2012-03-01 "The First Amendment Right to Record The Police" from "Extra, Extra... the Chronicles of Fly Benzo, Re-Educate Yourself..."
[http://flybenzo.wordpress.com/2012/03/01/the-first-amendment-right-to-record-the-police/]
According to the United States Constitution, the First Amendment is written as follows:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. (U.S. Const. amend. I)
There have been many cases in which video evidence has contradicted an officer’s testimony and either an officer was convicted of wrongdoing or a suspect’s charges have been overturned or dismissed. With this great lack of integrity and accountability of the very ones who are paid to uphold the law, it is imperative, in the interest of justice, that civilians’ right to record police be preserved rather than criminalized.
Gayle Falkenthal, in her Washington Times article, “All Journalism is Citizen Journalism,” reported that in the case, Glik v. Cunniffe, the court ruled that a citizen’s right to film government officials is protected by the First Amendment. Simon Glik, a client of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), was arrested for “illegal wiretapping” after he recorded threeree officers using force to arrest a young man on the Boston Common. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, on August 26, 2011, ruled that “”a private citizen’s right to videotape police officers performing their duties in a public space is ‘unambiguously’ protected by the First Amendment.”
Richard Winton, in his article, “Sheriff’s Department sued over detention of photographers,” made it clear that the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) sued the Los Angeles Sherriff’s Department on the behalf of the National Press Photographers Assn. and three photographers who were harassed, detained and illegally searched while legally taking pictures in public places. The senior staff attorney for the ACLU declared that “photography is not a crime” and that for the police “to single them out for such treatment while they’re pursuing a constitutionally protected activity is doubly wrong.”
Thomas Clouse and Meghann M. Cuniff, in their Spokesman newpaper article, report on one case in which an officer was convicted of wrongdoing after a store’s surveillance tapes told a different story than the officer in question. Spokane Officer, Karl F. Thompson Jr., claimed that Otto Zehm assaulted him in his 2006 encounter in which Zehm was beaten and tased into a coma from which he never recovered. Three years later the FBI launched a federal investigation and the jury, after review of the video evidence in contrast with Thompson’s statement, convicted Thompson of excessive force as well as lying to investigators. This is one case in which video footage has served to ensure that justice was served and that an officer did not completely get away with murder.
Another case in which video evidence has been used to convict an officer was the 2009 shooting of BART (San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit) rider, Oscar Grant by former BART PD Officer Johannes Mehserle. Although many people were outraged with the verdict and the amount of time Mehserle served in custody, it was video evidence from several onlookers’ cell phones that aided the prosecution in the historic involuntary manslaughter conviction. Johannes Mehserle was another case of a cop who almost got away with murder, as well as an officer who’s testimony contradicted the videos of the respective incidents and therefore, yet another reason filming government officials is rightfully protected by the U.S. Constitution’s First Ammendment.
According to the May 27th 2011 press release of the San Francisco Public Defender, Officer Peter Richardson arrested Jesus Inastrilla and claimed that three undercover officers arrested Inastrilla after witnessing him spit a crack rock in his hand and sell it to Guerrero (one of the undercover officers), however, video footage shows that no exchange was made. The charges were dropped after Guerrero claimed that he could not locate the alleged seized drugs in evidence. The same day in San Francisco, 25 other cases were dropped due to lack of evidence, police credibility issues and a string of tapes with contradictory evidence to that of the statements of officers. With this lack of accountability and integrity of sworn SFPD officers, without cameras, there is no way of knowing whether or not an innocent person will be wrongfully convicted, therefore, the protection of civilians with cameras is absolutely necessary in the best interest of justice.
SF Examiner Staff Writer Brent Begin, in his article “San Francisco police to carry video cameras during arrests” implies that the misconduct of SF Police officers had become so prevalent and the controversy so widespread that SF Police Chief Greg Suhr proposed the idea of equipping SFPD officers with cameras to record their arrests (Specifically in drug cases and cases that require consent or a search warrant). These ideas come in the wake of the aforementioned string of videos. The officers involved in the arrests in question were all removed from plainclothes duty pending further investigation, however, Chief Suhr insists that the officers are innocent until proven guilty. Being an officer of the law requires a person hold themselves to a higher standard, and with their superior officers brushing such violations off in such a way, justice cannot possibly be served.
By exerting such abuses of authority, officers of the law make justice unattainable without the interference of good samaritans and “copwatchers” who record the cops’ often reckless and over the top behavior. Also, as in the cases of Mehserle and Guerrero, the American people cannot trust officers of the law to police themselves and their fellow officers because time and time again they have lied under oath and violated the rights of, and even killed civilians unlawfully and conspired amongst themselves to continue to sweep things under the rug. The right to film officers while performing their duties in a public space is rightfully protected by the First Amendment and in the best interest of justice, law enforcement agencies must immediately cease the criminalization of “copwatchers,” otherwise the United States government will be deemed to be in violation of its own constitution, the fundamental laws which establish the character of a nation.
Thursday, March 1, 2012
Thursday, February 23, 2012
2012-02-21 "5 Reasons You Should Never Agree to a Police Search (Even if You Have Nothing to Hide)" by Scott Morgan (Associate Director of "FlexYourRights.org")
[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-morgan/5-reasons-you-should-neve_b_1292554.html]
Scott Morgan is Associate Director of FlexYourRights.org and co-creator of the film 10 Rules for Dealing with Police.
---
Do you know what your rights are when a police officer asks to search you? If you're like most people I've met in my eight years working to educate the public on this topic, then you probably don't.
It's a subject that a lot of people think they understand, but too often our perception of police power is distorted by fictional TV dramas, sensational media stories, silly urban myths, and the unfortunate fact that police themselves are legally allowed to lie to us [http://flexyourrights.org/faq/police_allowed_to_lie].
It wouldn't even be such a big deal, I suppose, if our laws all made sense and our public servants always treated us as citizens first and suspects second. But thanks to the War on Drugs, nothing is ever that easy. When something as stupid as stopping people from possessing marijuana came to be considered a critical law enforcement function, innocence ceased to protect people against police harassment. From the streets of the Bronx to the suburbs of the Nation's Capital, you never have to look hard to find victims of the bias, incompetence, and corruption that the drug war delivers on a daily basis.
Whether or not you ever break the law, you should be prepared to protect yourself and your property just in case police become suspicious of you. Let's take a look at one of the most commonly misunderstood legal situations a citizen can encounter: a police officer asking to search your belongings. Most people automatically give consent when police ask to perform a search. However, I recommend saying "no" to police searches, and here are some reasons why:
1. It's your constitutional right.
The 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects us against unreasonable searches and seizures. Unless police have strong evidence (probable cause) to believe you're involved in criminal activity, they need your permission to perform a search of you or your property.
You have the right to refuse random police searches anywhere and anytime, so long as you aren't crossing a border checkpoint or entering a secure facility like an airport. Don't be shy about standing up for your own privacy rights, especially when police are looking for evidence that could put you behind bars.
2. Refusing a search protects you if you end up in court.
It's always possible that police might search you anyway when you refuse to give consent, but that's no reason to say "yes" to the search. Basically, if there's any chance of evidence being found, agreeing to a search is like committing legal suicide, because it kills your case before you even get to court.
If you refuse a search, however, the officer will have to prove in court that there was probable cause to do a warrantless search. This will give your lawyer a good chance to win your case, but this only works if you said "no" to the search.
3. Saying "no" can prevent a search altogether.
Data on police searches are interesting, but they don't show how many searches didn't happen because a citizen said no. A non-search is a non-event that goes unrecorded, giving rise to a widespread misconception that police will always search with or without permission.
I know refusing searches works because I've been collecting stories from real police encounters. The reality is that police routinely ask for permission to search when they have absolutely no evidence of an actual crime. If you remain calm and say no, there's a good chance they'll back down, because it's a waste of time to do searches that won't hold up in court anyway.
4. Searches can waste your time and damage your property.
Do you have time to sit around while police rifle through your belongings? Police often spend 30 minutes or more on vehicle searches and even longer searching homes. You certainly can't count on officers to be careful with valuables or to put everything back where they found it. If you waive your 4th Amendment rights by agreeing to be searched, you will have few legal options if any property is damaged or missing after the search.
5. You never know what they'll find.
Are you 100 percent certain there's nothing illegal in your home or vehicle? You can never be too sure. A joint roach could stick to your shoe on the street and wind up on the floorboard. A careless acquaintance could have dropped a baggie behind the seat. Try telling a cop it isn't yours, and they'll just laugh and tell you to put your hands behind your back. If you agreed to the search, you can't challenge the evidence. But if you're innocent and you refused the search, your lawyer has a winnable case.
Remember that knowing your rights will help you protect yourself, but no amount of preparation can guarantee a good outcome in a bad situation. Your attitude and your choices before, during, and after the encounter will usually matter more than your knowledge of the law. Stay calm no matter what happens, and remember that you can always report misconduct after things settle down.
Finally, please don't be shy about sharing this information with your friends and family. Understanding and asserting your rights isn't about getting away with anything, and it isn't about disrespecting police either. These rights are the foundation of freedom in America, and they get weaker whenever we fail to exercise them.
[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-morgan/5-reasons-you-should-neve_b_1292554.html]
Scott Morgan is Associate Director of FlexYourRights.org and co-creator of the film 10 Rules for Dealing with Police.
---
Do you know what your rights are when a police officer asks to search you? If you're like most people I've met in my eight years working to educate the public on this topic, then you probably don't.
It's a subject that a lot of people think they understand, but too often our perception of police power is distorted by fictional TV dramas, sensational media stories, silly urban myths, and the unfortunate fact that police themselves are legally allowed to lie to us [http://flexyourrights.org/faq/police_allowed_to_lie].
It wouldn't even be such a big deal, I suppose, if our laws all made sense and our public servants always treated us as citizens first and suspects second. But thanks to the War on Drugs, nothing is ever that easy. When something as stupid as stopping people from possessing marijuana came to be considered a critical law enforcement function, innocence ceased to protect people against police harassment. From the streets of the Bronx to the suburbs of the Nation's Capital, you never have to look hard to find victims of the bias, incompetence, and corruption that the drug war delivers on a daily basis.
Whether or not you ever break the law, you should be prepared to protect yourself and your property just in case police become suspicious of you. Let's take a look at one of the most commonly misunderstood legal situations a citizen can encounter: a police officer asking to search your belongings. Most people automatically give consent when police ask to perform a search. However, I recommend saying "no" to police searches, and here are some reasons why:
1. It's your constitutional right.
The 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects us against unreasonable searches and seizures. Unless police have strong evidence (probable cause) to believe you're involved in criminal activity, they need your permission to perform a search of you or your property.
You have the right to refuse random police searches anywhere and anytime, so long as you aren't crossing a border checkpoint or entering a secure facility like an airport. Don't be shy about standing up for your own privacy rights, especially when police are looking for evidence that could put you behind bars.
2. Refusing a search protects you if you end up in court.
It's always possible that police might search you anyway when you refuse to give consent, but that's no reason to say "yes" to the search. Basically, if there's any chance of evidence being found, agreeing to a search is like committing legal suicide, because it kills your case before you even get to court.
If you refuse a search, however, the officer will have to prove in court that there was probable cause to do a warrantless search. This will give your lawyer a good chance to win your case, but this only works if you said "no" to the search.
3. Saying "no" can prevent a search altogether.
Data on police searches are interesting, but they don't show how many searches didn't happen because a citizen said no. A non-search is a non-event that goes unrecorded, giving rise to a widespread misconception that police will always search with or without permission.
I know refusing searches works because I've been collecting stories from real police encounters. The reality is that police routinely ask for permission to search when they have absolutely no evidence of an actual crime. If you remain calm and say no, there's a good chance they'll back down, because it's a waste of time to do searches that won't hold up in court anyway.
4. Searches can waste your time and damage your property.
Do you have time to sit around while police rifle through your belongings? Police often spend 30 minutes or more on vehicle searches and even longer searching homes. You certainly can't count on officers to be careful with valuables or to put everything back where they found it. If you waive your 4th Amendment rights by agreeing to be searched, you will have few legal options if any property is damaged or missing after the search.
5. You never know what they'll find.
Are you 100 percent certain there's nothing illegal in your home or vehicle? You can never be too sure. A joint roach could stick to your shoe on the street and wind up on the floorboard. A careless acquaintance could have dropped a baggie behind the seat. Try telling a cop it isn't yours, and they'll just laugh and tell you to put your hands behind your back. If you agreed to the search, you can't challenge the evidence. But if you're innocent and you refused the search, your lawyer has a winnable case.
Remember that knowing your rights will help you protect yourself, but no amount of preparation can guarantee a good outcome in a bad situation. Your attitude and your choices before, during, and after the encounter will usually matter more than your knowledge of the law. Stay calm no matter what happens, and remember that you can always report misconduct after things settle down.
Finally, please don't be shy about sharing this information with your friends and family. Understanding and asserting your rights isn't about getting away with anything, and it isn't about disrespecting police either. These rights are the foundation of freedom in America, and they get weaker whenever we fail to exercise them.
Monday, February 13, 2012
2012-02-13 "The Violent Militarization Of Local Police" by Bob Livingston
[http://personalliberty.com/2012/02/13/the-violent-militarization-of-local-police/]
Law-abiding citizens are no longer safe from police. Once the motto for police officers was “To protect and serve,” but now it seems to be “To harass, assault and attack.”
Across the country, police officers are increasingly militarized and increasingly militant. They make up laws out of thin air, claiming that innocuous activities like watching or videotaping police activities — including arrests on public streets, walking in certain neighborhoods, parking on certain streets and putting trash in trash cans [http://personalliberty.com/2011/07/08/the-upsa/] — are crimes.
While the vilest offenders are SWAT teams, even regular patrol officers become violent at the least provocation [http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=UWL24c6-QKw#!]. Thanks to YouTube and similar content-sharing sites, more of these incidents are coming to light. However, capturing video of these incidents has put the videographer at risk from the police, who often unlawfully and forcibly take the phone or camera and erase its contents or remove its memory card [http://teapartyeconomist.com/2012/02/06/cops-confiscate-a-rreporters-cell-phone/]. It’s not unusual for the videographer to be roughed up and/or threatened with arrest in the process. A list of recent incidences of police brutality and other police misconduct can be read at Injustice Everywhere [http://www.injusticeeverywhere.com/].
Cops have come to think of themselves as gods above the law whose commands are to be obeyed immediately and without question. Any hesitation often leads to the “suspect” being left bleeding and broken or quivering from electricity introduced by a TASER. It doesn’t matter if the person was unable to understand the command because of a language barrier, or if the person was unable to comply due to disability or defect [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2098240/Henderson-police-officer-seen-dashcam-video-brutally-kicking-motorist-suffering-diabetic-shock.html]. Officers expect immediate and complete compliance with no questions asked.
They are shooting dogs for barking [http://newssun.suntimes.com/news/8069279-418/round-lake-beach-cops-shoot-familys-barking-puppy.html], Tasing (see here [http://www.droregon.org/results/5th-grade-special-education-student-tasered-by-police-in-his-oregon-class-room] and here [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QaPjJG8NVsY&feature=player_embedded&oref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.prisonplanet.com%2F19-crazy-things-that-school-children-are-being-arrested-for-in-america.html&has_verified=1]) and pepper spraying children in schools and shooting wheelchair-bound men in the streets [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/12/08/MNH91M90CN.DTL]. They apparently feel they operate above the law.
Many, if not most, patrol cars now carry dash cams. Sometimes, dash cam videos are preserved, which allows abused citizens — if they are persistent and dogged enough — to get justice and restitution occasionally. Such was the case shown here [http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/01/daniel-zimmerman/canton-cop-daniel-harless-fired-for-motorist-abuse/], where the officer threatened to shoot a suspect in the head for not revealing he had a concealed weapon in the car. Often, though, the dash cam video mysteriously disappears before trial.
According to a report by the CATO Institute [http://www.cato.org/store/reports/overkill-rise-paramilitary-police-raids-america], tens of thousands of raids are conducted by SWAT teams each year. The report claimed:
[begin excerpt]
These increasingly frequent raids, 40,000 per year by one estimate, are needlessly subjecting nonviolent drug offenders, bystanders, and wrongly targeted civilians to the terror of having their homes invaded while they’re sleeping, usually by teams of heavily armed paramilitary units dressed not as police officers but as soldiers. These raids bring unnecessary violence and provocation to nonviolent drug offenders, many of whom were guilty of only misdemeanors. The raids terrorize innocents when police mistakenly target the wrong residence. And they have resulted in dozens of needless deaths and injuries, not only of drug offenders, but also of police officers, children, bystanders, and innocent suspects.
[end excerpt]
The so-called War on Drugs is undoubtedly the casus belli for the increased militarization of the police. SWAT officers are armed and armored as well as, if not better than, soldiers. Drug task forces receive Federal funding to purchase assault weapons, armor and armored vehicles to use in drug raids. They no longer serve warrants by knocking on doors or by picking up suspects on the streets. Instead, they bash down doors or use chain saws to gain entry [http://boston.cbslocal.com/2012/01/31/fbi-uses-chainsaw-in-raid-on-wrong-fitchburg-apartment/].
SWAT teams argue their safety requires they swarm into homes. But that doesn’t negate the fact that they create an explosive situation that often leads to innocent people being harmed or killed. Sadly, they often force their way into the wrong residence.
The instance in Tucson, Ariz., in which Iraq veteran Jose Guerena was shot 60 times by SWAT officers in his home is prima facie evidence of the danger these situations create [http://forums.utsandiego.com/showthread.php?t=112777].
In the early morning hours Guerena’s wife, Vanessa, saw a man pointing a gun at her through the window. She awakened her husband, who was asleep after working the night shift. Thinking a home invasion was in progress, Guerena told his wife to get into a closet and grabbed his gun.
The SWAT team forced open the door and opened fire on Guerena, then stood by and watched him bleed for an hour before letting paramedics treat him. By then, he was dead. SWAT officers then lied about who shot first. The safety was still on Guerena’s gun, indicating he never fired. Nothing illegal was found in Guerena’s home.
It is grounded in conservative American psyche to defend oneself and one’s home. Yet responding to an unannounced and violent intrusion by police will leave you as dead as it left Guerena.
And even if you aren’t shot dead, the police have no qualms about destroying your residence [http://www.lewrockwell.com/grigg/grigg-w35.html]. They claim it is police procedure to gas the house, tear up floor boards, kick in doors and walls, and strew contents of cabinets and furniture to the winds. Requests for compensation are ignored, even if nothing was ever found.
But it’s not just suspected drug dealers who feel the wrath of police officers. Just ask Marianne Godboldo of Detroit. Police thugs forcibly removed her daughter for the crime of Godboldo not giving her daughter a pill prescribed by a physician [http://www.personalliberty.com/conservative-politics/liberty/the-medical-police-state/].
Most people dismiss claims of an increasingly violent and aggressive police force as either conspiracy theory or sour grapes by criminals. Minorities have long seen their claims of police brutality dismissed out of hand by white America. Many people naively believe that if they don’t commit a crime, they won’t have anything to worry about from police. But it’s high time that people see this for what it is and connect the dots on the news stories of today.
Congress has just authorized having as many as 30,000 unmanned drones patrolling the U.S. skies. The FBI and Department of Homeland Security are greatly expanding the definition of extremist and terrorist to include people performing normal activities [http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2012/02/06/fbi-enlists-internet-cafe-owners-to-spy-on-customers-2/] or objecting to paying taxes [http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/07/us-usa-fbi-extremists-idUSTRE81600V20120207]. The USA Patriot Act and the National Defense Authorization Act have given government carte blanche to detain Americans without charge and without trial and ship them to the Guantanamo Bay prison resort.
In a series of debates on socialism in 1914, John Basil Barnhill said, “Where the people fear the government you have tyranny. Where the government fears the people you have liberty.” The government fears the people and the coming conflagration it has sparked. By tightening its grasp on liberty through the militarization of the police force, the pendulum is swinging to where the people are now beginning to fear their government.
Where this will lead is anybody’s guess, but I predict it won’t be pretty.
[http://personalliberty.com/2012/02/13/the-violent-militarization-of-local-police/]
Law-abiding citizens are no longer safe from police. Once the motto for police officers was “To protect and serve,” but now it seems to be “To harass, assault and attack.”
Across the country, police officers are increasingly militarized and increasingly militant. They make up laws out of thin air, claiming that innocuous activities like watching or videotaping police activities — including arrests on public streets, walking in certain neighborhoods, parking on certain streets and putting trash in trash cans [http://personalliberty.com/2011/07/08/the-upsa/] — are crimes.
While the vilest offenders are SWAT teams, even regular patrol officers become violent at the least provocation [http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=UWL24c6-QKw#!]. Thanks to YouTube and similar content-sharing sites, more of these incidents are coming to light. However, capturing video of these incidents has put the videographer at risk from the police, who often unlawfully and forcibly take the phone or camera and erase its contents or remove its memory card [http://teapartyeconomist.com/2012/02/06/cops-confiscate-a-rreporters-cell-phone/]. It’s not unusual for the videographer to be roughed up and/or threatened with arrest in the process. A list of recent incidences of police brutality and other police misconduct can be read at Injustice Everywhere [http://www.injusticeeverywhere.com/].
Cops have come to think of themselves as gods above the law whose commands are to be obeyed immediately and without question. Any hesitation often leads to the “suspect” being left bleeding and broken or quivering from electricity introduced by a TASER. It doesn’t matter if the person was unable to understand the command because of a language barrier, or if the person was unable to comply due to disability or defect [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2098240/Henderson-police-officer-seen-dashcam-video-brutally-kicking-motorist-suffering-diabetic-shock.html]. Officers expect immediate and complete compliance with no questions asked.
They are shooting dogs for barking [http://newssun.suntimes.com/news/8069279-418/round-lake-beach-cops-shoot-familys-barking-puppy.html], Tasing (see here [http://www.droregon.org/results/5th-grade-special-education-student-tasered-by-police-in-his-oregon-class-room] and here [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QaPjJG8NVsY&feature=player_embedded&oref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.prisonplanet.com%2F19-crazy-things-that-school-children-are-being-arrested-for-in-america.html&has_verified=1]) and pepper spraying children in schools and shooting wheelchair-bound men in the streets [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/12/08/MNH91M90CN.DTL]. They apparently feel they operate above the law.
Many, if not most, patrol cars now carry dash cams. Sometimes, dash cam videos are preserved, which allows abused citizens — if they are persistent and dogged enough — to get justice and restitution occasionally. Such was the case shown here [http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/01/daniel-zimmerman/canton-cop-daniel-harless-fired-for-motorist-abuse/], where the officer threatened to shoot a suspect in the head for not revealing he had a concealed weapon in the car. Often, though, the dash cam video mysteriously disappears before trial.
According to a report by the CATO Institute [http://www.cato.org/store/reports/overkill-rise-paramilitary-police-raids-america], tens of thousands of raids are conducted by SWAT teams each year. The report claimed:
[begin excerpt]
These increasingly frequent raids, 40,000 per year by one estimate, are needlessly subjecting nonviolent drug offenders, bystanders, and wrongly targeted civilians to the terror of having their homes invaded while they’re sleeping, usually by teams of heavily armed paramilitary units dressed not as police officers but as soldiers. These raids bring unnecessary violence and provocation to nonviolent drug offenders, many of whom were guilty of only misdemeanors. The raids terrorize innocents when police mistakenly target the wrong residence. And they have resulted in dozens of needless deaths and injuries, not only of drug offenders, but also of police officers, children, bystanders, and innocent suspects.
[end excerpt]
The so-called War on Drugs is undoubtedly the casus belli for the increased militarization of the police. SWAT officers are armed and armored as well as, if not better than, soldiers. Drug task forces receive Federal funding to purchase assault weapons, armor and armored vehicles to use in drug raids. They no longer serve warrants by knocking on doors or by picking up suspects on the streets. Instead, they bash down doors or use chain saws to gain entry [http://boston.cbslocal.com/2012/01/31/fbi-uses-chainsaw-in-raid-on-wrong-fitchburg-apartment/].
SWAT teams argue their safety requires they swarm into homes. But that doesn’t negate the fact that they create an explosive situation that often leads to innocent people being harmed or killed. Sadly, they often force their way into the wrong residence.
The instance in Tucson, Ariz., in which Iraq veteran Jose Guerena was shot 60 times by SWAT officers in his home is prima facie evidence of the danger these situations create [http://forums.utsandiego.com/showthread.php?t=112777].
In the early morning hours Guerena’s wife, Vanessa, saw a man pointing a gun at her through the window. She awakened her husband, who was asleep after working the night shift. Thinking a home invasion was in progress, Guerena told his wife to get into a closet and grabbed his gun.
The SWAT team forced open the door and opened fire on Guerena, then stood by and watched him bleed for an hour before letting paramedics treat him. By then, he was dead. SWAT officers then lied about who shot first. The safety was still on Guerena’s gun, indicating he never fired. Nothing illegal was found in Guerena’s home.
It is grounded in conservative American psyche to defend oneself and one’s home. Yet responding to an unannounced and violent intrusion by police will leave you as dead as it left Guerena.
And even if you aren’t shot dead, the police have no qualms about destroying your residence [http://www.lewrockwell.com/grigg/grigg-w35.html]. They claim it is police procedure to gas the house, tear up floor boards, kick in doors and walls, and strew contents of cabinets and furniture to the winds. Requests for compensation are ignored, even if nothing was ever found.
But it’s not just suspected drug dealers who feel the wrath of police officers. Just ask Marianne Godboldo of Detroit. Police thugs forcibly removed her daughter for the crime of Godboldo not giving her daughter a pill prescribed by a physician [http://www.personalliberty.com/conservative-politics/liberty/the-medical-police-state/].
Most people dismiss claims of an increasingly violent and aggressive police force as either conspiracy theory or sour grapes by criminals. Minorities have long seen their claims of police brutality dismissed out of hand by white America. Many people naively believe that if they don’t commit a crime, they won’t have anything to worry about from police. But it’s high time that people see this for what it is and connect the dots on the news stories of today.
Congress has just authorized having as many as 30,000 unmanned drones patrolling the U.S. skies. The FBI and Department of Homeland Security are greatly expanding the definition of extremist and terrorist to include people performing normal activities [http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2012/02/06/fbi-enlists-internet-cafe-owners-to-spy-on-customers-2/] or objecting to paying taxes [http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/07/us-usa-fbi-extremists-idUSTRE81600V20120207]. The USA Patriot Act and the National Defense Authorization Act have given government carte blanche to detain Americans without charge and without trial and ship them to the Guantanamo Bay prison resort.
In a series of debates on socialism in 1914, John Basil Barnhill said, “Where the people fear the government you have tyranny. Where the government fears the people you have liberty.” The government fears the people and the coming conflagration it has sparked. By tightening its grasp on liberty through the militarization of the police force, the pendulum is swinging to where the people are now beginning to fear their government.
Where this will lead is anybody’s guess, but I predict it won’t be pretty.
Saturday, February 11, 2012
Judicial Corruption
Judges can arbitrate life-altering decisions based purely of personal interests and politics.
The following example shows how judges can gain from their position...
"Insider Trading in LA Superior Court"2012-02-11 by JB Tucker [link]:
The recent scandals in Washington and the passage of legislation to ban congressional “insider” stock trading caused me to unearth an old memo that I’d sent to federal authorities some time ago, because it seemed quite plausible that a Los Angeles Superior Court judge might very well have had advance knowledge of impending stock crashes. Here’s the substance of the memo I composed:
[begin memo]
According to Judge xxxxxx x xxxxxxz’s FPPC (Fair Political Practices Commission) Form 700 Statement of Economic Interests dated September 21, 2002 he disposed of an investment in WORLDCOM in June 2002. According to his previous filing dated December 18, 2001, the investment was worth somewhere between $10,000 – $100,000.
Somewhat more intriguing is that for the most part, his entries of investments that were sold off have the exact date of disposition listed. His Worldcom entry merely shows the month and year.
A website with extensive public documents on the Worldcom scandal listed three documents of interest that have since come to light in the month of June 2002: two internal memos dated June 17, 2002 and another on June 24,2002, in which people were discussing the firm’s shaky financial situation. The timing of the Judge’s disposition of this stock seems to raise a reasonable suspicion of insider leaks.
The Form 700’s are filed at the Los Angeles County Registrar of Voters office in Norwalk as well as with the Secretary of State and FPPC in Sacramento.
Amongst his many other investments, the Judge also made two purchases of Tyco stock on January 22, 2002 and January 23, 2002. Haven’t looked extensively at that issue yet.
[end memo]
Hmmmmmmmm…..
The following example shows how judges can gain from their position...
"Insider Trading in LA Superior Court"2012-02-11 by JB Tucker [link]:
The recent scandals in Washington and the passage of legislation to ban congressional “insider” stock trading caused me to unearth an old memo that I’d sent to federal authorities some time ago, because it seemed quite plausible that a Los Angeles Superior Court judge might very well have had advance knowledge of impending stock crashes. Here’s the substance of the memo I composed:
[begin memo]
According to Judge xxxxxx x xxxxxxz’s FPPC (Fair Political Practices Commission) Form 700 Statement of Economic Interests dated September 21, 2002 he disposed of an investment in WORLDCOM in June 2002. According to his previous filing dated December 18, 2001, the investment was worth somewhere between $10,000 – $100,000.
Somewhat more intriguing is that for the most part, his entries of investments that were sold off have the exact date of disposition listed. His Worldcom entry merely shows the month and year.
A website with extensive public documents on the Worldcom scandal listed three documents of interest that have since come to light in the month of June 2002: two internal memos dated June 17, 2002 and another on June 24,2002, in which people were discussing the firm’s shaky financial situation. The timing of the Judge’s disposition of this stock seems to raise a reasonable suspicion of insider leaks.
The Form 700’s are filed at the Los Angeles County Registrar of Voters office in Norwalk as well as with the Secretary of State and FPPC in Sacramento.
Amongst his many other investments, the Judge also made two purchases of Tyco stock on January 22, 2002 and January 23, 2002. Haven’t looked extensively at that issue yet.
[end memo]
Hmmmmmmmm…..
Friday, February 10, 2012
2012-02-10 "Richmond police bias trial hears of bizarre behavior" by Kevin Fagan from "San Francisco Chronicle"
[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/02/09/BAAO1N5QDK.DTL&tsp=1]
(02-10) 10:55 PST RICHMOND -- Between tales of one police captain dropping to all fours to yell "don't beat me" and black and white commanders angrily proclaiming they were being discriminated against, jurors got a stark depiction Thursday of a Richmond Police Department consumed with racial tensions in 2006 when Chris Magnus took over as chief.
The revelations came as Magnus spent a second day testifying in a Contra Costa County Superior Court trial over a lawsuit claiming he had discriminated against seven high-ranking black officers.
Plaintiffs' attorney Stephen Jaffe tried to make Magnus look like a disconnected leader who revealed racist bents in quips and favoritism, while the chief attempted to portray himself as working to dispel racial tensions that he found when he took the job.
One of the most bizarre moments came when Magnus described an incident in which then-Capt. Cleveland Brown, one of the commanders suing him, came into his office to complain that he didn't want then-Capt. Lori Ritter to become deputy chief.
Magnus said Brown had told him he thought Ritter - who, like Magnus, is white and a defendant in the trial - was a racist, and then had pantomimed his displeasure.
"I remember him getting down on all fours and raising up his arms and saying, 'Don't beat me, Miss Lori!' " Magnus said. "It was kind of hard to tell if he was joking or if he was acting out a story.
"I was floored by it," the chief told the jury. However, he added, "that was pretty typical for Cleveland. He was very animated, very loud, very extreme."
He also said Brown had told him that "an African American captain shouldn't have to work for a white female."
In their lawsuit, the black commanders contend it was Magnus who made racist remarks, telling plaintiff Lt. Arnold Threets to imagine Ritter standing over Brown, cracking a whip and telling him to dance.
After the exchange with Brown a few months after Magnus took the job, the chief made Ritter his deputy. Brown was later demoted to lieutenant.
Magnus also described a hellish staff retreat in Napa nine months into his job, in which he tried to get black and white commanders to discuss racial tensions and cliques in the department.
Instead, he said, Brown and others remained hostile and said they didn't want to cooperate with his new, community-minded policing style.
The chief said he was "upset" by the tenor of the retreat and told his officers that "if you want to engage in bias, engage in cliques, then you need to work somewhere else, or I will make your life a living hell."
The suing commanders have contended that such statements created a racially hostile workplace. Magnus said his comment "was dramatic, yes. But I was disappointed in what I was hearing and not hearing in that room."
[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/02/09/BAAO1N5QDK.DTL&tsp=1]
(02-10) 10:55 PST RICHMOND -- Between tales of one police captain dropping to all fours to yell "don't beat me" and black and white commanders angrily proclaiming they were being discriminated against, jurors got a stark depiction Thursday of a Richmond Police Department consumed with racial tensions in 2006 when Chris Magnus took over as chief.
The revelations came as Magnus spent a second day testifying in a Contra Costa County Superior Court trial over a lawsuit claiming he had discriminated against seven high-ranking black officers.
Plaintiffs' attorney Stephen Jaffe tried to make Magnus look like a disconnected leader who revealed racist bents in quips and favoritism, while the chief attempted to portray himself as working to dispel racial tensions that he found when he took the job.
One of the most bizarre moments came when Magnus described an incident in which then-Capt. Cleveland Brown, one of the commanders suing him, came into his office to complain that he didn't want then-Capt. Lori Ritter to become deputy chief.
Magnus said Brown had told him he thought Ritter - who, like Magnus, is white and a defendant in the trial - was a racist, and then had pantomimed his displeasure.
"I remember him getting down on all fours and raising up his arms and saying, 'Don't beat me, Miss Lori!' " Magnus said. "It was kind of hard to tell if he was joking or if he was acting out a story.
"I was floored by it," the chief told the jury. However, he added, "that was pretty typical for Cleveland. He was very animated, very loud, very extreme."
He also said Brown had told him that "an African American captain shouldn't have to work for a white female."
In their lawsuit, the black commanders contend it was Magnus who made racist remarks, telling plaintiff Lt. Arnold Threets to imagine Ritter standing over Brown, cracking a whip and telling him to dance.
After the exchange with Brown a few months after Magnus took the job, the chief made Ritter his deputy. Brown was later demoted to lieutenant.
Magnus also described a hellish staff retreat in Napa nine months into his job, in which he tried to get black and white commanders to discuss racial tensions and cliques in the department.
Instead, he said, Brown and others remained hostile and said they didn't want to cooperate with his new, community-minded policing style.
The chief said he was "upset" by the tenor of the retreat and told his officers that "if you want to engage in bias, engage in cliques, then you need to work somewhere else, or I will make your life a living hell."
The suing commanders have contended that such statements created a racially hostile workplace. Magnus said his comment "was dramatic, yes. But I was disappointed in what I was hearing and not hearing in that room."
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
UPDATE ON INVESTIGATION INTO THE MURDER OF KERRY BAXTER JUNIOR by Anita L. Wills from "Oscar Grant Committee (OGC)
On Tuesday January 17, 2012, Rashidah Grinnage and I (Anita Wills), met with the Oakland Citizen's Police Review Board (CPRB). Besides myself and Rashidah, the Chair of the Police Review Board, Patrick Caseares and Kim Tom were Present. Patrick is the Lead Investigator and Karen is the Investigator who handled my complaint. They explained to myself and Rashidah the limits of their authority regarding my complaint on behalf of my son, Kerry Baxter Senior and Grandson Kerry Baxter Junior. I was told that although they closed one of the cases, I could reopen it for cause anytime. Rashidah let them know if there was no activitiy we would be filing a complaint with the Federal Monitors. That got their attention and they opened up about measures I could take to assure cooperation from the OPD.
One measure was to call Homicidide and speak to the Officer (Sgt. Nowak), who had been condescending to me. Mr. Caeseres stated that if his attitude had not changed I could file another complaint against him. I called him the following day, and he bent over backwards to give me information. He told me that the girlfriend of my grandson, was now talking to them, and they had good leads. I mentioned a Dark Blue or Black Van parked near his body, and they said it had been checked out. Officer Nowak told me that they have a different description of the vehicle. I believe they are on the way to making an arrest in my grandson's murder case.
I attribute the change in attitude to the support and assistance from OGC, especially those who accompanied me to the CPRB hearing, in October. I also attribute it to the assistance I have received from Rashidah Grinnage, who has been with me almost from the beginning. Her son and husband were murdered by OPD and her remaining son continues to be harrassed by them. She stated at the meeting that we are living in Aparthied like conditions here in the East Bay.
Through OGC I have a forum and a means to keep my son (Kerry Baxter Senior), and my Grandson (Kerry Baxter Seniors), story in the Public Eye.
Power Concedes Nothing Without Demand - It Never Has and It Never Will!
On Tuesday January 17, 2012, Rashidah Grinnage and I (Anita Wills), met with the Oakland Citizen's Police Review Board (CPRB). Besides myself and Rashidah, the Chair of the Police Review Board, Patrick Caseares and Kim Tom were Present. Patrick is the Lead Investigator and Karen is the Investigator who handled my complaint. They explained to myself and Rashidah the limits of their authority regarding my complaint on behalf of my son, Kerry Baxter Senior and Grandson Kerry Baxter Junior. I was told that although they closed one of the cases, I could reopen it for cause anytime. Rashidah let them know if there was no activitiy we would be filing a complaint with the Federal Monitors. That got their attention and they opened up about measures I could take to assure cooperation from the OPD.
One measure was to call Homicidide and speak to the Officer (Sgt. Nowak), who had been condescending to me. Mr. Caeseres stated that if his attitude had not changed I could file another complaint against him. I called him the following day, and he bent over backwards to give me information. He told me that the girlfriend of my grandson, was now talking to them, and they had good leads. I mentioned a Dark Blue or Black Van parked near his body, and they said it had been checked out. Officer Nowak told me that they have a different description of the vehicle. I believe they are on the way to making an arrest in my grandson's murder case.
I attribute the change in attitude to the support and assistance from OGC, especially those who accompanied me to the CPRB hearing, in October. I also attribute it to the assistance I have received from Rashidah Grinnage, who has been with me almost from the beginning. Her son and husband were murdered by OPD and her remaining son continues to be harrassed by them. She stated at the meeting that we are living in Aparthied like conditions here in the East Bay.
Through OGC I have a forum and a means to keep my son (Kerry Baxter Senior), and my Grandson (Kerry Baxter Seniors), story in the Public Eye.
Power Concedes Nothing Without Demand - It Never Has and It Never Will!
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
Busted – The Citizen’s Guide to Surviving Police Encounters
Created by Flex Your Rights and narrated by retired ACLU director Ira Glasser, BUSTED realistically depicts the pressure and confusion of common police encounters. In an entertaining and revealing manner, BUSTED illustrates the right and wrong ways to handle common police encounters and pays special attention to demonstrating how you, the viewer, can confidently protect your rights and yourself.
Created by Flex Your Rights and narrated by retired ACLU director Ira Glasser, BUSTED realistically depicts the pressure and confusion of common police encounters. In an entertaining and revealing manner, BUSTED illustrates the right and wrong ways to handle common police encounters and pays special attention to demonstrating how you, the viewer, can confidently protect your rights and yourself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)