A ROUNDUP OF SOME RECENT POLICE FOLLIES AND EXCESSES IN AUSTRALIA

(Taken from Australian Politics)

OK for a senior cop to be offensive scum?

It seems to be in NSW -- thanks to some very lenient court decisions. It is quite clear that, far from exemplary behaviour being expected of NSW police, substandard behaviour is regarded as normal.

A FEMALE parole officer whose breasts were commented upon by a senior policeman - after she allegedly exposed them in a bikie magazine - said she was upset that she would have to work with him again.

Although the police force tried to stand down Raymond Sewell, the NSW Court of Appeal yesterday upheld a decision that despite his sexual harassment of two women his dismissal was unjust.

Police Commissioner Andrew Scipione had taken the case to court in his campaign to purge NSW Police of dodgy officers and clean up its reputation for big drinking and sexism. The case was one of a string exposed last week by The Daily Telegraph of officers behaving badly after consuming alcohol. The Coonamble-based officer was sacked by then-commissioner Ken Moroney over a string of sexual incidents, many fuelled by alcohol. Sgt Sewell had harassed parole officer Isabel McDermott twice - at a pub and at her workplace - in late 2005 and early 2006.

In December 2005, at the Commercial Hotel, he grabbed her and pulled her to him and said words to the effect of, "Perfume smells better on breasts", according to the termination notice. In January he "made improper comments to her regarding her name badge, which was positioned on the right side of her chest . . . words similar to, 'If that one is named Isabel, what is the other?'."

Sgt Sewell said Ms McDermott had appeared in a magazine displaying her breasts with other women at a Rebels outlaw motorcycle group function. He said that since the incidents he had stopped drinking alcohol, had undertaken counselling and his medication had been adjusted.

In another three incidents, Sgt Sewell squeezed the bottom of his senior constable partner when she visited him and Senior Constable Matthew Dickson, at Coonamble Police Station in December 2005. At a New Year's Eve party at the Commercial Hotel he undid the strings of her top, causing her to become upset. And on a third occasion in February the next year, at a social gathering at the same pub, he grabbed her buttocks.

Despite these incidents, the Industrial Relations Commission found that Sgt Sewell had been unfairly dismissed. Mr Scipione appealed to the full bench of the IRC but the decision was upheld, prompting the unsuccessful Court of Appeal action.

"I'm not happy at all," Ms McDermott said. "I'm very uncomfortable having him back there, I can tell you that. "My colleagues are not happy either because we have to work with him."

SOURCE




'No Tasers' for Victoria's corrupt and deadly police

Victoria Police has failed to tackle the shoot-to-kill culture that made it the nation's most deadly force, and its officers should not be trusted with Taser stun guns, the state's police watchdog has declared. A damning report from the Office of Police Integrity, due to be released this month, is believed to recommend sweeping changes across Victoria Police to safeguard the public from poorly trained officers unable to defuse life-threatening situations.

Victorian police have been notorious for their deadly use of force since the mid-1980s. The OPI says successive police commanders, including recently departed chief commissioner Christine Nixon, did not do enough to combat it. The fatal shooting of 15-year-old Tyler Cassidy by three officers last December sparked debate on whether the police should be armed with Tasers.

Chief Commissioner Simon Overland, who took over from Ms Nixon in March, has read the draft OPI report and has already taken steps to tackle the problem, announcing last month that police would be retrained in how to deal with critical incidents.

OPI director Michael Strong told The Australian: "We have significant concerns about the use of force in Victoria Police. Education and training is not focused properly, there is not sufficient emphasis on alternatives to use of force, there is insufficient monitoring of use of force and insufficient analysis. "Lessons that should have been learnt have not been learnt, and recommendations for improvement have not been acted upon." Mr Strong was "gravely concerned" previous reports on the problem, including a 2005 OPI report, had been all but ignored by the force. He said it was "disappointing" Ms Nixon had not given priority to the issue.

"Mr Overland has publicly expressed his determination to improve outcomes in areas of use of force, and I am confident he will make further statements following the release of our report," Mr Strong said.

Between 1990 and 2004, Victorian police shot dead 29 people, compared with police in NSW and Queensland killing 18 and 11 respectively. Tyler's death sparked calls for Tasers to be issued to police on the beat. At present only specialist squads in Victoria Police are issued with the stun guns. Mr Strong said it was appropriate for specialist police to have Tasers, but he was opposed to the weapons being issued to regular police in Victoria because of their inadequate training. Victoria Police "is not in a space where it would be prudent to issue Tasers", he said.

Queensland has halted the rollout of Tasers to general-duty police after the death of a man last month who had been stunned 28 times.

NSW will introduce Tasers to general-duty police this month, while Western Australia already issues them to general-duty police. Victoria, Tasmania, South Australia and the ACT have restricted the weapons to specialist tactical response squads. Mr Strong rejected claims that the OPI's reputation had been damaged by the collapse of its legal case against former police union strongman Paul Mullett. Mr Mullett had faced criminal charges stemming from a 2007 OPI investigation into a series of high-level leaks alleged to have compromised a murder investigation. The charges were dropped last month, prompting Mr Mullett to demand a public apology.

Mr Strong said he did not regret the OPI's decision to pursue Mr Mullett. "I express no regret for OPI doing its job," he said of the investigation, which resulted in a guilty plea from former police media chief Steve Linnell and as a result of which former assistant commissioner Noel Ashby is awaiting trial on perjury charges. "An investigation that results in one person being dealt with, another being sent to trial, and charges against a third being dropped is not at all unusual. It would not be attracting the attention it has if not for Mr Mullett's colourful protests."

Mr Strong said he backed the OPI tactic of using public hearings to expose corrupt police, saying it was a powerful deterrent. "It sends out the message that if you act in that fashion we will expose your conduct and we will do it publicly." He said the OPI was increasingly involved in prevention and education strategies to reduce the probability of police officers flirting with the dark side.

SOURCE





More hostile and stupid behaviour from the Queensland police

Co-operation between police and cabbies has in the past been very helpful in catching criminals but the Queensland goons seem to be doing their best to terminate any such co-operation

"PAYBACK" and "an abuse of power" are how taxi drivers are describing the extraordinary actions of a police officer who fined a cabbie $100 for not pulling up his socks. "That's just ridiculous, just crazy," Cab Drivers' Association of Queensland member Paul Henderson said. "In 18 years that's the first time I've heard of it ... it creates animosity between drivers and police even further." CDAC secretary Lee Sims slammed the fine as "an intimidation just to get even" and "an abuse of power", The Courier-Mail reports.

Mr Sims, who has been critical of Queensland Transport's management of the taxi industry, questioned whether police had the authority to issue the fine and its permissibility in court. He said it was the first time he had heard of such a "petty" notice but conceded drivers by law had to be "neatly dressed" – an area open to interpretation.

The driver advocate said a recent government blitz on Brisbane drivers resulted in cabbies copping $400 fines for not having a 2009 version of a street directory, or for allowing a car's window tinting to peel.

The Courier-Mail yesterday obtained the ticket issued last month to taxi driver Kidd Moors in which the officer claimed the offence was: "Failed to dress neatly". He identified the evidence as "WHT/runners, short running socks".

Queensland Police Service yesterday was unable to respond in time to the newspaper's questions about the harshness of the fine or the frequency such fines were handed out.

Mr Moors, 41, from Narangba, said he intended to fight the "sock fine" in court, along with a fine for not wearing a seat belt.

Mr Henderson said dress rules for drivers included the need to wear a uniformed shirt that was tucked in, business trousers or tailored shorts with long socks pulled up and dress shoes.

SOURCE





Queensland police are debating whether the length of a cab-driver's socks is really an issue that they should be concentrating on

Given their almost complete lack of interest in car-theft and such things, re-examination of their priorities is long overdue

A shocked Brisbane taxi driver who was fined $100 by police for not pulling up his socks may have the extraordinary penalty withdrawn. The Queensland Police Service told The Courier-Mail "a decision will be made as to whether to withdraw (the fine)" once all facts surrounding the incident were known.

To date, the QPS has refused to answer queries about its power to enforce a fine for wearing short socks, nor its opinion of the male traffic officer involved, saying: "It would appear that the officer . . . issued (the fine) under the provisions of Section 131 of the Transport Operations (Passenger Transport) Regulations 2005 relating to the appropriate dress code for taxi drivers." But the legislation does not stipulate that short socks are banned. Instead, it merely states: "The driver of a public passenger vehicle must, while driving the vehicle, be neatly dressed."

In June, part-time Yellow Cabs driver Kidd Moors was arguing with an officer about a seatbelt compliance issue on the side of the road at Hendra before the policeman wrote him a ticket that stated: "Failed to dress neatly . . . WHT/runners, short running socks".

The incident sparked claims of "payback" and "an abuse of power" from the Cab Drivers Association of Queensland.

More HERE




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

How a crooked prosecutor prevented an innocent woman from defending herself

I make these comments as I revisit the Sprouse conviction. When I wrote the first time about it, I received a score of nasty "f*ck you" emails and others, while not obscene, that made fun of Sprouse. She was charged, so she was guilty. Others told me that they followed the case and also were convinced of her guilt, so I could not know of what I speak. After all, they read the Charlotte Observer and watched local TV news, so and who can argue with the Great Wisdom of a local talking head?

Given that, I am going to lay out what happened and how it happened and why I am convinced – utterly convinced – that this was a wrongful prosecution and conviction. I am not alone; real estate professionals in Charlotte supported her, and I also have heard from attorneys and other professionals intimately familiar with the case who have agreed wholeheartedly with my assessment.

However, one asks, how was she convicted? If I am inferring – "insisting" is a better word – that she was victimized by a wrongful conviction, and I did not sit throughout the trial, then how is it that I believe that jurors abandoned their duty and served as little more than a Greek Chorus for the prosecution? Am I simply listening to one side of the story and forgetting that Sprouse was accused of participating in multi-million-dollar fraud scheme? The key to understanding this case is not necessarily knowing the testimony that backed the prosecution; it is in knowing how the prosecution effectively rigged this trial.

The prosecution, led by Martens, convinced a jury that Sprouse knowingly signed forged and fraudulent documents and other legal papers that had false information which would permit the buyers of houses and property to obtain those things without having the required income or down payments or other things that the lender required one must have. The buyers were planning to "flip" the properties, that is, sell them quickly and make a profit.

In bringing these charges, Martens and his staff agreed that Sprouse had received no payoffs or other quid pro quo compensation, her office receiving only the standard $500 fee for closing (with perhaps $40 to $50 actually accruing to Sprouse as income after she paid her staff and other office expenses). However, that fact did not stop Martens from repeatedly telling the jury and the press that Sprouse "made millions" from illegal sales, although even the most optimistic prosecution math did not come close to that figure.

(I should add that the Charlotte journalists, both print and broadcast, repeated Martens’ claims as though they were ex cathedra and never once thought to question the prosecutor’s fuzzy math. When I emailed some of them about the monetary discrepancies, they reacted as though I wanted to do away with the First Amendment. How dare I question their worship of the prosecutor!)

It is important to understand, however, that the outcome was fixed long before the trial, and not by any criminal or regulatory violations on behalf of Sprouse. Martens arranged for the government to forbid Sprouse from selling, disposing, or mortgaging any of her property in order to raise money to pay for her attorney, Pete Anderson. Because all her assets were forbidden to be sold or mortgaged she did not have any other funds by which to pay, the judge declared her "indigent" and then permitted a maximum of $25,000 for her legal fees.

The prosecution’s strategy was obvious. If Sprouse could be denied adequate counsel, as $25K is not going to buy anything more than an attorney who wants to plead out right away, then a conviction was as good as done.

What happened afterward is most important – and sealed the outcome. Anderson told the judge at a hearing in which she petitioned to have one of her properties sold so she could raise legal fees that he still wanted to represent Sprouse, given his knowledge of the case. That is where Martens dropped a bombshell.

Martens told the judge that it would take four-to-six weeks to present the government’s case. Anderson argued that since it would take his firm five months to prepare for trial with another month to six weeks in a trial would mean his firm would have to spend six months for a relatively tiny fee, which the firm could not afford. Thus, he begged off the case and the judge appointed two attorneys who then tried to force Sprouse to plea to a deal that would have given her 20 years. Sprouse, believing she had not committed any crimes and wanting her Constitutional day in court, refused, and from then on, she and her counsel were at odds.

There are a number of reasons why this development was significant, and why Martens had orchestrated it. First, and most important, when Martens actually presented the "evidence" during the trial, he took less than four days. One does not boil four-to-six weeks of material into four days; instead, Martens – an officer of the court and one who is bound to tell the truth while carrying out his duties – had not told the judge the truth.

Second, one asks why Martens was hell-bent on eliminating Anderson. The main reason was that Martens had put Rick Graves on trial two years ago on tax fraud charges, and a federal jury did something remarkable: it acquitted him. Graves’ attorney was none other than Pete Anderson, and he easily demolished Martens’ weak case.

In the Sprouse situation, Martens did not want to face a well-respected attorney who believed in the innocence of his client – and who already had bested Martens before in a case involving flimsy charges. Thus, he got rid of the competition and was able to play a role in the appointing of attorneys who clearly wanted to curry favor with the prosecution.

(Most court-appointed attorneys plead out their clients, bill hourly, and pocket the money. The key is cutting deals with prosecutors and letting the court know that the defense is not going to be a problem and will "play ball" with the prosecution. Sprouse's court-appointed attorneys fell into that category.)

A key issue in this case was whether or not Sprouse knew the documents were fraudulent and that she was knowingly signed off on transactions that were different than what was on the paper. The only prosecution witness to declare that Sprouse "must have known" about the fraud stated in a deposition under oath in a civil case saying that he never told Sprouse about what he was doing because he believed she was honest and would have refused to sign anything she thought was fraudulent and stopped the closings.

Now, one would think that this would be a key piece of evidence in the trial, and that is correct. The key was to make sure that this document never would be presented during trial, and Martens and Sprouse’s court-appointed attorneys did just that.

First, the man who made that original statement under oath was a key witness for the prosecution. In exchange for leniency (Martens offered him a plea bargain to serve two years in prison), the man gave very different testimony in Sprouse’s trial than what he had given before. (Of course, in the earlier testimony, there was no coercion from a prosecutor, so if one is going to choose which statements to believe, instinct tells us that the first set of statements is going to be truthful.) He never said that he knew for sure, since he did not tell her as such, and he knew of no one else who had done it, but that was enough to convince the jury.

Obviously, this leads one to ask why the original deposition was not entered into testimony, as it contained vital exculpatory information. The reason, as noted before, is that Sprouse had a pair of attorneys who deferred to the prosecution. They were angry with her because she would not plead out, as neither of them was experienced in white-collar criminal trials. The extra time spent in court would be an added expense and would destroy any potential profitability they could get from their $25,000 payment.

Even though Sprouse begged to participate in her defense, her counsel said no. She wrote the judge begging that she at least be permitted to participate in her defense, as her counsel was refusing to file motions and even review the evidence, but the judge was not inclined to grant her request.

Why would the attorneys be so passive, especially in the fact of a prosecutor who clearly was railroading someone? To fight would not be to seen as "cooperative" with the prosecution, and the opportunity to gain easy money by cutting future deals with Martens and his staff.

Sprouse even pointed out the information from the deposition to her attorneys. Excited, she showed it to her counsel, but they were noncommittal, and it was clear that the document meant nothing to them. It never was presented in court or presented as defense evidence, and neither attorney cross-examined the witness as to his earlier exculpatory statement made under oath, never using material from that deposition at all.

In the end, Martens’ main piece of "evidence" was the fact that Sprouse had signed the documents, something Sprouse agreed she had done. However, Martens then claimed that because Sprouse had signed the incriminating documents, then that was proof that she must have known they were fraudulent. If one thinks this is a non sequitur, one is correct.

There were other incidents of outright incompetence and worse. The counsel did not interview their own witnesses until just before trial, they rarely objected to anything, and they pretty much let Martens run the proceedings. During the breaks, Martens’ investigators harassed defense witnesses and threatened them, but Sprouse’s attorneys did not object or tell the judge.

Martens clearly enjoyed himself. During one session, he asked his investigator how she felt about investigating Sprouse. The transcript said she "enjoyed it," and that exchange drawing a rebuke from the judge.

Then there was the jury. One elderly juror slept much of the time and it was clear that many did not understand the complexities of the case. Federal "crimes" are like that in that most of them are "derived" from other acts. Unlike in state courts, where jurors are aware that a law clearly has been broken and that the person charged is accused of having committed the crime, in federal court, all parties generally agree with what was done, but the jury is supposed to interpret the law as to whether or not the act or acts were criminal.

This clearly favors the prosecution, as it does not take long for the jurors’ eyes to glaze over and for them to assume that the person on trial has to be guilty; otherwise there would be no charges in the first place. Thus it was with Victoria Sprouse.

In summary, the prosecution managed to make sure that Sprouse could not have the representation she wanted, an attorney who saw through the tactics of the prosecution and believed strongly in the innocence of his client. Martens falsely told the judge that the presentation of the evidence would take four-to-six weeks when it did not even take six days.

Martens used a witness who had testified under oath in a civil case that Sprouse did not know that the documents in question that she signed were fraudulent. To get past this obvious problem, Martens was able to use the prospect of a lighter prison sentence to entice the witness to change his testimony. To put it another way, Martens suborned perjury and the jurors swallowed the lies whole, as did the local media.

Lest anyone think I am too hard on Matt Martens, perhaps it would be helpful for the readers to know that his mentor in the federal government was Michael Chertoff, who served as the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. Chertoff is a man who favors the use of torture and other "enhanced interrogation techniques" in order to pry words out of recalcitrant prisoners and is not concerned with anything as "trite" as "legal ethics."

When she learned she had been indicted, she and her first attorney, Anderson, made arrangements with the U.S. Marshals Service to turn herself in at 9 a.m. At 6 a.m. on the morning she was to turn herself in, Martens sent heavily-armed federal agents to her house and they pounded so hard on the door that they almost broke it. Included in the government’s Big Show arrest to grab an unarmed person who already was getting ready to turn her in were two Mecklenburg County police, two federal marshals, two FBI agents, the IRS investigating agent, the postmaster investigating agent, and the North Carolina Department of Insurance investigating agent.

After the trial, Sprouse asked to be free on bond pending her sentencing and appeal. Martens objected, telling the judge, "Your honor, she is going to spend a better part of the rest of her life in prison, so she should start serving her time now." He also declared that she was a risk to flee because her boyfriend had a German passport, and that perhaps she might even commit suicide, given that she had wept on the stand and had the temerity to say that the government had "ruined her life."

Chertoff’s star student has learned his craft very well. Unfortunately, most Americans today do not care that people who practice such cruelty are in positions of power. Perhaps most Americans don’t realize – and maybe they really don’t care – that men like Matt Martens and his mentor, Michael Chertoff, would gladly have prosecuted the late Mother Teresa herself had they believed they could have benefited from their actions.

Giuliani’s lieutenants were playing a simple parlor game, but it enabled them to find ways to prosecute people on Wall Street who had not committed crimes. Today’s federal prosecutors, however, have gone even one step beyond that, and one can be sure that because they are immune to any legal challenges, their quest to incarcerate innocent people will proceed unencumbered, as federal prosecutors seek political and personal gain and to maintain the all-important "numbers" in their offices.

More here



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

Mass. town to pay $3.4m for unjust conviction

DNA test freed man after 18 years in jail. Crooked cops. Corrupt evidence believed and exculpatory evidence hidden

The town of Ayer and five of its insurers have agreed to pay $3.4 million to settle a civil rights lawsuit filed by the estate of the late Kenneth Waters, who spent more than 18 years in prison for a murder he did not commit before his sister earned a law degree and helped free him through DNA evidence.

Barry C. Scheck, a founder of the Innocence Project based at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in New York and one of the lawyers representing the estate, disclosed the amount of the settlement yesterday after a brief hearing in US District Court in Boston about the status of the case.

The lawsuit, which was scheduled to go to trial next week, accused Ayer police of coercing false testimony to convict Waters and withholding evidence that could have cleared him. A sixth insurance company, Western World Insurance Group, has declined to settle, but negotiations are continuing.

Waters’s sister, Betty Anne Waters, whose crusade on behalf of her brother is the subject of a recently completed movie in which she is portrayed by two-time Academy Award winner Hilary Swank, said the agreement vindicated her years spent fighting to free Kenneth Waters. “It’s been half of my life, exactly,’’ Betty Waters, 54, of Middletown, R.I., said after the brief hearing. “I can’t quite feel that it’s over. It’s been a long 27 years.’’

Kenneth Waters was freed from prison in March 2001, and the Middlesex district attorney’s office dropped the charges against him. But he enjoyed only six months of freedom. He died on Sept. 19, 2001, after he fell on his head from a 15-foot wall in Rhode Island while taking a shortcut to a restaurant. “Of course, I wish he was here,’’ Betty Waters said, fighting back emotion. “That’s part of the sadness of all this. I know he would have been very pleased with how this worked out.’’

Ayer’s town administrator, Shaun A. Suhoski, said the lawsuit was “a very complex case and, through the very diligent efforts of our legal team, with close oversight of the Board of Selectmen, it appears we’ve reached an acceptable endpoint in this litigation.’’ None of the defendants has admitted liability.

Joseph L. Tehan Jr., a Boston lawyer who represented the town, told District Court Judge George A. O’Toole Jr. that the settlement was finalized Monday with the help of a mediator.

Kenneth Waters was convicted in 1983 of first-degree murder and armed robbery in the death of Katharina Brow. She was found on May 21, 1980, with more than 30 stab wounds, in her mobile home in Ayer. Waters; his girlfriend, Brenda Marsh; and two of her children, one of whom Waters had fathered, had been living in a house behind the mobile home.

According to the complaint filed by Betty Anne Waters, her brother had a solid alibi for his whereabouts when the killing occurred: He had been working a night shift at a local diner and then had a court appearance the next morning for an unrelated matter. Ayer police interviewed him after the killing, but filed no charges, and the case remained unsolved for 2 1/2 years.

In October 1982, a man who was living with Marsh approached Ayer police and said she told him that Waters had confessed to killing a woman in Ayer, according to the complaint. She also said she had washed Waters’s bloody clothes, he said. Ayer Police Chief Philip L. Connors and Officer Nancy Taylor-Harris interrogated Marsh. Although she initially denied that Waters had anything to do with the killing, Marsh ultimately relented and said he had come home drunk the morning that Brow was killed with a long, deep scratch on his face, according to the complaint. Police arrested Waters, even though officers had examined him after the killing and found no wounds.

The complaint alleged that Waters was indicted based in part on false testimony before a grand jury by Taylor-Harris that fingerprints found at the crime scene were smeared and useless to investigators. In fact, authorities found a bloody fingerprint on a broken toaster and a partial print on a kitchen faucet that was still running when Brow’s body was discovered. Taylor-Harris knew that Waters had been excluded as the source of the prints, the complaint alleged. Waters was convicted by a Middlesex Superior Court jury and sentenced to life in prison.

“This is as bad as it gets,’’ Scheck said yesterday of the wrongful conviction. “Prison is bad. Being innocent in prison is much worse.’’ Waters attempted suicide at least twice behind bars, suffered panic attacks, and contracted hepatitis C, Scheck said.

Both Connors and Taylor-Harris have retired from the Ayer police, according to an assistant to the current police chief, William A. Murray, who could not be reached for comment.

Determined to win her brother’s freedom, Betty Anne Waters, a mother of two with a GED, worked as a waitress and bartender to pay her way through Rhode Island College. She attended Roger Williams University School of Law and became a lawyer at the age of 40. She then began representing her brother and started searching for evidence to clear him.

In the late 1990s, after begging a court clerk to scrounge through a courthouse basement, she found it: a sample of blood believed to be of the perpetrator’s, which was taken from evidence at the crime scene. It had been kept in a yellow cardboard box. Prosecutors agreed to test the evidence, and the results showed that Kenneth Waters’ DNA did not match the sample.

If Kenneth Waters’s estate and the last insurance company cannot reach an agreement, O’Toole plans to hold a brief trial July 23 on damages that the company might have to pay.

Original report here



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

Stop signs and liberty

And then one day the stop sign was gone. It was the very stop sign one block from my house that was oddly stationed at a low-traffic, 3-way intersection, tempting every driver to slow down but not come to a complete stop. How the city cleaned up on that one! I have personally coughed up in excess of $1,000 for tickets there, one time receiving two tickets in as many days. This sign was even the reason that I spent a day in jail for failing to fork over when the judge said I should.

I'm not alone: 93% of the drivers failed to come to a complete stop. Even so, I'm routinely lectured that my job as a citizen is to do precisely as I'm told. I've learned to habitually stop completely, even when the place looks like a ghost town with no cars anywhere in view.

Then one day the stop sign vanished. What happened here? Did the cops finally get all the citizens trained to stop and thereby dissipate their opportunity for rents? Was there just no more money to be made from the disobedient? Do I get a refund? How about compensation for the day I spent in jail? What about everyone else?

The local government must have extracted tens of thousands of dollars before good sense overcame our overlords and they decided to relent to reality. But no, there will not be compensation. The law changed its mind, and we are supposed to just deal with it. Now I must rehabituate myself to breaking — I mean keeping — the law.

One day, I'm jailed for failing to stop. Presumably, I could now get a ticket for stopping, since surely there is a law against suddenly stopping on a public road for no reason other than some vague memory than one had to in the past. What is evil one day is mandatory the next.

Now, I know what some readers are thinking: here we go with the libertarian wacko complaining about the "coercion" of stop signs. For decades, conservatives have been poking fun, caricaturing libertarians as people who rail against stop signs and thereby reveal their personal problem with authority—even such obviously justified authority as government stop signs. Don't we understand that these keep us safe, and so surely we should be willing to give up just a bit of license to speed around with abandon in the interest of the common good? Even now, a quick google of "libertarians" and "stop signs" reveals many people on the Left and the Right who think it is just stupidly hilarious that libertarians talk about these issues.

As a matter of fact, the management of the roads is a hugely important issue, given that tens of thousands of people die on government roads every year. Private ownership would in fact lead to greater liability for the road owner — and also more rational rules of the road. The private road would be devoted to serving the customers, not looting them at the point of a gun. And not only are private roads viable; there is a long history and a present practice to draw on. Walter Block's new book on road privatization makes the case that this is not an issue to ignore but one to solve through free enterprise.

In some ways, then, it is true that the stop sign — as with every regulation by the state — embodies all that is wrong with the public sector. The rules are made to benefit the state. You are on the hot seat if any policeman says that you have done wrong. The pretense of a fair trial is a complete farce, as you have to tangle with judges who hate you, waste several days of work, and throw yourself on the mercy of the court. Once you are entangled in the web, you can't really get out.

And who makes the rules? The central planners make the rules, and the public be damned. The rules are there to serve the state, not us, and the stop sign that is oddly placed in order to extract revenue makes the point very well.

When you are stopped, you become aware that the imbalance between the citizens and the state couldn't be more obvious. Deliver an insult and you are arrested. Try to run and you are gunned down. Fail to pay and you end up in the slammer. And maybe the cop will find something else about your life to be suspicious of. Whatever they want to know, you must tell them.

Government is not reason; it is force. What was the actual social rationale for that stop sign in the first place? You dare not ask, for then you are questioning the elites who are in charge of your life. And why was it removed? It's not for you to question why; it is for you to do or die. It was there and now it is gone. All "law-abiding citizens" must change with the arbitrary dictate of the traffic masters.

Now, I'm not saying that we don't need rules in society. But the question of who makes the rules and on what basis becomes supremely important. Will the rule making flow from the matrix of voluntary exchange based on the ethic of serving others through private enterprise? Or will the rules be made and enforced by people wearing guns and bulletproof vests with a license to shock or kill based on minor annoyances?

Original report here



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

NYC: Trespassing “undercover” cop murders resident

A polite explanation to the resident and the display of a badge was apparently out of the question

A man who told an undercover policeman to get off his family's stoop punched the officer and struggled over the officer's gun before being shot dead, police said Sunday. Shem Walker hit the officer on the head and grabbed his gun Saturday night, police said. Other officers heard the undercover officer or a plainclothes colleague identify themselves, top police spokesman Paul Browne said.

But Walker's relatives said they were nearby and didn't hear any officers identify themselves, said Councilwoman Letitia James, who visited the family Sunday. The shooting raised questions about police conduct, she said.

The undercover officer was serving as backup for a Brooklyn drug investigation at a deli a few doors down from the stoop in the Clinton Hill neighborhood, Browne said. The racially and culturally diverse neighborhood is where the rapper The Notorious B.I.G. grew up.

The drug investigation didn't involve Walker, but he came out of the home around 8 p.m. and told the officer to leave, hitting him on the back of the head and saying, "If you don't move, I'll make you move," the police spokesman said. When the officer stood up to confront him, Walker punched the officer in the face and the two tumbled to the ground, Browne said. Another plainclothes officer involved in the investigation tried to grab Walker, who shook him off, he said.

The first officer had drawn his gun, and Walker grabbed it, Browne said. The gun went off twice as the two scuffled, shooting Walker once in the chest, Browne said.

Other officers nearby said they had heard someone yell, "Police! Don't move," and a civilian witness heard a shout of "Freeze!" Browne said.

The 36-year-old officer, whose name wasn't released, needed two stitches for a cut to his head. He's been placed on administrative duty, as is standard while shootings are investigated, Browne said.

James, a Brooklyn Democrat, told reporters the discrepancy between the police account and the family's account "raises some serious questions in my mind."

Walker, 49, often asked people not to linger on the stoop, said James, whose district includes the neighborhood, home to actress Rosie Perez and rapper-actor Mos Def. Walker's sister, Jean Nurse, said he was a "good person at heart" and the father of two daughters. She declined to comment further.

Original report here



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

Kids recant abuse claims after dad jailed 20 years

Statements coerced by police again

Former Vancouver police officer Clyde Ray Spencer spent nearly 20 years in prison after he was convicted of sexually molesting his son and daughter. Now, the children say it never happened. Matthew Spencer and Kathryn Tetz, who live in Sacramento, Calif., each took the stand Friday in Clark County Superior Court to clear their father's name, The Columbian newspaper reported.

Matthew, now 33, was 9 years old at the time. He told a judge he made the allegation after months of insistent questioning by now-retired Clark County sheriff's detective Sharon Krause just so she would leave him alone. Tetz, 30, said she doesn't remember what she told Krause back in 1985, but she remembers Krause buying her ice cream. She said that when she finally read the police reports she was "absolutely sure" the abuse never happened. "I would have remembered something that graphic, that violent," Tetz said.

Spencer's sentence was commuted by then-Gov. Gary Locke in 2004 after questions arose about his conviction. Among other problems, prosecutors withheld medical exams that showed no evidence of abuse, even though Krause claimed the abuse was repeated and violent. Despite the commutation, Spencer remains a convicted sex offender. He is hoping to have the convictions overturned.

Krause declined an interview request from The Columbian in 2005 and could not be reached Friday, the newspaper reported.

Both children said that while growing up in California they were told by their mother, who divorced Spencer before he was charged, that they were blocking out the memory of the abuse. They said they realized as adults the abuse never happened, and they came forward because it was the right thing to do.

Prosecutors aren't yet conceding that Spencer was wrongly convicted. Senior deputy prosecutor Kim Farr grilled the children about why they are so certain they weren't abused, and chief criminal deputy prosecutor Dennis Hunter said that if the convictions are tossed, his office might appeal to the state Supreme Court.

Matthew Spencer said his father had ruined the relationship with his mother and he had faults, "but none of them were molesting children."

Friday's hearing paved the way for the state Court of Appeals to allow Spencer to withdraw the no-contest pleas he entered in 1985 and have his convictions vacated. Both children had previously filed statements with the appeals court, but the judges required the hearing to ensure their new testimony held up under cross-examination.

Spencer, 61, hugged his son and daughter afterward while a dozen supporters cheered. "For so many years, nothing went right," he said. "When things keep going right, I keep waiting for the other shoe to drop." The hardest thing about his ordeal was missing his children, he said.

"They were my life, and they were taken away from me," he said. "I could serve in prison. ..." His voice trailed off, and his son came up for one more hug.

Original report here



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

John Grisham takes up case of sailors jailed for murder

Coerced confessions again

The thriller writer John Grisham is working on a screen-play about the murder and rape of an 18-year-old navy wife in the hope of securing pardons for four men he believes were wrongly convicted, even though they confessed repeatedly to the crime.

Michelle Moore-Bosko had eloped with her husband, Bill Bosko, just two months before her murder in 1997. They had set up home in a modest flat near his naval base in Norfolk, Virginia, and were planning a second, “big wedding”, which their parents could attend.

Bosko returned from a week at sea to find the house was “nice and clean” until he walked into the bedroom. “I found my wife butchered on the floor,” he said.

He ran to a neighbour, Danial Williams, a fellow member of the navy, crying out, “My wife is dead”. Williams, 35, is serving a life sentence for her murder after a friend claimed he was “obsessed with Michelle”. Another six men went on to be accused of raping and killing Moore-Bosko.

Four men, all belonging to the navy, were jailed, although one who was convicted only of rape was released after serving eight years. Charges against three other men were dropped.

No DNA evidence linked any of the convicted men to the crime. In 1999 an eighth suspect emerged from the shadows: Omar Abdul Ballard, who was sentenced to 40 years’ imprisonment for attacking and raping a woman 10 days after Moore-Bosko was killed, only a mile from her flat. He was not linked by police to her murder but wrote a letter in jail, claiming, “Michelle got killed, guess who did that, Ha Ha Ha.”

Ballard’s semen and blood matched DNA found at the scene. He told police that he had worked alone, a claim supported by the even stab wounds on her body, and said, “Them four people that opened their mouths is stupid.” Yet he, too, later claimed they had participated in the murder, a statement he now says was “totally false”.

For Grisham, who has sold 250m copies of thrillers including The Pelican Brief and The Firm, which were turned into Hollywood films, the case of the “Norfolk Four” sheds light on the “unbelievable world of false confession”.

The parents of Moore-Bosko, in contrast, are convinced of the men’s guilt. In a statement, they said they were “devastated to learn that . . . people with inaccurate information and personal agendas are attempting to profit from the tragic death of our daughter. Please do not put us through this again”.

The Norfolk Four are hoping to be pardoned by Tim Kaine, the governor of Virginia, but he has said it could be difficult to disregard as many as 12 taped confessions. One of the convicted men described calmly on tape how seven men took turns raping Moore-Bosko, urging him to “just go ahead and stab the bitch”.

The foreman of the jury said: “Nothing could blunt the force of that taped confession.” However, no tape exists of the men’s interrogations. What began as a simple murder accusation against one man, Williams, turned into an ever-growing list of participants when police grew frustrated by the lack of a DNA match. The case is unusual because the absence of DNA evidence served to ensnare rather than exonerate the men.

Williams, the first suspect, initially denied killing Moore-Bosko but claims he was bullied into confessing after the detective in charge of the case threatened him with the death penalty. “They wear you down to the point that you are exhausted,” he said. “I just wanted the questioning to end.”

Six months later, the police went on to arrest his flatmate Joe Dick, then 21, who has witnesses to support his claim that he was on board a naval ship at the time. Yet he not only confessed to the crime, but testified in court against two of his codefendants. Before he was sentenced, he apologised to Moore-Bosko’s parents. “I know I shouldn’t have done it,” he said. “I have got no idea what went through my mind that night and my soul.”

A naval officer described Dick as mentally impaired: “The Joseph Dick I knew couldn’t chew bubblegum and tie his shoes at the same time.” Dick told The New York Times his mind had been “messed up” by detectives. “It didn’t cross my mind that I was lying. I believed what I said was true,” he said.

By the time Ballard emerged as the killer, none of the men’s stories matched. Instead of reexamining their cases, the police surmised that Ballard must have been present with them, even though he was a complete stranger. By then, the “neat and clean” apartment, described by Bosko, had become the alleged scene of a gang rape and murder by up to eight rampaging men.

Ballard now claims he changed his story to fit the police’s account in exchange for the offer of a life sentence rather than the death penalty.

Yet the notion that so many members of the navy could be pressured into false confessions defies belief, says a former prosecutor of the case. He believes the men’s protestations of innocence are “soundbites” invented by the “clemency gang”.

Grisham thinks that freeing the men could be an uphill struggle. “I don’t know if they can be helped,” he said. “They have many years to go in prison.”

Original report here



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

Channeling the Soviet Union

BOOK REVIEW of "Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent". By Harvey A. Silverglate

For the past seven years, I have written a number of articles about the growing power of federal prosecutors who are able to apply vague statutes to behavior that historically has not been illegal. Along the way, I have earned a number of enemies and detractors, and even some of my friends have been incredulous, especially when I questioned the conviction of Ken Lay.

One of my mentors in this legal and political journey has been the well-known and principled attorney, Harvey A. Silverglate, one of the founders of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education or The FIRE, and a co-author of The Shadow University. Silverglate not only has tirelessly challenged one injustice after another, representing unpopular clients, but he also has tirelessly answered one email after another from me, as I sought legal guidance in making my own personal statements.

Finally, Harvey himself has come up with what I believe to be the authoritative book on federal criminal law, Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent. If you want to understand the federal assault on the law and upon our rights, read this book, for it will provide an education for those who believe that federal prosecutors have long been overstepping their constitutional boundaries and are railroading thousands of innocent people into prison.

This is more, much more, than a book full of anecdotes, although the anecdotes themselves tell a depressingly familiar story of the decline of law in the United States. This book also lays out the chilling facts of how the federal system of what Candice E. Jackson and I have called "derivative crimes" is patterned not after anything that Americans inherited from Great Britain and its great body of common law, but from the former Soviet Union.

That is correct. Federal criminal law closely mirrors the Soviet code and its "crimes of analogy." Silverglate writes that under the old Soviet law, "any citizen was in constant danger of being prosecuted for virtually any action if it could be analogized to or derived from something in the criminal code" (emphasis his). As Lavrentiy Beria, Stalin’s head of the dreaded secret police said proudly, "Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime."

Most readers will stop here and wonder if Silverglate is engaging in Red-baiting or using hyperbole to make a point. I wish that were true. I wish that typical federal prosecutors did not have the power simply to target individuals and then look for a "crime" for which to pursue, but that is exactly what now exists within the federal criminal system. Yet, this chilling passage taken from a 2007 article in Slate lays out the system in its full ugliness:

At the federal prosecutor's office in the Southern District of New York, the staff, over beer and pretzels, used to play a darkly humorous game. Junior and senior prosecutors would sit around, and someone would name a random celebrity – say, Mother Theresa or John Lennon.

It would then be up to the junior prosecutors to figure out a plausible crime for which to indict him or her. The crimes were not usually rape, murder, or other crimes you'd see on Law & Order but rather the incredibly broad yet obscure crimes that populate the U.S. Code like a kind of jurisprudential minefield: Crimes like "false statements" (a felony, up to five years), "obstructing the mails" (five years), or "false pretenses on the high seas" (also five years). The trick and the skill lay in finding the more obscure offenses that fit the character of the celebrity and carried the toughest sentences. The result, however, was inevitable: "prison time."

One asks how this can be, how a Mother Teresa or anyone else who clearly lives an exemplary or at least law-abiding life can be targeted, tried and convicted as a felon. The reason is that federal prosecutors have a stunning arsenal of weapons given to them by a Congress that no longer cares about law and courts that are all-too-happy to concentrate vast power into the hands of federal prosecutors who are busy trying to satisfy conviction and property-seizure quotas.

The key to understanding prosecutorial weapons is to understand how the various fraud and conspiracy statutes are applied. Prosecutors are able to take even legal acts and hammer them into "fraud, conspiracy, and money laundering," each of which carry severe penalties and make it nearly impossible for someone who is targeted to escape.

An extreme example is the prosecution of the late Ken Lay, who was the CEO of Enron, which failed spectacularly in 2001. As Silverglate points out, federal authorities were able first to move "up the ladder" by going after lower-level executives and employees and threatening to charge them with crimes unless they agreed to testify against higher-ups. The testimony that the government instructed these people to give, as Silverglate points out, often was not true, but it was useful to prosecutors, who were seeking indictments and convictions against people who had become unpopular.

To understand the case against Enron and other corporations in which executives went to prison, first one must understand that the nebulous "fraud" statutes under which they were convicted can be enacted even if the executives did not break a single law. For example, the infamous off-loading of Enron’s non-earning assets into "special purpose entities" resulted in "securities fraud" convictions, yet the presence of the SPEs was not hidden, but rather was included in Enron’s financial statements at the instructions of the auditor. Silverglate asks: "Is it fraud when questionable accounting practices, approved by an auditor, are hidden in full view?"

When Lay was convicted of "securities fraud" for selling Enron stock (while also buying shares of the same), the media portrayed it as a case of the CEO "quietly dumping his stock" while urging others to buy it. However, when Lay sold that stock, he did so to raise cash to cover margin calls for other investments, and before he sold anything, he sought the advice of an attorney in order to determine how he legally could do so.

Yet, prosecutors were able to lump these actions – all legal by themselves – into "securities fraud" and have a judge and jury, not to mention the general public and the supposed "watchdog" press, buy into it. Like the hapless Soviet citizen who averaged committing three felonies daily, even when Enron executives were trying to obey the law, they still were "breaking" it.

This is not a defense of Enron itself or the complex mathematical models that the company used to wow the investors of Wall Street. Nonetheless, the Enron prosecutions came about because the company failed, not because of any real criminality. For that matter, if Ken Lay and Jeffrey Skilling were convicted of "fraud" because of SPEs, then why are members of Congress and the administration not prosecuted for putting huge unfunded liabilities carried by taxpayers "off-budget"? Both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were engaged in actions that dwarfed any alleged wrongdoing at Enron, yet even though the financial damage caused by these mortgage giants was far greater than anything that came from Enron’s fall, nonetheless Fannie Mae executives like Jamie Gorelick and Franklin Raines were able to walk away from Fannie with millions of dollars in their pockets and have no worries at all about being hauled into criminal court. They had political connections – the right kind of connections – and that was all that was needed.

Thus, we see prosecutions that not only are selective – channeling Beria – but federal law itself also permits prosecutors to fashion acts that are legal into crimes that carry serious time. Furthermore, prosecutors can take one action and then pile multiple acts upon it. For example, when jurors declared Lay guilty of "fraud," they also convicted him of "money laundering, "wire fraud," and other such acts that by themselves carry draconian prison penalties.

What makes these other "crimes" so insidious is that they cannot be instituted without an underlying act, which means they cannot stand alone. If I mail a letter with a fraudulent tax return, then not only am I guilty of "tax evasion," but I also can be charged with "mail fraud" for the simple act of mailing a letter. If I put some of my alleged ill-gotten gains in a bank, or purchase any goods with that money, I have committed "money laundering," for which the penalty is a maximum of 20 years in prison.

The combination of these "crimes" gives prosecutors enormous leverage against defendants, for if they choose to go to trial and falter on just one criminal count, they are sent to prison for many years. Thus, many people – even people who maintain their innocence – will plead to something because the alternative is much worse. As Silverglate says, that is not justice; it is tyranny. He writes:

"If I am right, we must foster the realization that the Justice Department’s tactics too often are employed not to protect, but to attack law-abiding society (emphasis mine). While it is true…that sometimes creative criminal "miscreats" cleverly get around the letter of the law (especially laws that have become obsolete) and therefore tempt equally creative prosecutors to stretch the law, it is also true that too many ordinary, well-meaning, and innocent people get caught in the maw of the Department of Justice’s prosecutorial machinery. For them, life becomes nightmarish, like an episode in a Franz Kafka novel."

I realize this book will not convince everyone of the peril we face at the hands of rapacious federal prosecutors. Federal jurors, like nearly everyone else, seem to defer to the very worst prosecutors as though they were giving an Edict from the Gods. The press is of no help, as reporters seem to enjoy the "perp walks" and every other trapping that comes from covering federal criminal cases.

In the Martha Stewart case, the press was much more interested in what Stewart wore to her trial than to the nature of the charges against her. It mattered not a whit to the press that federal prosecutors had illegally leaked grand jury information in order to trick Stewart into meeting with them so they could charge her with lying. Certainly, no one in the numerous U.S. law schools is trying to deal with this problem, and forget Congress.

To put it another way, when the U.S. Government embraces the law of the Soviet Union, then the law is lost. Federal criminal law cannot be salvaged or rewritten to restore even a modicum of the "rule of law." Yet, unless that is what is done, federal prosecutors will continue to wrongfully charge and prosecute individuals who are innocent, juries will convict them, judges will send them to prison, and the New York Times will continue to tell us how lucky we are that federal prosecutors are on the job.

Like the infamous Lavrentiy Beria, who headed Stalin’s secret police, once he had targeted someone, it was conviction first, trial later. Although the Department of Justice headquarters does not have a statue in its lobby honoring Beria, nonetheless, he seems to be the muse for the current crop of federal prosecutors.

Original report here



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

FEDERAL CRIMINAL LAW: HOW THE GOVERNMENT FIGHTS CAPITALISM

Last weekend, I visited a young woman in Charlotte, North Carolina, once a successful real estate attorney, but now facing the prospect of spending the rest of her life in federal prison. The young woman is very pleasant, not one who a visitor might think is a criminal “kingpin” who federal prosecutors want to serve more time than often is dished out to murderers and rapists.

LasSaturday was July 4, a day in which Americans celebrate the Declaration of Independence from Great Britain. However, in the centuries since Thomas Jefferson penned those wonderful words of freedom, the United States of America has embraced a system of criminal law that King George himself would have decried as tyrannical and unfit for any Englishman.

As I investigated her case, I came to realize that not only is this woman not a criminal, but that she was railroaded into a conviction. This hardly is unusual today, and because many Americans have lost their capacity for outrage or are likely to believe whatever prosecutors declare to be true, most people are not going to share my point of view on this or any other federal criminal case.

I won’t go into the details of this particular case except to say that as one who has devoted much of his research and writing time over the past seven years to the subject of federal criminal law, even I am shocked at what the prosecutor was able to do. She secured the services of a competent attorney for her sentencing hearing and appeal, and he has told her that he can only read her trial transcript for a couple of hours at a time. After that, he said, he becomes too angry and must stop.

In the past seven years, I have written articles and papers on this subject and I must say that I still find myself surprised at what the courts allow to happen. This is a system in which federal prosecutors are able to engage in double jeopardy, regularly breach the attorney-client privilege, and generally do away with the entirety of the Bill of Rights. Prosecutors can take legal acts by individuals, bundle them into a fictitious “crime” of “fraud” or “racketeering,” and criminalize them.

Many targets today are businesspeople, as prosecutors now are able to use the law as a means to fight capitalism. That was the original dream of the man who coined the phrase “white-collar crime,” a sociologist and socialist named Edwin Sutherland. He believed that all private economic transactions were inherently criminal, but because the United States had a relatively free-market economy, people were able to get away with committing acts that should have been labeled as crimes. Sutherland set out to change that state of affairs, and as U.S. law schools became more socialist and radical in their teachings, a new generation of lawyers was trained to put into law what Sutherland could not.

During the 1980s, as the U.S. economy began to grow in the wake of financial and economic deregulation, others sulked and named that time the “Decade of Greed.” Investment banker Michael Milken became a household name as his financial innovations enabled companies like Cable News Network and MCI Communications to grow in a way that would have been impossible in earlier times.

Rudy Giuliani, who then was the U.S. attorney in New York City, saw an opportunity to score political points, and he aimed squarely at Milken and others on Wall Street. He had his Greek Chorus in the New York Times, Time, and Newsweek, all of which saw Giuliani as a potent weapon in their never-ending battle against capitalism. In the end, Milken went to prison, pleading guilty (after Giuliani threatened to indict most members of his family) to “crimes” that the courts later ruled were not crimes at all.

Original report here



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

Ohio: Police refuse to recognize a hate crime committed by blacks

Akron police say they aren't ready to call it a hate crime or a gang initiation. But to Marty Marshall, his wife and two kids, it seems pretty clear. It came after a family night of celebrating America and freedom with a fireworks show at Firestone Stadium. Marshall, his family and two friends were gathered outside a friend's home in South Akron. Out of nowhere, the six were attacked by dozens of teenage boys, who shouted ''This is our world'' and ''This is a black world'' as they confronted Marshall and his family.

The Marshalls, who are white, say the crowd of teens who attacked them and two friends June 27 on Girard Street numbered close to 50. The teens were all black. ''This was almost like being a terrorist act,'' Marshall said. ''And we allow this to go on in our neighborhoods?''

They said it started when one teen, without any words or warning, blindsided and assaulted Marshall's friend as he stood outside with the others. When Marshall, 39, jumped in, he found himself being attacked by the growing group of teens. His daughter, Rachel, 15, who weighs about 90 pounds, tried to come to his rescue. The teens pushed her to the ground. His wife, Yvonne, pushed their son, Donald, 14, into bushes to keep him protected.

''My thing is,'' Marshall said, ''I didn't want this, but I was in fear for my wife, my kids and my friends. I felt I had to stay out there to protect them, because those guys were just jumping, swinging fists and everything. ''I'm lucky. They didn't break my ribs or bruise my ribs. I thank God, they concentrated on my thick head because I do have one. They were trying to take my head off my spine, basically.''

After several minutes of punches and kicks, the attack ended and the group ran off. The Marshalls' two adult male friends were not seriously hurt. ''I don't think I thought at that moment when I tried to jump in,'' Rachel Marshall said. ''But when I was laying on the ground, I was just scared.''

Marshall was the most seriously injured. He suffered a concussion and multiple bruises to his head and eye. He said he spent five nights in the critical care unit at Akron General Medical Center. The construction worker said he now fears for his family's safety, and the thousands of dollars in medical bills he faces without insurance. ''I knew I was going to get beat, but not as bad as I did,'' Marshall said. ''But I did it to protect my family. I didn't have a choice. There was no need for this. We should be all getting along. But to me, it seems to be racist.''

Akron police are investigating. Right now, the case is not being classified as a racial hate crime. There were no other reports of victims assaulted by the group that night. The department's gang unit is involved in the investigation, police said. ''We don't know if it's a known gang, or just a group of kids,'' police Lt. Rick Edwards said.

The Marshalls say they fear retaliation at home or when they go outside. They are considering arming themselves, but they're concerned about the possible problems that come with guns. For now, they are hoping police can bring them suspects. They believe they can identify several of the attackers. ''This makes you think about your freedom,'' Marshall said. ''In all reality, where is your freedom when you have this going on?''

Original report here



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

Why not punch a nun while you’re at it?

From the Associated Press, via the New York Daily News:

Police used a Taser on a pastor and pepper spray to disperse his congregants Wednesday after the pastor allegedly interfered with a traffic stop in the church parking lot.

Congregants say they were in the Iglesia Profetica Peniel church for an early morning prayer when pastor Jose Elias Moran went to assist the stopped driver, a church member, by asking the police what had happened.

An incident report on the Webster police department's Web site said Officer Raymond Berryman tried to calm Moran and arrest him. But police say he pushed the officer, went inside the church and returned with 40 other congregants.

The congregants say Moran fled into the church when the officer grew angry and began to yell, and Moran's family disputes that the pastor touched the officer.

Moran's son Miguel said 30 witnesses saw the officer turn aggressive and repeatedly kick the church door. Several members were hit with pepper spray and children were present, Miguel Moran said.

Obviously, we don't know the full story yet. Maybe the pastor and his flock were out of line. But if 30 people really saw the officer flipping out, I'm curious to see how the PD will try to put a positive spin on this.

If you want a disturbing insight into what's wrong with this country, look at the knee jerk support for the boys in blue in the comments to an article on the incident at the Houston Chronicle. It seems that Tasers and pepper spray may not have been enough; perhaps the riot guns should have been broken out to teach proper respect for authoritah.

Original report here



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

Three British cops charged over soldier 'assault'

Three police officers have been charged with assaulting a soldier who had been praised for bravery against the Taleban in Afghanistan, the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) said today.

Lance Corporal Mark Aspinall, 24, was allegedly attacked by the officers after being arrested during a night out in Wigan in July last year.

L/Cpl Aspinall, who served in both Iraq and Afghanistan, was charged and convicted on two counts of attacking police officers. But he won an appeal to have the verdict quashed at Liverpool Crown Court last November.

Greater Manchester Police officers Sergeant Stephen Russell, Pc Richard Kelsall and Special Constable Peter Lightfoot, who are all based in Wigan, are charged with assault and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. Special Constable Lightfoot also faces a charge of perjury.

An IPCC spokesman said: “The charges relate to an allegation that excessive force was used during the arrest of 24-year-old Bolton man Mark Aspinall in Wigan town centre in the early hours of Sunday July 27.

“The IPCC managed the Greater Manchester Police investigation into the incident.” The three officers will appear before Oldham Magistrates’ Court on in July.

Original report here



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

MORE POLICE NEWS FROM AUSTRALIA

Three articles below. All deplorable in different ways, as usual

Alleged bashing victims to sue Queensland Police Service

The Queensland Police Service is facing a million-dollar civil lawsuit over alleged brutality in the bashing of three tourists by a former officer. Families of the alleged victims plan to file a joint civil damages claim against the Queensland Police Service alleging excessive force and a breach in duty of care. Former Senior-Constable Benjamin Price, 32, has pleaded not guilty to the alleged assaults at Airlie Beach and is backed by the Queensland Police Union, which is footing his legal bill.

Video footage of two of the alleged assaults was shown in court ahead of the former officer being ordered on Friday to stand trial on six counts of assault on three holidaymakers. Magistrate Athol Kennedy ordered Price to stand trial after a four-day committal hearing heard evidence from the victims, witnesses, fellow officers, and a whistleblower who filed a misconduct complaint against her former partner. Price quit the police service last year.

An internal affairs investigation obtained the dramatic CCTV footage from Airlie Beach police station. Graphic footage shows the uniformed officer allegedly punching, kicking and "nearly drowning" one of his victims, Timothy Steele, 24. Price is shown jamming a fire hose into the mouth of the handcuffed Steele as fellow police looked on.

In another incident, Sydney bartender Renee Toms, 22, was allegedly swung around by her hair by Price inside the police station. Ms Toms, who weighs 47kg, subsequently needed medical attention for a cut to the chin.

Sydney investment banker Nicholas Le Fevre, 32, alleged he was king-hit and beaten unconscious by Price and mocked by other police as he begged for help.

Four other officers have quit the QPS under the probe by internal affairs into alleged police brutality. Steele, 24, a plasterer from NSW, allegedly suffered a broken nose, black eyes, a head wound, hearing problems, and memory loss in his May 24 arrest last year.

Steele's parents have criticised the police union for their financial support of Price. "We are at a loss to understand why the Queensland Police Union is continuing to meet the considerable costs of Price's defence," they said.

Price allegedly handcuffed Steele after a scuffle outside a nightclub, before smashing his face into the side of the police car, knocking him out. He then allegedly dragged Steele from the car outside Airlie Beach watchhouse, repeatedly punched him and "kicked him with his boots" in the face, breaking his nose.

CCTV video footage from the police station shows a dazed, heavily bleeding Steele being dragged into an alley beside the watchhouse. It shows the handcuffed man being punched in the head before having a fire hose jammed into his mouth.

See here

Tiny bureaucratic minds running the South Australian police



The offending blue cap can be seen above

A police officer, who rushed to the aid of colleagues during a violent rampage has been asked to explain why he wore a baseball-style cap instead of official uniform. And a senior officer, who sent an email to his superiors defending the officer involved, was counselled after his email was deemed "inappropriate". That email was forwarded to The Advertiser by a third party.

The junior officer was photographed by the newspaper after rushing to help colleagues in Snowtown, where a man allegedly went on a rampage, slashing the throat of an elderly woman, stabbing her daughter, running down one man and attempting to run down others.

But in the email to his superiors, the traffic policeman's senior officer said there was "no thanks, job well done ". "Can you imagine the disbelief when (the officer) is advised he has to submit a police report for why he was wearing the baseball cap. . .(the officer) is very upset and demotivated by this," he wrote. "And so he should be. (the officer) was dumbfounded and quite rightly so."

The Advertiser reports the junior officer was attached to the Northern Traffic Enforcement Section, predominantly motorcycle officers who are permitted to wear the baseball-style cap as part of their uniform. It understands his senior officer, who wrote the email and forwarded it to Assistant Commissioner Graeme Barton and the Northern Traffic Enforcement Section, was counselled after the action was deemed "inappropriate".

Other officers who contacted The Advertiser said bad management was adding to stress. "The road toll is through the roof and all management can do is have this officer type a report why he was wearing a baseball cap," one said.

SA Police spokeswoman Roberta Heather said: "As part of a review of that incident, where the officers were commended for their good work, an officer was reminded he was not authorised to wear a baseball cap."

See here

Police wobble when asked to intervene against school bullies

The resultant police "action" was just talk: to "formally counsel them and issue cautions". No prosecution for assault despite undisputable evidence of it? It should surely have been up to a court to decide what punishment was appropriate

WA Police have for the first time taken action against a school student who encouraged bullying by recording it on a mobile phone. The Education Department has described the decision by police to refer the 14-year-old girl to the Juvenile Justice Team as a landmark development. Determined to get a grip on the troubling trend of students filming fights and bullying, education chiefs have backed principals who call in police.

In the past, the camera-wielding bullies -- who replay videos of their victims' torment to classmates or even upload them to the internet -- have been disciplined by schools. But calling in police means students face criminal charges.

Kiara police were called to investigate an assault on a schoolgirl at Lockridge Senior High School on June 25. The girl was assaulted by a 15-year-old classmate in the school toilets. A 14-year-old girl was a given a phone and took pictures of the incident. Police inquiries led to the two girls being referred to the Juvenile Justice Team, which formally counselled them and issued cautions. They escaped stronger action because of their age and clean records. One was referred for common assault, the other for inappropriate use of a mobile phone. They were also suspended from school.

Despite Government efforts to reduce school violence, latest figures obtained by The Sunday Times reveal that in the first semester of this school year there were 413 assaults in public schools _ little change from the previous semester. Of these, 132 were student-against-student assaults and 281 were student-against-staff assaults.

Education Minister Liz Constable said the case was a timely reminder to students and parents that police involvement was a possibility in bullying cases. "Kids have to understand that it is, in fact, a crime to assault someone,'' Dr Constable said. ``I don't think there is any one rule, but they do need to know that if they behave in this totally unacceptable, anti-social way, that one of the sanctions considered is police involvement.''

Education Department head Sharyn O'Neill also backed the police action against the LSHS student who held the mobile phone. ``I endorse the police taking action against both students, including the one who recorded the incident, as it sends a very strong message that this will not be tolerated both in and outside of school,'' she said. ``The fact that the police have taken action against the students shows just how serious the inappropriate use of mobile phones is and sends a very strong warning to anyone against being involved in this kind of behaviour.''

Ms O'Neill had written to every public school principal to ensure they had a mobile phone policy that was understood by staff, students and parents. This had to include a statement of the consequences students could expect for using mobiles inappropriately. ``Currently, every school must ban mobile phone use in the classroom, but some schools may take this further and ban their use anywhere on the school site if they feel this is necessary,'' Ms O'Neill said.

A Youth Poll survey released last year found that cyber bullying affected more than one in five young Australians. Latest Roy Morgan research shows 23 per cent of children aged six to 13 in Australia own a mobile phone. For 12 to 13 year olds, the figures are 55 per cent for boys and 65 per cent for girls. Text messaging is the most common form of cyber bullying and is used to deliver and spread death threats, insults and rumours.

Original report here. (Via Australian Politics)



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

TX: George Rodriguez wins verdict in HPD Crime Lab lawsuit

An appalling case of official negligence

In his civil rights lawsuit against the City of Houston (case number 4:06-cv-02650), George Rodriguez alleged that inadequate training and supervision at the Crime Laboratory of the Houston Police Department and erroneous or fabricated scientific conclusions caused a state court to wrongfully convict him of aggravated sexual assault and aggravated kidnapping (see previous articles about the lawsuit). In order for Mr. Rodriguez to win his lawsuit, the jury in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas had to answer “yes” to four questions:

Did the knowingly misleading and scientifically inaccurate serology report by a supervisor at the Crime Lab play a substantial part in bringing about or actually causing Mr. Rodriguez’s injury or damages?

Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendant City of Houston had an official policy of inadequate supervision or training of its Crime Lab personnel?

Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that the City’s policymaker was deliberately indifferent to the substantial risk that the City’s policy of inadequate supervision or training would result in a constitutional violation similar to the one suffered by Mr. Rodriguez?

Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that the inadequate supervision or training was the moving force behind the violation of Mr. Rodriguez’s rights?

On June 25, 2009, the jury answered in the affirmative and gave Mr. Rodriguez a verdict for five million dollars ($5,000,000). Neither money nor anything else, however, can adequately compensate Mr. Rodriguez for the 17 years that he spent behind bars for crimes he did not commit.

Original report here

More background

George Rodriguez is seeking justice. In 2004, DNA testing exonerated Rodriguez for the 1987 abduction and sexual assault he had been convicted of seventeen years earlier. During his trial, a Houston Police forensic analyst testified that biological evidence pointed to Rodriguez's guilt; it was later discovered that the analyst lied. Rodriguez is one of forty individuals exonerated by DNA in Texas, and one of six exonerated in Harris County. Read more about DNA exonerations in Texas.

A trial is now underway in Rodriguez's civil lawsuit against the City of Houston, and the city is claiming that there was nothing it could have done to prevent the misconduct of their lab analyst, whose lie led to Rodriguez's wrongful conviction. Houston city attorney Arturo Michel stated: "I think what you have here is a person who was simply not honest and it doesn't matter how many funds you put into something, how good a program you have, that cannot guard against a person's dishonesty."

This argument is very troubling because it ignores the tragic history of mistakes and misconduct within the Houston Police Department's crime lab. Independent research conducted in 2007 found that the crime lab repeatedly incorrectly tested DNA samples, and in some cases, made up the results without actually testing the evidence. It was also discovered that serology work, the same type of forensic evidence used against George Rodriguez, was not properly performed in over four hundred cases. With a history of producing flawed and inaccurate analysis, it is little wonder that the problems of the Houston crime lab led to the false testimony of the crime lab analyst.

Forensic science is not flawless, and its use in the criminal justice system is in great need of reform. To ensure a more fair and accurate criminal justice system, it is critical to improve the reliability, objectivity, and independence of forensic analysis and forensic expert testimony in criminal investigations and trials. Last year, the Justice Project published a policy review that outlined policies for improving the quality of forensic evidence. One of the central recommendations was the need to create forensic labs that were independent of law enforcement and prosecutorial agencies. Earlier this year, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) echoed The Justice Project's recommendations in their report, Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward, in which they recommended, among other things, funding to assist all forensic laboratories in the states to become independent from law enforcement agencies. With nearly all state forensic labs under the jurisdictions of police departments or the attorney general, analysts may come to see their role as part of the "crime-fighting team" rather than as neutral and objective agents of science. This bias hinders justice. Just ask George Rodriguez. His attorney is arguing that the analyst in Rodriguez's case had a habit of altering findings to match the theories of the police and prosecution.

Of course, structural independence of the labs is only one needed step. Because we know the risks of both misconduct and inadvertent bias, we should make sure that labs have appropriate internal safeguards to regulate the flow of information between analysts and police and prosecutors. By providing forensic analysts only with discreet forensic questions and limiting unnecessary contextual information about the crime, we can help ensure that the most accurate and reliable evidence is presented in the courtroom.

Forensic labs provide critical evidence in countless cases, but without the proper safeguards, evidence can be misused and misinterpreted with disastrous consequences. All of us have a vested interest in making sure the necessary reforms are implemented to make forensic evidence as accurate and reliable as possible.

Original report here



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

Australian police "fudge" crime statistics too

Catching up with Britain. Left-run Britain has the most unreliable official statistics since Stalin

SENIOR police say they are being forced to "fudge" reports, and test drivers for drink-driving at times and places they know few offenders will be caught, to manipulate crime statistics. Officers from at least three Local Service Areas have told AdelaideNow it is common for reports to be manipulated and for traffic blitzes to be held to improve statistics and meet specific targets. The officers, who do not wish to be named, say police often blitz areas for the drug and alcohol testing of drivers at times and in places where results are not expected to be significant, a practice commonly referred to as "dumb testing".

In a statement Assistant Commissioner Neil Smith, of the Performance Management and Reporting Service, said police complied with the National Crime Reporting Standard governing crime statistics. "SAPOL refutes any suggestion that our crime statistics misrepresent the incidence of crime," he said.

Crime statistics are analysed daily from police incident reports (PIRs) and one senior officer has described how reports are commonly manipulated to keep crime statistics lower and apprehension rates higher. "Say a car gets broken into and something gets stolen," the officer said. "Rather than two charges, illegal interference and theft, it just gets entered as a theft – one charge. "If we happen to stumble across someone who'd broken into a car, then they would get charged with both, so your statistics show your crime rate lower, but your apprehension rate being high." In offences with multiple victims, the victims are often grouped or become witnesses and the matter is entered as one incident report.

Assistant commissioner Smith said: "The rule is one victim per one PIR. "SAPOL has clear strategies to ensure data integrity and consistency across the state," he said.

One person told AdelaideNow one management directive was to redirect schoolyard assaults back to the school so they were not recorded as crimes. "That way the LSA can claim a downturn in assaults," the person wrote. Patrol police say traffic benchmarks are a "stats game", with directives from upper management to chase the numbers. "We get memos from the Assistant Commissioner asking why haven't you got your numbers . . . even traffic statistics are fudged to a degree," an officer said.

To collect numbers, police will "dumb test". "Once we get close to what we need for the month, then we'll do smart testing and specific targeting, where we know we will get results," the officer said.

Original report here. (Via Australian Politics)



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

DNA testing gets a boost in Australia

There is still a shameful amount of resistance to allowing it in many jurisdictions worldwide

A MAN convicted of brutally murdering a young female tourist on the Gold Coast almost 20 years ago is believed to be the first prisoner in Australia granted access to DNA evidence to try to gain his freedom. And he has Griffith University law students to thank.

Shane Sebastian Davis has proclaimed his innocence since he was jailed for stomping 19-year-old South African Michelle Cohn to death at a Surfers Paradise holiday resort on Boxing Day, 1990. After an 11-day trial, a Supreme Court jury took just over three hours to convict Davis of murdering Cohn, whose body was found in a poolside toilet.

After seven years of lobbying by the Griffith University Innocence Project, the State Government has agreed to let DNA evidence used to convict Davis be re-tested. The Innocence Project is a collaboration of academics, lawyers and law students who work to free prisoners they believe have been wrongly convicted. Project co-founder, high-profile Gold Coast criminal lawyer Chris Nyst, said Queensland was the first state to allow access to DNA evidence to be re-tested and described the move as a "landmark" development.

He said former attorney-general Kerry Shine had approved the re-testing earlier this year. "This is the first time DNA innocence testing - outside of a pardon application - will take place in Queensland," Mr Nyst said. "In fact, it's the first time anywhere in Australia an attorney-general has personally intervened to allow such a process."

Mr Nyst said the re-testing of DNA evidence could show someone else committed the crime. "If the wrong person is in prison, that means the real perpetrator is free to commit further crimes - that's something no one wants to see." Mr Nyst said almost 250 prisoners had been exonerated in the US as a result of DNA re-examination.

Mr Nyst said advances in DNA technology had revealed potential shortcomings in many earlier DNA cases. He is pushing for permanent protocols to allow prisoners access to DNA evidence. "There is always the potential for human error and that can lead to wrongful convictions," he said.

The Griffith University Innocence Project was established in 2001. It employs students to examine cases under the direction of pro bono lawyers and academics.

Original report here



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

Man awarded $21M in wrongful conviction case

(CHICAGO) A man who spent eleven and a half years in prison for a murder he did not commit has been awarded $21 million in a wrongful conviction case. His attorneys say that is the largest amount ever awarded for a wrongful conviction in Chicago history.

Juan Johnson says he is grateful to the jury and his attorneys for the large award. The 39-year-old says he was framed by a Chicago police detective who specialized in gang investigations.

Johnson was convicted and eventually acquitted of beating to death a man with a two-by-four. Despite that, city of Chicago lawyers do not believe Johnson is innocent.

"Statesville is pure hell. You are surrounded among the worst. I didn't expect to survive. I gave up hope," said Johnson.

He may have given up hope but Juan Johnson's lawyers never did. Johnson was 19 when he was sentenced to a 30 year prison term for a 1989 Humboldt Park murder he says he didn't commit. Five years ago, a jury acquitted him in a retrial and on Monday, a federal jury awarded Johnson with the largest wrongful conviction jury award in Chicago history.

"What we proved in this federal case that his conviction was not an accident but he was a victim of police misconduct by Officer Guevara," said Jon Loevy, Johnson's attorney. Johnson's attorneys claim the now retired Area 5 Chicago Police Detective Reynaldo Guevara framed Johnson. "This is a murder that happened in a public place. There were 150 witnesses, there's all kinds of physical evidence. He managed to close it in a couple of hours, getting people who didn't even see it to point the finger at Juan Johnson," said Loevy.

But city of Chicago lawyers say that is not what happened. They believe Johnson would never have been awarded $21 million had the federal jury heard critical evidence about witnesses. "What they weren't told was that two witnesses, who later changed their stories years later, were forced to do so by gang leaders. That was the evidence that the judge excluded," said Jim Sotos, City of Chicago attorney.

While Juan Johnson's lawyers and others say there are several complaints against Guevara, the city says Guevara was a good officer who was targeted by gangs. "What they do is manipulate the court system through intimidating witnesses and they force witnesses to change their testimony," said Sotos.

City lawyers say the 1989 murder Juan Johnson was arrested for was over a gang dispute. The city says Johnson was part of a gang back then and is currently a gang member. Johnson's lawyers say that is not the case.

Meantime, Northwestern University's Center on Wrongful Convictions is investigating more than 40 alleged frame-ups by Detective Guevara.

Original report here



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

Welcome to Shreveport, Louisiana: Your rights are now suspended

According to Cedric Glover, mayor of Shreveport, Louisiana, his cops "have a power that [. . .] the President of these Unites States does not have": His cops can take away your rights.

And would you like to guess which rights he has in mind? Just ask Shreveport resident Robert Baillio, who got pulled over for having two pro-gun bumper stickers on the back of his truck -- and had his gun confiscated.

While the officer who pulled him over says Baillio failed to use his turn signal, the only questions he had for Baillio concerned guns: Whether he had a gun, where the gun was, and if he was a member of the NRA. No requests for a driver's licence, proof of insurance, or vehicle registration -- and no discussion of a turn signal. Accordingly, Baillio told the officer the truth, which led the police officer to search his car without permission and confiscate his gun. However, not only does Louisiana law allow resident to drive with loaded weapons in their vehicles, but Mr. Baillio possessed a concealed carry license!

What does such behavior demonstrate, other than transparent political profiling -- going so far as to use the infamous Department of Homeland Security report on "Americans of a rightwing persuasion" as a how-to guidebook, no less? Mr. Baillio made no secret of his political affiliations: An American flag centers a wide flourish of pro-freedom stickers and decals on his back windshield. In fact, when Baillio asked the officer if everyone he pulls over gets the same treatment, the officer said no and pointed to the back of his truck.

Baillio phoned Mayor Glover to complain about this "suspension of rights" only to find that his city's morbidly obese "commander in chief" was elated at the story: According to Glover, Baillio got "served well, protected well, and even got a consideration that maybe [he] should not have gotten."

Thankfully, Mr. Baillio recorded a good bit of that phone call. You can watch a video with the transcriptions here. I've reproduced a chunk of the call below:

Baillio: (in the context of being asked about the presence of a gun) Well, I answered that question honestly, and he disarmed me.

Glover: Which would be an appropriate and proper action, sir. The fact that you gave the correct answer -- it simply means that you did what it is you were supposed to have done, and that is to give that weapon to the police officer so he could appropriately place it in a place where it would not be a threat to you, to him, or to anyone in the general public. [. . .] Glover: My direction to you is that, had you chosen not to properly identify the fact that you had a weapon and directed that officer to where that weapon was located; had you been taken from the vehicle, and the officer, in the interest of his safety, chose to secure you in a safe position, and then looked, found, and determined that you did, in fact, have a weapon...then, sir, you would have faced additional, [inaudible], and more severe criminal sanctions.

Baillio: So what you're saying is: I give up all my rights to keep and bear arms if I'm stopped by the police: Is that correct?

Glover: Sir, you have no right, when you have been pulled over by a police officer for a potential criminal offense [which would be what?! - DB] to stand there with your weapon at your side in your hand [Baillio's weapon was nowhere near his side or his hand, and Glover knew that. -- DB] because of your second amendment rights, sir. That does not mean at that point your second amendment right has been taken away; it means at that particular point in time, it has been suspended.

Will Grigg from ProLibertate, an excellent freedom blog, has this to say:

According to Glover, a police officer may properly disarm any civilian at any time, and the civilian's duty is to surrender his gun -- willingly, readily, cheerfully, without cavil or question. From Glover's perspective, it is only when firearms are in the hands of people other than the state's uniformed enforcers/oppressors that they constitute a threat, not only to the public and those in charge of exercising official violence but also to the private gun owner himself.

NAGR spoke with Mr. Baillio, and he told us that he's in the process of securing the official procedures and codes for firearm handling and private property confiscation for the Shreveport police department. So far, the city has been half-heartedly cooperating with him.

"I felt sick," Baillio told NAGR. "My uncles didn't die for this country so I could surrender my rights like a wimp. I felt terrible. I was just thinking of all that my family has done for freedom in this nation -- including dying -- and here they are disarming me at a traffic stop."

I'll leave you with one last consideration. As a licensed firearms instructor in charge of a hundred different students every month, I'm often asked if citizens should voluntarily inform police officers of the presence of a firearm during a routine traffic stop.

While different states have different laws, my answer for Colorado citizens is an emphatic "No": Colorado law doesn't require you to volunteer that kind of information, and this case in Louisiana proves why, if at all possible, you should never invite trouble by doing so.

Original report here



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

The police beat

In Metro Detroit, the Warren city government’s police chased down Robert Mitchell — an unarmed, 16 year old black boy, weighing in at about 110 pounds — and killed him with non-lethal force in an abandoned house of Eight Mile. This extrajudicial electrocution of an unarmed young man was carried out in the attempt to arrest him; the reason the cops were chasing him down and trying to force him to surrender himself to them is that he jumped out of the passenger side of his cousin’s car during a traffic stop for an expired license plate. For, that is, trying to leave the scene in a situation where he himself was not suspected of any crime.

Boss cop William Dwyer believes that his forces had no alternative to blasting an unarmed 16 year old with a 50,000-volt electric shock in order to force him to surrender to arrest. Of course they did have an alternative; they could have let him leave, since they had no probable cause to suspect him of any particular crime. But government cops in America aren’t actually interested in dealing with crimes; they are interested in targeting suspects, and are willing to summarily declare you a suspect sort of guy based solely on your failure to follow their arbitrary bellowed commands, or your decision to try to leave the scene when they are present. They are quite willing to say that running away from cops, just as such, without any evidence of any specific crime, is considered good enough grounds for chasing you down, beating, shooting, or electrocuting you first and asking questions later, and arresting you on suspicion of resisting arrest. Presumably because the sheep are supposed to stay where they’ve been herded.

The commissioner called Mitchell’s death a tragedy, but said police who watch someone run from them can only assume he committed a crime or is wanted for a crime.

Boss cop William Dwyer adds that, since the cops have been trained by a bunch of other cops to use 50,000-volt electric shocks to torture anyone resisting arrest until they surrender, regardless of the risks involved and even if their chosen target is unarmed and poses no physical threat to anyone present, as a form of pain compliance, well, that makes it O.K. for them to do so. Just following orders, you know:

The officers had been trained to use Tasers on people resisting arrest, so there was nothing wrong with using that Taser, Dwyer said.

Renea Mitchell, the mother of the victim, says They are here to protect us. There’s no reason for what they’ve done…. There’s no reason, no excuse. She also calls what happened to her son a murder at the hands of police. And that’s about the size of it. Her son was not suspected of any crime; he was not even on the scene for anything more serious than an expired license plate. He tried to leave because he doesn’t feel safe around cops — and, given that cops are the ones who eventually killed him, why should he have? — and the cops took this as good enough reason to treat him as presumptively criminal, and therefore to use any level of violence necessary to stop him from leaving — whether or not they have any knowledge of his having been involved in any specific crime, or even whether or not any specific crime has been committed, and regardless of the fact that he was completely unarmed and posed no threat to absolutely anyone’s person or property. They had no reason to use force at all, let alone the potentially lethal force of a taser.

Meanwhile, back over at POLICE magazine, editor David Griffith believes that political correctness is killing a lot of Americans because cops in some major cities can’t use suspicion of immigration violation as [Probable Cause] to roust any gang member. Apparently suspicion of immigration violation means looking Latino. Griffith asks and answers a few clarifying questions: Would that be profiling? Absolutely. Would some American citizens get hassled? Surely. Would there be a lot less violent crime in our cities if we deported many gang members who are probably illegal aliens [sic]? You tell me.

In other words, in the name of controlling crime by controlling entire populations, Griffith wants for cops to have unilateral authority to roust absolutely anyone based solely on their ethnic status, without any evidence of having committed any crime whatsoever, and so to bring them under the control of the police unless and until they can prove, to the police’s own satisfaction, that they have a permission slip from the government for existing in this country. Griffith asks, rhetorically, What is our priority? Do we want to make Americans safer? But which Americans does he have in mind, and what does he hope to make them safer from? Apparently not the Americans he explicitly expects to be hassled, that is, terrorized, manhandled or, if necessary, killed in order to put them under, and to keep them under, the physical control of those cops who Griffith would like to grant unlimited discretionary authority to detain anybody that they want, for absolutely any reason or for no reason at all, based solely on their ethnic status, and without any connection to any known crime.

In the same article, Griffith mentions an Atlanta cop, Scott Kreher of the local Fraternal Order of Pigs, who is pissed off about inadequate bennies for Atlanta city cops; so he told the city council that the situation made him want to beat Mayor Shirley Franklin in the head with a baseball bat. (Griffith doesn’t have anything worse to say about this than a weak joke about how he hopes that Kreher does not command the APD’s crisis negotiation team.)

Does a police state, staffed by men who deal with stress like Sergeant Scott Kreher does, with the powers that David Griffith wants to give them, make you feel safer? Probably depends on what side of the taser, or the baseball bat, you expect to end up on.

More here



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