Cop Haters Get It Wrong Too, Perspective

It is no secret here that I tend to be pretty hard on law-enforcement, from a lot of different angles. From a high political level, through the perspectives of sociology, and finally on down to zero tolerance for officer criminality. I am often accused of being a "cop-hater." But the truth is, I am not a cop-hater, even though the moniker does not really upset me much. What I hate is injustice. More to the point, I simply cannot abide hypocrisy, which our modern law-enforcement apparatus seems to be overflowing with.

From TSA agents being our friendly local social terrorist molesting people at airports and railway platforms, to cops who maim and murder the very people they are sworn to protect. One need look no further than our own police-state column to see the reality of the tyranny we now live under.

But this article is not about bad cops or bad laws.

Today I want to talk about the other side of the coin. I want to have a look at the genuine cop-haters. The folks who will, no matter what, always say that the cop is wrong. My friends, this is another hypocrisy I cannot abide. The cop is not always wrong. It does a disservice to those of us who are striving for genuine and positive changes, to pick at justifiable police activity as being some travesty of justice and abuse of authority. The reality is that the job of a police officer is a very difficult one. One that does include justified instances of all sorts of unsavory acts, up to and including the use of deadly force. Just because a cop shoots someone dead, does not mean that a murder has been committed.

I have seen instances in the past of people ripping on the police for simply doing their job. That is no more fair-play than a cop planting a joint in your glovebox.

What got me going on this subject today was the following pic and video which has been splashed across anti-law-enforcement blogs and Facebook pages.

I got completely suckered in by the caption. What is frightening of course, is that the performance of our police forces made this entirely plausible, and I started salivating about the prospect of posting yet another instance of a cop going berserk.

What I got instead though, was a dose of cop-haters going out of their way to be offended by a cop doing his job.

Let's have a look at the video now, before I comment further.




The video starts as the officer engages the suspect vehicle and initiates a traffic stop. The vehicle matches the description given by other motorists who reported a reckless and/or speeding driver. This is confirmed by the suspect himself in his own video description.

"...Pulled over for no reason except someone said I was swerving on the interstate a lil bit because i had broke the stick shift knob and was screwing it back on. Is this a legal traffic stop. I thought officers had to witness me committing a violation but not this case. Someone was pulling some road rage making up that I almost hit them when in fact they cut me off and I had to slam on my breaks because she limited my distance to stop..."

So right here he has admitted that he was indeed swerving. I don't care if he was screwing on a broken shift knob, texting, or getting his knob polished. If you are swerving in traffic, especially at high speed on an interstate, you are putting lives in danger. That is reckless.

Then, another motorist also complains that the subject was driving recklessly, but he claims to be the "victim" of road rage here, and that the second complainant (presumably the female in the video) had actually caused a hazard. I find that claim on his part to be dubious, especially considering other admissions on the part of the suspect.

Regardless, the officer had several complaints of an erratic vehicle. This certainly is enough probable cause to initiate a traffic stop. No, an officer does not have to see an offense in order to investigate a potential crime. (Note that the suspect was never charged with other highway infractions which were not committed in the presence of the officer.) You will also notice in the video, that the suspect vehicle has malfunctioning tail/brake lights, which is also probable cause for a traffic stop.

In short, the officer engages a suspect vehicle that was reportedly, and by later admission of the operator, driving erratically. The reasons were, of course, unknown to the officer and not legally justified anyway.

The officer sees the suspect vehicle lurch forward, against a red light, but with another vehicle in front of the suspect vehicle blocking the path. The suspect tries to explain this by saying that "the light was about to turn green" but this may in fact be another traffic violation, as it is in many jurisdictions, to proceed against a stop light once stopped. That would be yet another point of probable cause, and a ticketable offense committed in the presence of the officer. At the very least, the officer would be right to see this as a sign of  anxious or aggressive driving. And for what reason, the officer had yet to determine. Was the suspect attempting to flee, was the vehicle in distress and unsafe for the roadway, or was the operator simply dangerously incompetant?

At that point the suspect vehicle chooses to proceed, rather than remain stopped. Again, by his own admission, the suspect had indeed seen the lights of the police car, was stopped, and chose to proceed anyway. That is a violation of the law. To generally paraphrase most traffic codes, you must stop and pull to the side if possible, when it is safe to do so. The suspect was stopped, there was no danger, and chose to proceed anyway.

"Yes I was stopped but he didn't say to stay there. Its always taught you pull over for emergency vehicles. How is this resisting I need to know? I had never been in trouble and any other time I had been pulled over I get yelled at to pull over to a safer spot. Well not this time."

His muddled self-justification is actually hard to interpret there. But right off the bat he makes a critical error in judgement. The officer most certainly did say to "stay there" through use of his warning beacons and siren. Not only did the suspect fail to yield, but also, willingly chose to proceed after acknowledging the police presence and lawful order to yield. Just because officers in the past had "always" yelled at him to pull over to a safer spot, that was not the case in this instance. The officer issued no such command.

Furthermore, it is hardly reasonable to move an almost completely disabled vehicle from a side street onto a main thoroughfare, as we saw was done in this video. I don't see that as reasonable even without the police presence, which is also something that the officer likely considered.

So at this point the officer sees a suspect vehicle that is stalling out repeatedly, has a broken taillight, is leaking fluid all over the ground, with a driver who has been driving erratically, aggressively proceeding against a red light, and then for some unknown reason chooses to proceed into heavy traffic rather than remain stopped on a side street. The motorist was actually creating a more dangerous situation, not moving to safer ground.

The officer, at this point, is reasonably jacked-up with all sorts of suspicion. Is the person drunk or high? Was the truck damaged from hitting another car or even a pedestrian perhaps? Is the driver simply woefully incompetent? Maybe in emotional distress, or having a medical problem such as a seizure or some sort of dementia? Even a diabetic episode? Is the truck blowing fluid all over the place because the suspect just beat the hell out of the motor fleeing from the scene of an axe murder at a daycare center? Who the hell knows? With all those questions and more, would you walk up to a vehicle like that with a fine "Howdy doo? What seems to be the trouble today?"

Hell no. I would pull my Glock and and give him a straight "what da fuck man?!"

And to break it down even further, ask yourself this. How often would you actually love to pull a Glock on some asshat driver and ask him that very question before you proceed to break his cellphone and knock out his high beams with a lug wrench? I have been tempted to do just that many times. Now imagine it is your job to actually stop that person, but you can't even give him so much as a Three-Stooges eye-poke? That you have to swallow your emotions, protect yourself from a possibly fatal encounter, and act professionally. That takes balls of steel and an almost inhuman sense of humility at the same time.

So to wrap this up here, like I said to start, I have a lot of beef with cops in general. From the laws that they enforce, to how they enforce them. But at the end of the day, fuck that job. Not for me man. I would crack someone in the head.

To my cop-hating buds out there, don't get it twisted my friends. A lot of assholery comes from the thin-blue-line. But don't believe the hype either. Propaganda works both ways. And to my police officer friends, this is for you you blue bastads! Lol. Gotta give you some props once in a while. 

And be safe on the roads all my friends. Don't be an asshat. Stay off the fuckin phone. No, you are not special, you cannot use the phone and drive, you are not superhuman. (And this goes for you cops out there too, exempt or not.)

Can You Use The Phone And Drive?


Here is the full video description by the self-desribed suspect in this matter:

Here is the in dash camera from a police officer in Lebanon, Indiana. While he was behind me at the stop light the truck kept dying because it was old and over heating from being on the interstate the radiator fluid was leaking out. I had borrowed this truck in Lafayette, Indiana and its been sometime since I had driven a clutch. The guy that let me borrow the truck told me it sometimes overheats. It needed a thermostat or something. I got charged Felony Resisting Law Enforcement with a motor vehicle. Is this justified. I pulled over in a safer spot outta of the middle of the road. I had no idea I was being stopped but I noticed during the stop light and waved my hand to signal okay I'll pull over. Yes I was stopped but he didn't say to stay there. Its always taught you pull over for emergency vehicles. How is this resisting I need to know? I had never been in trouble and any other time I had been pulled over I get yelled at to pull over to a safer spot. Well not this time. I need help because I was scared into taking the plea or I would lose the case my attorney Buchanan Law Office Inc: Buchanan Pamela said. She was appointed as my legal counsel since I couldn't afford an attorney. I waiting 1 year going to probation and I even filled to fire her but at court I in the last minute had been convinced by her that I was not going to do any different thru anyone else. Her husband is a Prosecutor for the Town Of Lebanon and I feel that this is all crap. This took place in Lebanon, Indiana. Pulled over for no reason except someone said I was swerving on the interstate a lil bit because i had broke the stick shift knob and was screwing it back on. Is this a legal traffic stop. I thought officers had to witness me committing a violation but not this case. Someone was pulling some road rage making up that I almost hit them when in fact they cut me off and I had to slam on my breaks because she limited my distance to stop. Is there any other options I can pursue to sue the law office or something I just wanted to get the process over with because 2 years was a long time for probation and I figured maybe she was right what do I know I have no other way of fighting it. NEED HELP. THIS IS KEEPING ME FROM HAVING A NORMAL LIFE I CANT GET A CAREER TO TAKE CARE OF MY WIFE AND KID. I AM SO FRUSTRATED WITH THIS.

This article courtesy of Station6Underground, used by permission.



Tweet

"Here's My Statement, F**k You Pig!"

Gotta admire the brass balls on this guy. Kind of surprising that the cameraman didn't suddenly find himself being tossed around and having his head slammed of the curb by police.

There are a few technicalities that should be pointed out here though, to be fair about what we are seeing.

To start, we don't know why the suspect was being arrested. It's quite possible that it was a legal, even a justified arrest. Secondly, while we may see it as "brutality" to smack a suspect's head on the concrete, that is not necessarily true. A police officer does have the right to inflict pain in order to stimulate the cooperation of a resistant subject. In most departments, the amount of force which may be applied is relative to the amount of force with which the suspect is resisting. This practice is called the use-of-force-continuum. I am pretty sure that the pavement-head-crack is not a textbook maneuver taught at most police academies, on the other hand, gratuitous use of tasers and stun guns usually replaces such tactics in the modern era anyhow.

So what we are really left with here, is trying to gauge the level of resistance that suspect was giving police officers. This is difficult to accurately ascertain for two reasons. First, the video starts rolling just a second or two before the officer bangs the suspect's head onto the sidewalk. Secondly, we are not the officers affecting the arrest and therefore cannot feel the level of active resistance.

All in all though, my guess would be that the head-smack was more out of frustration on the part of the officer, rather than as progressive technique. I have seen on numerous occasions where an officer will believe that the subject is resisting, while at the same time trying to bend an arm a way it cannot bend, or when an arm is trapped under the subject's body while officers are piled on top bearing down with all their weight. So in many instances, what officers see as resistance, is really their own lack of understanding basic anatomy and physics.

Either way, my humble opinion is that the cracking of the head on the pavement was a bit excessive, and probably worthy of a reprimand, but does not rise to the level of many instances of brutality we have seen in other cases.

Next, we see the cameraman admonishing the police who arrive on motorbikes. for "invading our space." The police absolutely have the right to set up a perimeter and declare an exclusion zone in cases of emergency. This would include a reasonable amount of space around police officers conducting an arrest. This is not at all unreasonable, and done for the safety of both police and the suspect. I understand where the cameraman's anger comes from, but he is wrong. He does not have the right to interfere with the arrest.

Back on the other hand though, and again understanding where civilian anger against the police comes from, take a look at the security guard's face as he walks past the cameraman and back into the building. A sideways glare, a lick of the lips, and a frustrated grin. It's plainly written on his face that he would love to kick the ever-loving shit out of the guy holding the camera and carrying on with his rant against the police.

Okay, with all that said, and without further ado, here's the video:






Tweet

An Inside Look at NYPD's 'Stop and Frisk' Policy (VIDEO)

Regular readers here know that it is not uncommon for me to share stories of police brutality and things that generally show the police in a bad light. This video does deal with violations of citizen rights, but very objectively, even talking to the police officers themselves, as well as victims, and criminal justice experts. Please take the time to hear what they have to say.

Tweet

Deputy AG, Wife Charged in PA Child Abuse Case

Cases like this are always hard to stomach, but the hypocrisy here just takes it to a whole new level. Keep in mind that these charges are being brought against one of the state's highest public officials, and his wife. The office of the attorney-general is not only the senior legal adviser to the government, but also responsible for leading criminal prosecutions. In essence, you might say that the one of the state's "top cops" is being charged with these terrible crimes.

There will be those who give the old "bad apple" excuse, and say that such a case is not indicative of a real problem. Well my friends, I would have to disagree and say that a chain is only as strong as it's weakest link. Sure people are people, cops and prosecutors are only people too. And that is exactly why we, as a society, should not allow these officials to wield inordinate power over the citizenry.

I wonder how many cases this man prosecuted in the same mindset that he showed to his own children, or worse. One of "tough love" or a sense of "justice" so rigid and unforgiving that it is a crime in it's own right. This is the sort of man who was put in charge of charging other people with crimes, on behalf of the people of Pennsylvania...

Pa. deputy attorney general, wife charged with abuse of children

A state deputy attorney general and his wife have been charged with child endangerment and assault against two children they adopted from Ethiopia earlier this year.

Douglas B. Barbour, 33, and Kristen B. Barbour, 30, of Franklin Park, were charged Thursday with two counts of child endangerment against their 6-year-old son and 18-month-old daughter. Each also received an aggravated assault charge against the daughter. Mr. Barbour was charged with simple assault against his son.

"The Office of the Attorney General (OAG) is in the process of reviewing the criminal complaint and will closely monitor the charges as they progress through the criminal justice system," said a statement from state Attorney General Linda Kelly released Thursday night.

"Mr. Barbour faces a felony offense. Under OAG policy, he will be suspended without pay pending the resolution of the charges. At this time, our thoughts are with the children and the Office of Attorney General will cooperate fully with this investigation," the statement reads.

Allegheny County police are leading the investigation.

The Barbours' daughter is the victim of physical child abuse, including abusive head trauma, according to Rachel Berger of Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh of UPMC, whose examinations of the children was referenced in the criminal complaint.

Ms. Barbour told hospital personnel last month that their daughter has a history of banging her head, but the extent of her injuries and the fact that she had no underlying medical problem does not support that, Dr. Berger said in the complaint.

The Barbours' 6-year-old son is "the victim of significant neglect and possible emotional abuse over a prolonged period of time," Dr. Berger said in the complaint.

Doctors who evaluated the boy determined his skin lesions were likely the result of ongoing contact with urine. He was experiencing weight loss at home but ate voraciously and gained weight -- without medical treatment -- when fed at the hospital, according to hospital personnel cited in the complaint.

The boy told a doctor that when he soiled his pants, his parents would make him stand or eat dinner in the bathroom, according to the criminal complaint. Authorities noted his room contained no furnishings, decorations or window treatments: only a mattress on the floor with sheets.

Dr. Berger recommended the children be removed from the home and cease contact with their parents. She told authorities the Barbours' daughter is likely to be reinjured or killed if she returns.

"I have been part of the Children Protection Team for almost 14 years and cannot remember the last time I recommended no contact," she said in the complaint.

A little more research into this case shows that the girl may have suffered a stroke as a result of her injuries, and may now be permanently blind.

It appears that Barbour is mainly listed as representing the state in cases against prisoners. 




Tweet

Deputy Executes Jaywalker in Cold Blood (Video)

Lynwood, Los Angeles, CA - It was about 1:45 a.m. on October 10, 2010 when LA County Sheriff's Deputy Julio Jove spotted a group of young men jaywalking across Long Beach Boulevard.The young men were on their way to a party, and had just left a liquor store with beer and snacks. The Deputy spun into action and attempted to cite the group for their pedestrian infraction.

What happened next, is disputed.

According to the incident report on file, 20-year old Jonathan Cuevas pulled a gun from his waistband and pointed it at the deputy, who then opened fire on the suspect, killing him. The family of the young man who was killed began immediately to suspect that something was very wrong, when the story they were given by homicide detectives was "totally opposite" of what they were being told by residents and shopkeepers in the area.

The shooting was ruled to be justified by internal investigators with oversight from the Office of Independent Review, the Homicide Bureau, and the District Attorney. That might have been the end of the story, if it had not been for this surveillance video made public just this past Friday. The recording is now the centerpiece of a wrongful-death lawsuit by the family of the man who was killed. Alarmingly, the video appears to depict a cold-blooded execution, rather than supporting the official version of events.

A spokespman for the LA County Sheriff's Department states, "This video that was shown today is a partial, small part of this story. It is by no means telling the whole story."

Indeed, what the video doesn't tell us is that key details of the internal investigation are missing. Namely, the weapon that Cuevas allegedly pointed at the deputy. It has not been made available to the family's attorney, who states that it is "nowhere to be found." Even the official investigation concluded that there were no fingerprints on the weapon, which could be used to implicate the suspect and corroborate the account of the deputy. Furthermore, the deputy described a silver handgun, but a photo of the weapon allegedly pulled out shows a black revolver with a wooden handle. There is also no explanation as to why the suspect did not fire the weapon, alleged to be in his hand, at the Deputy.

(Use of a drop-gun is not an unreasonable speculation. The practice of planting an untraceable weapon in order to justify a shooting is not new, has been reported among soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as in hearings regarding the notoriously corrupt Rampart Division of the LAPD.)

What you will see here in this video, cannot be disputed. The police cruiser comes to a sudden stop at the curb, just ahead of the group of suspects. As the deputy emerges from the vehicle, one man runs away, with his back to the deputy. The deputy then draws his weapon and opens fire, striking the man several times in the back. The suspect topples and skids head-first on the sidewalk. The officer runs up and delivers one final "execution" or "coup-de-grac" style shot into the suspect. There is no suspect-weapon apparent in the video, particularly at the moment of the "kill shot."









Tweet

Cop Who Threatened to Murder Motorists Sues to Get Job Back

This Canton, Ohio police officer was caught on videotape three times threatening to murder motorists. In one incident, the motorist was legally carrying a firearm. In another incident, the officer threatned to kill every person in the car. In another yet incident, the motorist was stopped for no reason whatsoever. The officer has been investigated by internal affairs a whopping 18 times during his 14 years on the force, yet his Chief claims there was no reason to believe that the officer in question might have been a problem.



The hot-tempered highwayman was eventually fired, but no criminal charges were ever brought against him. And now the cop wants his job back!

Daniel Harless to appeal firing from Canton police

Now, to those of us with some common sense and basic concept of justice, it might seem absurd that this officer would even dare to try to get his job back. In reality though, there is a very good chance that he will be reinstated. After all, this officer was reinstated after he was fired in the wake of this incident:



This is actually a pretty common theme when there are crimes perpetrated by police. They are virtually above the law and any sense of common decency. In this case, the DA chose not to even prosecute criminal charges against on officer who beat up a judge! 

Update: Queens, New York: The judge who said an officer struck him is blasting the District Attorney for not prosecuting the officer. The judge said the officer hit him when he mistook the judge for a heckler. “It was absolutely criminal,” said the judge, “and I think a jury would have very little difficulty, if they heard the testimony, determining who was telling the truth and who was lying.” bit.ly/OaGTP5

So what chance do you have, as a civilian do you have to see justice be done if you are victimized by the police?

Have You Ever Tried to File a Complaint Against Police

Usually, police officers are never charged criminally, but rather given a departmental censure, or maybe fired, except perhaps in the most grievous of situations for which there is extreme public outcry. Even if they are fired, and cannot go back to their original department, they will more than likely be picked up by another department. Without a felony conviction against them, they are free to still be a police officer in any department that will have them.

When police officers are prosecuted, they are convicted at less than half the rate of the general public. Then, even if a conviction against them is secured, they are less likely to be incarcerated. Even if they do wind up behind bars, a disgraced cop will only do about a third of the time that civilians serve.

Image source

Yet again we see the unbridled hypocrisy in this nation, and awake to find that we now live in an Orwellian police state the likes of which only the most clever fiction authors ever imagined.





Tweet

Cops Who Smash-In Women's Faces

We have another real fuckin hero here folks. This eight-year veteran police officer decides to smash a young woman's face in the side of her car repeatedly, and then declares, "There. Maybe now you can understand simple instructions," as he snaps on the cuffs.

Her big offense? Standing next to her car talking on her cellphone, rather than staying seated, when she was stopped for suspected DUI and traffic infractions. 

Now don't get me wrong here folks, drunks can be belligerent, and police get nervous when a motorist gets out of the car during a traffic stop. In this case however, the young woman who is half his size did nothing that could be construed as aggressive or violent. standing next to your car and talking on the phone is not illegal either. Even if she was drunk, that had yet to be determined. So in the eyes of the law, at that point, this was a perfectly innocent woman who was brutally assaulted by an officer without cause.

Watching the video, it seems abundantly clear that the only reason for flinging this girl around and smashing her face into the side of the car, was to "teach her a lesson" so to speak. Now imagine for a second, what this cop would have done to this girl's father or boyfriend, if they had done the same thing to her. In this day and age, even yelling at a woman can get a man locked up on domestic violence charges, and beat up by police who feel it is their duty to dispense a little "old-fashioned" justice on woman-beaters. Yet here is this guy, beating a young woman he does not even know, because she did not sit down like she was told.

At least the officer was fired, but he was only charged with a misdemeanor count of simple battery and will likely never see the inside of a jail cell. What you will see in the video below, is much worse than a shove or even a smack int the face.

It's also more than likely that he will either try to appeal his firing, or that he will wind up on another police department. This is common practice for police officers who run into trouble of this sort. They are fired as a public relations matter, and then re-hired after the media attention dies down. Or, without a felony conviction, they simply move on to another department. I will go ahead and include a second video below, of a woman who was arrested, and exonerated on a DUI charge. The officer in that case was also fired, but was later reinstated to the department.


As promised, here is the video of the other case I mentioned. As I was digging up a copy, I came across this one, the first split-shot of the event. You will see why that it is important in a moment.


Not only was the officer reinstated, but he was also given all of his back pay.

Board reinstates Willis, says city violated his rights
Panel says Shreveport violated Wiley Willis’ rights

By Loresha Wilson • ljwilson@gannett.com • August 13, 2009

The Shreveport Municipal Fire and Police Civil Service Board’s seven members made the ruling Wednesday in the case known nationally for video footage of the handcuffed woman lying in a pool of her blood in a police interrogation room.

The ruling means Wiley Willis can return to duty once his in-service and firearm requirements are met.
“He’ll get a year and a half of back pay, benefits, retirement, everything,” said Michael Carter, president of the Shreveport police officers union. And as far as he knows, Carter added, Willis intends to continue working for the Shreveport Police Department.

The Civil Service Board ruled that Willis’ rights, under the Police Officer Bill of Rights, were violated because an expert failed to record a polygraph examination Willis took as part of the Police Department’s investigation into Garbarino’s injuries, including a broken nose.

Shreveport Police Chief Henry Whitehorn called the panel’s finding a technicality and said he is “disappointed with the board’s ruling.” The police chief said he is moving forward with the city’s legal department to pursue an appeal.

“This is not a technicality, this is the law — the Police Bill of Rights,” Michael Carter, president of the Shreveport police officers union, said after a news conference Wednesday evening.

Carter also said Willis was fired for failing to administer first aid — a detail the Police Department never has released and would not confirm. Carter pointed out that police officers haven’t been trained in first aid since 1996 and are not equipped with any type of medical supplies.

Wayne Nissen, who administered the polygraph, testified before the board that he was aware the Police Department was investigating Willis’ actions. He said he wasn’t given a line of questions to ask during the exam but was told to ask questions about the night of Garbarino’s arrest.

However, Nissen said, he was unaware of the Police Officer Bill of Rights, which provides a certain level of protection for officers during investigations and personnel matters.

The original link where that story was found no longer functions, and therefore this copy is made for archival and educational purposes. Here is another source for the news as well:

http://www.ksla.com/story/10891613/sport-officer-in-garbarino-case-reinstated?clienttype=printable

So from these two cases alone (and many many more which I could have referenced) we see a pattern of not only police brutality, but extreme violence towards women. Meanwhile, the rest of society is held to a much different standard when it comes to inter-gender violence. In this video, we will even see a cop interviewed, basically saying that it's okay for women to hit men, but not the other way around. And yet police themselves are not held to this gender-biased standard, much less any civil standard of conduct at all in brutality cases.

Where is the outrage? Where it the justice?


So we see that gender-bias is a powerful dynamic in our society today when we see violence. A "women are always right" mentality, or "woman are always the victim." Time and time again this is played out in homes and courtrooms across the nation. Criminal courts, family courts, divorce courts. And despite all of this, there is a more powerful dynamic. That the police are above the law, and beyond reproach. While the average woman beater is loathed on almost the same level as a child molester, the police are excused from any such scrutiny or judgement.

Do you think that a man who would smash his wife's face into the side of her car would get away with a simple battery charge? Even if he had a genuine reason, like perhaps trying to stop a drunk and belligerent wife from going and and crashing her car. Or even if it was she who attacked him and was clearly the aggressor, as in the last video above, would a man be excused for defending himself? Or do you think that if police showed up at a home where a woman was laying in a pool of blood on the floor, and the man said "she fell," do you think he would get away with no punishment of any kind? Of course not, and yet police are given a pass for such violence.

Double-standards wrapped in more double-standards. This is not the land of the free, this is the land of hypocrisy.


EDIT to add:

Also check out this story, where male deputies strip a woman naked, after calling for help because she was beat up by her cousin. They wound up knocking her teeth out on the edge of the metal bunk. 

Woman Brutally Stripped Naked by Male Deputies On Camera

  Tweet

DHS Agent Evokes Police-State Wrath for Reporting Undocumented Border Crossings

Absolutely sickening. Watch this, and then tell me that you still believe that you live in a free country. Tell me that you believe the Department of Homeland Security is keeping you safe.




Tweet

Just Another Victim

The following article is about a teenager who was shot five times by police for underage drinking. You can read the details of the story in the link below. However, what I really wanted to share here was the introduction that author made, before going into details of the particular case. 

This is a country whose people self-righteously criticize China for its human rights abuses. This is a country where the public has been aghast at Singaporean laws against chewing gum, and its “harsh” penalties for violations of the law. This is a country whose people have propagated rabid fear-mongering against Muslims, on the grounds Islam supports poor treatment of women and arbitrary and severe punishments (and I have argued in the past that American statism is not so unlike radical Islam).

Despite the outward pretense of civility and denunciation of human rights abuses, this is a country whose police murder disabled old people, the mentally ill, and children – and get away with it. It is a country whose government actually defends the police when they yank little girls out of beds and put guns to their heads during mistaken drug raids. This is a country whose police arrest people for feeding the homeless. This is the country with the highest number of prisoners in the entire world, both in sheer numbers and on a per capita basis, even as it constantly claims to be the “freest” place on the planet.

The list goes on and on – you’d think the United States would be hiding its face in shame, rather than claiming to be a beacon of freedom while pointing the “human rights” finger at every other country but itself. While police apologists repeatedly drone the tire bit about it being “a few bad apples” or “isolated incidents” (never mind the fact that the law actually encourages and permits this type of behavior by police), the truth is, it would take more than a whole team of writers to detail and cover the daily atrocities committed by police.

Aaron Rosas’ story is one such atrocity.

Click here for the rest of the article.

Tweet

The Holocaust Happened to People Like Us

Woman Brutally Stripped Naked by Male Deputies On Camera

This is what happens when you call the police for help. This woman had been assaulted by a family member, and called the police for help. This is the sort of help you might expect to get, the next time you call police. 

This woman was violently strip-searched by male deputies (with a female present). Although it was against departmental regulation for a male deputy to strip search a female suspect, it was their contention that they were not bound by that regulation in this case. The deputies claimed that this was not a strip-search, but rather a suicide prevention measure, after the arrestee made "suicidal statements."

Hope Steffey admits that she was questioned about suicidal thoughts, as part of normal screening procedures. When asked if she had suicidal thoughts, her reply, "What now, or ever?" is allegedly what incited this response...


 

What Can We Learn From Criminal Complaints Against Cops?

Read article at link:

http://www.injusticeeverywhere.com/?p=1728

Trooper Cuts Off Motorcycle, Biker Faces Charges

Southeast, NY - A motorcyclist is still alive and in stable condition at Danbury Hospital in Connecticut, after hitting the right side of a New York State Police patrol vehicle, a guardrail, and then being thrown from his bike at high speed. 20-year old Matthew Hillman was rescued from a ditch by firefighters.

News reports indicate that a State Trooper positioned on a center-median in Fishkill, NY clocked the bikes at 100-mph, but was unable to pursue and then radioed ahead to another patrol to intercept the dual menace. That patrol engaged the first bike which passed by, cutting off the approaching second motorcycle, when the crash occurred.

The injured biker will face charges.

Wait, what? What about the Trooper? The Trooper must have known that there were two bikes to be on the lookout for to begin with. Second of all, just because someone is speeding, does not give the police the right to pull out in front of them and cause a wreck. Particularly with a motorcycle, which could easily cause a fatality.

And for that matter, we don't even know if the biker was actually speeding at that point. Okay, so maybe they were clocked at 100-mph in the next county, that is no proof that the biker was speeding when the police-patrol vehicle deliberately collided with him.Hard to imagine anyone actually surviving a 100-mph impact on a bike.

But maybe it was just an accident. Maybe the Trooper didn't actually see the second biker coming down the long stretch of interstate highway, at night, with his headlights on. Maybe the biker really was going so fast the Trooper didn't see him in time before pulling out and cutting him off by accident.

Somehow, I doubt that. I really don't care so much that the biker was running out his machine a little in the middle of the night on an open stretch of highway. I am far more concerned that a State Trooper appears to have tried to kill him because of it.

Originally posted at Station.6.Underground, used by permission.

Prosecution would have used false evidence to execute Casey Anthony

One of the main sticking points by the lynch-mob couch-lawyers that Casey should have been hanged, is the supposed computer search for information on chloroform. During the trial the prosecution claimed that Casey had searched the term 84 times, based on the testimony of their computer expert John Bradley. Now it appears that not only was that information false, but that the prosecution knew that it was false, and never corrected the matter to the jury or shared the revelation with the defense.

This matter is not only a sticking point in the trial-by-media which still continues, but was in fact a primary reason that the prosecution intended to seek a death sentence against Casey. So not only did the prosecution let the jury believe that Casey had searched for chloroform 84 times, but they were going to execute her knowingly based on false evidence.

Was it really false evidence though? It does appear that the term was in fact searched one time from the Anthony home computer. But is that enough for a conviction? Is that enough to execute someone? I can tell you that I have searched chloroform a number of times since this trial, and on at least one occasion before the trial after I saw the movie The Vanishing. We also must consider too, who actually did the search.

Suppose this is why the State Attorney’s office has decided not to seek perjury charges against Cindy Anthony? Casey's mother testified at trial that she put in a search query for chlorophyll, and mistakenly entered chloroform. As anyone who as ever Googled knows, when you begin to spell out a word, it pops up with a list of closely spelled suggestions. One click is all it takes to land you someplace other than where you searching originally, either mistakenly, or because a new topic or term catches your interest in the moment.

When clarifying the error in an interview with the New York Times...

The Google search then led to a Web site, sci-spot.com, that was visited only once, Mr. Bradley added. The Web site offered information on the use of chloroform in the 1800s.

So, in a nutshell, the police used an incompetent programmer to design the software for their invesitgation, the prosecution used false evidence in order to prosecute someone and then did not disclose that fact to the defense when the programmer discovered an error, and were also planning to use that false evidence in order to execute someone. And you really want to give those people MORE power?

Say No To Cayleee's Law

Be sure to check out these two related articles from the big boys of media for more details:

Software Designer Reports Error in Anthony Trial

Casey Anthony Trial Witness John Bradley Backtracks After Blasting Prosecutors

Blue Alert: Because Police are Special

Excerpt: 

Blue Alert will warn public of attacks on police
Utah is the tenth state to adopt the system

Starting Monday, a person who attacks a police officer and flees could find his description flashing on highway signs and on news outlets within minutes.

Utah has created a "Blue Alert" — an Amber Alert-style warning system designed to get the public looking for people suspected of assaulting police officers.

"This would have provided a wider dissemination [of information] to the general public" in the recent shooting deaths of Millard County Sheriff deputy Josie Greathouse Fox and Kane County Sheriff's deputy Brian Harris, said Layton Police Chief Terry Keefe at a press conference Monday.

"We might have been able to apprehend those [shooters] earlier," Keefe said.

Emergency responders who pushed for the statewide alert say that people who attack law enforcement officers pose an elevated threat to the public.

Here is the problem with that though. They use flawed logic as the basis for this push for the new system. Maybe they could explain to me how exactly someone is MORE dangerous after killing a cop, then say someone who kills my co-worker in a holdup at a gas station.

The fact of the matter is that this system is nothing more than yet another privilege enjoyed by the police, making the general public second-rate citizens once again.

Why not simply make the "Blue Alert" a nationwide system of important crime info? One to include ANY potentially dangerous situation or situations in which the public's help is needed.

Submit to Sexual Degradation at the Hands of Overlords

This isn't about security, it is about psychological warfare. Sexual degradation has long been a tactic of despots and totalitarian regimes to dehumanize their populations.

Here you will see a "potential" terrorist sobbing and trembling uncontrollably at the hands of a true terrorist:

"By the skillful and sustained use of propaganda, one can make a people see even heaven as hell or an extremely wretched life as paradise."  ~Adolf Hitler

The Only Good Cop Is An Ex-Cop

It can be difficult and heart-wrenching for someone like me, to rail against the police the way I do. After all, I have done law-enforcement work myself, I am a first-responder, I work closely with police to this day, I have police officers in my family, I have police officers who I count as friends. And for those reasons, so many people cannot understand why oh why I would ever talk bad about the police, and so loudly as I do to actually print anti-police articles in a public blog.

Please take the time to read this article I stumbled across, which really nails down the reasons behind a seemingly incongruous standpoint. Here is an excpert, with the full article hotlinked in the title headline...

There Are No Good Cops

There are no good cops anymore.  They’re all bad.  Even this former New Orleans cop says 70% of his department should be fired or indicted.

Don’t email me about your best friend from high school who you swear is a good cop.  He’s not a good cop.  Neither is the cop who lives down the street who has the fun July 4^th party every year.  Your cop uncle isn’t a good cop either.  They’re all bad cops.  They might all be good people, great people, when you hang out with them on their days off, but being a good person outside the job does not translate into being a good cop.
If your cop friend has ever ticketed or arrested someone for a victimless crime he’s a bad cop and the poor souls he arrested or ticketed were so for committing acts that harmed nobody.

Imagine if a normal citizen started going around acting like a typical cop.  Imagine a normal-looking guy in regular clothes handcuffing people, throwing them in the back of his vehicle, and then locking them up in his dungeon because he doesn’t approve of them consuming marijuana, carrying a handgun on their person for self-defense without government permission, or even fishing without a license.  Imagine if this guy was demanding that people who don’t wear their seatbelts give him money.  Imagine if this person was claiming the right to use violent force against anyone who didn’t comply and the right to kill anyone who physically fought back.

Regardless of whether or not he believed he was doing a good deed, such an individual would rightly be seen as crazed and criminal.  But this is exactly what typical police do on a daily basis.

The only good cop is an ex-cop who left the force disgusted by the number of victimless crime laws he was asked to enforce.

(Article continues at source.)

In the past, I have used this video as an example of the mentality of the modern policing. The victim was lucky that she was not seriously injured or killed, but that should make it no less appalling the way police laugh and joke about their violent assault against a peaceful citizen. Perhaps you can point out here, which cop in this crowd, was the "good cop."





And just for the record, it's not that myself or people like myself hate police as individuals or that we don't appreciate the good deeds they do. But being likeable people, doing good deeds, does not make police immune from scrutiny for the very bad things they do and the fascist laws they uphold.

Warren vs. District of Columbia

Most folks assume that the police are there to "prtect and serve." But who are they really there to protect and serve? It certainly is not the people...

Here is an introduction to the landmark case, you can read more at Wikipedia. 

Warren v. District of Columbia^[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981) is an oft-quoted^[2] District of Columbia Court of Appeals (equivalent to a state supreme court) case that held police do not have a duty to provide police services to individuals, even if a dispatcher promises help to be on the way, except when police develop a special duty to particular individuals.

In this case, three rape victims sued the District of Columbia for negligence on the part of the police. Two of three female roommates were upstairs when they heard men break in and attack the third. They phoned the police, reporting that their house was being burglarized, and waited on the roof. Their call was incorrectly dispatched as less important than it was three minutes after they made the call, and three police cars came to the scene, three minutes after the call was dispatched. One policeman drove by without stopping, and another officer walked up to the door and knocked. Upon receiving no answer, the officers left five minutes after they had arrived. Nine minutes later, the two women called the police again and were assured they would receive assistance. This call was never dispatched and the police never came. Believing that the police had arrived and were in the house, the two women called down to the third who was being attacked. This alerted the intruders to their presence, and they then took them captive at knife-point. They were then raped, robbed, beaten, and forced to submit to the attackers' sexual demands for the next fourteen hours. The court noted that because the police are only under a general duty to provide services to the public at large, a special relationship must exist between the police and the individual in question for the "duty" element of negligence to be satisfied. It held that no such special relationship existed so the case was properly dismissed by the trial court for failure to state a claim and the case never went to trial.^[3]

Police Unleash K-9, Open Fire on Women and Children

Absolutely revolting. I suppose these cops were some of those "rare bad apples" we always hear about. Yea right. Wake up America. The police are not there to protect you. They are not your friend.




UPDATE: In the news report there we heard that police tried to buy the videos that people had taken of the pandemonium there. Trying to buy their silence in other words. But why would that be necessary at all if the police action was legal and justified? I am hearing now that this was not actually a rally at all to protest the shooting, but actually a family picnic on private property, where the citizens were discussing holding a rally at some point in the future. This was NOT the protest, according to what I am hearing now. This was just a family picnic where organizing a protest was being discussed. Are the police infiltrating your local neighborhood barbecues with spies now?


.
Tweet

Honor the Person, Not the Institution

We appreciate the support of several new friends in the past few days. But it is important to remember that this page is NOT about a celebration of dead cops, but rather a cold stare into WHY we do not give a hero's homecoming simply because they wore a badge. If they did indeed die a hero's death, then let their sacrifice be honored, as a person who sacrificed themselves for the good of others. But let us not honor the fascist institution itself.

For myself, personally, it is a difficult path to navigate, being both first-responder, and anti-authoritarian.

-Six

Words From the Wise