Mall Cop’s Fight Highlights Public Misinformation on Authority

This article may seem contrary to the mission here, but I think it’s important that we, as citizens, know exactly what rights we do and don’t have, and precisely what the nature of authority really is in America today.

It becomes all too easy to cry “foul” when we see authorities throwing a temper tantrum, but that does not always mean they are wrong, or that a use of force was not justified.

So while we may not weep for the loss of a soldier in the army of tyrants, it is till important to understand that anarchy is no better solution than a police-state.

Now having said that, I believe the following article does an excellent job of pointing out how this authority did the right thing, the wrong way.

Thanks to Captain Six at Station.6.Underground for another contribution here.

*  *  *

This incident happened back in May, but I have decided to show it here since there is still quite a bit of discussion going on about it, and quite a lot of misinformation.

In the video you will see a Security Guard, under contract with the Cafaro company, attempt to enforce the regulations of the Ohio Valley Mall. A physical confrontation ensues. The debate here swirls around all sorts of misunderstanding by the general public, and the public's general disdain for authority.

As any regular reader here knows, I am not fan of authority myself, and certainly no "cop lover." But while I have to agree that this guard acted foolishly, technically, she had every right* to do what she did. The woman she confronted should have been arrested and charged.

VIDEO LINK

The primary misconception that the public often has is that security guards have no legal authority. This is completely incorrect. In some ways, private security guards actually have more power than a police officer.

You see, a police officer must have either probable cause that a crime has been committed or be acting under emergency authority in order to issue you a command. A security guard on the other hand, is acting as the agent of the property owner. Essentially, a guard has as much authority over their jurisdiction as you have in your own home.

The police may enforce the law, but that is where their authority ends. The security guard on the other hand, may enforce the law, any rule or regulation of the property, and may even make up rules as they go along. The only real exception there is that the guard can't compel you to commit a crime.

A guard might enforce a "shoes required" dress code for the mall, even though there is no law that says you have to wear shoes. A guard might also tell you to get up an move, right after you sat down at a table in the food court. The guard would have no obligation to explain why, and would not have to cite a "you can't sit here" rule in mall regulations. The guard might simply be telling you to move because that space was reserved, or perhaps there is a crew coming to fix a water leak there. Or maybe the guard just wanted that table for themselves. It doesn't really matter legally speaking. Now granted, a guard who goes around bullying people without cause or to get the best table in the foodcourt is not going to be looked upon well by their employer, or even fellow guards, but the legal authority is there just the same. 

So specific to this situation here now. A police officer might very well tell these people that they cannot photograph there, and order them to move along. While taking photographs is not illegal, the officer may establish a scene perimeter because of the emergency situation and enforce special circumstances within that scene. They might tell you to move along for reasons of safety, or even tell you that your photos are subject to confiscation as evidence in an ongoing investigation.

(It should be noted here, that emergency authority if often used to enforce some level of common decency too. Aside from being material evidence in an investigation, no one wants to see pictures circulated on the internet of their loved one's mutilated remains being extricated from a twisted wreck along some highway. And you probably wouldn't want to see a bunch of rubberneckers oogling you while you die either.)

The guard also has, generally speaking, this same emergency authority. Being a security guard does not grant that authority outside of their jurisdiction, but here on the mall property, the guard was indeed helping to manage an emergency situation and a hazardous condition within her jurisdiction as a consequence of the emergency. She could not go running out to the interstate and do the same thing, but there on mall property she had every right to do what she did.

Now here is where the guard's power goes even beyond that of a police officer. Even if there had been no truck rolled down the embankment, no emergency situation, the guard still had the authority to tell those folks to stop taking pictures and to move along. Not only were they impeding the flow of traffic and creating a hazardous safety condition, but the guard also has no obligation to explain herself to them. She didn't have to have a reason at all, legally speaking, as we have already seen with the foodcourt example. But at the same time, if one of those idiots had gotten run over they probably would have turned right around and sued the mall over it.

Okay, so we have now established that a guard can enforce the law and help to maintain a secure perimeter in an emergency situation. We have also seen that a guard may enforce the rules of the property, which may not have anything to do with actual laws. We have even seen that a guard has the right to make up the rules as they go. Just as you could in your own home. You could tell other people they can't smoke in your home while you sit down and light up a fat cigar. The guard is the legal agent of the property owner, and therefore has the same authority as the property owner.

But what can the guard actually do to enforce these rules? It's simple really. They can tell you to leave. And if you refuse to leave? Well then, now you have committed a crime. Criminal trespass. You are now subject to arrest. The guard may use physical force to affect that arrest, or may simply use physical force to stop you from continuing your criminal activity. This is the same authority a nightclub bouncer uses when they kick out drunks. If they ask you nicely to leave, and you don't, you're in trouble. This is the same in a bar, a mall, or when you are in someone's own home. You can be ejected through physical force, and you are subject to a criminal prosecution.

So yes folks, rent-a-cops do indeed have authoritahhh. In many ways, more so than a police officer. In fact, a guard could supersede the commands of a police officer, or even eject a police officer from the property in some instances, depending on the specifics. 

The last argument that can be made here is that the guard was not actually on private property, but public property. I have seen this argument made, but it is simply not true. Even if you let the public onto your property, let's say for a yard sale as an example, it is still your property and you have the right to kick someone out. This is true even of businesses like malls, that are often thought of as public areas, even when they really are not. This has been upheld numerous times and is well established in case law. Mall property is not public property.

Furthermore, where this incident took place was not a public roadway. The truck rolled over from the public interstate, but where the guard's confrontation occurred was on Mall Ring Road, which is private property. It is not owned or maintained by any public entity, but instead secured and maintained through private contracts. the guard was within her jurisdiction. The fact that it is private property has been established by numerous media reports and is also evident by the fact that the road is not accessible to Google Earth's Street View.

So all in all here, we must now conclude that the people taking pictures and loitering, were wrong, and that the guard was legally in the right. Not only was she enforcing mall regulations, she was also protecting the interests of the mall owners, and the safety of the very people who had become confrontational with her. Although we hear in the video some talk about who touched who her first, we also see now that the guard had every right to initiate physical force to enforce the mall's security.

The guard was under no obligation to "call the police" as some have suggested, because the guard herself is in fact the authority there.

Now, having said all of this in defense of the guard, we might also look at the manner in which she performed her duty. This is the real problem here. What she did was completely legal, and the other folks were indeed breaking the law at that point, we can also see this as an example of a total lack of professionalism. A lack of training and experience could be blamed here as much as any judgement of the guard's personality. So in that sense, we might even blame her employers partially for this incident. But it seems clear enough that whatever the reason, the guard lacked a certain level of professionalism. She lost control of her own temper, and at least partly because of that, she lost overall control of the situation. Meeting belligerence with belligerence and escalating a situation beyond one's control are not hallmarks of security and/or law-enforcement professional conduct.

Having worked int he field myself, I will share my opinion here on what I might have done in that situation. First, I would have established my authority with what is known as command presence. this can be accomplished through everything from wearing a well-fitting, neat uniform, to posture, to speaking in an authoritative tone, eye contact, and in general expressing an air of professional confidence.

When my commands were not followed, I would have selected on of two options. First, to continue my hard-ass approach and call for immediate backup. At that point, I have made a supervisor aware of an escalating situation. It is then left to them to either order me to disengage, or to send reinforcement to press the issue. The alternative for me would have been to humanize myself a bit. To try to build a small rapport of understanding, and basically tell them why they can't be there taking pictures.

"Look guys, I'm just doing my job. If one of you gets hit by a car, it's my ass," is something I might have said.

Or maybe, something a little condescending even like, "Come on people. Really? How morbid are you? Don't sit here taking pictures of someone having the worst day of their lives."

The idea here is to engage in a bit of coercive conversation, rather than just start screaming and yelling. If at that point they still refused to follow instructions, I would fall back to the first choice, and call a supervisor/dispatch for reinforcement and/or further instructions.

The guard's inability to stay calm, and to effectively maintain order led to her being fired from her job in the end. No charges were filed against her, which goes to show that she was legally justified in what she did. But at the same time, her employer saw the guard was unable to do her job effectively, and sent her on her way. Because of that, it is little surprise that the mall elected not to pursue charges against the transgressors.

So the next time you start making wise cracks at the mall cops, just remember that most are more professional than you give them credit for. They are at the short-end of plenty of jokes, they bite their tongue and carry on. Think what you want about security guards, but don't make the mistake of thinking that they are powerless. If pushed, they really can mess up your day. At the very least they can tell you to get the hell out and never come back.

Click here for an article on the incident from a local news source

*DISCLAIMER: This article is not intended as legal advice. Consult an attorney to learn the specific regulations and guidelines in your state and/or location

Top Cop Threatens to Kill After Fellow Officer Gunned Down

This article originally presented by Station.6.Underground

Officer Jason Ellis was shot multiple times early Saturday morning on an off-ramp leading from the Bluegrass Parkway to Highway 55 in Nelson County, Kentucky. The K-9 officer was on his way home from work in a marked cruiser, but did not have his dog with him, when he was ambushed and killed by multiple shots from a 12-gauge shotgun. He is the first officer killed in the line of duty in the 150-year history of the Bardstown police force. Motorists discovered his body at around 3 a.m. and phoned 911. The former Cincinnati Reds professional baseball player leaves behind a wife and two children.

It is understandable that his fellow officers would feel a great deal of anger over such a seemingly senseless act of violence. What is not so understandable, is why Chief Rick McCubbin would make a public statement that sounds as if he hopes the suspect or suspects are killed, rather than be put on trial. It is one thing to feel human emotion after an event like that, to feel the need for revenge. It is quite another for a highly trained former U.S. Marshal with 25 years of law-enforcement experience to make a press statement like this...

“I can assure you we won’t give up on this person or persons until we either have them in custody or in the front sight of one of our weapons. I certainly hope the latter is the choice.” -Chief McCubbun

The police are not a judge, nor a jury, nor serve the public as executioners. It is this very mentality of shoot first and ask questions later which leads criminals to justify the slaughter cops in cold blood. A murder begets murder cycle of violence, rather than justice. Of course, there will be those that argue "so be it" and that it will "save taxpayers money in the long run" when police kill suspects on sight. But if we are really meant to condone this reasoning as a matter of policy, we might just as well shut down the courts entirely, burn the Constitution and get the ovens fired up in the concentration camps.

It is one thing to feel like you want to go out and get swift revenge. It is quite another for the police to say, in essence, that they will kill a suspect if they can get away with it. It's not the flashing lights or shiny pins, it's not the paycheck paid from tax dollars, or being a good shot with a gun that makes a police officer. The police are expected to "take the high road"so to speak, to be the better people. After all, it is this very principle above all others which defines the police officer, or which once did anyway. The principle which separates the police from the criminals. The ideal which makes the police the heroes in the first place.

Too often today though, it seems as if the opposite has become true, both in the eyes of the public, and in the courtroom. Instead of police being held to a higher standard, they are simply given a pass for criminal behavior and betrayals of public trust. Such a haven from justice creates a caste of criminality and thuggery for which there is no accountability. It is not acceptable to say that because a person spends his days doing good, that on occasion we should look the other way so that he can brutalize and murder. Yet that has become the predominant trend in our society today with our complacent acceptance of police wrongdoing.

Of course, anytime that police wrongdoing is brought up, the mind deflects the horror of what we are seeing, and instead refers to the argument of casuists, for whom the police can do no wrong. There is always the "few bad apples" argument, or the argument that there are a lot of cops out there who do a lot of good for the public, each and every day. And of course this is true, there are a lot of police officers out there who are genuine heroes, but that is entirely irrelevant when considering whether a cop is guilty of murder, or perhaps plans to commit murder. It is also entirely beside the point, if the police happen to kill someone who turns out to be the wrong person or otherwise entirely innocent.

Then again, maybe the idea of the good cop is something we should take a closer look at in this particular case. What follows here is a hypothetical example of sorts, made to demonstrate the perils of murdering suspects. Let us go right ahead and assume that the murdered police officer, Jason Ellis, was indeed every bit the American hero he appears to have been. There is no reason to believe otherwise. Let us question the circumstances of his death though, as any good investigator should.

The officer was on his way home from work at the end of his shift. He was driving in a marked police unit, but it was a "pool car" rather than his regular K-9 SUV unit. His dog was not with him. This pool unit was not equipped with recording devices like most standard police vehicles today. These pool cars are usually a sort of  "reserve" unit, usually an older model near-retirement, used more as an errand vehicle than for regular patrols and therefore not fully equipped with the latest gadgetry. 

The officer did not radio to headquarters/dispatch that there was an emergency, but he appears to have stopped on the freeway ramp to clear an obstruction in the roadway, or perhaps to assist what may have appeared to be a disabled motorist. There is debris along the roadway which appears as if a tree or limb might have been dragged or fell into the roadway, or that a vehicle went off of the roadway. His emergency lights were flashing when state police arrived at the scene, to find him dead. The officer was killed by multiple gunshot wounds from a 12-gauge shotgun. The officer's pistol remained secured in his holster. Some reports state that he was found in his vehicle, others say he was found laying outside of it. Crime scene investigators were seen concentrating around a knoll overlooking the scene, thick with brush and a small tree.

We should also consider that it is not very common for police to be killed randomly, or simply as targets of opportunity. In this case, it appears as if the officer may have been ambushed, and even that the attack was planned ahead of time. Whatever caused him to stop must have appeared to be so mundane that he had no reason to radio for assistance even though he was off duty, or that the attack happened so fast he never had a chance to radio for help.

Was this officer set up to be killed in an ambush, or did he simply stumble upon a cold-blooded killer, randomly, on a remote roadway in the dead of night? One would think that the police themselves would be anxious to answer that question. Especially the Chief who is responsible for the officers in his command. Instead of answers though, the Chief is voicing his opinion that he would just rather murder the suspect and be done with it.

This would be an awfully convenient way of murdering a police officer, and getting away with it, either directly or indirectly.

Let's imagine for a moment that the officer who was killed, might have stumbled upon something he shouldn't have at some other time. Some political intrigue and corruption perhaps, or maybe evidence of an ongoing criminal enterprise within the department. Only examples of course, but again to illustrate that the possibility exists this crime may not have been entirely random. The facts that he was killed on his way home from work, without his dog, in an under-equipped vehicle, in a remote location, and was not robbed of his firearm are all clues which suggest he was not killed randomly. Perhaps too, it was someone he worked with, who would know exactly what sort of highway hazard Officer Ellis would not bother to call in on the radio for.

Considering these points, it makes it all the more suspicious why the Chief of police would be calling for the murder of a suspect. Perhaps a suspect who was a trigger man in a larger plot? Perhaps a suspect who had no involvement at all, but who will be marked as guilty and rubbed out, closing the case and any further investigation.

This is not to say this is actually the story of what has happened there in Kentucky. This theory is just that, a theory, based on a few strange tidbits of information, to illustrate a point. It is not simply in the interest of protecting the rights of a suspect, who may or may not actually be guilty, but also in the interest of the victims of a crime, to make sure that a suspect is brought to justice rather than killed. It is in the interest of the police themselves, to protect themselves from being killed in this sort of plot. It is in the interest of the "good cops" that they cannot so easily be snuffed out, should they happen upon criminality within their ranks.

If it turns out that this cop-killer is just that, a plain old-fashioned monster, then let that be proven in a trial, and let the killer then be strapped to an electric char or have a fatal needle shoved in their arm, so be it. But if there is more to the story, or if the person who the police zero in on turns out to be innocent, these are reasons enough why the police should not be in the business of murder.


Credit to CopBlock.org where there original news story was first seen, and where a few additional links are available.

A Million Reasons to Kill Rogue-Cop Dorner

Loophole May Hold Up Dorner Reward

A legal loophole could prevent good Samaritans, instrumental in ending the manhunt for a fugitive ex-cop accused of killing four people, from claiming more than $1 million in reward money because Christopher Dorner died and was not captured.

Last weekend, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa pledged $1 million, sourced from private individuals, companies and unions, "for information that will lead to Mr. Dorner's capture."

The L.A. City Council followed up with its own promise of a $100,000 reward, for information "leading to the identification, apprehension and conviction of Christopher Dorner." 

But Dorner, accused of killing four people and threatening the lives of several dozen more, was never captured, apprehended or convicted. Instead, he died following a standoff with police near Big Bear, Calif., when the cabin in which he was barricaded burned down with him inside. 
The mayor's office has not yet determined if the reward could still be paid out given Dorner died. 
Full article at link:  http://news.yahoo.com/legal-loophole-could-hold-1m-dorner-reward-230004148--abc-news-topstories.html

It is disturbing that authorities are even questioning whether or not to pay out the reward. For one thing, it is a betrayal of public trust that may impact future investigations and undermine efforts to locate dangerous fugitves. Anyone with potential leads will think twice about risking their own lives, reputation, and privacy in order to share information with authorities. This move, quite simply, invalidates the purpose of offering a reward at all in cases like this.

More alarmingly though, this shows that police had a very large financial incentive to kill Dorner, rather than bring him to justice. Not to mention of course, that they already had a strong motivation to kill him as revenge for the deaths of other officers, and to silence him from speaking any further regarding corruption in the LAPD. Adding a million dollar financial incentive to kill the suspect now goes well beyond a simple question of ethics. Especially when one considers now that police burned down the cabin Dorner was holed up in.

The San Bernadino County Sheriff denies that the cabin was burned down intentionally, but given the motivations we have already seen here, that denial is quite dubious. Consider too, that we are talking about a Sheriff who allows his deputies to violate their sacred oath to uphold the Constitution, simply in order to harass a woman out for a walk, as seen here in this video. Why should we believe that those deputies would adhere to the law when the stakes are so much higher?

The denial becomes downright feeble when one listens to what was actually said by police that day at the scene. Are we to believe that they were simply incompetent, and "accidentally" burned that cabin down after they clearly voiced their intention to burn the cabin down?

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

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

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 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.