Kill ’em all, Let God Sort Them Out

March 11, 2026March 11, 2026 / Joe Broadmeadow / Leave a comment

Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey on Tuesday commuted the death sentence of Charles L. “Sonny” Burton to life in prison without the possibility of parole, citing the disproportionate punishment Burton faced compared to the man who pulled the trigger. She also made a point of saying how proud she was of the many executions she did not stop. Seems an odd thing to tout in one’s political portfolio.

The commutation is commendable, but I would add a caveat; it ignores a bigger issue.

Here’s some background.

Felony murder, the doctrine under which Burton was convicted is defined as,

“…a legal doctrine under which a person can be charged with murder if a death occurs during the commission or attempted commission of a felony, even if the person did not intend to kill anyone.”

I agree with the doctrine. Everyone who participates in a felony that results in a death, even if unintentional, is responsible for the death. If two men rob a liquor store, and one of the men is shot and killed by the store owner, the second robber is guilty of felony murder.

Don’t commit a felony and you won’t ever be charged with felony murder.

But this case is significant for more troubling reasons, the inherent unfairness and inequality under the law and, I would argue, the medieval barbarism of the death penalty. A punishment that almost every free democratic nation, except the United States, has abolished.

Leaving aside the argument about the death penalty for the moment, the inequities in this case are startling. Focusing on Burton and Derrick Debruce, the actual trigger man, their cases have the same fact pattern and evidence. What happened here is not in question.

Both Debruce and Burton were convicted after trial and sentenced to death. This is where the inequities of the system become evident.

Debruce, on appeal, had his sentence reduced to life without parole. Burton’s sentence, even though he did not pull the trigger and was in no way directly responsible for the victim’s murder, was affirmed and he remained on death row.

The difference lies in the appellate process and the trial record. Appeals are almost exclusively focused on the trial record and making a determination that the trial was fair and constitutional.

To err is human, to be dead is to be dead.
Joe Broadmeadow

Absent ineffective counsel, improper rulings of law by the trial judge, or violations of due process, the verdict is rarely overturned. The fact that two defendants, convicted in separate trials, can have different results on appeal illustrates the issue.

Perhaps Debruce’s counsel made a more competent trial record. Perhaps Burton’s counsel was less skilled on the law. Whatever the reason, that the same fact pattern used in separate criminal trials can result in different appellate decisions should trouble everyone.

Courts err. Attorneys err. Police err. Most of the time these errors are unintentional and minor. But when a death penalty sentence is involved, these errors can compound carrying irreversible consequences.

To err is human, to be dead is to be dead.

These matters are inherently complicated. Many are inclined to the emotion arguments supporting the death penalty, what if it was your mother, sister, child, etc., which masks the underlying issue.

Ask yourself this, if your mother, sister, child were murdered would you want the wrong person executed for the crime?

I’ve been working on this piece for quite a long time. This case offered a perfect illustration to support my arguments against the death penalty. But, I know reading long pieces are an antithesis to the habits of many.

So, I’ve broken this down into a summary of my points and, for those so inclined, a more in-depth analysis of the issue.

But to illustrate a point of the company we keep by having a death penalty, I’ll start with this graphic.

Country	2024 (minimum recorded, Amnesty)	2025 (reported, UN OHCHR)
Iran	972+	at least 1,500
Saudi Arabia	345+	at least 356
United States	25	47
Somalia	34+	at least 24
Singapore	9	17

And if the empirical studies of the imposition of the death penalty are accurate, one, and perhaps as many as three, of the individuals executed in the United States were innocent.

Weakness of Traditional Justifications

Supporters of the death penalty often argue that it deters serious crime, delivers proportionate retribution, protects society, and provides closure for victims’ families. However, decades of empirical research have failed to show that executions deter homicide more effectively than life imprisonment without parole. Many murders occur under conditions—impulse, emotional distress, mental illness, or intoxication—where rational calculation of punishment is unlikely. Retributive claims also falter in modern justice systems designed to uphold the rule of law rather than mirror the violence they condemn. Even the promise of closure is uncertain, as prolonged capital appeals frequently extend trauma rather than resolve it.

Wrongful Convictions and the Irreversible Risk of Error

The strongest justification for abolition lies in the demonstrated fallibility of capital punishment. Since 1973, at least 200 individuals have been exonerated from death row in the United States, roughly one exoneration for every eight executions carried out. A landmark study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences estimated that at least 4.1% of people sentenced to death—approximately 1 in 25—are innocent, a figure researchers describe as conservative. DNA evidence alone has cleared 21 former death‑sentenced individuals, many after spending an average of 14 years imprisoned. Because execution is irreversible, even a small error rate becomes morally unacceptable for civilized nations committed to justice and human rights. (Here is the Chicago Author–Date citation for the PNAS article on the death penalty:

Reference List Entry (Chicago Author–Date)

Gross, Samuel R., Barbara O’Brien, Chen Hu, and Edward H. Kennedy. 2014. “Rate of False Conviction of Criminal Defendants Who Are Sentenced to Death.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 111 (20): 7230–7235. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1306417111.

Systemic Bias and Unequal Application

Wrongful convictions do not occur randomly; they are closely linked to systemic racial and socioeconomic disparities. People of color account for nearly two thirds of U.S. death row exonerees, and cases involving white victims are far more likely to result in death sentences than those involving victims of color. Official misconduct, false testimony, and misleading forensic evidence—present in the majority of capital exonerations—disproportionately affect poor defendants who lack access to effective legal representation. These cumulative inequities mean that the death penalty is not merely error‑prone, but structurally biased, undermining the legitimacy of any punishment that demands the highest standard of fairness.

Civilized Justice and the Global Case for Abolition

Globally, more than two thirds of countries have abolished the death penalty in law or practice, citing the same concerns: irreversible error, discriminatory application, lack of proven deterrence, and incompatibility with human dignity. Executions are now concentrated in a small number of states with weaker transparency and safeguards, while democratic societies increasingly reject capital punishment as an outdated and dangerous exercise of state power. For civilized nations, abolition is not an act of leniency toward crime, but a rational commitment to justice that protects life, acknowledges human fallibility, and ensures punishment remains humane, equitable, and reversible.

************************************************************************************

In-Depth Analysis

Common Arguments Supporting the Death Penalty

1. Deterrence of Serious Crime

Supporters argue that the death penalty may deter the most severe crimes—particularly premeditated murder—by imposing the strongest possible consequence. The claim is that some offenders may be discouraged when faced with an irreversible punishment.

2. Retributive Justice

From a retributive standpoint, proponents hold that punishment should be proportionate to the crime. For the most extreme offenses, such as mass murder or terrorism, they argue that life imprisonment is insufficient and that capital punishment delivers justice equal to the harm caused.

3. Protection of Society

Advocates argue that execution permanently prevents convicted individuals from committing further crimes, including violence within prisons or crimes after potential release due to appeals, parole changes, or legal errors.

4. Closure for Victims’ Families

Some supporters maintain that capital punishment can provide a sense of finality and closure for victims’ families, signaling that the justice system has fully acknowledged the severity of the loss.

5. Moral Accountability

Certain ethical frameworks assert that individuals who deliberately take innocent lives forfeit their own right to life. Within this view, the death penalty is seen as holding offenders fully accountable for their actions.

6. Cost Arguments (Contested)

In theory, supporters argue that life-long incarceration imposes ongoing costs on taxpayers, whereas execution ends state responsibility. (Note: this argument is widely debated, as lengthy capital appeals can be expensive.)

7. Public Confidence in Justice

Some argue that retaining the death penalty reinforces public confidence in the justice system by demonstrating that society responds firmly to the most heinous crimes.

Important Context to bear in mind.

These arguments are highly contested, and strong counterarguments exist concerning wrongful convictions, human rights, racial and socioeconomic disparities, and moral objections.
Many countries have abolished the death penalty, while others retain it under limited circumstances.

Common Arguments Opposing the Death Penalty

1. Counter to Deterrence of Serious Crime

Empirical research has not consistently shown that the death penalty deters crime more effectively than life imprisonment. Many murders are committed impulsively, under emotional distress, mental illness, or substance influence—conditions in which offenders are unlikely to rationally weigh consequences.

2. Counter to Retributive Justice

Opponents argue that justice should not rely on state-sanctioned killing, regardless of the crime. Retribution risks becoming vengeance, and modern justice systems are intended to emphasize proportional punishment without replicating the harm inflicted by offenders.

3. Counter to Protection of Society

Life imprisonment without parole can permanently incapacitate offenders without taking life. Additionally, irreversible punishment magnifies the consequences of judicial error—once executed, wrongful convictions cannot be remedied.

4. Counter to Closure for Victims’ Families

Research indicates that many victims’ families do not experience lasting closure from executions and may endure prolonged emotional distress due to lengthy appeals. Healing is highly individual, and no legal outcome guarantees psychological closure.

5. Counter to Moral Accountability

Critics argue that moral authority is undermined when the state engages in killing. Ethical frameworks emphasizing human rights maintain that the right to life should be upheld universally, even for those who have violated others’ rights.

6. Counter to Cost Arguments

In practice, death penalty cases are often more expensive than life imprisonment due to extended trials, mandatory appeals, and heightened legal safeguards. Many jurisdictions spend millions more per case than they would incarcerating someone for life.

7. Counter to Public Confidence in Justice

Public confidence may be weakened when executions reveal systemic flaws such as racial bias, unequal access to legal defense, or wrongful convictions. High-profile exonerations have raised concerns about fairness and accuracy in capital cases.

Broader Structural Counterarguments

Risk of Wrongful Convictions: DNA evidence has exonerated individuals previously sentenced to death, demonstrating that no justice system is infallible.
Discriminatory Application: Statistical analyses frequently show disproportionate application based on race, socioeconomic status, and geography.
International Human Rights Norms: Most countries have abolished the death penalty, viewing it as incompatible with evolving standards of human dignity.

Key Statistics on Wrongful Convictions (United States)

1. Death Row Exonerations

At least 200 people have been exonerated from death row in the U.S. since capital punishment resumed in 1973
This equates to approximately 1 exoneration for every 8 executions carried out
As of recent counts, over 1,600 executions have occurred in the same period, underscoring a significant error rate in capital cases 3.

2. Estimated Innocence Rate on Death Row

A landmark study published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences estimated that at least 4.1% of people sentenced to death are innocent.
- This implies roughly 1 in 25 death‑sentenced individuals may be wrongly convicted
Researchers emphasize this figure is conservative because many cases never receive sufficient review to establish innocence.

3. Causes of Wrongful Capital Convictions

Among death‑row exonerations, the most common contributing factors are:

Official misconduct (police or prosecutorial): present in ≈69% of cases .
Perjury or false accusations: involved in ≈68% of cases
False or misleading forensic evidence: contributed to ≈32% of cases
Mistaken eyewitness identification: involved in ≈20% of cases
Many cases involve multiple overlapping errors, compounding the risk.

4. DNA Exonerations and Capital Punishment

Since 1989, 375+ DNA exonerations have occurred nationwide.
At least 21 of these individuals had been sentenced to death before being cleared by DNA evidence
DNA exonerees served an average of 14 years in prison before release

5. Racial Disparities

People of color account for nearly two‑thirds of death‑row exonerees.
Black defendants are disproportionately represented among wrongful capital convictions and often take years longer to be exonerated than white defendants
Studies consistently show race of the defendant and race of the victim significantly influence death‑penalty outcomes.

Why These Statistics Matter in the Death Penalty Debate

Execution is irreversible, unlike imprisonment.
Even a small error rate becomes critical when the punishment is permanent.
The data demonstrate that legal safeguards do not eliminate wrongful convictions, even in cases with heightened scrutiny.

If you want, I can:

Turn this into citation‑ready paragraphs for an essay
Create a pro vs. con statistics table
Focus on international comparisons
Adapt the data for debate cross‑examination

Just tell me how you plan to use it.

Racial disparities affect death‑penalty cases at multiple stages of the criminal justice process, shaping who is charged, who receives a death sentence, and whose sentence is ultimately carried out. Below is a clear, structured explanation of how these disparities operate, grounded in well‑established research findings.

1. Race of the Victim Has a Strong Influence

One of the most consistent findings is that cases involving white victims are far more likely to result in the death penalty than cases involving victims of color.

Homicides with white victims are significantly more likely to be treated as “death‑eligible.”
This effect persists even when controlling for severity, number of victims, and aggravating factors.

Why this matters:
It suggests that the value placed on victims’ lives is uneven, which conflicts with the principle of equal justice under the law.

2. Race of the Defendant Affects Sentencing Outcomes

Defendants of color—particularly Black defendants—are overrepresented on death row relative to their share of the population.

Key mechanisms include:

Greater likelihood of being charged capitally rather than offered plea deals
Higher probability of receiving death sentences when accused of killing white victims
Less access to experienced defense counsel due to socioeconomic disparities

Result:
Similarly situated defendants can receive drastically different punishments based partly on race.

3. Prosecutorial Discretion and Bias

Prosecutors have broad discretion in:

Seeking the death penalty
Deciding which aggravating factors to pursue
Accepting or rejecting plea bargains

Research shows that implicit bias, local political pressure, and historical patterns influence these decisions, even without explicit racial intent.

Because these decisions are:

Largely unreviewable
Made early in the process

racial disparities can become “locked in” before trial begins.

4. Jury Selection and Composition

Racial disparities also arise during jury selection:

Prosecutors disproportionately use peremptory strikes to remove jurors of color.
Capital juries are often whiter than the communities from which they are drawn.
Diverse juries are statistically less likely to impose death sentences.

Impact:
A less diverse jury may be more receptive to capital punishment and less sensitive to mitigating evidence.

5. Wrongful Convictions and Race

Racial disparities intersect with wrongful convictions in capital cases:

Defendants of color are more likely to be wrongfully convicted in serious felony cases.
Misidentification, coerced confessions, and unreliable informant testimony disproportionately affect marginalized groups.
Exonerations often reveal patterns of racial bias in investigations and prosecutions.

This is especially concerning because execution eliminates the possibility of correcting error.

6. Geographic and Historical Factors

The death penalty is concentrated in jurisdictions with:

Histories of racial violence and segregation
Higher proportions of minority defendants
Elected prosecutors and judges who face political incentives to appear “tough on crime”

This creates regional racial disparities, meaning outcomes can depend as much on location as on conduct.

7. Cumulative Effect

No single decision point fully explains racial disparities. Instead, small biases at each stage accumulate, producing large differences in outcomes:

Investigation → charging → jury selection → sentencing → appeals

By the time a death sentence is imposed, race may have influenced the process multiple times—even if no single actor intended discrimination.

Why This Is Central to the Death Penalty Debate

Capital punishment requires the highest standard of fairness.
Persistent racial disparities challenge the legitimacy of a punishment that is irreversible.
Courts and scholars widely acknowledge that eliminating these disparities has proven extremely difficult.

Socioeconomic status (SES) affects death‑penalty outcomes systematically and at every major stage of a capital case, from investigation through execution. The influence is not usually explicit, but it is structural and cumulative, producing unequal results for defendants with fewer financial and social resources.

1. Quality of Legal Representation

The most significant SES factor is access to effective defense counsel.

Defendants who cannot afford private attorneys rely on overburdened, underfunded public defenders.
Capital cases require extensive investigation, expert witnesses, and mitigation specialists—resources that indigent defendants often lack.
Inadequate defense increases the likelihood of:
- Conviction
- Failure to present mitigating evidence
- Death sentences rather than life imprisonment

Impact: Wealthier defendants are far less likely to receive the death penalty for comparable crimes.

2. Ability to Present Mitigating Evidence

Mitigating evidence (mental illness, trauma, abuse, intellectual disability) is critical in death‑penalty sentencing.

Low‑SES defendants often face barriers such as:

No funds for psychologists, neurologists, or social‑history experts
Incomplete investigation into childhood abuse, neglect, or brain injury
Poor documentation due to unstable housing, schooling, or healthcare

Ironically, poverty‑related hardships that should mitigate punishment often go undocumented, making defendants appear less deserving of mercy.

3. Pretrial Disadvantages

Socioeconomic status affects early case outcomes:

Inability to post bail can lead to pretrial detention, increasing pressure to accept unfavorable plea deals.
Limited access to investigators means the prosecution’s narrative goes largely unchallenged.
Defendants from impoverished backgrounds are more likely to be perceived as dangerous or criminal, influencing charging decisions.

Result: The case may become “death‑eligible” before trial even begins.

4. Prosecutorial Leverage and Plea Bargains

Prosecutors often use the threat of the death penalty to secure plea deals.

Defendants with resources can negotiate aggressively or withstand long trials.
Poor defendants may accept life sentences—or risk death—because they cannot endure prolonged legal battles.

This creates a system where punishment severity depends partly on financial endurance, not just culpability.

5. Jury Perceptions and Implicit Bias

Socioeconomic status shapes how jurors interpret defendants:

Poverty may be unconsciously associated with criminality, irresponsibility, or moral failure.
Defendants who appear less educated or articulate may be viewed as less credible or less remorseful.
Wealthier defendants can present themselves in ways juries find relatable or sympathetic.

These perceptions influence both guilt and sentencing decisions.

6. Appeals and Post‑Conviction Review

Capital appeals are complex and lengthy.

Defendants with financial resources can pursue extensive post‑conviction litigation.
Indigent defendants rely on limited state‑appointed counsel, increasing the risk that errors go uncorrected.
Procedural deadlines and technical requirements disproportionately harm those without legal sophistication or sustained representation.

Because execution is irreversible, unequal access at this stage is especially consequential.

7. Intersection with Race and Geography

Socioeconomic disadvantage often overlaps with:

Racial marginalization
Under‑resourced jurisdictions
Regions more likely to impose the death penalty

This intersection amplifies disparities, making poverty a multiplier of risk rather than a single factor.

Overall Effect

Socioeconomic status does not act alone, but its influence accumulates across stages:

Investigation → defense quality → mitigation → sentencing → appeals

The result is a system in which the death penalty is applied disproportionately to the poor, raising fundamental concerns about fairness, equality before the law, and the legitimacy of capital punishment.

If you want, I can:

Below is a clear, comparative overview of how the death penalty is used in different countries, focusing on legal status, frequency of use, procedural safeguards, and underlying rationales. This builds directly on your earlier questions about fairness, wrongful convictions, race, and socioeconomic factors.

1. Global Overview

Countries fall into four main categories:

Abolitionist for all crimes – death penalty completely abolished
Abolitionist in practice – legal but not used for many years
Retentionist with limited use – legal and used sparingly
Retentionist with frequent use – actively carries out executions

Today, over two‑thirds of the world’s countries have abolished the death penalty in law or practice, while a small minority account for the vast majority of executions.

2. Countries That Have Abolished the Death Penalty

Examples

Canada
United Kingdom
Germany
France
South Africa
Most of Latin America
All EU member states

Key Characteristics

Death penalty viewed as incompatible with human rights
Emphasis on rehabilitation or life imprisonment
Strong safeguards against wrongful conviction
Courts often cite:
- Risk of irreversible error
- Discriminatory application
- Lack of proven deterrence

Europe is entirely abolitionist, except for one outlier (Belarus).

3. Countries That Retain but Rarely Use the Death Penalty

Examples

Japan
South Korea (moratorium)
India
Russia (moratorium)

Key Characteristics

Death penalty legally available for extreme crimes
Executions are rare or suspended
Long delays between sentencing and execution
Heavy procedural requirements and appeals

Japan is notable for:

Extremely infrequent executions
Secrecy around execution timing
Strong public support despite rare use

4. Countries That Actively Use the Death Penalty

High‑Execution Countries

China (numbers are state secrets; estimated thousands annually)
Iran
Saudi Arabia
Iraq
Somalia

Key Characteristics

Broad range of capital crimes (sometimes including drug offenses or political crimes)
Limited transparency
Fewer procedural safeguards
Executions used as:
- Crime deterrence
- Political control
- Moral or religious enforcement

In these countries, capital punishment is often closely tied to regime authority rather than narrow criminal justice goals.

5. The United States: A Unique Case

The U.S. stands out among Western democracies.

Features

Death penalty legal at the federal level and in some states
Fewer than half of U.S. states actively use it
Long delays between sentencing and execution
Extensive appeals process
High documented rates of wrongful convictions and exonerations

Compared to Others

Uses death penalty far less than high‑execution countries
Uses it far more than peer democracies
Only country in the Americas to carry out executions regularly

6. Legal Safeguards and Fairness Compared

Aspect	Abolitionist Countries	Limited‑Use Countries	High‑Use Countries
Transparency	High	Moderate	Low
Appeals	Robust	Very long	Limited
Wrongful conviction remedies	Strong	Moderate	Weak
Scope of capital crimes	None	Very narrow	Often broad
International scrutiny	Accepted	Mixed	High concern

7. Why These Differences Matter

The comparison highlights key issues:

Irreversibility: Countries with strong legal safeguards increasingly reject execution
Error risk: Systems with fewer protections face higher risk of executing innocent people
Equity concerns: Socioeconomic and racial disparities are most pronounced where safeguards are weakest
Global trend: Even retentionist countries are moving toward restriction or moratoria

Big Picture Conclusion

The global trend is clearly toward abolition
Executions are increasingly concentrated in a small number of countries
Democratic systems with strong rule‑of‑law norms are moving away from capital punishment
Countries that retain and frequently use the death penalty tend to do so in less transparent and less accountable systems

Below is a concise, data‑driven snapshot of the global landscape, using the most recent comprehensive figures available from Amnesty International and the Death Penalty Information Center, which track executions, death sentences, and abolition trends.

Global Death Penalty Statistics (Most Recent Data)

1. Countries Using the Death Penalty

193 UN member states worldwide:
- 113 countries have fully abolished the death penalty in law
- 145 countries have abolished it in law or practice
- 54 countries retain and have used the death penalty in recent years
Only 15 countries carried out executions in 2024, the lowest number of executing countries ever recorded, despite rising execution totals 1 2

2. Global Executions

1,518 executions were recorded worldwide in 2024
- This is the highest recorded number since 2015
- Does not include thousands of executions in China, where data is classified as a state secret 3 1

3. Countries Responsible for Most Executions

Five countries accounted for over 90% of known executions:

Country	Recorded Executions (2024)
China	1,000s (exact number unknown)
Iran	972+
Saudi Arabia	345+
Iraq	63+
Yemen	38+

Together, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq alone accounted for over 91% of known executions worldwide

4. Death Sentences and Death Row Population

At least 2,087 new death sentences were imposed in 46 countries in 2024
At least 28,085 people were known to be under sentence of death worldwide at the end of 2024 1

5. Methods of Execution Used Globally

Execution methods in 2024 included:

Hanging
Shooting
Beheading
Lethal injection
Nitrogen gas asphyxiation

Some countries continue to conduct public executions, which are widely condemned under international human rights law

6. Executions in Violation of International Law

637 executions (≈42%) were carried out for drug‑related offenses, which do not meet the “most serious crimes” standard under international law
Executions of individuals who were under 18 at the time of the crime were recorded in Iran and Somalia 1

7. Global Trend

Despite rising execution numbers, long‑term global trends favor abolition
In 2024, more than two‑thirds of UN member states voted in favor of a global moratorium on the death penalty

Abolition efforts advanced in several countries across Africa and Asia

Key Takeaway

The death penalty is increasingly concentrated in a small number of countries, while the global norm continues to move toward abolition. The practice persists most heavily in states with limited transparency and weaker judicial safeguards.

Answer Me This

March 10, 2026March 10, 2026 / Joe Broadmeadow / Leave a comment

Five questions for those who support Mr. Trump, his policies, and his pronouncements.

Do you believe Joe Biden had an official policy that encouraged and welcomed violent criminals to enter the United States unlawfully?
Do you believe the 2020 election results were affected by widespread systemic fraud and that Mr. Trump won the election?
Do you consider the actions of the participants in the January 6^th incident at the US Capitol to be lawful and justified?
Do you believe there is no contradiction between using military force to destroy “alleged” drug boats and pardoning the former President of Honduras who was tried and convicted in a court of law for facilitating the shipment of 400 ton of cocaine into the United States?
Do you believe that Donald Trump has appointed the most qualified individuals to cabinet and other critical positions?

And before anyone says, ‘Yeah but there were people convicted of voter fraud’ The numbers contradict the significance (500 between 2016-2024. I guess if you win there was no fraud) and only a small subset involved the Presidential election. Insufficient to affect the results. Or “well there should be no fraud” duh, of course not but as long there are humans involved someone will try to game the system and you do not apply draconian measures to prevent a minor problem that may disenfranchise legitimate voters.

Quite honestly, if you answer yes to any of these questions, and spare me the ‘yeah but arguments,’ (arguing about what someone should have done years ago is an exercise in futility,) you are willfully ignoring the most significant threat to this country since 1860. If you answer yes to them all, dial 911.

P.S. and standby for the T.A.C.O, maneuver in Iran. Declare victory, hold a parade, and move on to the next quixotic endeavor. It is the one thing he does with any consistency.

The Last President

March 8, 2026March 8, 2026 / Joe Broadmeadow / Leave a comment

SAVE America Act! (Save Us from What?)

The latest meme from the President regarding the Save America Act (H.R. 7296) lists several purposes that are contained in the act and two items tossed in as teasers for his devotees.

Let’s examine them, without the shouting capitalization so enamored by the President and fifteen-year-olds suffering their first breakup.

All Voters must show Voter ID (Identification)
1. I have always had to show an ID when I voted or provide proof with mail-in ballots when I used them
All voters must show proof of citizenship in order to vote.
1. This is a bit of a tautology, but I’ll just leave it here for you to decide
No Mail-in ballots except for illness, disability, military, or travel.
1. How does one define travel?
No Men in Women’s sports
1. Assuming this were a widespread phenomenon, how would men in women’s sports detract from America or the voting process?
1. More importantly, how does this affect voting since this is NOT included in the text of the legislation?
No transgender mutilation surgery for minors
1. Am I to understand that, in some parts of the country, people are dragging their male/female child to the voting precinct, producing an ID to vote, then, before entering the booth, dropping their child off for a quick add-a dictomy or dickectomy?

Since the 2020 election and the January 6^th insurrection, Mr. Trump and his disciples have been screaming about voter fraud. They haven’t establish any evidence that such fraud exists at levels that affect election results, but they are certain it is there.

The Trump campaign went so far as to hire a reputable and respected data research individual named Ken Block to examine the problem. Ken produced a book called, Disproven. I’ll leave it to you to deduce what was disproven.

Since one has to produce identification to register to vote, this seems a bit of sound and fury signifying nothing. But I have no issue with encouraging the states to require ID at the point of voting.

But the President, and his lapdogs in Congress, need to remember the states control and manage elections. The forefathers were well aware of the danger of centralizing the control of the ballot box with the Federal government.

And here’s how to solve, or minimize, the use of mail-in ballots. Have the election process last a week. Allow nationwide early voting right up to election day. Almost every other democratic country in the world makes voting convenient. Why wouldn’t we?

In some countries, voting is mandatory. Failing to vote carries a fine. Not sure we need to go that far, but it makes more sense than trying to fix a problem that doesn’t exist (in meaningful numbers) or pass legislation that could be interpreted to disenfranchise some voters.

I do, however, heartily endorse no mutilation surgery for transgender minors. Surgery that is necessary, performed by competent medical professionals, is beneficial. Surgery that mutilates patients is not something we need. However, any surgeons who mutilate their patients does open the pool of candidates for Surgeon General or Secretary of Health and Human Services for this administration.

This President seems to be on a course to overturn the system of checks and balances between the three co-equal parts of our government. And his supporters seem all too willing to accommodate him.

The history of leaders with unlimited power, absent checks and balances controlled by the governed, is rife with abuse and virtually bereft of any altruism. Couple this with the dangerous underpinnings of Christian nationalism, it’s like a desire to return to 13th century philosophy complete with the twisted morality and unbridled brutality by those in power.

Making voting more difficult is not a solution to any problem, it is a path to a theocratic oppression and fascism. If we are not careful, Trump may be the last president and the first dictator.

America might need to be saved, but people are blind to what we really need to be saved from and need to open their eyes.

Men of Their Word

March 5, 2026March 5, 2026 / Joe Broadmeadow / Leave a comment

I think it is a safe bet to say the Nobel Peace Prize is off the table. These are men of their word. They say words, they just don’t practice them.

“If you want the most unhinged member of the Cheney family declaring new wars every other month, vote for Kamala. Vote Trump for peace!” J.D. Vance October 2024, @jdvance

“I’m not going to start a war, I’m going to stop wars.” Donald J. Trump

At least Vance made one prediction that came true, 70 + million Americans voted for Kamala Harris and Vance hit the consequences right on the head.

“Are you excited about World War III? Because that’s what’s going to happen when Kamala Harris is president of the United States.” J.D Vance November 4, 2024 Newtown, PA

We voted for Harris, and we got a war. And if you believe for one moment this is about saving the Iranian people and that by this summer a Jeffersonian Democracy will flourish in Iran you need some serious introspection of your concept of reality.

And the serious part hasn’t even started yet. This is what happens when you put incompetent zealots with no moral compass in positions of power.

Will this be Trump’s Vietnam?

March 2, 2026March 2, 2026 / Joe Broadmeadow / Leave a comment

American Embassy, Saigon, Vietnam
April 1975

Since he suffered the tragedy of bone spurs keeping him out of Vietnam, Mr. Trump has craved the thought of combat command. He likely believes he’d have been like Rambo had he gone to Vietnam, but it was denied him.

Damn that doctor’s note. “Please excuse Donnie from Vietnam, he has a boo boo.”

Trump does not take kindly to being denied things; women who resist his demands, inconvenient voting results, poor sales of his Bible. He does not handle that well.

Trump wanted his own war, and now he has it.

Is it a convenient cover for changing the headlines? That does seem to be a consensus. But, to the members of the United States military who will die or be wounded, why we are there is irrelevant.

At least to this point no one has articulated a reason for it.

Bush at least dug down to the bottom of the reliability pile and found some hearsay information that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. It may have been written in a child’s scribble with a crayon, but it was something. Bush sacrificed the integrity of one of America’s finest warriors, General Colin Powell, on it, not to mention the thousands of service members who died or were wounded.

No one who has at least one functioning brain cell believes for a second Mr. Trump ordered this attack to prevent the Iranians from mass execution of their citizens or to defend democracy, something he finds terribly inconvenient is this country. If you do, you may want to have that one brain cell replaced.

And if you’re waiting for Congress to act Congressionally, you have a long wait ahead of you.

The philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel famously said,

“The one thing we learn from history it that we learn nothing from history.”

Trump has the authority to take action without Congressional approval for sixty days. Every President should have that authority. But, if you’re expecting a calm, rational deliberation by Congress to enforce their ultimate authority to control when this country engages in sustained military conflict, you are about to be gravely disappointed.

History proves it.

Vietnam vs. Iran: A Pattern of Congressional Oversight Failure

Vietnam War (1960s–1970s)

Delegation without sustained oversight: Congress effectively ceded its war‑making authority through the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution (1964), which granted the president broad power to use military force without a formal declaration of war. [britannica.com], [archives.gov]
Limited debate and incomplete information: The resolution passed with minimal scrutiny, later complicated by evidence that key facts about the alleged attacks were uncertain or incorrect, undermining Congress’s ability to provide informed oversight. [archives.gov], [history.com]
After‑the‑fact correction: Only after years of escalation did Congress attempt to reassert its role through the War Powers Resolution of 1973, implicitly acknowledging its earlier failure to check executive action. [congress.gov]

Current Situation with Iran (2025–2026)

Military action without prior authorization: Recent U.S. strikes and escalating involvement with Iran have occurred without a new, explicit authorization from Congress, prompting renewed debate over constitutional war powers. [usatoday.com], [military.com]
Reactive rather than proactive oversight: Congressional efforts—such as proposed war powers resolutions—have largely come after hostilities began, mirroring Vietnam‑era patterns where oversight follows escalation rather than precedes it. [military.com], [cnbc.com]
Persistent structural weakness: Despite the War Powers Resolution’s reporting and time‑limit requirements, enforcement depends on congressional will, which has again proven difficult to sustain in the face of executive initiative. [congress.gov], [time.com]

Core Parallel

In both Vietnam and Iran, Congress possessed clear constitutional tools to oversee or restrain the use of force but failed to assert them decisively at the outset. The result in each case has been an expansion of executive war‑making power, with Congress responding belatedly—if at all—once military commitments were already underway.

President Richard Nixon—one cannot help but see the parallel here—wrote a book called “No More Vietnams.” I’m willing to bet most members of Congress have never read it and I am certain Mr. Trump never did.

Nixon should have called it No More Vietnam’s…But We’ll Forget Soon Enough.

The evidence is right before our eyes.

Thoughts…

February 28, 2026February 28, 2026 / Joe Broadmeadow / Leave a comment

”The only thing we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history.” Hegel

Let’s hope we do not have to endure American flag draped coffins and wounded souls over this unimaginably foolish pursuit of regime change.

In Rhode Island, Justice Shouldn’t Depend on Your Wallet

February 26, 2026 / Joe Broadmeadow / Leave a comment

By the time most Rhode Islanders think about the justice system, it’s already too late. A loved one has been arrested. A job is on the line. A family is scrambling to figure out how to pay for freedom.

We like to tell ourselves that our state is different—smaller, fairer, more humane. But inside our courtrooms, a hard truth remains: in Rhode Island, justice still has a price, and poor people pay the most.

Every day, people charged with low-level, nonviolent offenses sit in jail not because they’ve been convicted, but because they can’t afford bail. Someone with money walks out the same day. Someone without it stays behind bars, watching their life unravel in real time.

The irony is that someone with money who can afford bail can also afford to flee the jurisdiction. The poor are often trapped here.

This isn’t about public safety. It’s about economics.

A few days in jail can mean losing a job. A missed paycheck can mean losing housing. Parents are separated from their children. Medical care is interrupted. And all of this happens before a judge ever determines guilt or innocence.

Once you’re inside the system, the pressure only grows. Public defenders—often dedicated and capable—are stretched thin by overwhelming caseloads. Courtrooms move fast. Decisions with lifelong consequences are made in minutes. For many defendants, the choice isn’t between guilt and innocence. It’s between pleading guilty now or sitting in jail indefinitely while waiting for a trial they can’t afford to reach.

So people plead. Not because it’s right, but because it’s survivable. Maybe.

Then come the fees. Court costs. Probation fees. Mandatory programs that cost money people don’t have. Miss a payment, and the consequences escalate. Suddenly, poverty itself becomes a violation.

We don’t call it a debtors’ prison, but the logic is the same: pay, or suffer. As a police officer, I spent many hours in court. I saw people held for months awaiting trial for lack of $1000, $500, or even $100 cash bail, simply because they were poor and the system of justice is slow and laborious.

This system doesn’t just harm individuals—it destabilizes entire communities. Neighborhoods in Providence, Pawtucket, Central Falls, and Woonsocket feel the impact when wage earners disappear, when parents are jailed, and when records follow people long after their sentences end. Children learn early that the system is not designed to protect families like theirs.

Meanwhile, those with resources experience a very different system. Bail is a formality. Lawyers are accessible. Fines are inconvenient, not devastating. For them, justice feels fair.

That contrast should trouble all of us.

A justice system that treats wealth as a proxy for worth is not neutral. It is making choices—about who gets mercy, who gets patience, and who gets locked away.

Rhode Island can do better. Justice should not depend on the size of your bank account. It should not punish people for being poor. It should keep people working, parenting, and contributing to their communities while their cases move forward.

Our state is small enough to see the damage clearly. That also means we’re small enough to fix it—if we choose to. And, while this is focused on Rhode Island, the realities are universal in the United States.

The problem affects every American, and this inequality will continue unless we seek a solution.

Until then, the promise of equal justice under the law will remain just that: a promise, carved in stone, but too often denied in practice.

Follow the Money Right to the Prison Door

February 23, 2026February 23, 2026 / Joe Broadmeadow / Leave a comment

In a previous piece, I pointed out the disaster of the immigration enforcement push by the Trump administration citing the record number of detention cases being ruled unlawful across a wide spectrum of Judges and Courts. (https://joebroadmeadowblog .com/2026/02/22/duplicity-raised-to-an-art-form/)

They can’t all be activist, leftist scoundrels!

One of the interesting things to come out of my research for that piece was the shocking amount the government is paying, primarily through ICE, for the use of private, for-profit, prisons and immigration detention facilities. It amounts to almost 65% of ICE’s $75 billion dollar budget.

Many of these companies were awarded these contracts under “emergency” conditions without public bid or discussion.

This led me to wonder who these private prison companies are and if they show a partiality to a particular political party.

You’ll be shocked to know they do.

Now government budget facts and Federal Election Commission (FEC) contribution reports, while fascinating, do not make for exciting reading. One might wonder if this is done on purpose to avoid difficult questions being asked. One of the other troubling aspects is the information that is not available with any granularity. It is difficult, nigh on impossible, to determine with any degree of accuracy where billions of taxpayer dollars are spent and what companies receive these funds.

But what is available is here it is in all its dry, boring, and questionable glory.

Now, when you are reading this, imagine the benefactors of these contributions were mostly Democrats instead of Republican or named Biden instead of Trump before you scream I am accusing anyone of anything nefarious.

The numbers speak for themselves, the inferences one may draw, which is the whole purpose of making these public so people can make their own determinations, are your own.

For those of you adverse to drudging through the numbers and tables, go to the end and see the private prison executive names and their personal and corporate contributions. Then decide if this seems like open fair government

Below is a grounded, source‑based overview of U.S. federal expenditures on private prisons and detention facilities, focused on who spends the money, how it flows to private operators, and the scale involved, with clear limits where sources do not give exact totals.

Overview: What “federal expenditures” means in this context

Federal spending on private prisons and detention facilities mainly occurs through contracts rather than direct ownership. The two largest federal systems involved are:

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) (Department of Homeland Security)
Bureau of Prisons (BOP) (Department of Justice)

Spending appears in annual appropriations, multi‑year contracts, and emergency or no‑bid contract modifications, rather than in a single budget line labeled “private prisons.”

ICE: the largest source of federal spending on private detention

Scale and role of private facilities

Multiple sources document that ICE relies heavily on for‑profit detention operators. According to analysis summarized by the Brennan Center for Justice, nearly 90% of people in ICE custody are held in facilities run by private companies. [brennancenter.org]

Recent federal funding levels (documented, not inferred)

A 2025 budget bill provided $45 billion for building new immigration detention centers and $14–30 billion for enforcement, arrests, and deportation operations, significantly expanding ICE’s detention and removal capacity. [brennancenter.org], [brennancenter.org]
This legislation and related appropriations made ICE the largest federal law‑enforcement agency by budget, according to the same sources. [brennancenter.org]

Flow of funds to private prison companies

Sources explicitly state that:

ICE has entered lucrative contracts—often no‑bid or emergency contracts—with private prison firms, including CoreCivic and The GEO Group. [brennancenter.org], [milwaukeei…endent.com], [pbs.org]
Contract modifications and reopenings of idle private facilities are tied directly to increased federal appropriations. [milwaukeei…endent.com]

What cannot be precisely stated:
The sources do not provide a single, consolidated dollar total of how much of ICE’s funding is paid specifically to private prison operators in a given fiscal year. They describe billions flowing to private firms, but without an exact annual figure. [factually.co]

Bureau of Prisons (BOP): smaller but still significant use of private facilities

How BOP uses private prisons

The Bureau of Prisons primarily operates federal prisons itself, but contracts with private facilities, especially for low‑ and minimum‑security inmates and for overflow capacity.

Documented spending ranges

A U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) report states that:

The cost of confining federal inmates in non‑BOP facilities (including private prisons) increased from about $250 million in FY1996 to about $700 million in FY2006. [gao.gov]

More recent BOP budget documents confirm ongoing contracting and acquisition authority, but do not break out current‑year private‑prison spending as a standalone line item. [bop.gov]

What cannot be precisely stated:
No current GAO or DOJ source in the retrieved materials provides a recent, exact dollar figure for BOP payments to private prisons alone.

Federal spending in the broader incarceration system (context)

The Prison Policy Initiative reports that:

The total U.S. government cost of mass incarceration is at least $445 billion annually, including policing, courts, corrections, and immigration enforcement. [prisonpolicy.org]
Immigration detention and enforcement account for tens of billions of dollars within that total, with private detention playing a central role. [prisonpolicy.org]

This figure includes but does not isolate private‑prison expenditures, so it should not be read as a direct measure of private‑facility spending.

Where to find exact contract‑level figures

For precise dollar amounts paid to individual private prison companies, the authoritative source is USAspending.gov, which tracks:

ICE and DOJ contract awards
Contract modifications
Vendor‑level totals (e.g., CoreCivic, GEO Group)

The site itself does not summarize totals for “private prisons” as a category; users must filter by agency, vendor, and contract purpose. [usaspending.gov]

Key takeaways (strictly source‑supported)

ICE is the dominant driver of federal spending on private detention facilities.
Tens of billions of dollars in federal appropriations support immigration detention and enforcement, with private companies housing the majority of detainees.
BOP spending on private prisons exists but is smaller and less transparent, with historical GAO data showing hundreds of millions annually, not tens of billions.
No single public source provides a clean, current total for federal payments to private prisons across all agencies.

Largest operators (control most ICE detention beds)

GEO Group

The largest single operator of ICE detention facilities nationwide
Operates dozens of ICE detention centers, including major hubs such as:
- South Texas ICE Processing Center (TX)
- Montgomery ICE Processing Center (TX)
- Delaney Hall (NJ; large 15‑year contract)
Also provides electronic monitoring and transport services for ICE [factually.co], [time.com], [visaverge.com]

CoreCivic

The second‑largest ICE detention contractor
Owns and operates at least 10 large ICE detention facilities
Major sites include:
- Adams County Detention Center (MS)
- Otay Mesa Detention Center (CA)
- South Texas Family Residential Center (TX)
Regularly reopens or reactivates facilities under ICE contracts [factually.co], [time.com], [visaverge.com]

Together, GEO Group and CoreCivic dominate privatized ICE detention, accounting for the majority of private detention capacity. [factually.co]

Other private companies operating ICE detention facilities

LaSalle Corrections

Mid‑sized private corrections company
Operates several ICE detention centers, primarily in the South and Midwest [visaverge.com]

Management & Training Corporation (MTC)

Operates detention facilities for ICE and other federal agencies
Known for large institutional contracts rather than local jails [visaverge.com]

Additional contractors (not full facility owners)

Important distinction

Not all ICE detainees are held in private prisons:

Some are held in county or state jails under intergovernmental agreements
A small number are held in federally owned ICE Service Processing Centers However, private companies operate the majority of ICE detention facilities and beds. [visaverge.com], [theimmigra…ionlab.org]

Summary table

Company	Role in ICE detention
GEO Group	Largest operator of ICE detention centers
CoreCivic	Second‑largest operator
LaSalle Corrections	Regional ICE detention operator
Management & Training Corporation (MTC)	Operates large ICE facilities

Bottom line

ICE detention is primarily run by private prison corporations, led overwhelmingly by GEO Group and CoreCivic, with a smaller number of facilities operated by LaSalle Corrections and Management & Training Corporation.

Important context (how to read the numbers): OpenSecrets totals for a company typically do not mean the corporation itself donated to candidates—they aggregate money from the company’s PAC(s), its employees/executives, and (where applicable) certain outside-group spending. OpenSecrets explicitly notes this on organization profiles. [opensecrets.org], [opensecrets.org], [opensecrets.org]

1) Biggest ICE detention contractors & their federal-cycle contribution totals

GEO Group (major ICE detention & monitoring contractor)

Total contributions (2024 cycle): $3,718,518 (OpenSecrets organization profile). [opensecrets.org]
The OpenSecrets page also breaks down sources (PAC vs individuals) and recipient types (outside groups, candidates, parties, etc.). [opensecrets.org]
State-level giving context: FollowTheMoney/OpenSecrets lists GEO Group giving $16,070,844 across 24 years (state-focused dataset; not just federal). [followthemoney.org]

GEO PAC (FEC primary record):

GEO Group PAC committee page (ID C00382150) includes 2025 receipts/spending totals and downloadable transactions.
OpenSecrets GEO PAC profile (cycle summaries): [fec.gov] [opensecrets.org]

Examples of executive / affiliate giving cited in reporting:

CREW reports GEO Group’s PAC contributed $5,000 to Trump’s campaign (as part of a larger joint fundraising contribution), and that a GEO subsidiary (GEO Acquisition II Inc.) gave $500,000 to a pro‑Trump super PAC; it also reports $11,600 each from GEO executives George Zoley and Brian Evans to Trump’s fundraising committee. [citizensfo…ethics.org]
ABC News similarly describes GEO-linked super PAC giving and mentions the $11,600 executive donations. [abcnews.com]

CoreCivic (major ICE detention contractor)

Total contributions (2024 cycle): $784,974 (OpenSecrets organization profile). [opensecrets.org]
The Intercept cites OpenSecrets-derived figures that CoreCivic-affiliated contributions skewed heavily Republican in the 2024 cycle and reports CoreCivic gave $500,000 to Trump’s inaugural committee (paired with GEO giving the same). [theintercept.com]

CoreCivic PAC (FEC primary record):

CoreCivic PAC committee page (ID C00366468) includes 2025 receipts/spending totals and downloadable transactions.
OpenSecrets CoreCivic PAC pages: [fec.gov]
Candidate recipients list for 2023–2024 cycle totals and recipients. [opensecrets.org]
PAC-to-party/PAC contributions table. [opensecrets.org]

Management & Training Corporation (MTC) (ICE detention contractor in multiple locations)

Total contributions (2024 cycle): $33,066 (OpenSecrets organization profile). [opensecrets.org]
MTC PAC: OpenSecrets PAC profile shows total raised $147,678 in the 2023–2024 cycle (PAC summary page) and includes the FEC committee ID. [opensecrets.org]
MTC PAC FEC page: committee ID C00208322 with 2025 receipts/spending. [fec.gov]

LaSalle (listed in OpenSecrets’ “for‑profit prisons” industry rollup)

OpenSecrets’ For‑profit Prisons industry summary (2023–2024) shows:

“Lasalle Management” total: $12,384 in the 2023–2024 cycle (industry contributor table). [opensecrets.org]

I did not find a dedicated OpenSecrets organization profile page in the search results for “LaSalle Management/LaSalle Corrections” (like GEO/CoreCivic/MTC have). The industry rollup is the clearest consolidated snapshot surfaced in this pass. [opensecrets.org]

2) Quick “who gave what” snapshot (federal cycle totals)

Here are the most directly comparable OpenSecrets federal-cycle totals (2024 cycle) you can cite quickly:

GEO Group: $3,718,518 [opensecrets.org]
CoreCivic: $784,974 [opensecrets.org]
Management & Training Corp (MTC): $33,066 [opensecrets.org]
Lasalle Management: $12,384 (industry rollup figure) [opensecrets.org]

3) If you specifically want company executives’ campaign contributions

Two reliable approaches:

A) Use OpenSecrets “Donor Lookup” (best for individuals, but may be search-limited)

OpenSecrets provides a Donor Lookup tool for individual donors (name-based search). [opensecrets.org]

Note: OpenSecrets warns the donor lookup can be limited for recent periods in some cases; the page itself calls out limitations for 2024 completeness in donor lookup results views. [opensecrets.org]

B) Use FEC’s raw filings (best for definitive federal records)

For each company PAC, use the FEC committee page and download:

Receipts (who donated to the PAC)
Disbursements (who the PAC gave to)
Filings by period

Key PAC IDs already identified:

GEO PAC: C00382150 [fec.gov]
CoreCivic PAC: C00366468 [fec.gov]
MTC PAC: C00208322 [fec.gov]

4) Executive contribution examples already documented in reporting

CREW: GEO executives George Zoley and Brian Evans each gave $11,600 to Trump’s fundraising committee; GEO-related entities also gave large sums to pro‑Trump outside groups (e.g., $500,000 from GEO Acquisition II Inc.). [citizensfo…ethics.org]
In These Times / The Appeal compilation (mirrored): says George Zoley and former CoreCivic CEO Damon Hininger each made political contributions totaling more than $1 million over 2021–2025, and describes a searchable database of member-of-Congress recipients connected to GEO/CoreCivic/MTC. [rsn.org]
The Intercept: reports both GEO Group and CoreCivic gave $500,000 each to Trump’s inaugural committee and summarizes partisan splits using OpenSecrets. [theintercept.com]

Federal only, all cycles. Below is a strictly sourced, no‑inference summary of federal campaign contributions connected to ICE detention contractors, limited to what can be stated with certainty from federal records. Where exact all‑cycles federal totals are not explicitly stated in the sources, I give you the authoritative PAC/organization records you can cite or download directly (FEC/OpenSecrets), rather than risk over‑stating numbers.

Scope & rules used (important)

Federal elections only (President, U.S. House, U.S. Senate)
All cycles (from PAC registration to present)
Sources limited to FEC + OpenSecrets
No state or local data (FollowTheMoney state totals excluded)
No inferred totals when sources don’t explicitly publish an “all‑cycles” number

1) ICE detention contractors — federal campaign finance vehicles

GEO Group (largest ICE detention contractor)

Federal PAC

Name: THE GEO GROUP, INC. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE
FEC Committee ID: C00382150
Active since: 2002
Authoritative federal record (all cycles): FEC committee page (downloadable filings) [corecivic.com]

OpenSecrets organization profile (federal aggregation)

OpenSecrets aggregates federal contributions across all cycles from:
- GEO PAC
- GEO executives & employees
- GEO subsidiaries (when applicable)
Profile page: OpenSecrets GEO Group organization summary [factually.co]

Documented executive federal contributions

GEO executives George Zoley and Brian Evans each donated $11,600 to Donald Trump’s federal fundraising committee (reported via FEC data and summarized by CREW and ABC News) [citizensfo…ethics.org], [msn.com]

CoreCivic (second‑largest ICE detention contractor)

Federal PAC

Name: CORECIVIC, INC. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE
FEC Committee ID: C00366468
Active since: 2001
Authoritative federal record (all cycles): FEC committee page (downloadable filings) [dkftve4js3…dfront.net]

OpenSecrets organization profile (federal aggregation)

Aggregates all federal cycles of:
- CoreCivic PAC contributions
- Executive & employee donations
Profile page: OpenSecrets CoreCivic organization summary [judiciary.senate.gov]

Documented federal contributions (reported)

CoreCivic gave $500,000 to Trump’s federal inaugural committee (reported using FEC filings) [citizensfo…ethics.org]

Management & Training Corporation (MTC)

Federal PAC

Name: MANAGEMENT AND TRAINING CORPORATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE
FEC Committee ID: C00208322
Active since: 1986
Authoritative federal record (all cycles): FEC committee page [followthemoney.org]

OpenSecrets organization profile (federal aggregation)

Aggregates all federal cycles of:
- MTC PAC
- Executives & employees
Profile page: OpenSecrets MTC organization summary [motherjones.com]

LaSalle / LaSalle Management (ICE detention operator)

Federal PAC

No distinct LaSalle‑named federal PAC is listed in FEC search results.

Federal contributions visibility

LaSalle appears only as part of OpenSecrets’ federal “for‑profit prisons” industry aggregation, not as a standalone federal PAC profile.
Industry table lists LaSalle Management as a federal contributor within the sector, but does not publish an all‑cycles federal total for LaSalle alone. [opensecrets.org]

ICE detention contractors have participated in federal elections for decades primarily through corporate PACs and executive donations, with GEO Group, CoreCivic, and Management & Training Corporation maintaining long‑running federal PACs registered with the FEC.

This is supported by:

GEO PAC active since 2002 [corecivic.com]
CoreCivic PAC active since 2001 [dkftve4js3…dfront.net]
MTC PAC active since 1986 [followthemoney.org]

3) If you want to see the exact all‑cycles federal totals

The only defensible way (per FEC/OpenSecrets rules) is to cite or export directly from:

OpenSecrets organization profiles (federal only, all cycles):
- GEO Group [factually.co]
- CoreCivic [judiciary.senate.gov]
- Management & Training Corp [motherjones.com]
FEC PAC downloads (transaction‑level, all cycles):
- GEO PAC (C00382150) [corecivic.com]
- CoreCivic PAC (C00366468) [dkftve4js3…dfront.net]
- MTC PAC (C00208322) [followthemoney.org]

Below is a citation‑ready table that is federal‑only and all cycles, grounded exclusively in FEC and OpenSecrets records.
Where an explicit all‑cycles federal dollar total is not published verbatim in the cited source, the table does not invent a number; instead it points to the authoritative record you can cite or export (this is standard practice for legal/academic work).

Federal campaign contributions — ICE detention contractors (all cycles)

Reading note:
“All cycles (federal)” on OpenSecrets organization pages means aggregation of federal PAC contributions + federal candidate/party donations by executives/employees across all cycles. OpenSecrets explicitly notes that corporations themselves do not donate directly to candidates. [factually.co], [judiciary.senate.gov], [motherjones.com]

Company (ICE detention contractor)	Federal contribution vehicle	FEC Committee ID	Federal activity period (as published)	All‑cycles federal total (how to cite)	Authoritative source
GEO Group	Corporate PAC	THE GEO GROUP, INC. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE	Active since 2002	OpenSecrets all‑cycles federal aggregation (PAC + execs/employees). Cite organization profile; export available.	OpenSecrets org profile [factually.co] · FEC PAC page [corecivic.com]
	Executive donations (examples)	—	Reported in multiple cycles	Documented federal donations by executives (e.g., George Zoley, Brian Evans) are included in OpenSecrets all‑cycles aggregation.	CREW / ABC summaries of FEC data [citizensfo…ethics.org], [msn.com]
CoreCivic	Corporate PAC	CORECIVIC, INC. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE	Active since 2001	OpenSecrets all‑cycles federal aggregation (PAC + execs/employees). Cite organization profile; export available.	OpenSecrets org profile [judiciary.senate.gov] · FEC PAC page [dkftve4js3…dfront.net]
	Federal inaugural committee donation (reported)	—	Reported for 2025 inaugural cycle	Federal contribution reported and reflected in FEC/OpenSecrets records (counted in all‑cycles federal).	The Intercept (FEC‑based) [citizensfo…ethics.org]
Management & Training Corporation (MTC)	Corporate PAC	MANAGEMENT AND TRAINING CORPORATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE	Active since 1986	OpenSecrets all‑cycles federal aggregation (PAC + execs/employees). Cite organization profile; export available.	OpenSecrets org profile [motherjones.com] · FEC PAC page [followthemoney.org]
LaSalle / LaSalle Management	— (no standalone federal PAC identified)	—	—	Appears within OpenSecrets federal “for‑profit prisons” industry aggregation; no standalone all‑cycles federal total published for LaSalle alone.	OpenSecrets industry table [opensecrets.org]

Below is a citation‑ready table showing federal campaign contributions by named company executives at ICE detention contractors, limited to what is explicitly documented in federal records and reporting that cites FEC/OpenSecrets data.
I do not infer or aggregate beyond what the sources state.

Federal campaign contributions by company executives (all cycles, federal only)

Executive	Company (ICE contractor)	Role (as described in source)	Federal contribution(s) documented	Source
George Zoley	GEO Group	Founder & Executive Chairman	Reported to have made more than $1 million in federal political contributions from 2021–2025, including donations to the Republican National Committee and Trump‑aligned PACs; also personally donated $11,600 to Trump’s Save America Joint Fundraising Committee (federal).	In These Times / The Appeal (OpenSecrets & FEC analysis) [finance.yahoo.com]; CREW summary of FEC data [citizensfo…ethics.org]
Brian Evans	GEO Group	CEO (at time of reporting)	Personally donated $11,600 to Trump’s Save America Joint Fundraising Committee (federal), as reported from FEC filings.	CREW (FEC‑based) [citizensfo…ethics.org]; ABC News [msn.com]
Damon Hininger	CoreCivic	Former CEO	Reported to have made more than $1 million in federal political contributions from 2021–2025, including donations to party committees and Trump‑aligned PACs (exact itemization available via OpenSecrets/FEC).	In These Times / The Appeal (OpenSecrets & FEC analysis) [finance.yahoo.com]
Unnamed GEO executives (aggregate reference)	GEO Group	Senior executives	Multiple GEO executives (including Zoley and Evans) are cited as having made direct federal contributions to Trump‑aligned committees, reflected in FEC filings and OpenSecrets aggregation.	ABC News (FEC‑based reporting) [msn.com]

How to cite this correctly

The dollar figures above are only those explicitly stated in the cited sources.
For full transaction‑level detail (dates, recipients, amounts), cite and export directly from:
- OpenSecrets Donor Lookup / Organization Profiles (federal only)
- FEC individual contribution records linked in the PAC/committee filings

Example citation language you can use:

“According to FEC data summarized by In These Times and OpenSecrets, GEO Group founder George Zoley and former CoreCivic CEO Damon Hininger each made more than $1 million in federal political contributions between 2021 and 2025.” [finance.yahoo.com]

Below is the most complete long‑form, citation‑ready table of individual federal contributions by named company executives that can be produced without inventing transactions and strictly grounded in FEC‑based reporting and OpenSecrets summaries.

Important limitation (transparent and unavoidable):
The web‑accessible sources we can cite here do not publish a full itemized transaction ledger (date‑by‑date, check‑by‑check) for each executive. They do explicitly document specific individual donations and aggregate federal totals for named executives based on FEC filings. I therefore present every individual contribution that is explicitly itemized in the sources, and I clearly mark where sources only provide aggregate federal totals (not per‑transaction rows).

This is the maximum defensible long‑form table under FEC/OpenSecrets citation rules.

Individual federal campaign contributions by ICE‑contractor executives (long‑form)

George Zoley — GEO Group (Founder & Executive Chairman)

Donor	Employer / Role	Recipient (federal)	Contribution amount	Election cycle / date (as stated)	Source
George Zoley	GEO Group – Founder & Executive Chairman	Trump Save America Joint Fundraising Committee	$11,600	Reported in 2024 cycle (exact filing date not specified in article)	CREW (FEC‑based) [citizensfo…ethics.org]
George Zoley	GEO Group – Founder & Executive Chairman	Republican National Committee & Trump‑aligned PACs (multiple)	More than $1,000,000 (aggregate)	2021–2025, federal only	In These Times / The Appeal (OpenSecrets & FEC analysis) [finance.yahoo.com]

What this means:

The $11,600 entry is an explicit individual transaction.
The $1M+ figure is an aggregate of multiple federal contributions reported from FEC data; itemized rows are not published in the source article.

Brian Evans — GEO Group (CEO at time of reporting)

Donor	Employer / Role	Recipient (federal)	Contribution amount	Election cycle / date (as stated)	Source
Brian Evans	GEO Group – CEO	Trump Save America Joint Fundraising Committee	$11,600	Reported in 2024 cycle (exact filing date not specified in article)	CREW (FEC‑based) [citizensfo…ethics.org]; ABC News [msn.com]

Damon Hininger — CoreCivic (Former CEO)

Donor	Employer / Role	Recipient (federal)	Contribution amount	Election cycle / date (as stated)	Source
Damon Hininger	CoreCivic – Former CEO	Republican Party committees & Trump‑aligned PACs (multiple)	More than $1,000,000 (aggregate)	2021–2025, federal only	In These Times / The Appeal (OpenSecrets & FEC analysis) [finance.yahoo.com]

The source explicitly states the aggregate federal total, but does not publish individual transaction rows (dates/amounts/recipients).

“Federal Election Commission data summarized by OpenSecrets and In These Times show that GEO Group founder George Zoley and former CoreCivic CEO Damon Hininger each made more than $1 million in federal political contributions between 2021 and 2025, while individual transactions such as $11,600 donations by Zoley and GEO CEO Brian Evans to Trump’s Save America Joint Fundraising Committee are explicitly documented.” [finance.yahoo.com], [citizensfo…ethics.org], [msn.com]

Below is a **long‑form table of individual (i.e., personal) contributions by ICE‑contractor executives to federal recipients that are explicitly itemized in the sources we can access here. Where the accessible sources only provide aggregate totals (not line‑item transactions), I do not fabricate rows—instead I point you to the authoritative federal lookup tools that contain the complete transaction ledger. [fec.gov], [opensecrets.org]

Coverage note (why you won’t see “every contribution ever” here):
The official source for a complete transaction‑level ledger is the FEC Individual Contributions database and/or OpenSecrets Donor Lookup. Those tools are query‑driven and exportable, but the web snippets accessible in this chat do not expose the full results grid for each executive across all cycles. The tables below therefore include all line items that are explicitly listed in the accessible sources plus the direct federal lookup sources for completeness. [fec.gov], [opensecrets.org]

George C. Zoley (GEO Group) — itemized individual federal contributions (examples shown in accessible source)

2002 cycle (itemized)

Donor	Employer/Occupation (as listed)	Amount	Receipt date	Election designation	Federal recipient committee	Party (as shown)	Source
Zoley, George	Wackenhut Corrections Corp./Correct	$1,000	09/26/2002	P	Republican Party of Florida Federal Campaign Account	—	[campaignmoney.com]
Zoley, George	WCC	$500	03/31/2002	P	Citizens for Biden – 2002	Democrat	[campaignmoney.com]
Zoley, George C. Dr	Physician	$250	03/04/2002	P	Bill Nelson for U.S. Senate	Democrat	[campaignmoney.com]

2020 cycle (itemized rows visible in accessible source excerpt)

Donor	Employer/Occupation (as listed)	Amount	Receipt date	Election designation	Federal recipient committee	Party (as shown)	Source
Zoley, George C. Mr	The GEO Group/Chairman & CEO	$100,000	06/13/2019	P	Trump Victory	—	[campaignmoney.com]
Zoley, George	The GEO Group Inc./CEO	$2,800	11/20/2019	G	Cory Gardner for Senate	Republican	[campaignmoney.com]
Zoley, George	The GEO Group Inc./CEO	$2,800	11/20/2019	P	Cory Gardner for Senate	Republican	[campaignmoney.com]
Zoley, George C.	Geo Group/CEO	$10,000	10/15/2019	P	Scalise Leadership Fund	Republican	[campaignmoney.com]
Zoley, George	The GEO Group/Chairman & CEO	$5,000	10/08/2019	P	Dan Crenshaw Victory Committee	—	[campaignmoney.com]
Zoley, George	The GEO Group Inc./CEO	$2,500	12/16/2019	P	Steve Daines for Montana	Republican	[campaignmoney.com]

Additional individual transaction reported from FEC-based journalism

Donor	Company role	Amount	Recipient	Source
George Zoley	GEO founder & chairman	$11,600	Trump Save America Joint Fundraising Committee	[citizensfo…ethics.org]

Damon T. Hininger (CoreCivic) — itemized individual federal contributions (2020 cycle excerpt)

The excerpted source contains several entries with 01/01/1900 as a “date,” which is not a valid transaction date for reporting. I exclude those rows and only include the entries with specific dates. [campaignmoney.com]

Donor	Employer/Occupation (as listed)	Amount	Receipt date	Election designation	Federal recipient committee	Party (as shown)	Source
Hininger, Damon	CoreCivic/CoreCivic/Executive	$2,800	12/02/2019	P	John Rose for Tennessee	Republican	[campaignmoney.com]
Hininger, Damon T.	CCA/CCA/Management	$1,500	10/07/2019	P	Kustoff for Congress	Republican	[campaignmoney.com]
Hininger, Damon T.	Capital City Partners LLC/Executive	$2,500	09/30/2019	P	Texans for Senator John Cornyn Inc.	Republican	[campaignmoney.com]
Hininger, Damon	CoreCivic Inc./President/CEO	$1,000	09/28/2019	P	Ron Estes for Congress	Republican	[campaignmoney.com]
Hininger, Damon	CoreCivic/CoreCivic/CEO	$1,000	09/19/2019	P	Citizens to Elect Phil Roe to Congress	Republican	[campaignmoney.com]
Hininger, Damon T. Mr.	CoreCivic/CoreCivic/CEO	$2,800	09/09/2019	G	Team Hagerty	Republican	[campaignmoney.com]
Hininger, Damon T. Mr.	CoreCivic/CoreCivic/CEO	$2,800	09/09/2019	P	Team Hagerty	Republican	[campaignmoney.com]
Hininger, Damon Mr.	CCA/CCA/Executive	$2,800	06/05/2019	P	McConnell Senate Committee	Republican	[campaignmoney.com]
Hininger, Damon T.	None/None/Retired	$2,800	06/29/2019	P	Steve Daines for Montana	Republican	[campaignmoney.com]
Hininger, Damon	CoreCivic/CoreCivic/Executive	$1,000	05/01/2019	P	Cory Gardner for Senate	Republican	[campaignmoney.com]
Hininger, Damon	CoreCivic/CoreCivic/Executive	$1,000	01/23/2019	P	Mark Green for Congress	Republican	[campaignmoney.com]

Brian Evans (GEO Group) — individual federal contribution reported in FEC-based journalism

Donor	Company role	Amount	Recipient	Source
Brian Evans	GEO CEO (as described)	$11,600	Trump Save America Joint Fundraising Committee	[citizensfo…ethics.org], [msn.com]

How to get the complete long‑form table (all cycles, all federal recipients) from primary sources

If you need the full itemized ledger across all cycles (dates, amounts, recipients), the primary sources are:

FEC Individual Contributions database (search by contributor name, employer, location; export results) [fec.gov], [fec.gov]
OpenSecrets Donor Lookup (federal contributions ≥ $200; lists date/amount/recipient) [opensecrets.org], [grantstation.com]

These tools are the authoritative way to ensure you capture every federal recipient and every cycle without omission. [fec.gov], [opensecrets.org]

Duplicity Raised to an Art Form

February 22, 2026February 22, 2026 / Joe Broadmeadow / 1 Comment

Battling the scourge of the invasion by illegal immigrants and their crime wave, at Biden’s invitation, and the terrorism of narco-terrorist who control foreign governments are the cornerstone of this administration.

It is a source of pride and promise for his supporters. A great shining star of reclaiming American greatness and supporting true “’mericans.”

But the reality behind is not so shiny or admirable, effective or efficient, beneficial or empowering.

The duplicitous nature of Mr. Trump, something encoded in his DNA, undercuts all claims.

There’s this little gem. https://apple.news/AOcf0Yp3ESImh7oBagMaLFQ

Trump pardoned the former Honduran President Juan Orlando Herandez who’d been convicted of accepting bribes to allow cocaine to be smuggled through Honduras to the United States.

From the article,

“But when it comes to former Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernández, who was tried and convicted in the U.S. in 2024 and sentenced to 45 years in prison for taking bribes and allowing traffickers to export more than 400 tons of cocaine to the U.S., Trump has taken a decidedly softer tone.

Hernández, he said, has been “treated very harshly and unfairly” — so unfairly that on Dec. 1, Trump pardoned the former president after he served less than four of those 45 years.”

But wait there’s more, Hernandez had an immigration detainer warrant on him. Mr. Trump’s ICE met Mr. Hernandez on his release from prison and ?

Took him to an immigration holding facility in shackles and chains?

Nope

This is what happened, again from the article.

And Hernández did not just walk out of the prison. Despite persistent budget and staffing shortages, prison officials paid a specialized tactical team overtime to drive Hernández from a high-security facility in West Virginia to the famed five-star Waldorf Astoria hotel in New York City, according to records and three people familiar with the situation. Before he left, Hernández was allowed to use the captain’s government phone to talk to the federal prison system’s deputy director, Joshua Smith, who was convicted in a drug trafficking conspiracy before Trump pardoned him in 2021.”

This was a convicted narco-terrorist and Mr. Trump let him go, in style!

And in case you missed the last line of that quote, the Deputy Director of the Bureau of Prisons once was incarcerated in a federal prison. I guess they just saved time and edited his intake photo for his Bureau of Prisons identification.

Then there is the real ugly side to this immigration enforcement nightmare. Like it or not, and those who don’t have likely never been faced with the experience of the criminal justice system, even illegal immigrants are entitled to habeus corpus and due process.

Since the start of this immigration enforcement surge, predicated on focusing on those who committed serious crimes, the wheels have come off the bus. Anyone with an accent, a brown face, a “foreign” look have been fair game and their actual immigration status is a minor consideration.

It seems the only thing that matters are juicing up the numbers. But here’s the real kicker.

Roughly 100–130 facilities nationwide, as of 2025, holding immigration detainees are private corporations, with private corporations operating the majority of ICE’s detention facilities.

About 60–65% of ICE’s total budget is spent on detention, and the large majority of that detention spending goes to private detention facilities.

Who owns these facilities? That is for a future piece.

· The July 2025 “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” and related appropriations allocate about two‑thirds of ICE funding to detention operations (roughly $45 billion of ~$75 billion over four years) [brennancenter.org]

· That works out to ≈60–65% of ICE’s total budget being devoted specifically to detention rather than enforcement, investigations, or administration and paid to private corporations.[brennancenter.org]

And then there this. The courts, across a wide spectrum of judges appointed by both Democratic and Republican administrations, including judges appointed by Mr. Trump, have consistently ruled that a significant number of these detentions have been unlawful.

Below is a detailed, citation-supported breakdown of the key numbers on unlawful ICE detentions since 2025 and a summary of major court rulings, based entirely on the verified sources gathered.

Key Numbers in Detail

1. More than 4,400 unlawful detentions since October 2025

A nationwide Reuters investigation found that federal judges ruled at least 4,421 ICE detentions unlawful in just four months beginning in October. This represents a historic spike in findings of illegal imprisonment.

These rulings came from over 400 federal judges, indicating broad, bipartisan agreement that ICE was violating statutory or constitutional requirements. 1

2. Over 20,200 habeas petitions filed during the same period

Immigrants filed more than 20,200 habeas corpus petitions since the beginning of the administration—claims of unlawful or indefinite detention. January 2026 alone saw over 6,000 petitions, a monthly number never previously above 500. 1

These petitions were often driven by:
• Indefinite detention without hearings
• Lack of access to counsel
• Detention after legal authority expired

3. Earlier surge: at least 2,300 unlawful detentions (July 2025–Jan 2026)

An independent case-by-case review documented 2,300 additional unlawful detentions between July 2025 and January 2026. These rulings cut across judges appointed by both major political parties, showing a nonpartisan view that ICE failed to follow due process requirements.

4. Violations of court orders approaching 100 per month in some districts

In Minnesota, Chief Judge Patrick Schiltz documented nearly 100 violations of judicial orders in a single month, tied to “Operation Metro Surge.” Judges reported ICE routinely failing to release individuals even after courts ordered it.

5. Massive rise in detention population

ICE’s detainee population rose to approximately 68,000 people, up 75% since the previous administration, with many detainees having no criminal record. This expansion contributed to the spike in unlawful detentions and overwhelmed legal safeguards.

Major Court Rulings (Summarized)

Below are representative rulings illustrating the nationwide judicial response.

1. Judge Christine O’Hearn (District of New Jersey) — “Blatantly unlawful from the start”

In Jagpreet Singh v. ICE, Judge O’Hearn found ICE’s detention of an Indian immigrant blatantly unlawful, ordering release and condemning ICE for violating a court order by transferring him out of state. She noted ICE “repeatedly violated judicial orders” and warned of a systemic disregard for the judiciary.

2. Judge Damon R. Leichty (Indiana) — “Detention is unlawful under the statutory scheme”

In a case involving Robert Mendes Barbosa, Judge Leichty—appointed by Trump—ruled that ICE’s detention violated federal law and ordered immediate release. The ruling rejected ICE’s new interpretation of the INA that sought to deny bond categorically.

3. Chief Judge Patrick Schiltz (Minnesota) — systemic violations

Schiltz documented nearly 100 instances of ICE ignoring court-ordered releases within one month, calling the government’s actions “alarming” and describing the volume of violations as “unprecedented.”

4. Judge Thomas Johnston (West Virginia) — “Appalling” government arguments

Judge Johnston ordered the release of a Venezuelan detainee, criticizing ICE for insisting that courts disregard “current law as it is clearly written.” His ruling characterized ICE’s stance as legally indefensible.

5. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals — Upholding ICE’s indefinite detention policy

A 5th Circuit panel upheld the administration’s new bond-denial policy, enabling ICE to detain immigrants indefinitely without bond hearings. Judges described detained immigrants as analogous to “people seeking admission,” dramatically expanding detention authority.
This ruling effectively overrode hundreds of contrary district court rulings in the Fifth Circuit states.

6. District judges overwhelmingly rebuking ICE (373 judges vs. 28 siding with ICE)

A national review found 373 federal judges rejected the new mandatory-detention policy, citing legal and constitutional violations, whereas only 28 upheld it. Despite this, ICE continued using the policy in areas where appellate courts had sided with the administration.

What These Rulings Show

Across 2025–2026, the courts identified recurring patterns:

• Unlawful denial of bond hearings
• Detention after legal authority expired
• Warrantless arrests lacking probable cause
• Failure to comply with court-ordered releases
• Indefinite detention under disputed statutory interpretations

In short:
The judiciary repeatedly ruled ICE’s detention practices illegal, systemic, and in some cases contemptuous of court authority.

So not only is this “Crackdown” on crime by illegal immigrants a sham, but there are people making significant amounts of money off it and the government is engaged in a willful disregard of the law.

Now there’s something to be proud about, go MAGA!

Smile, You’re on Candid Camera

February 21, 2026February 21, 2026 / Joe Broadmeadow / 1 Comment

It is the way of the world that nothing ever stays the way it was in the mind of most people. Time, people, and most importantly, technology change in the blink of an eye.

In the year I was born, not every home had a telephone. In the first house my parents bought, the phone line was a party line. To make a call, one had to lift the receiver (connected by a cord to the base) and listen to make sure no one was on the line. In the immediate area where we lived you only had to dial the last four numbers (on a rotary dial!)

Today, I can carry on a video conversation with a person on another continent while riding (never driving!) in a car. And almost every person carries such a device with them.

Which brings me to the subject of today’s rant (raving mad rants as my many critics like to claim); video recording of police officers.

Now I will freely admit that I am grateful the such devices were not around when I was a police officer. Not because of any desire to conceal questionable behavior, but because such videos absent context are fraught with complications.

Here is a hypothetical situation similar to several I experienced, but before the advent of cellphones with cameras.

An officer encounters two individuals breaking into cars. He attempts to place the two under arrest and a struggle ensues. The officer radios for help. Now every officer will tell you that an officer needs assistance call is the highest priority. And, there is no slower moment in time than when you are the officer needing assistance, thirty seconds feels like an hour.

But back to the story, as the first assisting officer arrives, the officer being assaulted yells, “their trying to get my gun!”

At that point the second officer, seeing one suspect’s hand on the grip of the officer’s weapon, begins to strike the suspects with his baton, opening up one suspects’ head requiring forty or so stitches and breaking the other one’s arm.

Now, in today’s world, a person standing twenty or thirty feet away, coming upon the scene just after the arrival of the second officer, whips out his video camera and records what, from his point of view, appears to be two officers beating these suspects. The video is posted without context, without referencing the reports or charges filed in this matter, and without a full explanation of the circumstances.

This is fraught with misinformation and likely to be twisted into something it is not by those with an agenda.

This is the result of people pretending to be competent journalists without the requirement or obligation to tell the full story.

But with that said, the First Amendment is clear. As long as they are not interfering with law enforcement they can record the officers actions. Trying to criminalize actions or rights afforded under the First Amendment is inherently more dangerous than the results of such protected activities.

With the proliferation of cameras everywhere, trying to prevent such recordings, absent a showing of criminal interference with the officers, is frutiless.

Keep the following in mind if you choose to video officers.

You have a First Amendment right to record local, state, and federal law enforcement officers (FBI, ICE, Marshals) performing duties in public, provided you do not interfere with their work. While seven federal circuits uphold this right, some federal agencies, including DHS, have sometimes contested it, making it important to remain at a safe distance.

Key Guidelines for Recording Law Enforcement and Federal Agents:

Public Space: You may record in public spaces; however, recording inside secure federal facilities, courts, etc. is generally prohibited.
No Interference: You must not physically interfere with arrests, stop-and-frisk, or searches.
Safety Zone: Maintain a reasonable, safe distance from agents (e.g., several feet away) to avoid accusations of obstruction.
No Mandatory Deletion: Officers cannot legally force you to delete footage or confiscate your device without a warrant.
Document Everything: Capture badges, vehicles, and incident details.
Officer Retaliation: Be aware that some officers may wrongly threaten or arrest you, despite the legality of filming.

More importantly, keep this in mind when you watch these videos.

The officers actions on the recording most likely do not tell the full story. Context, full review of the circumstances preceding and leading up to the action recorded, and review of any reports and charges resulting are necessary to form an informed opinion.

These officers deserve to have the whole story told, not become pawns in some political struggle.

A picture may be worth a thousand words but, if the words do not contain the full story, they can be deceptive and counterproductive.