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?

Terrorizing Children (VIDEOS)

You have probably seen a few videos like this already, but here are a few archived for posterity now that filming has been prohibited by the TSA. It's bad press for the government to let you see tyranny in action, when it is presented in a negative light anyway. So now things like this will be swept under the carpet and made a routine part of our society. Just remember, the government terrorists are there for your safety.

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

Cop Haters Get It Wrong Too, Perspective

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can You Use The Phone And Drive?


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

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

This article courtesy of Station6Underground, used by permission.



Tweet

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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






Tweet

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

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

Tweet

Deputy AG, Wife Charged in PA Child Abuse Case

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Allegheny County police are leading the investigation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




Tweet