Texas police required to be goons

Ramon Perez was a rookie police officer in Austin, Texas when he responded to a domestic violence report in January 2005. When he arrived at the address, he was greeted by a distraught woman who claimed that her elderly husband had pushed her down the stairs, leaving her with injured arms.

As he interviewed the alleged victim, the alleged assailant, an elderly man apparently in frail health, emerged from the home carrying car keys and a cup of coffee. Perez, who had called for backup, told the man to stop. As he did the backup officer, Robert Paranich “lunged” at the elderly man, nearly knocking him off his feet.

“I considered that an escalation of force,” Perez later recalled.

With the suspect struggling to regain his balance, Paranich yelled at Perez to use his Taser to subdue the elderly man. To his considerable credit, Perez refused to do so, chiefly because the man wasn't resisting arrest, but also because the rookie officer was concerned that the man was so frail the electroshock device could send him into cardiac arrest.

Those considerations, incidentally, are spelled out in the Austin Police Department's Taser policy, which Perez followed exactly. In the event, Perez and Paranich were able to effect the arrest using “soft-hand” tactics. When it's possible to arrest a suspect without resort to violence, Perez later said, doing so is “the constitutionally correct thing.”

A few days after this incident, Perez received what he and his attorney Derek Howard describe as a punitive transfer to the night shift. Two months later, Perez was questioned at length about the January arrest, as well as a second incident in which he acted with unauthorized fastidiousness about constitutional correctness.

He was told to report to APD psychologist Carol Logan to undergo what was described as a session of “word games” to develop better communication skills with his superiors. Perez was not told that the interview would be a "fit-for-duty review" held to facilitate the pre-ordained decision to fire him.

According to the Austin Chronicle, Logan confirmed that Perez had been told the meeting would focus on “word games.” However, her four page report mentions nothing about that exercise; instead, it focuses “entirely on Perez's moral and religious beliefs, which Logan concludes are so strong they are an `impairment' to his ability to be a police officer.”

Perez is a self-described non-denominational fundamentalist Christian, an ordained minister who home-schools his children. This, according to Logan, produces an “impairment” of his ability to absorb new facts, to communicate with his superiors, and to deal with “feedback.”

“Perez has a well-developed set of personal beliefs,” wrote Logan. “These seem to be based primarily on his religious beliefs and it is obvious that he has spent a lot of time reflecting upon and developing these views.”

While Logan, displaying the reflexive condescension of a career servant of the Regime, describes Perez's convictions as “admirable,” she criticizes him for displaying “defensiveness” when his convictions are challenged. The firmness of Perez's moral beliefs is problematic, she concludes, because they “provide him with a rationale for explaining how his views differ with others.”

Boil down Logan's assessment in a saucepan, and here's the residue: Perez was unsuitable to serve as a police officer because his values transcend the authority of the State, and his moral convictions have immunized him against collectivist thinking.

It should be noted that Perez was also troublesome because, unlike most newly minted law enforcement officers, he had two decades of adult life in the rear-view mirror before beginning his police career. He was a 41-year-old ex-engineer when he graduated from the academy, and his fellow cadets honored him with the Ernie Hinckle Humanitarian Award for compassion, integrity, and leadership on the strength of the character he had displayed.

A month after the psychologist – who actually functions as what the Soviets called a Zampolit, or “political officer” -- rendered her assessment, Perez was given an ultimatum: He could resign from the APD and keep his peace officer's license, or be fired and lose that license, and thus be left unemployable by any other department. Perez chose the first course, while fighting with the Austin City government for a year to see the report that had led to his firing.

The triggering incident was his refusal to use a Taser on an unresisting elderly suspect; this episode revealed that Perez -- who would appear to be an exemplary officer, a throwback to an era when police were peace officers, rather than heavily armed enforcers of the State's decrees – was not morally ductile. He was fired for disobeying an order from a superior that was unconstitutional and illegal by the department's own standards.

The official explanation is that Perez was fired for being a “substandard cop.” Perez's attorney, Derek Howard, offers a more credible assessment: “He didn't fit in because of his religious belief system.”

“It was concluded that my [morality] justified it [the decision to disobey], when in fact it was my commitment to policy and our training at the academy and the U.S. Constitution, and not necessarily my moral, spiritual foundation, that led me to that decision,” explained Perez at a press conference earlier this month. “Being tough is a good thing. Being tough, as a cop, can save your life or someone else's. But when that toughness crosses over into civil liberties, that's where a line needs to be drawn... and for some officers, that's a gray area.”

Like Molech and other omnivorous pagan idols sustained by lethal violence, the Regime under which we live is a very jealous god: It requires unqualified, instantaneous obedience, particularly from those in the business of enforcing its decrees.

Perez, like any Christian worthy of that designation, will render to Caesar only that to which Caesar is due – which in our system means only the power necessary to protect the lives and property of the innocent. Or, as he put it: "I do believe, if you are a police officer, you have an ordination by God to protect and preserve life." All of this resonates with the actual meaning of the much-misapplied verses in Romans chapter 13 that are often wrested by those preaching unconditional submission to State power.

So now Perez is out of a job, and Austin's branch of the Leviathan Force will fill his slot with someone willing to adapt to the Regime's priorities. In simple terms, this means it will find someone willing to shoot an unresisting elderly suspect, at point-blank range, with a Taser.

This is not the only time I've heard of a police department using psychological testing to weed out police recruits whose Christian convictions make them unsuitable to serve the Regime.

A few months ago a former professional associate of mine described how his son, who applied for a position with a Sheriff's Department in Wisconsin, was rejected after he was made to play similar “word games” with a psychologist. Despite scoring well on every evaluation, this young man was deemed unworthy to work as a deputy sheriff because of his inflexible moral views and impatience with arbitrary bureaucratic policies.

One such incident could be an anomaly, and a second a mere coincidence. Three or more, however, constitute a trend. I'm confident that a third episode of this variety could be found with relatively little effort.

Report here




Australia: Police 'hindered' investigation of racist assault

To protect one of their own

An off-duty policeman deliberately hindered the investigation of an attack on a Jewish man in Balaclava last year, a statement by a fellow officer implies. The statement, by a St Kilda policewoman, was yesterday described as "the smoking gun" by Menachem Vorchheimer, the man abused and punched in the face by drunken Ocean Grove footballers travelling home in a minibus from a day at the Caulfield races in October last year. The statement was obtained from the Office of Public Prosecutions after freedom of information requests over several months were denied by police.

In another development, two versions of a statement by a witness who came to Mr Vorchheimer's aid have been viewed by The Sunday Age - showing that the original was edited to remove material suggesting the off-duty policeman tried to take offenders from the scene before police arrived. Leon Yuhanov, the passer-by who blocked the minibus with his car when he saw Mr Vorchheimer being attacked, said that the bus driver, off-duty policeman Terrence Moore, told him: "Don't be a fool; don't call the cops, you idiot." But these words were removed from the original statement made by Mr Yuhanov. Mr Yuhanov was unaware his statement had been altered until he was shown both versions by The Sunday Age last Thursday.

The deletions clearly cast Senior Constable Moore in a better light. The police statement naming Senior Constable Moore was written by Constable Karli Hawkins shortly after the assault on October 14 last year. Constable Hawkins was one of several police called to the scene in Carlisle Street after Mr Vorchheimer clashed with the footballers, who yelled anti-Jewish abuse as they passed in the minibus. Her statement says that Senior Constable Moore, on hearing Mr Vorchheimer say that a man wearing a pink tie had punched him, had immediately reboarded the bus and spoken to his passengers, mostly Ocean Grove footballers. The passengers had immediately removed their ties, she stated. This meant Mr Vorchheimer could not identify with certainty who had hit him.

Mr Vorchheimer, dressed that day in traditional clothes for the Jewish Sabbath and pushing two of his young children in a pram, had been punched in the eye and had his hat and skullcap snatched while remonstrating with the footballers over the racial abuse. Several witnesses said they had seen and heard the footballers abusing Orthodox Jews in the street.

Mr Vorchheimer's brother, David, last week obtained Constable Hawkins' statement from the Office of Public Prosecutions after being denied it by police despite many FOI requests.

Mr Yuhanov, 25, an Elwood IT consultant, was at traffic lights at the corner of Hotham and Carlisle streets when he saw the footballers shouting anti-Jewish abuse at a group of Orthodox Jewish boys crossing the road. He saw Menachem Vorchheimer remonstrate with the bus driver and passengers and saw one of the men snatch his Sabbath hat and skullcap. Mr Yuhanov pulled his car in front of the bus to prevent it leaving the scene before police arrived. He also asked the driver to get the passengers to return the hat. Mr Vorchheimer, who had a bloodied left eye, asked him to call police. Mr Yuhanov states he was then abused by the bus driver, who made remarks such as: "Don't be a fool; don't call the cops, you idiot." In the meantime, he said, the driver attempted to drive the bus onto the kerb to escape.

Mr Yuhanov later wrote his account of the incident for the police officer in charge of the investigation. He quoted the driver's remarks about not calling the police and his attempt to drive onto the kerb. He emailed this statement to the station, and the investigating officer emailed back a "tidied" version on a police form. At that stage, the "Don't call the cops" remarks were still in it.

In December, Mr Yuhanov was asked to sign a copy of his statement at St Kilda Police Station. At the time he did not realise that the statement had been shortened by several paragraphs. Among the deletions were details of the driver's behaviour - including the "Don't call the cops" comments and the driver's attempts to drive onto the kerb to leave the scene. "I should have looked at the statement more closely," Mr Yuhanov told The Sunday Age. "I am not happy about it. But I never thought to doubt the police."

Mr Vorchheimer and his family are now living in New York. No one was convicted over the punch that bloodied his eye. In April, one man was convicted of using insulting words and last month two men were fined for offensive behaviour and using insulting words. The court was told that an unidentified attacker had "smacked" Mr Vorchheimer in the face with a fist.

Speaking from New York on Friday, Mr Vorchheimer said Mr Moore had prevented him from identifying his attacker. "The tie was the central piece of evidence. In my mind, when I was grabbed and punched, this is what I mentally focused on to remember the perpetrator. Had the ties been on the boys, the positive ID would have been made," he said.

Senior Constable Moore said he could not comment. A Victoria Police spokesman said the ethical standards department had investigated Senior Constable Moore's behaviour and he faced internal disciplinary charges for taking an unauthorised second job. [But no charges for attempting to obstruct the course of justice??? He should have been fired!]

Source (Via Australian Politics)




(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today)