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

TSA K9 Goes Berserk at ATL

Susan Dubitsky was viciously attacked by a bomb- sniffing dog at Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport in Atlanta, Georgia. She had paid little attention to the canine when it suddenly lunged at her and tore at her flesh. Why the handler was not able to control the Cujo has not been explained, but he did speculate that the color of her clothing may have provoked the attack.

Despite serious injuries to her lower abdomen she was not transported to an area hospital, but rather treated by airport EMT's who simply patched her up and sent her on her way.

The victim is very concerned that the dog might have done this to a child's head or neck, considering that a child might stand at about the same height as her mid-range. One must also wonder what this might have done to a pregnant woman.

The bloodthirsty pooch is still on patrol and no changes have been made to security protocols.

ARTICLE WITH VIDEO HERE

Cops Kill Man For Not Wearing Seatbelt

We'z gonna safety you to death!


I found this article at CopBlock.com

It was originally posted by Eric Peters

Not “buckling up for safety” can get you killed all right – by a cop.

That’s what happened to Deland, Florida resident Marlon Brown about a week ago. Brown was killed – run over – by Deland Police Officer James Harris, who pursued him with his squad car after Brown tried to run away on foot after being stopped over a seatbelt violation (see here).

Brown, a popular neighborhood barber, hadn’t done anything to anyone. His “crime” was to have asserted self-ownership, which in a slave society is the gravest offense. He probably thought to himself – I am a grown man. No one has any more right to demand I wear a seatbelt than they have a right to insist I eat my veggies or wear a sweater because it’s cold out. Whether eating veggies or wearing a sweater on a cold day – or “buckling up for safety” – is a good idea or a bad idea is  no one else’s business. Certainly not a cop’s. Aren’t cops supposed to fight crime? When did the job of a cop become parenting or life-coaching at gunpoint? Who the hell are these people to point guns at me over my decision to not “buckle up”?

Brown likely had such thoughts as he saw the wig-wag lights of Officer Harris in his rear view. Then, he probably got mad. I know I would have. You are driving along, minding your business, causing no harm to anyone. Then you glance up and see the bright lights – and the buzz-cut head – of Officer Unfriendly. This costumed menace is about to threaten you with violence and – at minimum – shove a piece of paper in your face that will demand what amounts to a ransom payment, or else (“else” being jail).

And so, Brown attempted to flee. It ended up costing him his life.

Officer safety was never at issue. Brown merely tried to get away from an obnoxious costumed thug who had no business bothering him in the first place. But that was sufficient to justify summary execution by motor vehicle.

It is not an isolated happenstance anymore. Hardly a week goes by without some godawful report of a citizen being killed by cops over absolutely nothing. A murder – and that’s exactly what this was – prefaced by some petty affront to the authority of someone in a state-issued costume. Talk back, dare to question – and the Tazers come out. Attempt to ward off the blows – and you will hear “Stop Resisting!” as the blows continue to rain down. They may or may not stop at merely a beating, or a kicked-in skull.

Marlon Brown learned just how far it can go. A witness to the event, Sabrina Waldron, stated, “After the car hit Marlon and landed on him the back end of it was up in the air.” Thus ended Brown’s life.

Was it worth it? Was it right? A man is dead – for no reason. Or rather, for a very bad reason.

In a sane society, Officer Harris would have had no legal pretext for bothering Marlon Brown. He may have looked askance at him for electing to not wear his seat belt – just as I may look askance at a grossly obese person ordering a double cheeseburger and 64 ounce Coke – but insofar as Officer Harris’ legal authority was concerned, he (in a sane society) would be powerless to intervene. That’s how it ought to be. For the same reason, most of us (dear god, let us hope) do not want costumed men with guns rousting us out of bed to go for morning jogs or to supervise our dinner menus, threatening us with nightsticks and Tazers and guns if we don’t abide by their “recommendations.”

That is where we are headed if people do not come to their senses, and learn to discipline their inner busybody – if only for their own sake. Because most definitely, what goes around will come around. You may find it appalling that some people choose to go unbuckled. Resist the desire to insist they do so. Because if you do insist, you’ve just given license to the inner busybodies of all those people out there – among whom, no doubt, there will be busybodies who just can’t abide something about the way you live your life, whether it be some “risky” hobby, or some “unhealthy” habit. No small corner of what used to be your life will be left to you. You will be chained to a collective and compelled to Submit & Obey.

The antidote to this horror is self-ownership. You own you. I own me. Neither of us has any claim on the other that’s enforceable at gunpoint. Feel free to suggest or to recommend, but when it comes to the use of force, the one and only legitimate justification is self-defense. Otherwise, leave me alone – and I will leave you alone.

If that had been the law in Deland, Florida, Marlon Brown would still be alive.

And James Harris would not be a murderer.

Read the original post here.

Tweet

2 Years In The Hole For Man Convicted of Nothing

This is an absolutely chilling example of just how depraved our justice system has become, and how detrimental to public safety the law-enforcers really are.

Stephen Slevin was locked in a New Mexico solitary confinement cell for 22 months. He was never convicted of any crime. Being locked away anywhere without due process is a horrid thought to any freedom-loving American, but what this man endured goes well beyond that.

Solitary confinement alone is considered by many to be inhumane, or downright torture by some definitions. Even under the most sanitary and well-monitored standards, the effects on a person's mental state can be devastating. Mr. Slevin spent his time rocking back and forth, and even lost his desire to go free while in his Dona Ana County Jail cell. But still, what he endured went beyond being locked away and completely forgotten about by the world.

Even under solitary confment conditions, it is common practice to allow prisoner one hour per day outside of their cell. In this case, that standard was rarely adhered to, even for sanitary reasons. Denied showers, Slevin's skin became infested with fungus. Denied basic hygiene maintenance, his toenails grew so long that they wrapped around his foot. Denied medical care, he was forced to rip his own tooth from his skull.

What he endured goes far beyond what any normal person can possibly even comprehend.

All of this, based on an allegation that he was driving while intoxicated in a stolen car. It was later shown that the car belonged to a friend, and the intoxication was never proven.

In a subsequent civil lawsuit brought by Slevin and his attorneys, he was awarded $22 million dollars, which has since been reduced to $16 million in arbitration. But the money will never replace what was lost, or repair the damage done.

Mr. Slevin is now battling cancer.

Click here to read NBC's coverage of this story. 


Click here to see a video of how quickly an innocent person could wind up in this situation.

Attempted Murder of Boston Bomb Suspect

It is being reported that Boston bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was not armed when he was taken into police custody.

USA Today

Huffington Post

This news disproves earlier reports that the suspect may have tried to commit suicide by shooting himself. There were no guns found in the boat where he had been hiding, and he was not carrying any firearms when taken into custody.

The latest reports suggest his wounds may have been inflicted during the initial confrontation with police many hours earlier, but this seems unlikely given the seriousness of those injuries. In this first image we can see that the suspect was able to climb out of the boat where he was hiding, unassisted and without obvious signs of serious injury.

Nevertheless, within moments of surrendering, he was on the ground, possibly unconscious, and being given a tracheotomy.

We do know that police opened fire on the unarmed suspect, but no legitimate explanation for that has been given. Aside from the obvious reasons why police are not allowed to shoot or try to kill an unarmed suspect, in this case there was a very clear need to take the suspect alive for questioning. With his alleged accomplice to the bombings killed in the initial confrontation with police, this left the younger brother the only person who could possibly shed any light on the bombings. It was imperative that he be taken alive to be sure there were no other devices still left to go off, to name any other possible co-conspirators, and so forth. Of course, that is assuming that the suspect is indeed one of the actual bombers, as authorities claim.

Both the father and mother of the suspected bombers claim that their sons are innocent. In what is believed to be his last Facebook message, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev tells his father that he was set up and did not do what he is being accused of.

Of course, it is not unusual for a suspect to claim they are innocent, nor is it unusual for a suspect's parents to defend them. But there have been numerous irregularities in this case from the start, and it seems possible that the brothers may have indeed been set up as patsies. Such a claim sounds like lunatic-fringe conspiracy-theory perhaps, but this possibility has even led a New Hampshire state legislator to make the provocative claim that the Federal government is responsible for the bombings.

It is not known what evidence the government has to show that the brothers were responsible for the bombings. There have been no images or video released of them actually planting the bombs. It is also not known what led to their initial confrontation with police, or what evidence there is that they killed the MIT officer. It doesn't seem likely that a pair of terrorists on the run would be hanging around a college campus causing a disturbance or trying to attract attention to themselves.

Why Were Bombers At MIT?


It was initially reported that they had tried to rob a 7-11 store, but that was not true, so we still don't know what the nature of the disturbance actually was that might have led them to kill a police officer. We also don't know what ever became of a third suspect, or why this man was arrested and then stripped naked before being paraded in front of cameras and loaded into a police car.


Whether or not the brothers actually committed the double-bombing, or whether they killed the MIT police officer is probably something that will be debated for many years to come. If there was indeed a conspiracy, and a plot by factions within our own government, then there would be a clear motivation to kill the patsies who were set up to take the blame for the terrorism.

If they were truly guilty, then as we already mentioned, there was a very real need to take the suspect alive for questioning. It hardly seems reasonable for the police to risk killing the suspect, who as we see now was not even armed. Even if he had been armed, the police should have made every effort, even at the risk of their own lives, to take the suspect alive to glean intelligence necessary for the greater public safety concerns. That is of course, unless the FBI already knew all the answers, which would then lead us back to the notion that they were at least fully aware of the plot, if not directly involved. .

Of course, there is a third line of reasoning which could also be applied here. Plain old-fashioned revenge. It is not at all unreasonable to suspect that the police might have been willing to commit murder themselves in order to get revenge not only on a terrorist, but against a young man who they believed had just killed one of their own. This sort of  "cowboy" mentality is all to prevalent among police today, and it might have even been something counted on by inside conspirators, if it was indeed a government plot as some claim. In this manner, the police could be made to do the bidding of the plotters but in total ignorance. This scenario is an excellent example of why police must be held to the highest ethical standards, rather than routinely excused for criminal behavior.

Knowing now that the suspect was not armed it is almost inexcusable that the police opened fire on him both from a moral standpoint, and of course because killing him might have actually put the public in greater danger. Again, it doesn't seem likely that his wounds were from the initial confrontation with police in which his brother was killed. It also does not appear that the suspect was wounded inside the boat. We might tend to make excuses for jittery police who were, perhaps, assuming that the suspect was armed. But this reasoning collapses when we look at the photographic evidence. Frighteningly, that evidence appears to show that the suspect was shot after he climbed out of the boat and surrendered.

This first image shows Dzhokhar Tsarnaev in the hospital. You will notice what appears to be powder burns on his face, which would be consistent with being shot at very close range. Much like if he had put a gun in his mouth, and fired, trying to kill himself. This would also be consistent with reports that he has a bullet wound exiting out the back of his neck. This is impossible though, since he was not armed.

So we know that his wounds were certainly inflicted by police. If those wounds came during the initial confrontation when his brother was killed, if they were in fact exchanging gunfire with police as was reported, then the police were certainly justified to return fire. As we already pointed out though, it's unlikely that he survived the 20 or so hours without medical care for those very serious wounds. So now the question is when, exactly, did police shoot him?

As you can see in this photo, there was no blood visible at the scene when the suspect was still inside of the boat.

In this photo however, blood is clearly visible on the wheel shroud of the trailer. This means that the blood is not from an earlier wound that might have leaked when the suspect first climbed into the boat to hide. This means that it could only have been left there after the suspect climbed out of the boat. Why would police shoot him after he had surrendered?

We can see that there is no blood inside of the boat, which would indicate earlier wounds or that he was shot before he surrendered. Looking more closely at the blood that does appear in the image, the observation becomes even more chilling. There is a distinct spray pattern further supporting that the wound was inflicted there. We also see that the blood is sprayed across the top of the wheel shroud, but not the side, except for where it dribbled over a little bit from pooling on top. This means that he was, more than likely, up against that wheel shroud when he was shot. Going by the height of the investigator in the image, the pattern of the blood, the wound to the suspect, a very disturbing image now appears. It looks as if Dzhokhar Tsarnaev may have been on his knees, with his back against the wheels, that someone put a gun in his mouth and shot him, execution style.

Also see:

Who Was the Naked Suspect?