Pentagon Declares Martial Law (Not Televised)

Pentagon Unilaterally Grants Itself Authority Over ‘Civil Disturbances’

The manhunt for the Boston Marathon bombing suspects offered the nation a window into the stunning military-style capabilities of our local law enforcement agencies. For the past 30 years, police departments throughout the United States have benefitted from the government’s largesse in the form of military weaponry and training, incentives offered in the ongoing “War on Drugs.” For the average citizen watching events such as the intense pursuit of the Tsarnaev brothers on television, it would be difficult to discern between fully outfitted police SWAT teams and the military.

The North Hollywood Shootout of 1997 is often touted by police as the reason behind the militarization of their forces. In that incident police engaged two bank robbers who were heavily armed with military-grade machine guns, and armored from head to toe in military-grade bullet-resistant Kevlar gear. The robbers were eventually killed, and though several officers were injured, there were no other deaths stemming from that incident. Nonetheless, this became a rallying point to arm not only SWAT teams with military-grade weaponry, but regular patrol officers as well.

The militarization of police has not been limited to pistols and rifles though. Some of this has been more subtle and psychological, such as new uniforms. Police have traditionally worn a blue uniform, usually with a tie, shoes shined, and carried themselves with a respectable and formal appearance. Today that trend has been broken by police wearing military-style tactical apparel, in a more intimidating black color rather than the professional blues. While one may not see this shift in uniform styling as of any concern, it actually goes to show the shift in the mindset of police, from public servant, to militant occupier. A shift where now the police no longer see a public to be served, but rather a public that is to be controlled as a potential enemy at any given moment.

This mindset of an undeclared guerrilla war being played out on the streets of America has led to inordinate amounts of spending by police departments on military-grade hardware. Particularly in the post-9/11 era, where the public are duped out of their freedoms and vast amounts of tax dollars under the guise of "protecting the homeland" from Muslim fanatics. This is despite the fact that an American citizen is 8 times more likely to be killed by a police officer than a terrorist.

In just this one instance, as an example, a man armed only with a golf-club was shot dead by police executing a search warrant targeting a woman they knew had already moved out of the home. They went ahead with the no-knock raid anyway, and shot this man dead in the process.

Caution, graphic video: Dead Bang: Man Shot Dead By Home Invaders (VIDEO)

While some may see things like this as isolated incidents, it's important to keep in mind that incidents like this will happen more and more frequently as police try to justify their own budgets for increased spending on everything from new cruisers every year to military-grade tanks and armored vehicles.

Police storm neighborhood with snipers and a tank to evict old lady

This report highlights how frequently military-grade force is applied for mundane reasons and run-of-the-mill police work.

Disturbing Results of SWAT Transparency Bill

Of course, we don't just have our local police departments in on the game any more either. Since 9/11, we now have the Department of Homeland Security, reminiscent of the Gestapo national police force in Nazi Germany. DHS are both a domestic spying apparatus, and a showcase for military hardware in civilian dress.

Why are IED/Mine Resistant Vehicles Being Deployed Within U.S.?

But it's not just new agencies, or regular police departments that are getting paramilitary upgrades either.

Why does the Department of Education need a SWAT team?

So what does all of this add up to?

Firing With Intent: Are American Cops Out of Control

In Boston, we saw our first widely publicized instance of martial law here in the United States. Not only were the police and Federal agents fully-equipped with heavy military-grade equipment, but they were acting in direct violation of the 4th Amendment.

Families Ripped From Homes By Police In Watertown

Some Americans were utterly shocked by this vulgar display of paramilitary might being brought to bear on an American town, utterly destroying the very foundations of what it means to be an American in the first place. Sadly enough though, there were so many other Americans that cheered the triumph of martial law, even in its failure to locate the suspect whom they claimed was the reason for this "Red Dawn" reminiscent invasion. Thanks to rigorous propaganda and the lobotomy of social consciousness, all too many Americans would echo this sentiment...

'If You're Not a Terrorist...Prove It' Says NYPD's Top Sergeant

And while some of us are still awake enough to realize the tyranny of all this, even those of us who try to stay aware, wind up missing key events in the march toward complete and utter totalitarianism. Did you know that if you are withing 100 miles of a United States border, you are in a zone where Constitutional rights have already been suspended?

America's Own Iron Curtain: DHS Suspends Constitution at Borders

The lines blurred even further Monday as a new dynamic was introduced to the militarization of domestic law enforcement. By making a few subtle changes to a regulation in the U.S. Code titled “Defense Support of Civilian Law Enforcement Agencies” the military has quietly granted itself the ability to police the streets without obtaining prior local or state consent, upending a precedent that has been in place for more than two centuries.

The most objectionable aspect of the regulatory change is the inclusion of vague language that permits military intervention in the event of “civil disturbances.” According to the rule:

Federal military commanders have the authority, in extraordinary emergency circumstances where prior authorization by the President is impossible and duly constituted local authorities are unable to control the situation, to engage temporarily in activities that are necessary to quell large-scale, unexpected civil disturbances.

Bruce Afran, a civil liberties attorney and constitutional law professor at Rutgers University, calls the rule, “a wanton power grab by the military,” and says, “It’s quite shocking actually because it violates the long-standing presumption that the military is under civilian control.”

A defense official who declined to be named takes a different view of the rule, claiming, “The authorization has been around over 100 years; it’s not a new authority. It’s been there but it hasn’t been exercised. This is a carryover of domestic policy.” Moreover, he insists the Pentagon doesn’t “want to get involved in civilian law enforcement. It’s one of those red lines that the military hasn’t signed up for.” Nevertheless, he says, “every person in the military swears an oath of allegiance to the Constitution of the United States to defend that Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.”

Sadly enough, the "presumption" of the constitutional law professor is false, and the unnamed defense official is correct. The military is not under civilian control, and has not been for roughly 150 years. Specifically, the authorization is called...

General Orders No. 100: The Lieber Code

...which reads in part...

“1. A place, district, or country occupied by an enemy stands, in consequence of the occupation, under the martial law of the invading or occupying army, whether any proclamation declaring martial law, or any public warning to the inhabitants, has been issued or not. Martial law is the immediate and direct effect and consequence of occupation or conquest.

The presence of a hostile army proclaims its martial law.

2. Martial law does not cease during the hostile occupation, except by special proclamation, ordered by the commander-in-chief, or by special mention in the treaty of peace concluding the war, when the occupation of a place or territory continues beyond the conclusion of peace as one of the conditions of the same.

3. Martial law in a hostile country consists in the suspension by the occupying military authority of the criminal and civil law, and of the domestic administration and government in the occupied place or territory, and in the substitution of military rule and force for the same, as well as in the dictation of general laws, as far as military necessity requires this suspension, substitution, or dictation.

The commander of the forces may proclaim that the administration of all civil and penal law shall continue either wholly or in part, as in times of peace, unless otherwise ordered by the military authority.”

And the military is already prepared to start rounding up American citizens.

New Military Transport Raises Concerns


The militarization of our local police forces is not simply a by-product of the times we live in. When you understand the real laws, when you understand history, you see that the local police are acting under the authority of the military, as a proxy.

Through revisionist history taught to us in classrooms and school books, the Civil War has been idealized as some great volcanic movement of freedom against racial oppressors. Even though it took another century after that for black folk to actually get civil rights, we are taught that the Civil War was all about liberating the peoples of Africa here in America.

They say that history is written by the victor, and the Civil War is no exception. The Civil War had nothing to do with freeing the slaves. The Emancipation Proclamation was a tactic of economic warfare against the rebellious Confederacy, it had nothing to do with equality for blacks.

"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality." -Abraham Lincoln, 1858

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it." -Abraham Lincoln, 1862

So what was the Civil War really about then? The same thing that most rebellions are born of. A rejection of tyranny and oppression. In that instance, it was a confederation of states who rejected Federal authority over the sovereignty of independent states.

And from those days to this, the United States has existed, not as a Constitutional Republic, but under a declared state of martial law.

U.S. Federal Authority Is Martial Law


The preceding compilation contains excerpts from an article published at Before It's News. Please visit that link for their full article. Excerpts are highlighted in gray. Some highlighted text reinforced by November Yankee

Military Troops Patrol Grand Central Terminal After 9/11

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?

Death From Above

As much as I like to support the troops, and have empathy for all they have endured as people, it is important to keep in mind how misguided our adventures overseas have been. Based on false pretenses, lies, and unanswered questions, our military actions as Americans has been downright despicable.

Just as I try to have empathy for cops who do good, I also try to have empathy for the troops as well. After all, they are the instruments of policy, not the policy-writers. I think this is more true even for troops than police here at home, but we can leave that for another discussion.

What this video shows, is the bald face of the aggression of the United States government. And you can damn well bet, in the wake of what we saw out on Boston, our own government doesn't give a crap about the rights of the people of this nation. Sooner than later, we will be seeing this happening, right here at home...



Life imitates art...

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