Title: Cop Who Shot Philando Castile Had Special Training that Taught Him the Public is the Enemy Source:
Free Thought Project URL Source:http://thefreethoughtproject.com/co ... -training/#Iqsj1i8l3b7FzSPR.99 Published:Jul 14, 2016 Author:William Norman Grigg Post Date:2016-07-15 09:17:42 by Deckard Keywords:None Views:9941 Comments:51
Jeronimo Yanez, the St. Anthony, Minnesota Police Officer who fatally shot Philando Castile, underwent “Bulletproof Warrior” officer survival indoctrination that imparts what one police trainer calls a “paranoid” and“militaristic” mindset.
In May of 2014, reports the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, Yanez underwent a 20-hour seminar on “Street Survival” taught by Illinois-based Calibre Press, which teaches courses on the subject to police officers nationwide. The company’s “Street Survival Seminar” overview displays a monomaniacal focus on that most important of all policy considerations, “officer safety.” It treats every police encounter as a combat situation in which only one life truly matters – that of the government’s armed emissary, not that of the citizen who is supposedly being protected and served by him.
Although Calibre co-owner Jim Glennon has written that viewing “police as the enemy is not a healthy or helpful position for a society to take,” the courses presented by his company relentlessly teach officers that the public is their enemy. As one instructor summarized the course for the benefit of his students, “We’ve got to survive this job!”
“The goal and purpose of the Calibre Press Street Survival Seminar is twofold: Keep officers alive and give them the tools to enjoy a successful career in law enforcement,” explains the company’s promotional literature. “In order to accomplish this mission we need to tackle the realities and complexities of policing today for officers on the street … while placing the responsibility for winning right where it belongs – with the individual officer.”
A brief video excerpt from a “Street Survival” course shows a presenter lecturing officers about the need to visualize shooting someone as part of the “Psychological Game” necessary to “win” encounters with what trainees are told is an implacably hostile public.
“That’s winning, ladies and gentlemen,” he declares.
“Traffic stops kill police officers, injure police officers – that’s a fact,” insists another lecturer. “But – and I’ll say this – it’s our bread and butter for enforcement.”
Officer Yanez reportedly believed that Castile broadly resembled a suspect in a recent armed robbery. This may explain why he made what appears to be a “pretext stop.” It neither explains nor justifies why he opened fire on a citizen who was compliant, and who possessed a valid carry permit. The officer’s attorney insists that the mere presence of a gun was sufficient to trigger the officer’s lethal reaction – which makes sense, given that Yanez had been marinated in Calibre’s “officer safety” alarmism.
“The force used has to be `reasonable and necessary,’” “Street Survival” attendees are told. “And who judges if it is `reasonable and necessary’? It is to the officer’s standards.”
“Does the public understand, and are they trained in the dynamics of use of force as you and I are? No!” continues the harangue. This is why police must act as evangelists to the ignorant public, catechizing them about the sacred imperative of officer safety, and the duty of citizens to submit with docility in every encounter with the state’s agents of coercion.
“Teach them,” the lecturer exhorted. “Establish, articulate, and indoctrinate.”
In this depiction, the public are “sheep” – to be protected and, of course, sheared as their overseers see fit.
Interestingly in addition to the familiar instruction regarding officer safety and the “sheepdog mentality,” those who attend “Bulletproof” training events are also taught about “Threats to Democracy” – an examination of “the current relationship between law enforcement and the community they are sworn to protect while also identifying the most current threats to both.”
The “Street Survival” seminar Yanez attended was not the only training of this sort he received. He took a similar 20-hour “Officer Survival” course from a different company two years earlier. Just a few weeks before the fatal encounter with Castile, Yanez participated in a two-hour training course entitled “de-escalation.” This was his “only instruction in his four years with the department that appears to focus on that approach,” summarizes the Star-Tribune, which obtained his training records.
William Czech, who attended a two-day Bulletproof Warrior class at a Bloomington, Minnesota Ramada Inn, described himself as “horrified” by the course. Czech is a private citizen, not a police officer, and he attended the class following encounters between police and a relative who suffers from mental illness. The second day of the class was devoted to videos of shootouts between police and citizens, with narration by Calibre co-owner Glennon.
“Every time a video came up where the officer hesitated, he would stop and he would say, `This is a point where there should have been a reaction, he should have engaged,” Czech recalls.
While he admits that his course teaches officers that “hesitation will get you killed,” Glennon insists that Czech’s perception was “totally inaccurate.”
“That’s why we don’t let the press in” to the training seminars, Glennon added.
Michael Becar, executive director of the International Association of Directors of Law Enforcement, agrees with Czech’s supposedly untutored assessment of Calibre’s “officer survival” training.
“Everything they were doing made the police officers very paranoid,” he points out. “At some point, they wouldn’t even stop a car without three backups.”
Peter Kraska, chairman of the School of Justice Studies at Eastern Kentucky University, has described Calibre’s training seminars as “irresponsible” and “dangerous.” The actions of the program’s most notable graduate, Officer Jeronimo Yanez, demonstrate the lethal consequences of weaponizing the “officer safety” mindset.
I thought about several things I could have said in response to your dementia, but one comment from the YouTube pretty much sums it up:
You are actually disgusting. How is this in any way a hoax? The man has been confirmed dead. Are you suggesting that the fiancee, the child, the hospital workers, the police officers, and the families are all in on it?
Secondly, that's not fake blood. I'm guessing you haven't seen dried blood at any point in your life, because it darkens to that exact same color shown in the video. Not to mention the gaping hole in his arm. Or is that fake too? You then take a picture of the woman crying out of context and say she's laughing. No, asshole. She's in shock because a man just got shot 5 times right in front of her. Police brutality is a real and serious problem, and I'm actually appalled that some people deny it.
Idiots like the guy who posted the video are likely shills who post this shit to discredit the documented REAL false-flag ops.
You posted this tripe in a ridiculous attempt to distract from the dozens of documented REAL false flag attacks that have been carried out by fed.gov.
Here's just a few examples -
The NSA admits that it lied about what really happened in the Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964 … manipulating data to make it look like North Vietnamese boats fired on a U.S. ship so as to create a false justification for the Vietnam war.
As admitted by the U.S. government, recently declassified documents show that in 1962, the American Joint Chiefs of Staff signed off on a plan to blow up AMERICAN airplanes (using an elaborate plan involving the switching of airplanes), and also to commit terrorist acts on American soil, and then to blame it on the Cubans in order to justify an invasion of Cuba. See the following ABC news report; the official documents; and watch this interview with the former Washington Investigative Producer for ABC’s World News Tonight with Peter Jennings.
The U.S. falsely blamed Iraq for playing a role in the 9/11 attacks – as shown by a memo from the defense secretary – as one of the main justifications for launching the Iraq war. Even after the 9/11 Commission admitted that there was no connection, Dick Cheney said that the evidence is “overwhelming” that al Qaeda had a relationship with Saddam Hussein’s regime, that Cheney “probably” had information unavailable to the Commission, and that the media was not ‘doing their homework’ in reporting such ties.
Top U.S. government officials now admit that the Iraq war was really launched for oil … not 9/11 or weapons of mass destruction. Despite previous “lone wolf” claims, many U.S. government officials now say that 9/11 was state-sponsored terror; but Iraq was not the state which backed the hijackers. (Many U.S. officials have alleged that 9/11 was a false flag operation.
Had trouble clicking on the provided link, or just too stupid?
Here - maybe this will enlighten you.
Forget What Liberals Say … Listen to What Republican Leaders Themselves Say
Many rank and file Republicans assume that only liberals claim the Iraq war was for oil.
In reality, the top Republican leaders say the same thing.
For example, U.S. Secretary of Defense – and former 12-year Republican Senator – Chuck Hagel said of the Iraq war in 2007:
People say we’re not fighting for oil. Of course we are. They talk about America’s national interest. What the hell do you think they’re talking about? We’re not there for figs.
4 Star General John Abizaid – the former commander of CENTCOM with responsibility for Iraq – said:
Of course it’s about oil, it’s very much about oil, and we can’t really deny that.
Former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan – a long-time Republican – said in 2007:
I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil
President George W. Bush said in 2005 that keeping Iraqi oil away from the bad guys was a key motive for the Iraq war:
‘If Zarqawi and [Osama] bin Laden gain control of Iraq, they would create a new training ground for future terrorist attacks,” Bush said. ”They’d seize oil fields to fund their ambitions.”
My friends, I will have an energy policy that we will be talking about, which will eliminate our dependence on oil from the Middle East that will — that will then prevent us — that will prevent us from having ever to send our young men and women into conflict again in the Middle East.
Better to start that drilling [for oil within the U.S.] today than wait and continue relying on foreign sources of energy. We are a nation at war and in many [ways] the reasons for war are fights over energy sources, which is nonsensical when you consider that domestically we have the supplies ready to go.
Former Bush speechwriter David Frum – author of the infamous “Axis of Evil” claim in Bush’s 2002 State of the Union address – writes in Newsweek this week:
In 2002, Chalabi [the Iraqi politician and oil minister who the Bush Administration favored to lead Iraq after the war] joined the annual summer retreat of the American Enterprise Institute near Vail, Colorado. He and Cheney spent long hours together, contemplating the possibilities of a Western-oriented Iraq: an additional source of oil, an alternative to U.S. dependency on an unstable-looking Saudi Arabia.
Key war architect – and Under Secretary of State – John Bolton said:
The critical oil and natural gas producing region that we fought so many wars to try and protectour economy from the adverse impact of losing that supply or having it available only at very high prices.
****
There are plenty more examples at the link, but I think you get the picture.
