To: Robert Lewis <buddhha4@gmail.com>
From: Robert Lewis <buddhha4@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 4:48 AM
Subject: Grenade Launcher?
To: Robert Lewis <buddhha4@gmail.com>
Wait for one of these home grown crazies to get some g's
Javier Zarracina/Vox
Don't tread on my rights...
The AR-15, a trademark owned by Colt but applied to wide range of near-identical guns from different manufacturers, is a civilian version of the M16, a weapon designed for military combat in Vietnam. It's very difficult for civilians to own an M16. The gun can shoot up to three bullets in a single burst, and older versions were fully automatic, meaning they keep firing as long as you hold the trigger. As such, the gun is strictly regulated by the National Firearms Act, the 1934 law that restricted the possession of machine guns. The AR-15, though, is semiautomatic — you have to pull the trigger for each bullet — and so has no such restrictions.
Since 2009, gun manufacturers have preferred to call these guns “modern sporting rifles,” a name that conjures up hunters in the woods rather than soldiers shooting at the enemy. But even enthusiasts agree that the AR-15 doesn’t shine while hunting. It’s better at killing people than it is animals.
So there’s another name for AR-15s and guns like them:
assault weapons. While exact definitions of the term vary, it typically
means a military-style weapon adapted for civilian use, with
modifications that can make it more lethal. This graphic shows some of
those modifications:
And since the federal assault weapons ban expired in 2004, AR-15-style rifles and similar guns, including the gun that Orlando shooter Omar Mateen used, have become astronomically popular.
As Congress debated the assault weapons ban in 1993, production of assault rifles soared, according to a 2004 report from the University of Pennsylvania:
Even while the ban was in effect, barring the production
of certain kinds of assault weapons, gun manufacturers got around it by
creating new “postban” models of guns that went by different names.
Olympic Arms began selling a version known as the PCR — “politically correct rifle” — that lacked a threaded barrel and a bayonet lug, two of the features Congress objected to. Colt stopped making the AR-15, but it made the Colt Match Target, which looks pretty similar.
This has happened at the state level, too: California has an assault weapons ban, but entrepreneurial gun manufacturers have found ways to modify the AR-15 to get around it.
The 1994 assault weapons ban banned the AR-15 by name, including identical versions made by other manufacturers. So as calls to ban the AR-15 intensified this week, some gun defenders argued that the Sig Sauer MCX that Mateen used wasn't an AR-15 at all due to slight technical differences. (Orlando’s police chief, John Mina, initially described the weapon as an AR-15. Reviews of the gun from before the Orlando shooting often compare it to AR-15-style weapons but also highlight the ways in which it differs from standard AR-15s, such as firing several calibers of bullets.)
That's unlikely to convince anyone whose real concern is civilian access to military-style weapons. But when it comes to writing precise legislation, those differences matter, which is one reason the movement to protect guns has seized on them.
But sales didn't really take off for four more years, until President Barack Obama was elected in 2008, when gun sales of all kinds began to soar.
Smith and Wesson manufactured nearly 10 times as many M+P15s, its AR-15 equivalent, in 2008 than in 2006. Their output tripled again in the next year. By December 2012, when the AR-15 became the focus of a debate after the Newtown shootings, there were about 3.8 million AR-15s in circulation in the US, Slate’s Justin Peters estimated.
Then, for a brief moment after the Newtown shootings, additional gun control in the US seemed possible. Obama called for new gun control legislation, including a renewal of the federal assault weapons ban. Connecticut, New York, and Maryland expanded their own state bans.
And sales of AR-15s went nuts. Retail stores doubled or tripled prices in the first months of 2013, finding that desperate gun owners, worried the weapons would be banned, would pay.
The more popular the guns get, the harder it becomes to actually ban them. There are so many AR-15s now owned in the US that gun aficionados argued in summer 2013 that the market was saturated. That means that if a new assault weapons ban, like the 1994 version, grandfathered in guns that people already owned, there would still be millions of AR-15s available in the US. A buyback could get some of those guns off the street, but it would also be expensive.
Still, AR-15 owners are still outnumbered. Assault rifles are a tiny slice of the more than 300 million guns in circulation in the US. The majority of Americans don’t own guns at all, and the majority of Americans favor stricter gun laws.
But the rush to buy AR-15s every time a politician mentions gun control illustrates why the National Rifle Association has so much political clout. Its 5 million members care deeply about their guns, a combination of campaign money, political power, and a single focus that gun control supporters don't have.
Assault rifles aren’t the only weapon of choice in mass
shootings: The Virginia Tech and Charleston mass shootings were tragic
and traumatizing, and the shooters in each only used handguns. But they
get special attention both because those weapons formerly were banned
and because the number of mass shootings appears to have risen since the
assault weapons ban expired.
Between 1984 and 1993, according to the 2004 University of Pennsylvania study on the assault weapons ban, there were 15 mass shootings that killed at least six people or wounded at least 12. Assault weapons were used in only six of these shootings, but those shootings killed and injured more people than the other nine combined.
Mother Jones, which tracks mass shootings that meet specific criteria, counts 46 mass shootings since 2004, when the assault weapons ban expired. Of those 46 shootings, 14 featured assault rifles, including Newtown, Aurora, and San Bernardino.
And assault rifles appear to be becoming more popular among mass shooters. In 2015, five of the seven mass shootings Mother Jones logged featured a shooter carrying an assault rifle.
In the wake of Newtown, a few states did tighten their gun laws, including bans on AR-15s. The Supreme Court might soon have to weigh in on whether those bans are constitutional.
A case against Maryland’s assault weapons ban is making its way through the courts, and in the most recent development, the Fourth Circuit sent that case, Kolbe v. Hogan, back for stricter review at the trial court level. Two conservative justices seemed very skeptical that banning the AR-15 was constitutional.
The reason the Fourth Circuit judges cited was from District of Columbia v. Heller — the 2008 decision that found a constitutional right to own a handgun for self-defense — which included a line saying that, constitutionally, “dangerous and unusual” weapons could still be prohibited.
The AR-15 is certainly dangerous. But it isn’t necessarily unusual. If there were nearly 4 million AR-15s in the hands of American gun owners in 2012, before the Sandy Hook-induced panic, there are almost certainly more now. The specter of a federal ban could make them more popular still.
So the AR-15 is caught in a cycle. The more it’s used in high-profile mass shooting cases, the more people want to ban it. The more people want to ban it, the more AR-15s are sold. And the more AR-15s are sold, the harder it becomes to create a ban that would be able to stop the next tragedy.
Correction: A previous version of this article misstated the year the National Firearms Act was passed.
Javier Zarracina/VoxThe AR-15 is a military-style rifle that civilians can use
Don't tread on my rights...The AR-15, a trademark owned by Colt but applied to wide range of near-identical guns from different manufacturers, is a civilian version of the M16, a weapon designed for military combat in Vietnam. It's very difficult for civilians to own an M16. The gun can shoot up to three bullets in a single burst, and older versions were fully automatic, meaning they keep firing as long as you hold the trigger. As such, the gun is strictly regulated by the National Firearms Act, the 1934 law that restricted the possession of machine guns. The AR-15, though, is semiautomatic — you have to pull the trigger for each bullet — and so has no such restrictions.
Since 2009, gun manufacturers have preferred to call these guns “modern sporting rifles,” a name that conjures up hunters in the woods rather than soldiers shooting at the enemy. But even enthusiasts agree that the AR-15 doesn’t shine while hunting. It’s better at killing people than it is animals.
And since the federal assault weapons ban expired in 2004, AR-15-style rifles and similar guns, including the gun that Orlando shooter Omar Mateen used, have become astronomically popular.
The more you try to ban the AR-15, the more popular it gets
The federal assault weapons ban, which went into effect in 1994, banned the sale of AR-15-style guns and high-capacity magazines. It was the first example of a phenomenon that’s driven the AR-15’s popularity for two decades: The more gun owners fear their guns will be taken away, the more assault rifles they want to own.As Congress debated the assault weapons ban in 1993, production of assault rifles soared, according to a 2004 report from the University of Pennsylvania:
Even while the ban was in effect, barring the production
of certain kinds of assault weapons, gun manufacturers got around it by
creating new “postban” models of guns that went by different names. Olympic Arms began selling a version known as the PCR — “politically correct rifle” — that lacked a threaded barrel and a bayonet lug, two of the features Congress objected to. Colt stopped making the AR-15, but it made the Colt Match Target, which looks pretty similar.
This has happened at the state level, too: California has an assault weapons ban, but entrepreneurial gun manufacturers have found ways to modify the AR-15 to get around it.
The 1994 assault weapons ban banned the AR-15 by name, including identical versions made by other manufacturers. So as calls to ban the AR-15 intensified this week, some gun defenders argued that the Sig Sauer MCX that Mateen used wasn't an AR-15 at all due to slight technical differences. (Orlando’s police chief, John Mina, initially described the weapon as an AR-15. Reviews of the gun from before the Orlando shooting often compare it to AR-15-style weapons but also highlight the ways in which it differs from standard AR-15s, such as firing several calibers of bullets.)
That's unlikely to convince anyone whose real concern is civilian access to military-style weapons. But when it comes to writing precise legislation, those differences matter, which is one reason the movement to protect guns has seized on them.
Obama’s election made the AR-15 and other assault weapons a lot more popular
Gun manufacturers started making more AR-15s again after the assault weapons ban expired. They became more popular as part of a trend for military-style weapons, in part because they’re endlessly customizable.But sales didn't really take off for four more years, until President Barack Obama was elected in 2008, when gun sales of all kinds began to soar.
Smith and Wesson manufactured nearly 10 times as many M+P15s, its AR-15 equivalent, in 2008 than in 2006. Their output tripled again in the next year. By December 2012, when the AR-15 became the focus of a debate after the Newtown shootings, there were about 3.8 million AR-15s in circulation in the US, Slate’s Justin Peters estimated.
Then, for a brief moment after the Newtown shootings, additional gun control in the US seemed possible. Obama called for new gun control legislation, including a renewal of the federal assault weapons ban. Connecticut, New York, and Maryland expanded their own state bans.
And sales of AR-15s went nuts. Retail stores doubled or tripled prices in the first months of 2013, finding that desperate gun owners, worried the weapons would be banned, would pay.
The more popular the guns get, the harder it becomes to actually ban them. There are so many AR-15s now owned in the US that gun aficionados argued in summer 2013 that the market was saturated. That means that if a new assault weapons ban, like the 1994 version, grandfathered in guns that people already owned, there would still be millions of AR-15s available in the US. A buyback could get some of those guns off the street, but it would also be expensive.
Still, AR-15 owners are still outnumbered. Assault rifles are a tiny slice of the more than 300 million guns in circulation in the US. The majority of Americans don’t own guns at all, and the majority of Americans favor stricter gun laws.
But the rush to buy AR-15s every time a politician mentions gun control illustrates why the National Rifle Association has so much political clout. Its 5 million members care deeply about their guns, a combination of campaign money, political power, and a single focus that gun control supporters don't have.
The other hurdle to banning AR-15s: the Supreme Court
Between 1984 and 1993, according to the 2004 University of Pennsylvania study on the assault weapons ban, there were 15 mass shootings that killed at least six people or wounded at least 12. Assault weapons were used in only six of these shootings, but those shootings killed and injured more people than the other nine combined.
Mother Jones, which tracks mass shootings that meet specific criteria, counts 46 mass shootings since 2004, when the assault weapons ban expired. Of those 46 shootings, 14 featured assault rifles, including Newtown, Aurora, and San Bernardino.
And assault rifles appear to be becoming more popular among mass shooters. In 2015, five of the seven mass shootings Mother Jones logged featured a shooter carrying an assault rifle.
In the wake of Newtown, a few states did tighten their gun laws, including bans on AR-15s. The Supreme Court might soon have to weigh in on whether those bans are constitutional.
A case against Maryland’s assault weapons ban is making its way through the courts, and in the most recent development, the Fourth Circuit sent that case, Kolbe v. Hogan, back for stricter review at the trial court level. Two conservative justices seemed very skeptical that banning the AR-15 was constitutional.
The reason the Fourth Circuit judges cited was from District of Columbia v. Heller — the 2008 decision that found a constitutional right to own a handgun for self-defense — which included a line saying that, constitutionally, “dangerous and unusual” weapons could still be prohibited.
The AR-15 is certainly dangerous. But it isn’t necessarily unusual. If there were nearly 4 million AR-15s in the hands of American gun owners in 2012, before the Sandy Hook-induced panic, there are almost certainly more now. The specter of a federal ban could make them more popular still.
So the AR-15 is caught in a cycle. The more it’s used in high-profile mass shooting cases, the more people want to ban it. The more people want to ban it, the more AR-15s are sold. And the more AR-15s are sold, the harder it becomes to create a ban that would be able to stop the next tragedy.
Correction: A previous version of this article misstated the year the National Firearms Act was passed.
-
- It took a newspaper columnist 7 minutes to buy an AR-15
- Donald Trump just outlined a plan to profit personally off a Trump administration
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)