Cops Kill Man For Not Wearing Seatbelt

We'z gonna safety you to death!


I found this article at CopBlock.com

It was originally posted by Eric Peters

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And James Harris would not be a murderer.

Read the original post here.

Tweet

Cop Threatens Tickets After Ramming Moto-Biker

This may seem like a relatively minor incident overall, but it is downright frightening when you consider the true gravity of the situation. This isn't about just another "bad apple" but rather symptomatic of the regular oppression the civilian population faces in this nation on a daily basis. This is a nation where our so-called protectors can hit someone with a car, and then blame the victim for it. Where a cop can commit a crime, and then prosecute the innocent for it.



It is all the more frightening when you realize that a simple traffic incident can spiral out of control so badly, that a person could wind up being thrown into solitary confinement and tortured for two years without ever going before a judge, simply on the word of one cop.

Man Held In Solitary For 2 Years Without Trial

2 Years In The Hole For Man Convicted of Nothing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Slevin is now battling cancer.

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


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

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?