Must Read: Newlywed couple: Officer blocked us from ER during bride's stroke - | Chattanooga News

Tom Usher wrote or added | The Chattanooga Police Department has convinced the city prosecuting attorney(s) and some judge to issue an arrest warrant against a man who stopped at red lights and then when there was no traffic coming, proceeded through the red lights on his way to the emergency room with his new bride who was showing stroke symptoms. The police saw this, and followed them into the emergency room, even blocking the door to the emergency room at one point.

Okay, so what higher-up police officers, attorneys, and judge believes that in a life threatening situation, it is still more important and actually legally required to wait for the light to turn green?

Were I in any of those positions, I would have told the police officer(s) in charge and involved that they should consider themselves fortunate that the husband didn't fight them in self-defense and defense of his bride because blocking the way into the emergency room is a much more serious criminal violation of law than is proceeding through red lights where no one actually suffered any harm.

So, the young man, who was quite recently married, didn't call 9/11 for an ambulance. Would being married a long time reduce a husband's anxiety in that situation? Should it have too? He didn't stop for the police car that was flashing its lights behind him to say what was happening and to request that they take the lead with their lights that he might follow them quickly into the emergency room. Perhaps the officer(s) would have been untrusting and refused and delayed. With the way officers are being so poorly trained such that matters are only getting worse in terms of law-enforcement (more treating American citizens as enemies as opposed to those the officers are sworn to protect and defend against criminal harm and rights infringers), maybe the young man did the most intelligent thing vis-a-vis his wife. Seconds count in a stroke. Which action would have been faster?

It's difficult to put oneself in the shoes of an officer who is in a car behind a car headed into the emergency room. The officer doesn't know the driver or passenger and their motives. The officer is trained to anticipate potential ruses. A quick thinking criminal could use the emergency room visit as a cover. Who knows the intention of someone running red lights and heading to the hospital? It's likely that there's a medical emergency or seems to be, but it's not the only possibility. It's a shame that the world and humanity is spiraling down in a cycle of hardening back and forth rather than going in the other, right, direction.

However, once it became clear that there really was a medical emergency (which it did) and the officers and department, attorney(s), judge, court, etc., verified the young man and his bride, etc., (which they did) to then go on to seek to arrest, try, convict, imprison, and punish the young man is absolutely despicable and reprehensible. I denounce the officers and department, attorney(s), and judge and disavow any solidarity or understanding with them in this matter.

Perhaps there is something in Jesse or Aline Wright's backgrounds that the people involved are using this incident as an opportunity to get at him or her.

Regardless, how no one in that entire chain of supposedly highly educated, experienced, professional, intelligent people didn't stop short of arresting Jesse Wright is incredible.

The system and each person and organization involved owes Jesse Wright and his bride, Aline, a huge apology. It wouldn't matter if Jesse had become angry with the officer(s) at the emergency room entrance and said harsh things to him/them. The entrance should not have been blocked. The police should rather simply have gone into the emergency room and stood by to verify the validity of the emergency. That would have been a simple matter and doing the officer's duty, completely legally.

Much of the bad policing in the US I lay at the feet of the SWAT mentality that was brought into policing by Daryl Gates of the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) in 1968. It was the beginning of the militarization of civil police departments. Police now routinely employ SWAT tactics in situations where doing so constitutes police-statism.

We know the arguments in favor of this movement to incivility. However, the only reason any of those arguments resonate is because SWAT is used rather than fixing the root causes of crime. People are being brutalized by the system on all fronts while the elitists bask in artificial splendor and luxury, untouchable by those same law-enforcers, who actually work for those elitists. This constitutes a goon squad, the thugs, the muscle, of the criminal plutocracy that is rightly called a kleptocracy.

Considering all the illegalities on the part of the US federal government, what with the illegal wars and illegal occupations, the war crimes, the violations of human rights and civil rights, and the overlooking of nearly all crimes of that government by subsequent administrations/regimes, it has been more than fair to say that the US is a lawless state. The US Constitution is enforced sporadically for effect.

The kleptocrats have defrauded the masses across-the-board to the sum of tens of trillions of dollars. The President, Barack Obama, has done absolutely nothing about it. In fact, he's done exactly all the wrong things about it. He's reinforced it. He's continued and heightened the obfuscation. He's worked at perfecting the dark art of false propaganda.

So, what's to be done? Spread the word, and as much as humanly and humanely possible, act in accordance with how things ought to be.

The system is fatally flawed. That's the first position you need to take. The system is rotten at its core. There is no way to use a concept of coercive checks and balances to fix anything. The one and only way to the salvation of humanity is for each individual to have the real law written on his or her heart.

The officer who blocked the emergency room door doesn't have it, so far, and neither do those who were involved in deciding to arrest Jesse. The hospital security officers should not have arrested Jesse but should have told the police officers that if they wanted Jesse arrested that they would have to do it themselves. They didn't have to take the "collar." They could simply have reported his whereabouts at most.

Frankly, the only people I'm favorably impressed with in all of this are the Erlanger Medical Center associated doctors and staff who wouldn't let the police officers take Jesse when he brought his wife in and Callie Starnes and WRCB that decided to bring the story to the attention of the world and all those who have since spread it in the right spirit.

Well, let's pray that Aline's health improves rather than deteriorates over this. Let's hope the "legal" system in Chattanooga, Tennessee, USA, comes to its senses and drops all charges against Jesse and issues a formal apology and more so, does a thorough re-assessment of its policies, practices, training, and re-training.


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe

  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.