by Virgil Vaduva

One of the most difficult things about being a libertarian is that I often find myself defending liberty in some difficult situations. Just like a defense attorney may find himself defending a client charged with murder, and who appears by all accounts to be guilty, he still gives his best defense to his client; defending people and ideas that we do not like and their rights to speak and be spoken is unfortunately a critical element of liberty. This is not easy to do as we are all subject to various paradigms and affected by them in ways that we may not even realize.

The world of ideas is very much the same. Ideas are the foundation upon which humanity builds its future or tears it down. They can be the seeds for things to come or the vehicle to effecting change in the world. Virtually everything in existence today was once an idea, and for millennia ideas have shaped the world into the place we call home today.

There is little else that I despise more than Communism and the ideas upon which that ideology was founded. I spent half of my life in a Communist country, growing up in indoctrination schools, taught that free markets were only benefiting the rich and that State control is key to good and peaceful living.  I experienced physical abuse, hunger and mental abuse at the hands of Communists and their ideas.  Now, decades letter, I understand those ideas to be false, and even though more than 100 million humans have died as a result of Communism, I still do not find it necessary to punch a Communist or a Socialist who may be peacefully passing out flyers on the street promoting his ideas. Yes, ironically, as a libertarian I find myself defending the speech of Communists, which I despise, and the speech of Fascists which I find abhorrent.

The trend of virtue-signaling we have been seeing lately popularized by the American media often encourages strangers to punch and physically assault alleged fascists or Nazis (supposed “nationalist socialists,” which is not an exactly American term) in order to stop them from promoting their ideas. “Their ideas are dangerous,” they say. The argument encouraging blatant physical assault against people advocating ideas involves the justification that fascist ideas could potentially come to fruition and give birth to violent actions.  Yes, I hope you caught the irony here: we must use pre-emptive threats, violence or even murder in order to stop ideas that could potentially give birth to more violence.

This in essence is the philosophy we find at the core of the United States foreign policy which has now been embraced at an individual level by average Americans, even Libertarians who claim to support free speech.  For decades, the U.S. government has been pre-emptively going to war with nations that had the potential of becoming enemies of the U.S. and espoused ideas considered anti-American.

Just a few hours ago, Richard Spencer, an alleged white supremacist and a fascist was kicked out of a conference called International Students for Liberty Conference (ISLC); this was apparently the result of a confrontation between Spencer and Jeffrey Tucker.  In the spirit of full disclosure, I know almost nothing about Spencer. I have never read anything written by him and other than knowing about him getting assaulted on the street recently.

Spencer was apparently invited to speak at ISLC by the Hans Hermann Hoppe Caucus and a group of conference attendees.  There is even video of Spencer peacefully speaking to what appears to be a large group of students. The audio is very difficult to make out, so it is unclear if Spencer is advocating for the extermination of all ethnic minorities or if he is discussing his love for Donald Trump, however it is clear that there is nothing extraordinary happening outside of the fact that ideas are being discussed in a peaceful fashion.

Some pieces of the conversation can be made out from poor audio available, such as Richard Spencer advocating for the use of the State to protect citizens from immigrants and his condemnation of multi culturalism and what accounts to cultural Marxism. It’s unclear why exactly these ideas are controversial considering that Spencer is openly a supporter of Donald Trump.

What we see later however, is Jeffrey Tucker entering the room and disrupting the event, forcing an employee of the venue to come and warn the participants about keeping things orderly to avoid being removed from the premises. Tucker and Spencer quickly engaged each other in a shouting match across the room full of attendees.

Tucker states: “Libertarianism is about human dignity, liberty for all, and not about fascism!”

Of course, what libertarian would disagree with this?  I am not a fascist and I don’t want libertarian ideology to be about fascism either.  Tucker was immediately triggered by the idea that a supposed fascist was espousing ideas that he disagreed with.  The spectacle unfolding on the video is incredible: a meltdown of epic proportions which ultimately leads to a total denial of the most fundamental libertarian principles, the freedom of speech and the freedom of association.

Mitchell Steffen, the founder of the Hans Hermann Hoppe Caucus and a Dominican, an ethnicity he is proud of, invited Spencer to the conference in order to have a peaceful dialogue.  Steffen said,

“It was really unfortunate how it turned out. I think the Hoppe Caucus did a good job of pushing the envelope and exposing hypocrisy though. Spencer’s ideas should be challenged with better libertarian ideas. He should not be bullied.”

Jeffrey Tucker’s emotional meltdown and virtue-signaling was a perfect fit for the young crowd of college students. At one point Tucker was surrounded by what someone called “a leftist mob:”

“A mob of leftists, who were even joined by Jeffrey Tucker at one point, were warned repeatedly about their noise-level, but refused to calm down. Eventually, hotel security dispersed the entire mob and assisted Spencer in evacuating unscathed.”

There is very little that is noble here about Jeffrey Tucker’s actions. Yes, I’ve seen countless posts on Facebook and tweets about how heroic Tucker was when behaving this way, but I fail to see the heroism in shutting down ideas and debate, especially about current events and political trends. Furthermore, resorting to “you are a fascist” calls is the easiest and laziest way to deal with an argument.

What is even worse about the entire meltdown is that race and ethnicity seem to have been at the core of Tucker’s initial statement, which is particularly ironic considering that Jeffrey Tucker was linked by The Economist years ago to a series of racist letters published by Ron Paul.  The racist letters were not written by Ron Paul himself, but by some of his staff and friends, including allegedly Lew Rockwell, Jeffrey Tucker and potentially Murray Rothbard.

The Economist even called out Tucker for the racist ghost writing, who refused to answer the question asked and pointed to the Mises website for content that he authored.

The suggestion that at some point in time Jeffrey Tucker espoused racist ideas to me doesn’t matter at all as I have never personally heard him say anything racist, but considering his close connections with the issue at hand, one would think that Tucker of all people would favor the open exchange of ideas, as long as they remain peaceful.  Someone being invited on private property to discuss his ideas and then being removed by police and State agents as a result of Tucker’s actions should be condemned by libertarians, not praised, or else there is little difference between the cultural Marxists roaming college campuses everywhere using mob mentality to shut down speech.

Mob-driven Libertarianism aimed at shutting down discourse is not virtuous, regardless of what ideas it attempts to shut down.  We need to know who the fascists among us are, so we can engage them, avoid them, ostracize them or maybe even attempt to change their minds. The same goes for communists, racists and bigots. Ideas alone do not assault people, they do not murder anyone and cannot be killed.

Jeffrey Tucker did nothing heroic here.  He violated private property rights and the right of association. He shut down a peaceful debate by inciting a mob against the people involved. He should not be praised. If anything, he should be condemned for participating in what was virtually a cultural Marxist cleansing. If we are to claim liberty for all, that includes the liberty of others to speak ideas we may find abhorrent and uncomfortable.

In the famous words from V for Vendetta, “Ideas are bulletproof.”  Only better ideas can defeat flawed ideas, not violence and meltdowns in a public forum.

Virgil Vaduva is a Libertarian security professional, journalist, photographer and overall liberty freak.  He spent most of his life in Communist Romania and participated in the 1989 street protests which led to the collapse of the Ceausescu regime. He can be reached at vvaduva at truthvoice.com.

An easy but misleading comparison.

I don’t really like football. I can appreciate and admire the dedication and raw talent it takes to compete athletically on a national level, but being a spectator to the sport has fairly limited appeal for me. The same goes for pretty much all sports, actually. In this I am sometimes seen as a deviant by my friends, and certainly the rest of my family, the latter of whom I think it’s safe to say meet the bar for “football fanatic.” They watch, talk, and argue about teams, players, strategies. They go so far as to base their home decor around the priority of their team favor, dedicating wall real estate proportionally to each team.

I don’t really understand the emotional investment many seem to have in their preferred teams. Players themselves rarely seem to show a similar loyalty, and even at the college level, the role money and athletic scouts play seems to make the location and name of a given team more of a branding decision than any real representation of the people in that particular area. Yet it’s teams that are nearest to where a fan lives (or where they grew up) that seems to play the biggest role in whether a team is liked. I have to admit it: I just don’t get it.

Me irl on Thanksgiving, trying to blend in

Because spectator sports are something so well-liked, and at the same time so alien to me, its preference as a cultural pastime is something I’m really only capable of thinking about as an outsider. As an outsider to the fandom, I frequently encounter a meme that, in addition to being unfair, inaccurate, and pretentious, is rooted in a kind of unwarranted elitism that is, in my opinion, even more harmful to the cognitive potential of the person holding the opinion than the “divisiveness” caused by maintaining a rude or dismissive belief.

You’ve probably seen someone say something along these lines. “Football is the opiate of the masses.” It’s the contemporary bread and circuses of our modern-day Roman Empire, so says the supposed intellectual — even he who admittedly enjoys the gladiator bouts himself. I’ve seen the opinion spouted by everyone from well-thought activists and philosophers, to pseudo-intellectual posers, and even the arguably well-meaning but laughable walking meme factory Alex Jones.

Maybe the idea took off because it’s easy for an outsider to believe at a glance. To someone who’s not into spectator sports, strangers watching the game can become hordes of faceless sports fans, often encountered while drunk and loud at bars and restaurants, painting the caricature of a tribalist idiot more concerned with what men in tights are doing than the realities of what’s going on around them. What’s “really going on,” of course, is entirely subjective. “Imminent societal collapse,” especially in the wake of a recent presidential election, is a pretty popular one.

Assuming football is such an effective distraction, let me ask you this. What do you really think would happen if people stopped watching football and “woke up?” What would you have them do, stand in crowds waving signs every moment they weren’t watching the game? Football does literally nothing to prevent people from engaging in the political process. People aren’t so distracted by sports that they cannot take the time to get informed and vote. They’re already doing that, and all of the other things you think are helping, and it’s accomplishing nothing.

Good thing these people didn’t waste time watching the playoffs.

The truth is that sports have nothing to do with it. Even the most zealous fan is not an opium addict, and the belief that escapism is the problem — especially “their” preferred type — is a stupid and detrimental belief. It rejects the reality that many humans are capable of complex, varied, and sometimes contradictory thought in favor of masturbatory pomp. It’s detrimental because it distracts from the very realization it masquerades as: that we really are alive in an era of bread and circuses, and it has little to do with television or smartphones.

The plebs of the classical era were regularly beaten into submission, starved, manipulated, and killed for small amounts of material gain. Concepts like economic and social progression were wildly out of scope for what they could ever hope to achieve. Practically all of them suffered living conditions that are almost unfathomable to us today.

If rebellion sounded like it might net some reward, and seemed even remotely within grasp, a violent insurrection was very probable — which is why dissent in the age before easy access to information was punished with incredible brutality. It was quelled not only with barbaric treachery, or even with simple social distraction, but by providing comforts that were otherwise out of reach.

Technology has enabled unprecedented access to information, including the ability to share experience. The restriction to information as a safeguard to the patrician has been removed, and to counter, the old bread and circuses have been done away with. The new opiate is the obfuscation of violence.

Violence, especially violence against otherwise peaceful people, permeates all modern societies. Because it is rarely acted upon, the average person has stopped detecting it. Like the smell of bread in a bakery, you forget it’s even there when you’re not tasting it for yourself. Even when your friends are taxed into oblivion, unable to afford adequate healthcare, or beaten by police, you’re directed to submit written petitions asking for relief. Maybe the state will get around to it, maybe it won’t — it all depends on if the right people get the vote, right?

“is this meme dank? y/n”

It isn’t working, and you don’t need them. You don’t voluntarily pay for the things the state provides or the rules it makes, even when you think it’s a wonderful idea. You can’t escape this, certainly not by voting or protesting, and if you try to, you risk having violence used against you. This arrangement is not only unnecessary, but it keeps you the subject of a system which does not have your interest at heart. The bread and circus of the modern era is the idea that you are a part of the social contract; the opiate of the masses is the belief that you are not a pleb.

Stop shitting on football and start stabbing tyrants.

— David Neely, written for TruthVoice

by Virgil Vaduva

Xenia is a small city in Ohio, peppered with foot-deep potholes, abandoned buildings with a high unemployment rate and very busy bureaucrats. Just a few months ago, the city’s council decided to spend $6 million on a new “Justice Center” and the cost is expected to balloon well into the $20+ million range. The city is in dire need of infrastructure upgrades, road repairs and sewage system improvements, but a new police station and a new office building for the city’s employees became critical.

But these are not even the worst things about the city of Xenia.  A few years ago, Xenia also decided to ban the practice of panhandling. At the request of the police department and cops who were “too tired” of dealing with homeless people on the street, the city decided to pass an ordinance that banned panhandling virtually anywhere in the city, making it impossible for anyone to ask another individual for financial help, anywhere in the city. In essence, the city has made it illegal for someone to speak with a stranger if the speech involves asking for immediate help.

Many individuals have been fined and prosecuted under this unconstitutional ordinance, raking in thousands of dollars of fines extracted from the most vulnerable and poor people on the streets.

A bit over a year ago I decided to speak to the Xenia City Council and warn them about the fact that their ordinance is unconstitutional. They ignored my warning, and as a result the very next day I decided to take the path of civil disobedience and panhandle in front of the city hall and police station. I raised $41.98 which was donated to United Voluntary Service, a charity helping the homeless in Xenia. I was also ticketed for violating this unconstitutional law, which led to a full-blown jury trial after which I was found guilty, sentenced to 30 days in jail, community service and fines. The jail sentence was suspended on the condition of good behavior for a term of 2 years. During the trial I was not allowed to talk about the constitutionality of the law and my first amendment rights, I was not allowed to even mention the constitution, or the fact that the police in town were behind the passing of this ordinance. A judge literally told me, “there will be no mentioning of the Constitution in this court room.”

After immediately appealing, the appeals court finally reversed my sentence and they sent the case back to the court to be retried. All the charges were dropped a few days ago, and the city’s attorney said they will change the ordinance or get rid of it. Right now it’s unclear what this means.

After about a year and a half, the swift hand of the judicial system finally found me innocent of any wrongdoing spending tens of thousands of dollars of the city’s money and my own money, hundreds of hours going into my defense and substantial effort aimed to win and undo the work of the Xenia bureaucrats. What took them only a few minutes to ratify with the stroke of a pen, caused hundreds, if not thousands of people to be harassed, arrested and fined by their cops. None of the cops and Xenia bureaucrats involved in this will ever be held personally responsible for their decisions, and while I am fortunate enough to afford the legal fees to pursue such a case just for the immoral and unconstitutional aspect of their law, most people cannot do so and rarely, if ever anyone speaks on their behalf or stands up for them.

Now while this may be a win for me personally, the issue is nowhere near close to being resolved. The hundreds of people who have had their first amendment rights violated will need retribution. I am in the process of collecting all the names of the individuals detained or fined under this law and bring this issue to the attention of federal courts.

To make matters worse, the city of Beavercreek, which is next door to Xenia, has an ordinance identical to the one in Xenia, also banning panhandling everywhere within city limits. More and more local bureaucrats decide on a regular basis and in a systematic way to violate the constitutional rights of people in need who are unable to represent themselves in court. Beavercreek is the same city where a police officer shot a black man named John Crawford in a local Walmart for holding a BB gun he picked off a store shelf.

Beavercreek will be our next target for their unconstitutional and illegal practices regarding panhandling, and there will be no rest for the corrupt and immoral politicians and cops running these cities and violating our rights. Yesterday I “panhandled” for charity in Beavercreek and I was given a “warning” from their police and asked not to do it again in the future. I raised $18 dollars which will also be donated to United Voluntary Services to help the homeless in the area.

Officers Hall and Darkow (the second officer involved in the shooting of John Crawford) of Beavecreek PD showed up and threatened, attempted to intimidate me and warned me about standing on a street corner with a cardboard sign that said, “Help the poor.”  In today’s America, this is now a crime.

Officer Darkow was the backup officer involved in the shooting and killing of John Crawford in a Beavercreek Walmart. He is currently being sued by the Crawford family.

Officer hall attempting to give me a written warning about panhandling in the city of Beavercreek and threatening me with arrest if I continue to peacefully raise money for charity

Officer hall attempting to give me a written warning about panhandling in the city of Beavercreek and threatening me with arrest if I continue to peacefully raise money for charity

The officers refused to answer questions about the constitutionality of the law and why they are violating their oaths to the Constitution by enforcing a law targeting Americans’ first amendment rights.

The same individuals who have sworn an oath to obey and protect the Constitution are actively using their roles to undermine the very document and rights they were entrusted to protect.

If you have been one of the hundreds of people harassed, arrested or fined by the Xenia and Beavercreek police for panhandling, please contact me as soon as possible at [email protected] so I can help you out. I want to hear your story.

Virgil Vaduva is a Libertarian security professional, journalist, photographer and overall liberty freak. He spent most of his life in Communist Romania and participated in the 1989 street protests which led to the collapse of the Ceausescu regime. He can be reached at vvaduva at truthvoice.com.

In the wake of tragedies such as the shooting in Orlando this week, the conversation turns to how society should address gun crime.  As the people of the United States recover from their shock, both sides will roll out their standard arguments: Ban specific firearms, increase concealed carry, a more watchful State.  These arguments will continue, and I agree with the authoritarians that something must be done.  However, I wish to take a different path with this argument; to envision how a free society would address gun crime.  For those interested in applying policy within the current system, I will attempt to show here that the answer is fewer laws, not more.

While each state in the US is different, all states depend as their primary line of defense on prohibitions against violence.  Punishment of violent offenders gives some closure to victims and serves to deter would-be offenders.  However, it is not always possible to punish people commensurate with the harm they cause.  Both sides of the debate agree on this problem, but offer differing proposals on how to solve this issue, usually in the form of additional legislation.

In a free society, we imagine the case of someone who purchases a weapon and goes on to misuse it, harming or killing others.  In this instance, defense agencies would take the person into custody.  After the requisite hearings, the sentence would be carried out.  On occasion, the guilty party would be able to repay his or her victims, but we must also consider the occasion where they could not.  The defense agencies would then expand the scope of their recourse.  In a free society, there would be nothing to prevent them from holding the weapons dealer responsible.

In an extreme example, someone purchases a shoulder-fired missile from a dealer and shoots down a passenger aircraft with it.  At list price, a Boeing 787 costs $265 million.  Each of the families of the victims will demand compensation, and clearing away the rubble isn’t free.  By the time everything is tallied, the damage could exceed $1 billion.  Considering that very few people have that kind of cash, life in prison or even the death penalty isn’t going to squeeze it out of them.

In the free society, the defense agencies go after the dealer because his product caused damage which they can’t recoup from the offender.   If the dealer’s assets aren’t sufficient, they go after the manufacturer, or even their suppliers.  Seeing this, other weapons dealers are faced with tremendous risk if their customers misuse their products.  So they do what is natural and they pay someone to manage this risk for them.  In fact, they don’t sell to a customer unless that customer pays to manage the risk by buying insurance.

The first thing we notice is that the amount is not equal for all weapons because the risk is not the same. The premium would vary based on the damage the weapon could cause and the likelihood it would be used in a crime. A Hi-Point might enter the market at $150, but carry a $500 insurance premium because of the probability it would be used to hurt people.  Likewise, the aforementioned MANPADS might retail for $25,000, but the risk to civilian aircraft might push the actual cost over $1 million.  The effect is to price out people who would be least likely to use the weapon responsibly.

The second thing we notice is that dealers who sell lots of problem guns have lots of claims, which makes it difficult and expensive to secure coverage. This addresses the “bad apple dealer” problem.

The third observation we make is that not all people pay the same for coverage.  Just as auto insurance rates males under 25 differently, it is a safe bet that insurers will be keenly aware of the demographics of mass shootings.  Likewise, insurers may insist on a background check before deciding the risk a person poses.

Having dealt with the abstractions of the free market, we ask what such a solution would look like in the society of today.  My proposal would consist of several legislative changes:

• Repeal of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act
• Removal of liability limits granted by incorporation (ideally for all corporations)

The former removes specific protections granted to the gun industry, while the latter removes the ability of a dealer or manufacturer to hide behind a corporation.

I don’t envision this as a perfect solution, but one that greatly reduces the risk posed by firearms without creating lists that worry conservatives or creating yet another contraband law.  Most of all, it reminds us that the best solutions lie not in restriction, but in freedom.

Andrew Slanker is a voluntaryist, engineer, and husband.  His hobbies include economics, camping and travel.

By: Deric Lostutter

In December of 2015, I covered how new allegations could implicate Terry Elvis in the now 2 year old disappearance of his daughter Heather Elvis, including allegations of sexual abuse, and a past criminal record of fraud.

Heather was reported missing December of 2013 at the age of 20.

Her car, registered in her father’s name, was found near property her father owns at Peachtree Landing, a dark swampy area that allows fisherman to load boats into the Waccamaw river which empties into the Atlantic ocean some 30 miles down stream.

Due to an affair, one which Terry Elvis is said to have despised, Sidney and Tammy Moorer were were charged with kidnapping, and murder of Heather Elvis, even though no body was ever found.

The search for Heather Elvis was called off after 2 months of fundraising which netted the Elvis family well over $100,000 according to sources close to the family.

I also covered the allegations that multiple cars, clothes, and other items were purchased by Terry Elvis, which some claim came from the donations that he raised to find Heather.

As of  March 10th 2016, the murder charges in the Heather Elvis case against Sidney and Tammy Moorer have been dismissed by the judge.

Although kidnapping is still pending for the duo, one would start to question how those charges would stick with no evidence and the most serious of the offenses dismissed by the court.

Sources close to the Moorers told of a bias, or plan to railroad the couple, based on Terry Elvis’ brother’s affiliation with the local law enforcement.

Things were looking dim for the pair as time went on, even sparking an online “witch hunt” by various internet bloggers and Facebook users who have seemed to deliver the guilty verdict prematurely.

Sources also tell that Terry Elvis, without permission from the city or landowner, paved over the spot where Heather Elvis’ car was found to “build a memorial”.

If true, this could have destroyed any evidence that existed in the area that could lead to solving the sad mystery of what happened to young Heather Elvis.

Sources close to the investigation also tell us that the Police had no knowledge of Terry’s other daughter, Alyssa, with Karen Wilcox.

The revelation of another undisclosed child of Terry Elvis is yet another revelation in the ongoing saga of the Elvis family.

This is disturbing, as it would be the investigators job to thoroughly analyze every aspect of Terry’s life, as well as any other suspect.

The Elvis family has responded to media since the murder charges have been dismissed, you may watch the video below.

http://wpde.com/news/local/family-of-heather-elvis-speaking-out-after-murder-charges-dismissed-against-suspects

By day, I am a cyber investigator, and, taking a neutral stance on this matter, I analyze all angles.

If I was given this video to analyze, I would have these key issues to raise in court:

Around the 3 minute mark, the family declined to comment about CUE, a very reputable center that searches for missing persons, that originally helped with Heather’s search.

The family claimed that the searches results would be inadmissible in court.They also stated that the police department are the only ones qualified to search.

This is false.

The CUE center has provided search efforts for hundreds of missing persons cases since it’s inception in 1994, all of which their methods and results were admitted in court.

Terry initially put his former best friend, Bill Barrett, who is alleged to work near the site of another disappearance of a girl Heather’s age, Brittanee Drexel, as head of the search party.

Brittanee Drexel’s mother offered to help with the search as well. Terry Elvis denied her assistance according to sources.

Bill was then charged with obstructing justice (case number: 2014A2610200237) for allegedly planting evidence against the Moorers on their property, and interfered in one of the most reputable organization’s efforts to find Heather Elvis.

Bill Barrett interfered with the CUE’s efforts tremendously.

According to sources close to the search party, a private donor from Texas funded the CUE search.

To verify my sources, I present you with this article: http://www.myhorrynews.com/news/crime/heather_elvis/article_57225c9e-9f25-11e3-a826-001a4bcf6878.html

Despite all the free services the CUE offers that would not need Terry’s donations, Terry fired them according to sources.

Bill is currently awaiting his trial date, said to be after the Heather Elvis trial is closed.

Heather’s sister, Morgan, and father, Terry, can be seen the entire video smirking, and, around the 5:00 mark, Morgan emits a full smile to the camera in what should be a tragic day for the family.

This smile is given as questions are left unanswered during a plea for tips to be submitted to the Elvis case, instead of a look of desperation as one would be expected to have.According to some body language experts, smirking can denote arrogance, or narcissism.

Around the 7:00 minute mark, Morgan de-personifies her sister, Heather, stating that she no longer feels anything when staring at her picture. She then retracts, only to ask people to again take interest in the case.

To some, this could be a sign that she may like the attention the case is getting her, and her family, as she continues to smile on video during such dark times.

Around the 8:00 minute mark, Morgan continues to degrade her sister, making a very inappropriate jest at her sister’s personality, further dehumanizing her. Her mother can be seen giving her the “side eye”.

At 12:00, Heather’s mother, Debbi, can be heard advising people what to read, and what not to read, an effort of censorship, that the family only wants to control the narrative.

At 14:00 Terry Elvis states a veiled threat, as a man with a previous criminal record, that he will do what he has to do, to who he has to do, to get closure on the case.

At 15:00 Debbi states not to trespass on other people’s property, which would be sound advice, had their search leader not done the same.

Sources close to the Moorers also tell me that Debbi, at the beginning of the case, trespassed on the Moorer’s property, advising one to “roll” on the other to save themselves.

At the end of the video, Heather’s sister purses her lips at the mention of the community coming together to find Heather.

Pursed lips are a sign of holding back what you are going to say:

Lips which are pulled inwards from all directions are an indication of tension and may indicate frustration or disapproval. Pursed lips are a classic sign of anger, including when it is suppressed. It is effectively holding the mouth shut to prevent the person saying what they feel like saying. This may also be an indication of lying or withholding the truth as the person stops themselves from telling the truth. Pursed lips can also indicate a person who is thinking and who is deciding between possible options. Deciding and disapproval are both evaluative actions, which is the common core of lip-pursing. – http://changingminds.org/techniques/body/parts_body_language/lips_body_language.htm

Interesting to note, near the end of the video, Morgan automatically assumes that there will be a “body found”. She seems to believe, or have knowledge of, her sister no longer living.

I truly hope that the case is solved, and Heather Elvis is found alive and well. To quote Heather’s father, Terry Elvis, “There is more than meets the eye”.

I have reached out for comment to Sidney Moorer, but he has not returned my message.

UPDATE: 

Horry County Police and Sheriff’s department are defendants in a massive lawsuit for fraud, civil rights violations and more. Perjury, and falsified evidence have been presented in court.

Jay Brantly is one of the key defendants in the law suit, and his wife, Brenna, has been obsessed with the Heather Elvis case for some time.

The suit involves a kidnapping and basically murder of an elderly woman, Doris Holt by police officers.

Southern Holding Corp, valued at over $20 million, was under attack by share holders, who illegally planned to steal the corp from the CEO, cash in, and make millions.

Bribing judges, law enforcement officials in both North Carolina and Horry County, they had the CEO falsely arrested, searches of homes illegally executed, then using Department of Social Services, basically kidnapped 91 year old Doris as a ward of the state, shipping her off to various nursing homes, refusing to disclose her location to her son.

Abuse reports were ignored, and Doris eventually died of starvation and dehydration.

There is a $200,000,000 claim on the case.
To support the above analysis of Terry Elvis’ veiled threat, I have obtained leaked private conversations between the wife of  Horry County Police Officer Jay Brantley.

This conversation is between Brenna Brantly, and an undisclosed source.

In this threat, you will see that a police officer knows about a plot from Terry Elvis to murder Sidney, should Sidney Moorer’s charges get dropped.

Terry Elvis still walks free to this day, despite a felony threat.

So what we have here, is the wife of a crooked police officer, who explains a severe bias for Sidney’s wife, and knowledge of a felony threat.

Brenna Brantly, who is an avid Donald Trump supporter according to her Facebook profile, continues to mock the defendants on various social media outlets, and pages to this very day, which I am sure is a strict violation being the wife of a police officer.

It seems the corruption and scandals continue in South Carolina.

Stay tuned for more updates.

Courtesy WMBF news

By: Deric Lostutter

NOTE: There have been recent allegations by Terry’s family, and their other daughter, Morgan Elvis, that this site harvests IP addresses, this is false. Our source code is public. You are free to right click and analyze it or hit f12 on your respective internet browser.

This article does not express the views of TruthVoice as a whole, but is merely a presentation of facts and witness statements compiled by the author, Deric Lostutter

TruthVoice does not have “paying articles”. Every article that this author writes is of his own volition and free will. This author has not been compensated for the production of this article.

There have also been allegations that the author has acquired federal charges, this is ALSO false. Deric Lostutter was a key player in helping to solve a cover-up in a rape case of a teenager in Steubenville, Ohio, 2 years ago, which resulted in him being raided by the F.B.I.. This was covered here in an article in Rolling Stone Magazine.

Since his raid, he has not been charged, and has been featured on multiple national, and international television news networks for his exploits, including CNN, Al Jazeera America, and most recently, Fox News for fighting ISIS.

TruthVoice is not a blog, but rather a nationally syndicated news site that averages hundreds of thousands of readers a day. All of our content is fact checked, and submitted to, then reviewed by, multiple editors before posting.

The Elvis family is free to dispute any content on this site, but have yet to do so, only using scare tactics in an effort to discredit the allegations of evidence posted here, freely available to the readers to investigate themselves.

We invite you to Google, and also submit your own background checks on Terry Elvis. Thank you to the 2,500 readers that have liked and/or shared this article in the first 24 hours.

Let’s find Heather.

It has been almost 2 years since the strange, and sad disappearance of 20 year old Heather Elvis, in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. A vigil is being held on the anniversary of her disappearance by her Father, Terry Elvis, and her mother, Debbie Elvis.

New revelations came to light this week when eye-witness accounts stated that GPS records of Steven Schiraldi’s phone did not match where he said he and Heather were on that fateful night. Revelations, which caused multiple people who claim to have been ruthlessly targeted by the Elvis family for asking questions, to come forward.

A source close to the family approached them with key information that she received a falsified text message from someone pretending to be the murder suspect, Tammy Moore, stating that Heather was pregnant at the time of her disappearance.

Infuriated at this information getting out to the public, she alleged that Terry called her and threatened to “have her head”.

According to the source, Terry’s daughter Heather, had planned on coming clean about being allegedly molested by her father, and this lead our source to believe that it may have in fact been Terry’s child.

Still angry with our source, a couple weeks passed, when allegedly Terry called the workplace of our source’s significant other. Terry allegedly spoke with the Captain of that police department, who then told the couple to “drop it” or Terry would make their life hell.

Piquing my interest, I did some digging, and made multiple contacts associated with the case, which still has a gag order at the request of the family.

I received multiple documents about Terry Elvis, one of which caught our eye, an arrest record showcasing the hidden violent side of Terry Elvis.

The arrest records backed up the claim of the victim of Terry’s threats, I dug deeper, and found an arrest record for Terry which highlighted multiple counts of fraud back in the 1980’s.

Terry’s past of fraud only adds speculation and suspicion to the handling of donations that the family has received to fund the search and reward for Heather Elvis to be found.

I noted that Terry purchased several vehicles recently, including 2 convertibles and a vehicle for his other daughter. Terry has also since paid off the mortgage on his house, alleged to be valued around $200,000. You will note the line that says “mtg” or Mortgage satisfaction.

Terry claims to be a God fearing man on his Facebook page dedicated to his daughter, “FindHeatherElvis“. References to going to church, being a good southern Christian, and requests for prayers coupled with Bible passages litter the page, getting responses from hundreds of people in support and solidarity in faith.

The photographs that we dug up of Terry, however, tell a different story. A story about a man plagued with anger, hanging out at stripper parties, and even discussing how to bury a body just 2 MONTHS prior to Heather’s disappearance.

Terry, also has a brother, an officer with the Horry County Sheriffs Office, who was recently arrested for DUI. The arrest barely made media, and accounts of Terry being able to pull strings at his local police department can only make you wonder why.

Digging even deeper, I uncovered some peculiar evidence that may make Terry a prime suspect. Evidence that not even his connections can save him from.

In May, prior to Heather’s disappearance, Terry appears to have purchased a large fantasy style 26 inch blade, even commenting that he removed the flames from said blade to alter the appearance.

Terry’s purchase of the blade comes only months prior to his comment about burying bodies, shortly before his daughter vanished.

Terry also owns a property close to where Heather Elvis disappeared. Just walking distance to where police found her car.

Lets recap, Terry has a record of fraud, benefits greatly from the donations, paying off his house, purchasing several vehicles, jet-skis and wardrobes, has a history of violence, discusses how to hide bodies and owns a property walking distance to where his daughter’s car was found, who was alleged to have been molested by him.

Terry has had his fair share of people voicing their opinion, calling him out on what they find about him. His wife, Debbie Elvis, recently spoke on the cyber-bullying they have experienced since the case surfaced 2 years ago.

Terry, in a controlling manor, barred an unbiased newspaper from attending a press conference because he didn’t agree with their coverage.

Terry even allegedly requested help from his friend in the case, and according to his friend, when he got too close, had him falsely arrested for obstruction and interfering in an investigation.

Terry has offered what could be presumed to be donation funds, for a reward to “out” those who speak out against him in anyway, much to the disdain of some of his followers.

Terry has also held true to his violent nature, threatening and inciting crimes of arson, and murder, against those he believes to be responsible.

Could Terry have been protected by local investigative authorities? Could he be responsible for Heather’s disappearance? We may never know.

The community, outraged at these key pieces of evidence being ignored, have demanded that federal authorities take over the investigation.

I tried to reach out to Terry and Debbie Elvis for comment via Facebook, but have since been blocked from communicating with them.

UPDATE: I have adjusted the satellite image of the property that Terry owns near the site where heather disappeared to reflect the actual address of the property, included the real estate record that shows it is trailer 10. Terry’s record reflects multiple middle names, the names he gave at the time of arrest, which further reflect his personality and traits of fraud. You are not even required, by law to provide a middle name on legal documents, and for those that demand it, usually a simple middle initial is given. We have provided proof of this below. Please note the same address, yet different middle name given on the charges.

UPDATE 3/14/16:

I have been provided photographic evidence that Heather Elvis may have been in an interracial relationship, which may have enraged Terry Elvis. Terry has posted a few seemingly racist items himself via social media, degrading an African version of Santa Clause, and even what seems to be a racial slur meme pulled from his now private photobucket comment about President Barack Obama:

Notice the photo at the top left, and the one to the right of it as a Microsoft Paint drawing of someone who stabbed someone else with a knife like the one he purchased?

Could Terry have been that mad at his daughter?

By Virgil Vaduva

Bitcoin and technology media is in a feeding frenzy over the revelations from Wired Magazine and Gizmodo about the latest news: Satoshi Nakamoto has been identified! And his name is Craig Steven Wright, an Australian man living in a modest Sidney home, who has a lot of “big computer equipment” in his basement, needing a lot of electricity.

In what appears to be an elaborate hoax played on the media, an unknown individual (or a group of individuals ), likely Craig Wright himself, managed to disseminate just enough circumstantial evidence in order to motivate an eager journalist to determine that he, namely Craig Wright, is Satoshi Nakamoto, the original creator of Bitcoin.

Virtually all of Wired Magazine’s original article is in essence concluding that Wright is Satoshi based on blog post time stamps dating as far back as 2008, supposed leaked e-mail messages and transcripts of conversations between Wright and New South Wales government employees. The Gizmodo article also attempts to use the same evidence to reach similar conclusions. The irony in all these explosive revelations is that all authors involved in the writing of the Wired and Gizmodo articles are going out of their way to not repeat the mistakes of the Newsweek 2014 article which erroneously outed an innocent bystander named Dorian Nakamoto as the creator of Bitcoin. They are using words like “probably” and even include an unambiguous disclaimer in the piece, stating,

Despite that overwhelming collection of clues, none of it fully proves that Wright is Nakamoto.

In October 2014, Dorian Nakamoto announced that he intended to sue Newsweek, and months after taking relentless mocking and heat from the general public, Newsweek appears to have moved the original piece on Nakamoto behind a paywall that ignores the “5 Free Articles” limit extended to non-subscribers. Having learned from Newsweek’s mistakes, perhaps Wired and Gizmodo are simply trying to have it both ways: create a massive amount of publicity and traffic, and be able to walk away from a highly controversial story saying that they never claimed with certainty that Wright is Satoshi .

Here is why I believe that Craig Wright is not Satoshi Nakamoto:

1. Time stamps on blog posts can be easily faked. A blog post’s date and time can easily be written today and made to look as if it was written in 2008.
2. Any documents claimed to be “leaked” coming from anonymous sources can also be faked and manipulated. This includes audio recordings, transcripts and supposed e-mail messages.
3. Wired’s claim that e-mail addresses used by Craig Wright are “very similar” to e-mail addresses used by Satoshi Nakamoto is just journalistic hyperbole and cannot be used to prove that Wright is Satoshi .
4. The claims that PGP keys used by Wright and Satoshi are “linked to the creation of Bitcoin” also lack any substance.  A PGP signature can offer concrete evidence of authorship, or verification that the person possessing the private key used to sign a specific file or e-mail message is in fact the true person behind the messages. Wright has not provided any such evidence, and this evidence should be easily provided. He could simply make a public post stating that he is Satoshi Nakamoto and sign that post with Satoshi’s original PGP key, which he has never use and can be found here: http://forum.bitcoin.org/Satoshi_Nakamoto.asc
5. Satoshi Nakamoto has never shown the desire to be a media hog or a public person, while Wright has. Satoshi has always shown the desire to be private and live in the shadows; Wright has not.
6. Wright is still mining Bitcoin. According to the Sidney police who have raided Wright’s home shortly after the Wired article was published, there was a substantial amount of equipment in Wright’s home, most likely used for Bitcoin mining. According to the landlord, Wright had a three phase, high amperage circuit pulled into the building, also indicating that a mining operation is ongoing. It is extremely unlikely that Satoshi would have a need to mine bitcoin as he mined the original genesis blocks. These bitcoin have never moved on the Blockchain since they were originally mined in January 2009. It is generally accepted that Satoshi has a ton of Bitcoin already, about 1 million of them. He would not spend valuable time and resources on mining activity that is no longer very profitable.
7. Wright is in trouble with the government of New South Wales. While this does not prove much, we can speculate that this may be a ploy by Craig Wright to create publicity to advertise his business enterprises, one of which is a “Bitcoin bank” called DeMorgan LTD, a “pre-IPO” company which would greatly benefit financially from the suggestion that its founder and majority owner is Satoshi himself. Not coincidentally, the price of Bitcoin has gone up substantially since Wright’s claims were publicized.

It appears to be quite evident that Craig Wright is not Satoshi Nakamoto. Until Wright provides some solid cryptographic evidence that he is Satoshi, Wired and Gizmodo should stick to celebrity boob-job news and try to resist the temptation to write sensational news which do not really benefit the Bitcoin community. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And the claims that Wright is Satoshi are very poor, at best.

Virgil Vaduva is a Libertarian security professional, journalist, photographer and overall liberty freak. He spent most of his life in Communist Romania and participated in the 1989 street protests which led to the collapse of the Ceausescu regime. He can be reached at vvaduva at truthvoice.com.

By: Deric Lostutter

Recently, during my migration from the backwoods of the Kentucky foothills to my home-state of North Carolina, a state in which I have not resided in over 10 years, I was curious to see how their open carry firearms laws compare to Kentucky’s. A few minutes after a google search I discovered that North Carolina at the surface seemed like a progressive state who respected the Constitution and the rights of its American citizens. North Carolina had no restrictions on assault weapons, and it even seemed to read that people with “purchase permits” issued by their respective county sheriff’s department, could purchase a handgun at the age of 18, 3 years sooner than Kentucky.

I called the Forsyth County Sheriff’s department, to find out if I could “open carry”, a practice that I had taken up in Lexington, Kentucky due to all the drug and gang violence, around my reclaimed home-town of Winston-Salem. I was forwarded to the pistol permit division in which a man on the other end told me that I did not have to have a North Carolina driver’s license to open carry, or display the weapon outside of concealment, such as a holster on the hip. Furthermore he described it as “an old west” kind of feel in the state, in which allowed me to “walk down main street with it if I wanted to.”

It sounded good enough, however I was curious to see what laws there were about possession of a firearm in different stores, buildings, and in my vehicle. Upon a brief google search, I discovered various laws in which the willpower of the police state has snatched up our inherent rights to keep and bear arms to fight off oppressive governments, or even groups of thugs. Furthermore I discovered a law in which the local government and police departments, could profit from an otherwise free (at least in Kentucky), background check from the ATF, in order to purchase a pistol. This is the one I will touch on first, because not only does it tax us on our constitutional rights to bear arms, but also provides the ever-growing police state with capital based of a draconian, and racist law known as the “Jim Crow Laws”

Ҥ 14-402. Sale of certain weapons without permit forbidden.

(a) It is unlawful for any person, firm, or corporation in this State to sell, give away, or transfer, or to purchase or receive, at any place within this State from any other place within or without the State any pistol unless: (i) a license or permit is first obtained under this Article by the purchaser or receiver from the sheriff of the county in which the purchaser or receiver resides; or (ii) a valid North Carolina concealed handgun permit is held under Article 54B of this Chapter by the purchaser or receiver who must be a resident of the State at the time of the purchase.

It is unlawful for any person or persons to receive from any postmaster, postal clerk, employee in the parcel post department, rural mail carrier, express agent or employee, railroad agent or employee within the State of North Carolina any pistol without having in his or their possession and without exhibiting at the time of the delivery of the same and to the person delivering the same the permit from the sheriff as provided in G.S. 14-403. Any person violating the provisions of this section is guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor.”

So, not only is commercial sale of firearms restricted to a third party sheriff’s office’s discretion, this affects the average American citizen from private sales to another individual, unless of course the purchaser first pays his “taxes” to the local “boys in blue.”

This statute in otherwise progressive North Carolina laws, stems from what are known as the “Jim Crow Laws”. Jim Crow Laws are laws which were enacted after the Reconstruction period of the southern United States. Based upon racial segregation, the law remained in effect until 1965, when the former Confederate state allowed African-Americans “separate but equal” status. The Jim Crow laws mandated the segregation of pretty much everything. From schools, to transportation. Eateries and even the United States Military were also once segregated.
The Jim Crow laws followed the 1800-1866 law dubbed the “Black Codes”, which stripped the civil rights and liberties of African American citizens. After 1954 when Brown v. Board of Education declared school segregation unconstitutional, a change swept the nation which later introduced the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The draconian “pistol permit” process which was designed to restrict the access of handguns to African-Americans, stayed in effect throughout the civil rights movement.
The name Jim Crow is thought to have originated from the caricature of blacks performed by white actor Thomas Rice, who would dress up in “blackface” around the mid 1800’s. A satire, as it was referred to, criticized President Andrew Jackson’s populist policies. As a result of the fame of Rice, “Jim Crow” became slang for “Negro” in southern legislature and in the south all together.

Let’s touch base on how this ties in with gun control. The “Black Codes”, enacted in the 1800’s restricted firearm possession by the “freedmen” or freed slaves of legal standing. The laws made it easier for the first gun control advocates of the United States of America, the Ku Klux Klan, to confiscate the weapons of the freedmen, which in turn made it easier to terrorize and even lynch the African-American citizens.

President Grant would later serve as president of the National Rifle Association, prosecuting Klansmen, and declaring martial law when necessary to quell the violence they caused.

The 14th amendment to the constitution, ratified on July 9, 1868, forbids any state to deny the “equal protection” of laws, which simply put overturns gun control statutes written on racist tones.

What was the South’s response? Enacting “class warfare” by imposing ludicrous laws aiming at disarming the freedmen. Such laws included banning inexpensive firearms, reserving them only for the wealthy, while others imposed what we have today in North Carolina, licensing systems and carry restrictions.

Now you may suggest that I am “reaching” or grasping at straws, but a Supreme Court justice from Florida later denounced the laws stating “these laws were never intended to be applied to the white population” (Watson v. Stone, 1941).

Not only does North Carolina restrict the purchasing of firearms with for-profit permit systems piggy-backed off of racist archaic laws, they also restrict the right to bear arms, as provided to us by the 2nd amendment to the United States Constitution. The “progressive” state bans carrying a firearm at constitutionally protected assemblies, and protests. They also ban carrying at parades, funeral processions, or any other legal demonstration. The laws listed below also prevent people protecting themselves in times of distress, such as the recently highlighted Baltimore Riots, and what would even be carrying on your own property such as a party with a noise violation (disturbance involving three or more people.)

You may not carry a weapon at a parade, funeral procession, picket line, or other demonstration, except for guns carried on a rack in a pickup truck. (N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 14-277.2.)

You may not carry a weapon during civil disorder, riot, or other disturbance involving three or more people. (N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 14-288.20.)

These laws completely molest, disregard, and pretty much destroy the civil liberties given to us by our founding fathers. They strip us of our rights to protect ourselves based on the greed and agendas of our racist government and its predecessors, to disarm the poor, to disarm the free thinkers, and to disarm the different. We cannot sit idly by any longer, content with our rights being stripped for “security purposes”.

Legislators,

We The People demand you overturn these unjust laws, and for-profit schemes, and respect the constitution you were sworn to uphold.

“He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither.” –Benjamin Franklin

Sept, 29, 2015. San Diego, CA. USA| The Hi-Lite Theater’s alley way where police shot and killed a manI.|Photos by Jamie Scott Lytle.Copyright.

We’re awaiting a decision from U.S.  District Judge William Q. Hays on whether he’ll allow the release of a surveillance video in the April 30 police shooting of an unarmed, mentally ill man in San Diego’s Midway neighborhood.

If it’s made public, the video will provide insight into the city’s official version of what happened versus the perspective of those who have seen the footage. Beyond that, the situation opens a window into understanding how police officers’ use of deadly force is judged and what might have been done to prevent something like this from happening.

Lawyers for the city have said that Fridoon Rawshan Nehad threatened San Diego police officer Neal Browder with a metallic pen that looked like a knife before the officer shot and killed him in an alleyway. But an employee of a nearby boat equipment business who watched the business’ surveillance footage said the video shows Nehad didn’t threaten Browder. The shooting, the employee said, was hasty and unprovoked. Nehad’s family shares that opinion and filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the city.

These are the big issues to understand before the potential release of any video.

How will the district attorney decide whether to prosecute Browder?

San Diego police have forwarded their investigation into Browder’s actions to District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis, who is still weighing the case for potential criminal charges. Her decision to prosecute will be based on a relatively straightforward precedent from two U.S. Supreme Court cases from the 1980s.

Law enforcement officers can use deadly force if they believe there’s an imminent threat of deadly force against them or someone else. Crucially, the standard is taken from what a so-called “reasonable officer” would believe at the time, not with the benefit of hindsight. In this case, for instance, it matters less that Nehad didn’t end up having a knife and more whether a reasonable officer in the same position as Browder would think Nehad had one.

“It’s going to come down to whether there was a reasonable belief that he had a blade and that he was close enough to use it,” said Phil Stinson, a professor at Bowling Green State University in Ohio and an expert in officer-involved shootings.

What was Browder doing before the shooting?

Everything that Browder did before the instant he shot Nehad has no bearing on whether the shooting was justified under the law. Again, what matters is what Browder felt at the time of the shooting and whether that belief was reasonable.

Browder arrived at the scene in response to a 911 call saying that a man with a knife was threatening people. The city hasn’t said much about the officer’s actions prior to the shooting. But Wesley Doyle, the boat business employee who watched the surveillance video, said the police cruiser’s emergency lights weren’t turned on when Browder arrived in his car, Browder stepped out of the car around the driver’s side door leaving nothing between him and Nehad and took a relaxed stance before suddenly raising his weapon and shooting Nehad.

Even if Browder’s initial decisions aren’t considered factors in any possible criminal case against him, it doesn’t mean they were good ones. Police departments around the country are beginning to recognize this concern, according to a recent report from the nonprofit Police Executive Research Forum, and are considering holding officers accountable if they failed to de-escalate a situation before it reached a point where deadly force was necessary.

Video recordings of police shootings from across the country are fueling this change, the report said.

“In many of these cases, the officers’ use of force has already been deemed ‘justified,’ and prosecutors have declined to press criminal charges,” the report said. “But that does not mean that the uses of force are considered justified by many people in the community.”

San Diego Police Chief Shelley Zimmerman has not indicated whether Browder did anything wrong, though she did change departmental policy to require officers to turn on body cameras prior to initiating contact with suspects – Browder’s wasn’t on during the shooting. Browder also returned to active duty in early June.

What was Nehad doing before the shooting?

By contrast, Nehad’s actions before the shooting are important in any case against Browder. It matters whether Nehad was a threat.

Here, there’s a major discrepancy between the city’s take and others’. In its response to the lawsuitfiled by Nehad’s family, the city implies that Nehad was rushing toward the officer. Doyle said the video shows Nehad was slowing his walking and might have even stopped completely before the shooting. The lawyer for Nehad’s family, who has also seen the video, characterized Nehad’s pace as “strolling or ambling along” and said he stopped before he was shot.

How much does the distance matter?

Probably a lot.

For decades, law enforcement officers across the country have been taught that a suspect armed with a knife could stab an officer before a cop could draw and fire his gun if the suspect was within 21 feet. At a May conference of police chiefs, department leaders worried that officers have used the 21-foot rule by itself to justify shooting and killing suspects who were within that distance. That perspective, the chiefs said, was outdated and needed to change in favor of promoting de-escalation tactics.

Still, in this case, the distance between Nehad and Browder is a big point of contention. The city claims Nehad was 10 to 15 feet away from Browder when the shooting happened. Doyle said the two were about 15 feet away from each other. The lawyer for Nehad’s family says the distance was approximately 25 feet when the shooting occurred.

It’s unknown if the video footage will reveal the exact distance between Browder and Nehad when the shooting happened.

What is not in the video?

By all accounts, the video is high quality and provides a clear picture of what happened. It is, however, lacking sound. This is another cause of dispute. The city says Browder was yelling at Nehad to drop the knife. The Nehad family lawyer says Browder said he didn’t remember whether he said anything before the shooting.

The video also will provide just one perspective of the shooting. Indeed, Zimmerman has argued the video should stay sealed because it’s one piece of evidence, not the entirety of the case.

Liam Dillon is senior reporter and assistant editor for Voice of San Diego. He leads VOSD’s investigations and writes about how regular people interact with local government. What should he write about next? Please contact him directly at[email protected] or 619.550.5663.