It May Soon Be a Felony to Annoy a Cop in NY

You read that right. The NY State Senate has passed a bill that is now before the Assembly, which will make it a felony, punishable by four years in prison, "TO HARASS, ANNOY, THREATEN OR ALARM A... POLICE OFFICER."

Many opponents are concerned that this law will be misused in a number of ways, but particularly against citizens and reporters who film police encounters. Police routinely abuse laws that are on the books already. Everything from arbitrary laws such as disorderly conduct and obstruction of police administration, to resisting arrest and assault on a police officer.

In this incident, a deaf and mentally handicapped woman was charged with felony assault on a police officer for the crime of acting as the officer's punching bag. In this case, a trucker was beaten within an inch of his life for the crime of obstruction, and resisting arrest. And in this case, a man was sentenced to 18 years in prison after he was shot by police in his own bed in the middle of the night. Police had raided the house with a no-knock warrarnt on the suspicion that it was a drug house, but only discovered personal use paraphernalia after shooting the man numerous times.

There are thousands of incidents like these which show police abuse of authority with the existing laws that are already in place. Even cases that defy logic entirely, like being arrested for resisting arrest. How can one be arrested for resisting arrest, if there is no other charge to justify an arrest in the first place?

New York lawmakers have justified their proposal as follows:

JUSTIFICATION:  Police officers all across this state put their  lives on  the  line  every  day  to protect the people of New York. New York State must establish laws and toughen existing laws that  protect  the police   from   becoming  victims  of  criminals.  Far  too  many  law enforcement officers are being harassed, injured,  even  killed  while honoring  their  commitment  to  protect  and  serve  this  state. The Legislature has a responsibility to do everything we  can  to  protect our  brave  heroes,  our police officers, from violent criminals. This legislation contributes to that premise.

As far as the notion that police officers are "putting their lives on the line" goes, this doesn't seem to be a a reasonable justification for making the police a privileged class protected by their own special set of laws that the average citizen does not enjoy. Fisherman are putting their lives on the line every day, in order to bring you fish-sticks and crab legs. They have the most dangerous job in America, followed by loggers. In fact, police officers rarely make the top 10 list for most dangerous jobs in America, yet cabbies, truckers, even refuse truck workers are more likely to be killed at work than a police officer.

If we are going to give police officers this special protection, perhaps we should also demand that the police be held especially accountable for crimes which violate the public trust.

I propose that we make it a felony, to commit a crime, while employed as a police officer, and especially crimes committed while in uniform or on duty. All too often, we see just the opposite. Rather than police being held accountable for crimes and betrayal of the public trust, they are given special privilege and shown gross favoritism in every phase of the accountability process.

The following links will show you just how unbalanced justice really is, between we the people, and they, the stormtroopers of the privileged class.

What Can We Learn From Criminal Complaints Against Cops?

Child Molester Cop Gets No Prison Time

D.A.'s Office Complicit in Brutality Coverup

SWAT Get Medals For Shooting at Innocent Family in Botched Raid

Cop Made Chief After Conviction for Negligent Fatal Shooting of Motorist

Firing With Intent: Are American Cops Out of Control

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.

No Such Thing As Accountability For Cops

This article comes to us compliments of Captain Six at Station.6.Underground.

I have to say, this shit really pisses me off to no end. And it's shit like this why I have no tears for dead cops. Check out the link at the bottom especially. Fuckin cop shot a man dead for no good reason, was convicted of negligent homicide, and now he's the goddamn chief of police. With shit like this going on, I say fuck 'em all.
 

 *  *  *

I try to be as unbiased as possible when it comes to cases of police brutality. Indeed, I have made several posts here defending the police even when they have acted violently, because I understand that it is a difficult job and at times it does in fact require violence to get the job done. I am not squeamish and I am not prone to knee-jerk reactions. I have seen things from both sides of the line, having been both first-responder and victim of a vicious assault by police.

I must say though, that at the end of the day, I have little sympathy for police and the job they do when I hear stories like this one. This is not just about a few bad apples beating the crap out of innocent civilians. This is about institutionalized corruption and brutality. Let's check out the video, and I will continue below.


So we see there are two separate incidents here to discuss. In the first, we see police beat, tase, and strangle a woman who is handcuffed in the back of the police cruiser. Personally, I can't think of any legitimate reason why police should be beating on anyone in handcuffs. I can understand that suspects in cuffs can still be unruly and do things like start spitting in the backseat and so forth. I can see how that would make a police officer angry, but it really still does not excuse beating up a suspect in a punitive manner. It certainly does not excuse using the taser on someone, and it absolutely does not excuse choking a woman. Here in NY State, choking a woman is a crime in and of itself, aside from standard assault-type charges.

New strangulation statute proving an effective tool for law enforcement

Imagine for a moment that what you saw there was a man beating on his wife in that manner. If the public were to see something of that nature there would be absolute outrage in a community, calling for all sorts of horrible things be done to a man who would dare to do something like that to a woman. But because it is a police officer doing this to a suspect, the public is apathetic, as if in a trance, or even openly defend the actions of police in cases like this. But this wasn't just one officer either, it was two. Two powerful men beating the crap out of a woman in the back seat of a car in the middle of the night. Is there really any excuse for that?

With the new strangulation law on the books, I find it hard to believe that a man would be excused for simply choking a woman even if she came at him with a kitchen knife screaming bloody murder, much less pummeling and tasing a woman. Certainly there would be no excuse whatsoever for a man to do this to a defenseless, unarmed woman restrained in handcuffs, unless he was a cop of course.

Next we see the case of a man who had his rib cage crushed in for the crime of not understanding a police order. Instead of putting his hands behind his back as instructed, he puts his hands in the air. A typical reaction really for anyone who watches television and instinctively thinks "hands up" if they are ever in trouble with the police. It is also quite easy for a police officer to take a suspect into custody from that position. You simply snap the cuff on one wrist, guide the suspects arm down toward the buttocks, do the same with a firm grasp on the other arm, and lock the second wrist into the open cuff. Easy as that, suspect in custody.

Instead, one officer decided to body slam the suspect to the concrete, while the other decides to use a knee to blow out the man's ribcage. And of course, no police beating would be complete without the application of the taser a few times. Even if the man had been a little unruly, a bit uncooperative, not fully understanding what was happening, there was nothing there to show he was being violent, or to warrant that level of force that we saw used against him.

As a general rule, the police are expected to follow the Use of Force Continuum. Not every department uses the same model, and the standards are not universal among the different models, but generally speaking the principle is to only apply that force which is necessary to safely bring a suspect into custody. As safely as possible for the officer and the suspect I might add. I saw nothing in that video which showed the suspect was assaultive in any way. If there was intentional resistance at all, it appears to have been passive. I didn't see any active resistance as in attempts to break free or flee. Even if that were the case, once the suspect was down, that should have been the extent of the force necessary to pull the suspects arms behind his back and get the cuffs on. Tasing him and breaking five ribs is clearly an excessive use of force in this case.

So what we have seen there, yet again, are a few more instances of gratuitous, unwarranted violence by police against a civilian. Almost every day we see a new video of this nature pop up on YouTube, but we are still expected to believe that these are all "isolated" incidents, the work of  "a few bad apples." Never mind that thousands of cases like this never make it to the light of day. More often than not, the victim is not lucky enough to have a video camera rolling when they are pummeled by police. And without a tape, there is little chance of finding a lawyer who will bother to handle your case. Even with a tape, it is clearly an uphill battle to hold the police accountable for their crimes.

In one instance linked here, a reporter was facing 21 years in prison for airing an excessive force complaint. He was subsequently convicted on three felony counts of violating wiretapping laws, for posting the content on YouTube.

In another incident, a man was arrested and had his head split open by police simply because he asked for a complaint form.

Time and time again I have heard people say something along the lines of "well, if a bad cop does something to you, you should report it to their supervisor." The notion that a civilian can find justice when they are the victim of a crime at the hands of police, or that police will be held accountable for such crimes, is false. How could we possibly expect an officer's supervisor to take such a complaint seriously, when we see what happened in those two incidents above in the main video? The police charged the victims of their brutal assault with a crime, resisting arrest. Not just one "bad apple" but three police officers in these two incidents alone, not only covering for one another but actually participating in the violence. Their supervisors, right on up to the chief of police were well aware of what was on those tapes, yet the charges against the victims stood, and the officers were not held accountable in any way. Beyond the police department protecting their own, the county district attorney's office also saw the tapes, and failed in their duty to even investigate, much less to actually prosecute those officers for the brutal assaults.

How many other cases has the DA's office refused to prosecute over the years, simply because the perpetrators were police officers? How complicit is the top brass in any department, in any county, even in any state, in covering up crimes committed by cops? How many thousands, even millions of people have been viciously beaten, wrongfully prosecuted, and even killed by police, without anyone ever being held accountable and without justice ever being served?

Ladies and gentleman, this is not about running down the police for the sake of running down the police. This is the reality of the totalitarian police-state we now live in. The boys in blue today are no better than the "brown shirt" terrorists who put the Nazis in power. It makes no difference if you are a trouble-maker or an innocent person just going about your business. Any one of you reading this could find yourself, or a loved one, being beaten in the back of a police car in the middle of the night, having your rib cage shattered along some lonely road by a few thug cops, or worse, and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it.

EXTRA:

No sooner had I posted this article, another story popped up that just goes to prove that police can literally get away with murder even when they are caught and prosecuted.

Cop Made Chief After Negligent Homicide Conviction

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

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

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.