Lying British traffic cops defeated

A lorry [truck] driver has won a David and Goliath court battle after three police officers claimed he used his mobile phone behind the wheel. Anthony Jones faced a 60 pounds fine after being told he had been spotted using the phone as he drove. But Mr Jones, 41, from Denton, knew he was innocent and spent 2,600 pounds to collect the evidence he needed to clear his name and fight the fine in court. His defence team used a tachometer report - which records the movement of his lorry - and a list from his mobile provider to prove he was not on the phone at the time.

After this was revealed to magistrates in Tameside, they cleared him of the offence and also said the 2,600 he had spent would be paid back. The court heard how the officers had stopped the skip-lorry driver in Ashton town centre last May. All three claimed they had seen him holding something to his ear, but could not be sure it was a mobile phone.

Information from Mr Jones's mobile provider showed he was not on the phone at that time and the tachometer showed that the lorry was stationary. Mr Jones took the case to court after refusing to pay the fine on `principle'. He and his wife Debbie revealed later that it could have ruined them. "There were times when I felt like packing it in and paying up," said Mr Jones. "But it was a matter of principle. I had done nothing wrong and I was not guilty. I'm an honest guy."

He said not everyone accused of using a phone at the wheel would have been as fortunate as him, as a friend had helped by putting up the money to get the reports and, as a lorry driver, he also had the tachometer chart. "Not everybody would have had that," he said. He said: "This has cost taxpayers like me money that it shouldn't have done. The whole thing has been a nightmare and shouldn't have happened."

Magistrates heard the officer in charge had failed to take data from the phone, so the prosecution had to rely on the memories of the three officers. Defence solicitor Carl Millar said: "It was clear that the case should not have reached the courts. The prosecution had to prove without any doubt that Mr Jones was on his phone. "They clearly didn't do that."

Report here






Nightmare in Lima, Ohio

It has been 220 years since the Bill of Rights. Our nation's founders would be disappointed with what we have done to their legacy in the last 40 years with the war on drugs. By its very nature, the war on drugs is a war on the Bill of Rights. That was most evident in what occurred in Lima, Ohio, on Jan 5, 2008.

Prior to the war on drugs, law enforcement executed search warrants with police officers dressed in their normal, readily recognizable uniforms. They knocked on the front door and announced their presence and purpose. They then waited for someone to come to the door. Only if it was clear that someone was attempting to evade, was present and refusing to open the door, or no one was home did they force entry.

Today, police on narcotic search warrants are dressed in black SWAT uniforms, often wearing ski masks, looking more like military commandos than officers out to protect and serve. Without warning, they set off stun and flash grenades and simultaneously break out windows, knock down doors and burst in with automatic weapons at the ready. As many as 40,000 such raids occur each year in the U.S. bringing unnecessary violence and provocation to small time nonviolent drug offenders, many of whom were guilty of only misdemeanors. These raids have resulted in hundreds of needless deaths and injuries, not only to drug offenders, but to bystanders, children, police officers and suspects later found to be innocent. See http://www.cato.org/raidmap/

In Lima, Ohio, police used similar tactics where they knew children were present. The results were that an unarmedTheika Wilson, a mother of 6, was killed and her 1 year old child, held in her arms, seriously wounded. Both were shot by police who had rushed into the home to insure that no one destroyed any evidence, small as it may be.

Chief Garlock said that these dangerous situations occur "when a high risk search warrant is executed." This was not a high risk search warrant because of some small time drug user, part time drug dealer, who had a small amount of cocaine and marijuana. This was a dangerous situation because the police were uniformed, equipped, trained, and expected to act as if this was a war on people; which is exactly what the war on drugs has become. The Chief and the Mayor offered their condolences. The nation shrugs and Mrs. Wilson and her baby are chalked up as collateral damages in this war.

Milton Friedman said in 1990 that "Every friend of freedom . . . must be as revolted as I am by the prospect of turning the U.S. into an armed camp, by the vision of jails filled with casual drug users and of an army of enforcers empowered to invade the liberty of citizens on slight evidence." His nightmare became a reality in Lima, Ohio.

Since the war on drugs began, drugs are cheaper, stronger, more plentiful, there is more police corruption, our prisons are cramped with inmates convicted of simple possession, and we are killing innocent civilians at an alarming rate. As we did with alcohol prohibition, it is time for the friends of freedom to begin a national debate and admit that the war on drugs is a failed policy.

Report here



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