NH: Voluntaryist jailed, faces 21 years for “wiretapping”

Recording a cop is “wiretapping”

"If you're reading this then I'm currently jailed" Ademo Freeman told the Libertarian News Examiner today in an email. Ademo was sentenced to 60 days in jail for writing on a public building with chalk.

While in jail Ademo will also be brought to trial on charges of "wiretapping," an accusation frequently leveled by police officers across the country against anyone who video or audio records them while performing their public duties in public places.

The chalking charges stem from an incident that took place in Manchester, New Hampshire over a year ago.

In June 2011 a group of Voluntaryists held a "police accountability rally" to protest the city of Manchester's failure to hold police officers accountable for "the dubious killing" of a resident and for "savagely" beating another.

The protest consisted of writing messages on the sidewalk and the exterior walls of the Manchester police department building using what Ademo describes as "children's chalk."

Eight demonstrators, including Ademo, were arrested and charged with "graffiti and criminal mischief." Ademo was sentenced to ten months stayed and 60 days in jail.

The alleged "wiretapping" charges stemmed from a phone call Ademo made to the Manchester police department asking them for comment on an incident in which a student video-recorded a police officer slamming another student's head onto a lunchroom table before arresting him.

As explained in a Libertarian News Examiner article, "Voluntaryist goes public with wiretapping charges:"

"Before posting the video, however, Ademo did what journalists have done since the invention of the telephone and called the Manchester school and police department so he could include their comments in the story. As a video journalist, Ademo had his call video- and sound-recorded to guarantee accuracy."

Authorities ruled that the officer's head-slamming was "justified" while Ademo's recording was illegal "wiretapping."

Conviction on the wiretapping charge could result in 21 years in jail.

Longtime readers of this site are familiar with Ademo as one of numerous Voluntaryist activists in New Hampshire who actively confront authorities over illegitimate laws on the libertarian principle that if there is no victim there can be no crime.

Ademo was featured in an article, "America, meet the voluntaryists of Keene," that introduced the rest of the country to these New Hampshire activists.

Original report here




(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today. Now hosted on Wordpress. If you cannot access it, go to the MIRROR SITE, where posts appear as well as on the primary site. I have reposted the archives (past posts) for Wicked Thoughts HERE or HERE or here

Useless British police again

Shopkeeper’s fury after being made to hold for 30 minutes by the police while trying to report sighting of rape suspect

A frustrated shop worker gave up trying to report seeing an escaped rape suspect to police after calling three times and being put on hold for 31 minutes.

Police have launched an internal investigation after Karl Tomlinson, 39, was unable to get through to an officer to report seeing the half-naked fugitive in the street behind his store in Plymouth, Devon.

Mr Tomlinson contacted the police after returning home and spotting an appeal for information online about a man who had escaped from custody at Charles Cross police station, in Plymouth, and believed the man he saw was the fugitive.

But he was passed from pillar to post as he tried, in vain, to report what he had seen. He first phoned 999 - as the police appeal requested - at around 6.25pm but was told by the operator to re-dial 101, the police’s non-emergency number.

When he called the number at around 6.30pm the operator said they would put him through to another department. He was then put on hold for more than six minutes before he hung up.

A short while later, at around 7.20pm, he decided to call 101 again and he stressed that he was calling about a man who had absconded. This time he was put on hold for 31 minutes - and played classical music down the phone line - before hanging up again.

In the end he passed on his information anonymously to the charity Crimestoppers.

Mr Tomlinson was convinced his information could have helped police trace the fugitive’s movements and eventually catch him.

The escaped man, who Mr Tomlinson had spotted outside the shop bare chested and holding flip-flops in his hand at 10am on Saturday - was eventually found in Plymouth at 10.30pm that day. He had been on the run for 13 hours.

Mr Tomlinson said: 'After waiting so long on the phone I was in two minds as to whether to drive to the police station and tell them. 'But the feeling was that if they can’t be bothered to pick up the phone then why bother?'

Mr Tomlinson complained that he was not given a chance to explain why he was calling when he dialled 999. He said: “They told me to ring 101 instead, so straight away I rang that number.

'The girl said she would put me through to the right department [but] after being put on hold for several minutes I gave up.

'I went to have some dinner then came back and tried again. 'They put me through to the same department [and] that time I was put on hold for 30 minutes. 'Eventually, I tried Crimestoppers.'

Mr Tomlinson recalled the moment when the man appeared at the back of his shop. He said: 'One of my colleagues said ‘You all right there mate, do you need any help?' He said ‘I’m just going in for a look’ then went into the back of our store and started to walk through it.

'I caught up with him and said; ‘Excuse me, this isn’t a walk through. If you want to go to the front of the shop then go around on the street. 'He just looked at me and ran.'

Mr Tomlinson said the man struggled with a door before fleeing across the road still clutching his flip-flops.

'We were saying afterwards, either he was high or he’d been caught by the husband of some woman. 'We even joked he was on the run from the police.'

Superintendent Chris Eastwood, of Devon and Cornwall Police, said Information received from the public 'is always treated with the utmost seriousness and confidence.'

He blamed the delay in dealing with Mr Tomlinson's query to a high level of calls being received from people affected by flooding.

'When a member of the public calls 101 we should always be in a position to assess and appropriately deal with the information being given to us,' he said.

'On Saturday the Devon and Cornwall force was faced with a very high level of calls due to flooding across the area and demand for service was high.

'However, community intelligence is a vital tool in fighting crime and is critical in aiding operational policing. 'The circumstances around this incident are currently being fully investigated and we will be speaking to all parties involved to gather the facts of what has happened.'

A man has appeared in court charged with absconding from police. He did not enter a plea. The case was sent to Plymouth Crown Court and he was remanded into custody to appear before a judge on July 23.

Original report here




(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today. Now hosted on Wordpress. If you cannot access it, go to the MIRROR SITE, where posts appear as well as on the primary site. I have reposted the archives (past posts) for Wicked Thoughts HERE or HERE or here

A peculiar idea of proof

United States District Judge Clay D. Land has ordered the forfeiture of $21,175 seized from two ex-convicts by Deputy Drew Crane, of the Harris County, Georgia, Sheriff’s Office.

Neither of the men were convicted, arrested, or charged-in this case. No drugs or drug paraphernalia were reported on the men from whom the currency was seized. The claimant of the currency, Terrance Durr, has a 1996 felony drug conviction and, at least, a subsequent parole violation. Durr also has documented gainful employment-including an 8 year work history as a draft technician with Adam’s Beverage, an Anheuser Busch distributor.

The government presented no specific cognizable evidence of any drug transaction (or intended drug transaction) linking the currency to any specific illicit behavior. Durr presented evidence of why he had a substantial amount of cash on his person. The court found Durr’s evidence, and reasoning, unpersuasive.

Judge Land concluded:

At trial, the Government proved that the Defendant Property is United States currency that constitutes proceeds traceable to an exchange for a controlled substance in violation of the Controlled Substances Act. Accordingly, the Defendant Property is forfeitable pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6) and is hereby forfeited to the United States.

Which is an interesting definition of proved.

Judge Land cited seven points in ruling for the government:

The totality of the facts in this case demonstrates a substantial connection and relation between the Defendant Property and illegal drug activity. The factors leading to this conclusion include the following: (1) the odor of marijuana that Deputy Crane detected when he approached the vehicle during the stop; (2) Durr’s initial denial of currency being in the vehicle and his inconsistent behavior regarding the currency; (3) Lett and Durr were traveling in a thirdparty’s vehicle with a single vehicle key; (4) the amount of currency Durr was transporting and the manner in which it was bundled, bagged, and hidden under the passenger seat; (5) the odor of narcotics detected by the K-9 on both the currency and the vehicle; (6) Durr’s drug-related criminal history, coupled with Lett’s prior drug conviction; and (7) Durr’s inability to provide a legitimate source for the currency or plausible purpose for transporting it.

What the ruling appears to boil down to is

1. Durr is an ex-con;
2. Durr had a fairly large amount of currency;
3. The police wanted his currency;
4. The police found his currency;
5. Police recorded a positive K9 alert on his currency and on his companion’s vehicle;
6. The officer said that the vehicle smelled of alcohol and marijuana;
7. Durr cannot prove that his money was not intended, or derived from, something to do with drugs to the satisfaction of the court;
8. Thus, the government has “proved” that Durr’s cash constitutes proceeds traceable to an exchange for a controlled substance; and
9. Because of prevailing practices, the police are allowed to give his currency to the federal government and the federal government will give back up to 80% of the proceeds of the forfeiture to participating police department(s)-thus cleansing the money of his rights and any taint of suspicion that he may have criminally used, or intended to use, the money.

This is utter non-sense.

Durr may have intended to use the money for narcotics. Or perhaps he was going to do something else. We do not know. Nobody else knows either-except maybe Terrance Durr.

Durr presented evidence that he intended to travel to Atlanta, GA to negotiate with a bank on the imminent foreclosure of a dilapidated rental property that he owned. Prosecutors easily poked holes in the sensibility of his plan. However, they failed to offer evidence that the money was drug related-unless we are to assume that the means, a criminal record, and unreliable evidence meet the burden. That would add a lot of forfeiture victims.

There are infinite possibilities as to how he got the money and to what he intended to do with it-whether they be licit or illicit. But reasonable jurisprudence ought to tether forfeiture to a showing of substantial connection between specific articulated criminal acts and proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Of course, Judge Land is not responsible for legislative mischief or higher courts sustaining unreasonable violations of process. Still, Judge Land should be constrained by a reasonable reading in accord with our Constitution and precedent. The government’s brief suggests an unpublished opinion for guidance, United States v. $183,791.00 in United States Currency, No. 09-15239, 2010 WL 3096146 at *2, 391 Fed. Appx. 791, 794 (11th Cir. Aug. 9, 2010):

We look at the “totality of the circumstances” when determining whether the government has satisfied this standard. See United States v. $121,100.00 in U.S. Currency, 999 F.2d 1503, 1507 (11th Cir. 1993). The government may use circumstantial evidence as well as evidence gathered after it filed the civil forfeiture complaint to meet its burden. United States v. $291,828.00 in U.S. Currency, 536 F.3d 1234, 1237 (11th Cir. 2008). However, the government is not required to produce evidence connecting the money to a particular narcotics transaction. United States v. $242,484.00, 389 F.3d 1149, 1160 (11th Cir. 2004) (en banc). It need only show that the money was “related to some illegal drug transaction.” Id. We evaluate the evidence presented with “‘a common sense view to the realities of normal life.’” Id. at 1160 (quoting United States v. Carrell, 252 F.3d 1193, 1201 (11th Cir. 2001)).

That is, the government must show that the currency was related to some illegal drug transaction-not a particular transaction-and circumstantial arguments will be viewed in the totality of circumstances. Knowing participation in a money laundering scheme with a drug cartel would-for instance-satisfy a circumstantial argument. In U.S. v. $183,791.00, connection to drug transactions was shown by an extensive investigation that strongly indicated that the claimant was substantially, and knowingly, involved in laundering money for a Nigerian heroin trafficking organization.

Here, the complaint is bereft of any transaction.

To the extent that there is any equivalent of a criminal organization, we have an ex-con travelling with another ex-con after a supposed night at a strip club. Strippers aside, that describes a lot of people. Sixty-five million Americans are estimated to have a criminal record-and in excess of 25 million Americans are estimated to have a drug charge on their record. That is about 20% and 8% of the current United States population-and those numbers are fairly conservative. Certain populations are at far greater risk for this capricious forfeiture of property rights. African Americans have much higher incidents of arrests, charges, and incarcerations-as well as severity of punishment-despite similar (or lower) drug usage rates:

Among men, blacks (28.5%) are about six times more likely than whites (4.4%) to be admitted to prison during their life. Among women, 3.6% of blacks and 0.5% of whites will enter prison at least once. (U.S. Department of Justice) Based on current rates of incarceration, an estimated 7.9% of black males compared to 0.7% of white males will enter State or Federal prison by the time they are age 20 and 21.4% of black males versus 1.4% of white males will be incarcerated by age 30. (U.S. Department of Justice) Some have noted that more black men are in prison in America than are in college. (The Black and White of Justice, Freedom Magazine, Volume 128)

Statistics on black crime are, on the surface, very bleak. There are, however, some very important factors that help to influence the numbers. Consider those and a strong case for a much different view unfolds. Since 62% of persons admitted to Federal prison and 31.1% of those admitted to State prison for the first time were sentenced because of drug offenses, let us first take a look at the racial disparity in the war on drugs:

The National Institute of Drug Abuse estimated that while 12 percent of drug users are black, they make up nearly 50 percent of all drug possession arrests in the U.S. (The Black and White of Justice, Freedom Magazine, Volume 128)

According to the National Drug Strategy Network, although African Americans make up less than one-third of the population in Georgia, the black arrest rate for drugs is five times greater than the white arrest rate. In addition, since 1990, African Americans have accounted for more than 75% of persons incarcerated for drug offenses in Georgia and make up 97.7% of the people in that state who are given life sentences for drug offenses. In six California counties independently surveyed in 1995, 100% of those individuals sent to trial on drug charges were minorities, while the drug-using population in those same counties was more than 60% white. (The Black and White of Justice, Freedom Magazine, Volume 128) By R Jeneen Jones, The Truth About Black Crime, January 16 2000.

The remaining circumstantial arguments against Durr are of dubious value.

Self-serving testimony adds little, if any, probative value.

Harris County Sheriff’s Office Deputy Drew Crane may indeed have smelled marijuana and alcohol. But how much is his uncorroborated testimony worth if he and his department have a financial stake in perfecting the forfeiture? The Sheriff’s department stands to gain a vast majority of this cash as well as any other asset forfeitures that they snag-which adds up quick.

While federally adopted forfeitures often bring tighter restrictions on allowable expenditures, it is not clear that it matters in Georgia. Sheriffs in Georgia enjoy broad discretion on how to spend forfeiture dollars. Even if the federal equitable sharing guidelines are obeyed (and they still allow the use of forfeiture dollars to pay overtime salaries-for which Deputy Crane would presumably be eligible), there is no reason to think that the money run through federal custody is not merely freeing state forfeiture dollars to be used at the sheriff’s broad discretion. And, we know little about how the department spends forfeiture fund dollars. The Harris County Sheriff’s Office, like many police departments in Georgia, has not filed public asset forfeiture expenditure reports as directed by Georgia law. In effect, forfeiture dollars are private slush funds. Sure, the department might be following every professional, ethical and legal obligation (except refusing to file publicly accessible reporting) but we don’t know that. The Harris County Sheriff’s Office would hardly be the first to organization to violate guidelines when they are done in secret.

Rubber bands, bags, and hiding currency are indicative of a large amount of cash not indicia of criminality.

A recurring feature of bulk cash forfeiture complaints is how cash is hidden and how it is bundled. According to many of these complaints, the use a bag to hold the currency and the use of rubber bands is indicative of drug dealing. Let’s back up a second. Assume a person has legitimate recognized interest in his cash and he is trying to transport the cash. To avoid the drug dealer profile must he have the cash in open air-visible to all? Must the cash be either professionally bundled by a bank or freely scattered? Only drug dealers use bags to transport things?

The rubber band hypothesis is absurd. It has been dealt with by the courts before:

The argument that the money is likely linked to drug distribution because it is bound by a rubber band needs to be carefully examined. If one is carrying a large sum of cash currency, for whatever reason, using a rubber band to keep it in order is simple and effective.

I do not doubt that drug couriers and dealers use rubber bands to bundle their ill-gotten gains. However, drug dealers also presumably use belts to hold up their trousers; under the government’s analysis, if Espinola was wearing a belt at the time of the seizure, it would suggest his involvement with illegal activity. Although many courts appear to disagree, I find that the government’s “rubber band” hypothesis doesn’t stretch quite that far. United States v. One Lot of U.S. Currency Totalling $14,665, 33 F. Supp.2d 47 (D. Mass.1998).

Equally strange is the idea that only drug dealers use bags to carry things. Individuals have a cognizable interest in transporting property in objects that make the property easier to transport and more secure. By the government’s logic, wallets are also indicia of criminality. Using a bag is indicative of having not put the money in a bank. It tells us little else. If the currency owner freely displays thousands of dollars, he is obviously enhancing thr risk of being robbed.

The use of a single-key argument seems bizarre. Driving another’s car with a single key may be indicative of auto-theft. As that was not an issue in this case, it is difficult to see what inference Judge Land is drawing between the use of a single key and any relevant illegal behavior.

Another absurd argument is that there is any probative value to a claimant’s initial lack of disclosure about the currency. Law enforcement can employ civil asset forfeiture to seize currency. For the currency owner, there is little difference between the police taking the cash and someone without a badge. If the police find a large amount of currency-whether one is forthright or not-they are probably going to seize it. Initially disclosure might help in court later but the currency risks the permanent seizure of their money. At a minimum, they face substantial legal fees and lengthy litigation before the currency will be returned.

Original report here


(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today. Now hosted on Wordpress. If you cannot access it, go to the MIRROR SITE, where posts appear as well as on the primary site. I have reposted the archives (past posts) for Wicked Thoughts HERE or HERE or here

IN: "Showtime Syndrome" in Evansville: Online Trash Talk about Cops Triggers SWAT Raid

“The community absolutely has to have law and order. If that’s removed, all kinds of chaos and violence will result,” insisted Evansville, Indiana Police Captain Andy Chandler in an interview with Pro Libertate.

For example: Absent the heroic intervention of the State’s oath-bound servants, an innocent senior citizens and her teenage granddaughter might be terrorized in their home by men armed with assault weapons and flash-bang grenades.

Actually, the armed marauders who attacked the Evansville home of Ira and Louise Milan on June 21 were oath-bound servants of the State. The assault was conducted by the local SWAT team, in the company of an impossibly sycophantic local television reporter named David Shepherd, who had been brought along to chronicle the daring raid.

The purpose of the operation was not to protect the “community” from criminal violence, but to arrest and punish an unidentified individual who had posted what were described as “specific threats” against the police in an online forum.

The assailants employed a “knock and announce” procedure in which the incantation “Police search warrant” was shouted three times before the front door was broken down with a siege engine and two flash-bang grenades were hurled into the home.

None of this was necessary, but it certainly looked bitchin' on camera.

“The front door was open,” a shaken and most likely disgusted Ira Milan commented later to the Evansville Courier-Press. “It’s not like anyone was in there hiding. To bring a SWAT team seems a little excessive.”

Acting as the voice of the Evansville PD, television correspondent Shepherd explained that the armored assault team took “extra precautions because of the severity of the threats.”

It’s impossible to make an objective assessment of the nature and credibility of those threats, since Vanderburgh Superior Court Judge David Kiely sealed both the initial warrant and a second one issued after the SWAT team had wrecked the Milan family’s home. This was done in defiance of the Indiana State open records act, which requires that the results of a search warrant be made public.

Press accounts claim that “specific threats” were made against police officers and their families by an anonymous poster to the topix.com on-line forum. One of the posts declared: “Cops beware! I’m proud of my country but I hate police of any kind. I have explosives … Made in America. Evansville will feel my pain.” Another claimed that the home addresses of Evansville police officers had been leaked to the public.

“It said `EPD leak: Officers’ addresses given out,’ or something along those lines,” explained department spokesman Sgt. Jason Cullum. Although one post reportedly mentioned the Evansville Police Chief, no other officers were named, and no addresses were listed. Although Cullum asserted that a SWAT raid was necessary because “the threats were specific enough, and the potential for danger was there,” his casual description suggests that the investigation wasn’t particularly rigorous – especially in light of the fact that the assault on the Milan home took place roughly a day after the messages were posted.

The Milans were questioned, some computers and cell phones were seized, but no arrests were made. Shepherd concluded his report by intoning that the continuing investigation “hits close to home for many of these brave officers.”

Those “brave officers,” of course, had just conducted a military raid against a harmless elderly couple and their teenage granddaughter in reaction to nasty things said about the police by a blogger who had apparently piggybacked on the home’s Wi-Fi signal.

“This is the first SWAT entry we’ve done that involved in serving a warrant addressing a threat against a public security officer,” Captain Chandler – a well-spoken, candid, and personable 24-year veteran who until recently commanded the SWAT team – told Pro Libertate.

Asked if the department would react with the same zeal in addressing similar online “threats” against a private citizen, Chandler replied: “Absolutely we would use a SWAT team to deal with this kind of threat against anybody. We have taken action to deal with threats and harassment of this kind.”

“Our population is about 120,000, and the larger urban area is about a quarter of a million,” Chandler observes. “People would be astounded by the number of reports we get of intimidation and threats arising out of domestic violence situations or other conflicts.”

According to Chandler, the Evansville SWAT team does an average of five call-outs a month. At the risk of making what could be construed as a disastrous policy recommendation, I’m constrained to ask: If a SWAT call-out is justified for every “credible” threat of aggravated violence, shouldn’t the team be deployed every day in defense of the besieged citizens of Evansville?

By Chandler’s account, the investigation that led to SWAT operatives beating down the open door of an elderly couple’s home was a model of urgent efficiency prompted by an exigent threat to Evansville’s intrepid defenders.

“We got notified by informants on the street about postings on a website that threatened officers,” he recalls. (Those “street” informants were people who read the internet posts and called the department.) “We get a lot of criticism, some of it profane, which is just an exercise of free speech. But then the comments crossed the line by actually starting to call out the police chief, with the poster claiming that he had access to weapons that would penetrate our tactical vests – all officers on our force are required to wear the vests – and that he and his `boys’ were coming for officers and their families.”

“We obtained a number of subpoenas associated with that address,” Chandler continues. After conducting “surveillance and intelligence collection” on the suspect and the neighborhood, the department “found that there had been over a dozen shootings in the area since the beginning of the summer, some of them gang-related.”

All of this information was used to conduct an assessment using a “Threat Matrix.”

“We have a document – a checklist – that we review. We fill in the blanks, and every answer has a score associated with it. Is the suspect a known offender? Was it a violent offense? Did he resist arrest? Is there drug trafficking in the area? The scores are tallied up and the threat is placed in an appropriate range of responses.”

A “Threat Assessment Score” is then compiled, and the appropriate response is chosen from three options. The higher the “Matrix” score, the more militarized the response.

A total of 1-16 points means that the supposed threat is considered “SWAT optional”; 17-24 points means that the SWAT commander should be consulted; if the score is 25 points or higher, SWAT deployment is “mandatory.”

The standardized “Threat Matrix” form lists a number of individual criteria dictating “mandatory” SWAT deployment; for instance, if the subject is believed to possess an automatic, semi-auto, or bolt/lever action rifle, or explosives. In the fashion of a Scrabble game, the use of home “fortifications” – such as burglar bars – is awarded “double point value.” The same is true if the subject has a military or police background, or a record that includes “resisting arrest” or “assault on a police officer” (which are weighted more heavily than crimes of violence against Mundanes, such as homicide, armed robbery, and assault).

The purpose of the “Threat Matrix” is to assess the danger to officer safety – not the potential threat a subject poses to the public at large. As Chandler puts it, “Every SWAT raid involves an element of risk, and we chose the method that would ensure the safety of the officers serving that warrant.”

A less self-congratulatory assessment might be that the department chose a SWAT team as a way of “sending a message” – a conclusion amply justified by the involvement of an “embedded” reporter and camera crew. This wasn’t a case of a police department isolating and neutralizing an identifiable threat; it was another example of the notorious -- and frequently lethal -- “Showtime Syndrome" at work.

Given the indecent eagerness of police departments to acquire military-grade drone technology, future "Threat Matrix" assessments could well result in drone strikes, rather than SWAT raids.

According to a local TV news account, the Evansville PD maintains that the invasion of the Milan home “was well worth it to keep everyone safe.” But even if we were to describe juvenile online comments as a “threat,” it’s nonsense on stilts to claim that “everyone” in Evansville was endangered by them.

According to Sgt. Jason Cullum, the police embody the “community,” and they can be paralyzed with fear by an anonymous, solitary internet Troll. “We’re not going to let these type [sic] of people take over and have us scared in our own homes,” he told the local Fox affiliate. From this perspective, the SWAT team’s home invasion was not a grotesque act of overkill reasonably described as an act of state terrorism, but a pre-emptive strike against forces that threatened the existence of law and order itself.

One element that played a tacit but unmistakable role in the decision to deploy the SWAT team was the recent enactment of Indiana Senate Bill 1, which recognized the innate right of citizens to use lethal force to repel “unlawful entry into their homes by law enforcement officers or persons pretending to be law enforcement officers.” That measure, which was signed into law just weeks ago, was denounced by police unions as a measure announcing “open season on law enforcement.”

It’s quite likely that the purpose of the June 21 attack on the Milan home was intended as a show of force – a demonstration that the police were willing to deploy overwhelming force to assert their continued dominance. This would certainly comport with the paramilitary mindset described by Gabe Suarez, who spent 12 years as a police officer in Santa Monica: “When I was on [the] SWAT [team] our view [was] that `We will always win....even if we have to burn down your entire house by bombing it....we will win’.”

Original report here




(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today. Now hosted on Wordpress. If you cannot access it, go to the MIRROR SITE, where posts appear as well as on the primary site. I have reposted the archives (past posts) for Wicked Thoughts HERE or HERE or here

Cops can't bear being recorded

Perhaps my experiences are colored by my voluntaryist worldview but every day I see myriad examples of spontaneous order and mutual interaction all around me. It amazes me that people can stand in line at the grocery store, at the gas pump, or even drive on the highway at breakneck speed surrounded by other motorists and never recognize the relatively spontaneous order.

I was at the YMCA today with my wife and daughter and as I headed for the pool an employee there said, “we ask that you don’t chew gum while using the pool”. My cheerful (I was quite looking forward to the swim) response was “no problem”. I was, as it turned out, breaking a rule I had no idea even existed. Now it may have been included in the wall of small print I signed my name to when I joined the “Y”, though I doubt it, but regardless it was a reasonable request which I was happy to comply with.

Now allow me to contrast this experience with that I had on the fourth with a public “servant”. I had offered to drive a friend’s car home (we were headed there anyways) because the vehicle lacked a working air conditioner and, mine being the less fair sex, chivalry dictated my transit be the sweatier of the two.

As it turned out, my friend’s vehicle was not in compliance with a law that requires most vehicles to display a front license plate (a law which numerous vehicles have no easy way of complying with due to the lack of a front mounting surface). As luck would have it, a police officer caught the scent of my (unknowing) failure to comply with said law and pulled me over. As a general rule I wear my seatbelt and, out of interest for their well-being, suggest others should do likewise. It affords a modicum of safety to the generally dangerous activity of driving and is typically of little inconvenience. On this particular occasion, however, I was altogether too hot to be forced into the usual back-to-seat position and, since I was going a short distance at a slow speed, decided not to fasten my seatbelt (a situation I quickly remedied when I saw the officer).

As I passed him I noted two things: first, he was waiting to turn in an area where you cannot legally stop (as a bonus, half of his vehicle was also in traffic, forcing cars to dip into the next lane to get past him) and, secondly, he did not properly signal when he decided to get back into traffic.

To make a long story short, the officer “let me off” of the license plate charge (which is why he pulled me over) but cited me for not wearing my seat belt (which I was wearing even before he pulled me over). After he handed me the ticket book to sign (only to indicate receipt and not guilt, as I made certain), I asked him if he would mind answering a couple of questions. He said that would be fine. I then informed him that I would be videotaping the exchange with my cell phone.

His demeanor changed.

“Why do you need to film me and what are your questions?”, he said with the hint of a snarl. “The questions are short and simple and the video is for your protection as well as mine”, I replied.

“This stop is over”, he said as he quickly retreated to his patrol car.

If you ever begin to put stock in the “they work for us” twaddle bandied about by Average Joe Citizen, remember these three simple words: No. They. Don’t.

Did the officer have a right to walk away from me when I asked to question him? Of course. Every individual has the right of self determination. But WHY did he walk away (and at such a hurried pace to boot)? The answer, of course, is that our exchange was far from voluntary and mutual. At no time did I threaten him with force or use any other method of coercion. On the reverse however, had I decided to simply drive away when he wanted to question me, he would have given chase, pursued me till I had no other choice but to stop, perhaps even used physical means to subdue me.

All this because I decided that, in this particular scenario, not wearing a seatbelt was the most sensible choice.

Allow me to share with you the questions I would have asked the officer, had he turned out to be a “public servant” or perhaps anything other than a coward. First, since the only legitimate role of law is to protect the inalienable rights of individuals, in what way was I infringing on said rights by not wearing my seatbelt? Secondly, by what authority do you detain and serve me with a penalty for not wearing said seatbelt?

I can imagine he would have pointed to the law as his source of authority. But where does the law get its authority? Perhaps “government” would have been his response. And from where does the government gain authority to draft such laws? Why the people, of course. So then my ultimate question: which person, specifically, individually has the authority to force me under penalty of fine and/or arrest to wear a seatbelt?

As I make no claims as a wizard or seer I can only guess what his response would be. However, it would not surprise me in the least if my hypothetical conversation were to end in a way which coincided with that of reality:

“This stop is over.”

Original report here




(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today. Now hosted on Wordpress. If you cannot access it, go to the MIRROR SITE, where posts appear as well as on the primary site. I have reposted the archives (past posts) for Wicked Thoughts HERE or HERE or here

Wanted for contempt of cop

Law enforcement likes “wanted” posters, even in entirely inappropriate circumstances.

I first recognized this a quarter-century ago when I worked as a summer intern for the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office. The DA’s Office had just announced, with great fanfare, a “gotcha poster” program. The concept was this: the public relations department of the DA’s office would produce posters with the pictures of recently convicted miscreants (usually gang members), complete with bold-font description of their crimes of conviction and sentences, capped with stern exhortations to avoid committing crimes. Then someone — presumably someone armed — would put these posters up in gang neighborhoods.

Someone in the DA’s Office believed that this would deter crime. Don’t blame me for that, I was just an intern. I was briefly assigned to draft language for the posters. That responsibility was unceremoniously taken away as a consequence of a fairly disastrous practical joke, in which I left a message for another intern saying that a poster she had created stated that John Doe had been convicted of Penal Code Section 187, murder, when in fact he had only been convicted of City Code Section 187, excessive noise from a lawn mower, and John Doe was suing, and the District attorney wanted to talk to her. She reacted . . . badly. [She was quite attractive. Of course I was interested in her. Behold my interpersonal prowess!]

But law enforcement posters are not all about bragging rights or harebrained deterrence theories or even about informing the public of wanted fugitives. Sometimes, like any law enforcement communication, they offer a window into cops’ attitudes towards the citizens they police.

Take the story of Matthew Swaye and Christina Gonzalez.

Swaye and Gonzalez are concerned about policing in Harlem, where they live. They are particularly concerned about the NYPD’s aggressive stop-and-frisk program, the questing fingers of which are disproportionately felt by New York’s young men of color, and which Radley has frequently discussed here. They take videos of police stopping and frisking their neighbors, and post the videos on a YouTube channel.

How do you suppose that goes over with the cops?

Swaye and Gonzalez learned the answer when they discovered that officers of the 30th Precinct had created a wanted-style poster of them and posted it outside of a public hearing room at the precinct house.

The flyer featured side-by-side mugshots of Matthew Swaye, 35, and his partner Christina Gonzalez, 25, and warned officers to be on guard against them. It was spotted by multiple people, including the couple, when it was taped to a podium outside a public hearing room in the 30th Precinct house last Thursday, where residents met for precinct council meeting.

“Be aware that above subjects are known professional agitators,” read the flyer, which bears the NYPD shield and a seal of the NYPD’s Intelligence Division. It also gave the home address of the couple.

“Above subjects MO is that they video tape officers performing routine stops and post on YouTube,” the sign said. “Subjects purpose is to portray officers in a negative way and too deter officers from conducting there [sic] responsibilities.”

The flyer also listed the name and cellphone number of a Sgt. Nicholson in the 30th Precinct, and implored cops to “not feed into above subjects propaganda.”

The couple took a video of the poster; you can see it here.

I think Jacob Sullum is right in his post about this incident when he writes that the poster can be taken in two ways: the style and publication of the couples’ home address suggests intimidation, while some of the language suggests a warning to police to leave them alone rather than approach them in a manner that will look bad on video. But whatever the intended message, the unintended message about law enforcement’s entitled attitudes is clear.

First, in the face of steadily advancing legal norms protecting citizens’ rights to record cops in the course of their duties, cops continue to do everything they can to portray such recording as dangerous, intrusive, inappropriate, and a signifier of bad citizenship.

Second, cops view concern about constitutional rights as a signifier of bad intent and suspect behavior. Only an agitator would want to document, and challenge, the widespread temporary detention of young men of color in New York City.

Swaye and Gonzalez seem proud to be “agitators.” Clearly our gracious host is proud. I’m proud.

Original report here




(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today. Now hosted on Wordpress. If you cannot access it, go to the MIRROR SITE, where posts appear as well as on the primary site. I have reposted the archives (past posts) for Wicked Thoughts HERE or HERE or here

NYC couple handcuffed, jailed for dancing on subway platform: lawsuit

First smoking, then soda — now there’s no dancing in New York City. Caroline Stern, 55, and her boyfriend George Hess, 54, claim they were handcuffed for having happy feet on the platform of the Columbus Circle subway station — and spent 23 hours in custody as a result.

“I’m a dentist, and I’m 55, and I got arrested for dancing,” Stern told The Post. “It was absolutely ridiculous that this happened." It was nearly midnight when Stern and Hess, a film-industry prop master, headed home last July from Jazz at Lincoln Center’s Midsummer Night’s Swing. As they waited for the train, a musician started playing steel drums on the nearly empty platform and Stern and Hess began to feel the beat.

“We were doing the Charleston,” Stern said. That’s when two police officers approached and pulled a “Footloose.” "They said, ‘What are you doing?’ and we said, ‘We’re dancing,’ ” she recalled. “And they said, ‘You can’t do that on the platform.’ ”

The cops asked for ID, but when Stern could only produce a credit card, the officers ordered the couple to go with them — even though the credit card had the dentist’s picture and signature.

When Hess began trying to film the encounter, things got ugly, Stern said. “We brought out the camera, and that’s when they called backup,” she said. “That’s when eight ninja cops came from out of nowhere.”

Hess was allegedly tackled to the platform floor, and cuffs were slapped on both of them. The initial charge, according to Stern, was disorderly conduct for “impeding the flow of traffic.”

“There was nobody on the platform. There were, like, three people,” she said.

The charges, including resisting arrest, were later dropped. The couple has filed a Manhattan federal court suit against the city for unspecified damages.

“If you are surrounded by good musicians, that’s going to make you want to dance,” Stern said. “The musician who is playing is legal, but . . . we’re illegal?”

The avid hoofers frequently go out on the town to boogie. “When you’re waiting for the subway late at night, there’s not much to do but dance and celebrate life,” she said.

The city Law Department is reviewing the court papers, a spokeswoman said

Original report here




(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today. Now hosted on Wordpress. If you cannot access it, go to the MIRROR SITE, where posts appear as well as on the primary site. I have reposted the archives (past posts) for Wicked Thoughts HERE or HERE or here

Two British female cops arrested 'for abusing train guard while drunk as they tried to get free ride home'

Two drunken women PCs were arrested after allegedly abusing a train guard who would not let them get a free ride home. Passengers watched the off-duty pair grapple with the uniformed official on a packed platform at Euston Station, in Central London.

Bystanders said they were waving their warrant cards at him but he refused to let them board the mid-evening service because they were so drunk.

The Midlands-bound train was held up for 10 minutes as officers from British Transport Police (BTP) were called and took the women away.

One witness, a 46-year-old company managing director, said: ‘I was at the barrier getting my ticket checked when two women came along who were completely paralytic.

‘One collapsed on the floor and her friend pulled her up. I could see them flashing their warrant cards and saying they were police officers.

‘The guard said they could not get on and they started screaming and shouting at him. He tried to walk away and they grabbed him by the shoulders and arms and shook him. ‘They grappled with him and stopped him getting away. Everyone watching from the first class carriage could not believe it.

‘Most people thought he was assaulted by members of the public, but I knew they were police officers. ‘It just seems ridiculous that police are so keen on jumping on other people when they are drunk but they cannot behave themselves in such a public place.’

The incident took place on platform one at Euston Station last Wednesday before the departure of the 9.43pm Wolverhampton service.

One of the women, Islington PC Debra Mackrell, 37, of Milton Keynes, was later charged with common assault. She was commended by her borough commander last year for catching a suicidal woman after she jumped from a window.

Her friend, a 27-year-old PC from Hitchin, Hertfordshire, was arrested on suspicion of being drunk and disorderly and has been released on bail.

All Metropolitan Police officers receive free rail travel on London Tube trains and buses whether they are on or off duty. Officers get free travel to destinations within 70 miles of the capital if they pay the monthly tax liability of either £48 or £96, depending on their salary.

Virgin Trains said the train guard was shaken but not injured by the incident and was able to continue working.

The Metropolitan Police said both officers have been placed on restricted duties away from the frontline.

British Transport Police (BTP) said Mackrell will appear at Westminster Magistrates’ Court on Friday July 20.

Original report here




(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today. Now hosted on Wordpress. If you cannot access it, go to the MIRROR SITE, where posts appear as well as on the primary site. I have reposted the archives (past posts) for Wicked Thoughts HERE or HERE or here

British police chief under investigation for 'influencing inquiry into alleged sex attack'

A chief constable is under investigation for misconduct over claims he meddled in a police inquiry into an alleged sex attack.

Sussex Police Chief Constable Martin Richards has been reported to the police watchdog amid allegations of ‘undue influence’ in a criminal investigation into a sexual assault.

The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) launched a probe after the extraordinary claims were made last month by a member of his staff via an anonymous internal reporting system.

Details of the specific criminal case cannot be reported for legal reasons as it involves a serious sexual assault of a woman which has yet to come to trial.

There is no suggestion that the top policeman is implicated in any way in the case, but he is accused of interfering in the investigation led by his officers.

The officer, who is married with two sons and two stepsons, is one of the most senior officers in Britain. He is the chair of the Association of Chief Police Officers South East Region and the regional lead for Serious and Organised Crime.

Yesterday the IPCC said it was investigating an allegation of misconduct after Sussex Police Authority voluntarily referred the matter last month following consideration by its Professional Standards Committee. But Mr Richards has not been suspended and is continuing to carry out his duties.

In a letter to officers, Mr Richards said the allegation was made by an unidentified member of staff. He wrote: ‘Colleagues, last month the Sussex Police Authority voluntarily referred an allegation against me of misconduct to the Independent Police Complaints Commission.‘

They have launched an independent investigation and I have pledged to cooperate fully personally and to provide any support required from the force to help them establish the facts.

‘While the IPCC investigation is ongoing, my priority is to maintain business as usual and protect the service we provide to the public. ‘The delivery of normal business - including my responsibilities and those of my senior team - will continue as usual.’

The officer, who is regarded as an experienced chief and a ‘safe pair of hands’, is currently having to make £50million cuts, which means the force will have fewer frontline officers than any other police force in the country after scrapping 470 jobs by 2015.

Original report here




(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today. Now hosted on Wordpress. If you cannot access it, go to the MIRROR SITE, where posts appear as well as on the primary site. I have reposted the archives (past posts) for Wicked Thoughts HERE or HERE or here

Chicago man exonerated after 32 years in jail

A Chicago man who spent 32 years behind bars before DNA evidence helped overturn his conviction has been freed.

Andre Davis was wrongly convicted of the rape and murder of a three-year-old girl decades ago.

The Illinois Department of Corrections says 50-year-old left the super-maximum security prison in Tamms in far southern Illinois around 7.30pm on Friday, just hours after the local state's attorney agreed to drop the case against him.

An Illinois appeals court ordered a new trial in March. Tests found that DNA taken from the scene of the 1980 killing of Brianna Stickle in Rantoul was not his.

According to the Centre on Wrongful Convictions at Northwestern University, Mr Davis is among 42 former inmates who have been exonerated by DNA evidence in Illinois - and he served the most time behind bars.

Original report here




(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today. Now hosted on Wordpress. If you cannot access it, go to the MIRROR SITE, where posts appear as well as on the primary site. I have reposted the archives (past posts) for Wicked Thoughts HERE or HERE or here

Perverted Canadian cops

Incidents initially whitewashed

BC Mounties are once again in damage control after graphic images of an officer engaged in violent bondage sex scenes were made public.

"I am personally embarrassed and very disappointed that the RCMP would be, in any way, linked to photos of that nature," BC's acting RCMP commander Randy Beck said in a statement Thursday, adding Mounties are conducting a code-of-conduct investigation.

Beck was responding to explosive photos allegedly showing Coquitlam RCMP Cpl. Jim Brown in various bondage scenes that were at one point posted on the Internet but since removed.

Some of those images obtained by QMI Agency depict a woman tied up, choked and slashed with a machete by a man identified as Brown, who apparently styled himself as the "Kilted Knight." The scenes often appeared to involve simulated torture, with Brown in a dominant position.

Former RCMP consultant Dr. Mike Webster, speaking from his Denman Island, BC, office Thursday, said he'd heard from at least two Mounties who knew about the racy pictures from a website Brown apparently ran nearly two years ago.

"(In one) series of picture, he comes upon a woman on the street. He stalks her, he captures her, he takes her somewhere, it's a private location, he wraps her in cellophane ... he puts his feet on her, he cuts her, she bleeds," Webster said.

The psychologist, who worked with BC Mounties for more than 30 years, said the latest scandal is another severe blow to a force plagued by misconduct complaints in recent months - everything from allegations of sexual harassment to an officer accused of stealing cocaine.

Beck, meantime, explained the Coquitlam detachment commander found the images in December 2010 on a personal flash drive, but the pictures didn't initially meet the "threshold" to be considered a violation of conduct - the images were deemed staged.

It wasn't until March this year that a "code of conduct" investigation was opened when the photos were found on a personal website.

After the images went public Thursday, Beck said an "external" police agency would be asked to independently review the Mounties' code-of-conduct investigation.

Brown has been placed on administrative duties.
The officer had "a very small role" in the investigation of convicted serial killer Robert Pickton, according to the Missing Women Inquiry commissioner Wally Oppal.

"I have instructed commission counsel to gather more information regarding the RCMP investigation into the situation ... with the Department of Justice on this matter," he said in a statement.

Original report here




(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today. Now hosted on Wordpress. If you cannot access it, go to the MIRROR SITE, where posts appear as well as on the primary site. I have reposted the archives (past posts) for Wicked Thoughts HERE or HERE or here

Corrupt British police order coverup

A detective who wrote a damning report on the way colleagues investigated a child's death was ordered to re-write it and remove the criticism, a tribunal heard today. Whistleblower Robert Krykant was told by his boss that he didn't want the force's dirty washing aired in public, it was claimed.

Assistant Chief Constable Andy Taylor - who was last week awarded the Queen's Police Medal - told his detective sergeant there was 'no need to self-flagellate' by publishing criticism of Thames Valley Police in his report.

Details of the alleged 'dumbing down' order were revealed at an employment tribunal where former sergeant Krykant is suing the force for unfair dismissal under Public Interest Disclosure rules.

The 57-year-old said that after writing the damning review lifting the lid on the Major Crime Team's inadequate handling of an investigation into the death of a four-month-old baby boy, he was victimised and harassed by managers.

The former detective sergeant said that as a result of his actions he was pressured to change reports, asked to leave his department and subsequently told to find a new job. Mr Krykant is now suing the force for constructive dismissal as a result of protected disclosures he made.

He said in his witness statement: 'I was restricted in my duties from carrying out my role, without any proper justification, given a Performance Action Plan and had my professional status and judgement seriously undermined with my staff and with colleagues. 'Ultimately, I was left with no option but to resign from a job to which I had successfully devoted 35 years of my life.'

Mr Krykant joined Thames Valley Police in May 1975 and in 2001 became a detective sergeant on the Oxfordshire Child Protection and Sexual Crimes Unit, which is now known as the Child Abuse Investigation Unit. He said in his statement that he gained extensive experience of investigation into matters involving child abuse, neglect and welfare.

In October 2009 he was tasked with reviewing a case involving the death of a four-month-old boy who died after being admitted into hospital with life-threatening head injuries sustained while being shaken by his uncle. At the time a significant concern was raised for the welfare of the child's 15-month-old cousin, who was believed to have been present when the baby was injured.

The tribunal, in Reading, Berkshire, heard it was a statutory requirement to produce an Individual Management Review as part of a multi-agency response after cases involving the death or serious harm to a child to see what lessons could be learned for the future. These reports were expected to be of a high standard of detail and contain critical analysis.

In his report Mr Krykant raised a number of concerns about the police's handling of the baby case. He claimed that his colleagues had failed to check the welfare of the dead boy's 15 month old cousin when they had visited the address to arrest the suspect.

He raised concerns that officers had not responded to phone calls from social workers the following day, trying to establish the whereabouts of the little girl.

Mr Krykant said that there was a lack of information being shared between police and social workers and this resulted in the little girl being left with a possible suspect in the investigation.

The child was left with the suspect's partner who had been alone with the dead boy just 40 minutes before he collapsed.

He also claimed that false information about the suspect's mobile phone was given on oath by an officer to obtain search and arrest warrants. As a result Mr Krykant concluded that the police safeguarding response to the dead boy's cousin was 'inadequate'.

'Although the failure to carry out the welfare check did not show Thames Valley Police in a good light, I saw it as an ideal opportunity for organisational learning, particularly as I had found evidence of widespread attitude by officers who were not just unaware of their responsibilities of child protection but were also in denial of them,' said the statement.

A draft of the report was sent to Acting Assistant Chief Constable Taylor who responded in an email that it included 'a fair amount of public airing of our dirty washing' and that there was no 'need to self-flagellate'. Mr Krykant was later told that the senior officer was furious because the review accused the force of being inadequate and showed it in a bad light.

The report was then changed to suggest that the necessary welfare checks were carried out but just not recorded. The amended version also criticised social workers which Mr Krykant felt was unfair and unjust.

In May 2010 the former detective sergeant completed a 'wrong-doing report' raising concerns about the health and safety of the surviving child and breaches of various legal obligations by Detective Superintendent Karen Trego and the Major Crime Team.

He later received a shock response asking: 'What on earth is all this about, you may have caused a critical incident?'

When Mr Krykant returned from a family holiday in June 2010 he found a professional standards officer at his desk. His work was examined to see if he had performance or misconduct issues and was informed that he had made his own current position untenable.

The continual questioning and undermining of Mr Krykant's judgement left his confidence extremely low, he said in his statement. 'The amount of stress and bullying I received after I submitted the 'wrong doing' report was very shocking to me and my family.

'I have been at the forefront of policing for my whole career and "policed" countless very difficult and disturbing crimes, disasters and accidents but nothing has been shocking and difficult as this experience.

'I received no support from anyone in the organisation and was treated contrary to Thames Valley Police's own policies, leaving my confidence very low and me feeling isolated.'

He resigned from his position at Thames Valley Police on January 31, 2011, and is suing the force for being constructively dismissed as a result of protected disclosures he made.

The hearing, before employment judge Jessica Hill, is expected to last for 10 days at the Employment Tribunal Centre in Reading, Berkshire.

Original report here




(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today. Now hosted on Wordpress. If you cannot access it, go to the MIRROR SITE, where posts appear as well as on the primary site. I have reposted the archives (past posts) for Wicked Thoughts HERE or HERE or here

Thug British cop mistreats frail elderly man

The frail elderly are treated like objects by official Britain

A frail 84-year-old Alzheimer's sufferer was put in handcuffs because a policeman "feared for his own safety". Alan Bailey became confused and frightened when health workers made a decision, without his family present, to put him in hospital.
Terrified and alone, he was then strapped into a stretcher and handcuffed.

The degrading treatment was yesterday described by his family and experts as 'inhumane' and 'unforgivable' and they say the stress of the incident may even have contributed to his death the following month.

At Mr Bailey's inquest on Monday, coroner John Pollard attacked PC Alan Twentyman for his heavy-handed approach, telling him: 'This is totally ridiculous, officer, it beggars belief. Mr Bailey was an elderly, frail and frightened man with little understanding of the world around him and what would happen to him.'

The nightmare for the retired design engineer began in March last year at his home in Cheadle Hulme, Greater Manchester. At the time, Mr Bailey's wife, Mary, was in a care home and he lived alone. She has now died.

Mr Bailey received regular care from local health workers but they decided his condition had deteriorated to the point where he needed to be sectioned [sent to a mental hospital]

His daughter, Sandra Coombes, 52, a local trading standards officer, had been due to accompany her father to hospital but the meeting was moved forward by 24 hours and Mrs Coombes was unable to attend.

Health workers went ahead with their decision to send Mr Bailey to hospital without Mrs Coombes present. Instead, he was left in the hands of medical staff he did not know increasing his fear and agitation. Once inside the back of the ambulance he was strapped to a stretcher causing him more distress.

As Mr Bailey attempted to free himself, the officer on board handcuffed him claiming he feared for his safety, the medical staff on board and members of the public.

Mr Bailey was taken to Tameside General, Manchester, on March 3 last year where he stayed for six days before being transferred to the Meadows Hospital in Stockport where he suffered a fall. He eventually died in April last year.

An inquest was required because he fell at the hospital.

At the inquest, Mr Pollard added the decisioon to section Mr Bailey without his daughter, Sandra Coombes, being present was 'ill considered'. He said he would write to the chief constable over the training of officers in dealing with mental health patients, in particular in the use of handcuffs.

Speaking after the inquest at Stockport Coroners court where a verdict of accidental death was recorded, Mr Bailey's daugter said the way in which her father was treated was 'deplorable'.

Mrs Coombes said:'I believe his death was partly down to the stress of what happened. Not only the excessive use of force, but to send a policeman to accompany him was unbelievable.

'When I went to see him in hospital he was black and blue. I couldn't believe the state of him and he couldn't tell me what had happened. He was approaching 85 and only weighed around seven stone.

'I'm really angry about the whole situation. The manner in which the mental health workers and the police came in showed no consideration for him or me. 'They kept saying it was for his own well-being but they caused him so much distress and anxiety by removing him from his home of 62 years.'

Mrs Coombes said: 'There was no need to handcuff him. My dad was so frail. Why on earth did they handcuff him? To send a policeman to accompany him was unbelievable. 'The way my father was treated was inhumane and I will stand by that for the rest of my life. It's been deplorable from the minute the mental health people started dealing with my dad. I will never ever forgive them for what happened.'

Detective Chief Inspector Koran Sellars, of Greater Manchester Police, said: 'Handcuffs were used to prevent Mr Bailey harming himself, the police officer, medical staff in the ambulance and members of the public on the road.

'Due to Mr Bailey's demeanour and age, attempts at physically restraining him may have led to Mr Bailey sustaining serious injuries, therefore handcuffs were deemed the safest and most reasonable option in the circumstances.'

But yesterday Sir Peter Fahy, Chief Constable of the force, admitted a police officer should never have been present to restrain Mr Bailey describing what happened as 'inappropriate.'

Ian Weatherhead, of Dementia UK, said: 'The moving forward of a meeting by health workers which in effect excluded Mr Bailey's daughter would suggest this was a serious contributing factor to the appalling treatment he was subjected to. Family members need to be involved and listened to at all times.

'The tragic story regarding Mr Bailey and his family shows that there is still continuing widespread lack of education and understanding around dementia. 'It also highlights a number of mistakes, not just in the totally inappropriate handcuffing by the police.'

Joyce Robins, of Patient Concern, said: 'This is absolutely disgraceful. I can't imagine how this happened. 'People with Alzheimer's need calming down and they need to have people they know around them. I can't understand why they didn't wait for the daughter to get home. Anybody would have got into a panic if they were suddenly handcuffed, least of all someone with Alzheimer's.'

Henry Ticehurst, medical director for Pennine Care said: 'Arrangements were in place to assess Mr Bailey with his daughter present but due to a rapid deterioration in his health, the assessment was conducted earlier to prevent further harm.

'The Meadows is a specialist mental health unit providing care and treatment for older people suffering with mental health issues and as such, was an appropriate place for Mr Bailey to receive the care he needed.'

Earlier this year police were condemned after they fired tasers at terrified Alzheimer's sufferer, Peter Russell, 58, who struggled when he was being taken to hospital.

Six officers were called and to his Lincolnshire home and he was shot with several taser stun rounds, before being manhandled to the floor.

Original report here




(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today. Now hosted on Wordpress. If you cannot access it, go to the MIRROR SITE, where posts appear as well as on the primary site. I have reposted the archives (past posts) for Wicked Thoughts HERE or HERE or here

Police misbehavior as the police see it



Larger version here




(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today. Now hosted on Wordpress. If you cannot access it, go to the MIRROR SITE, where posts appear as well as on the primary site. I have reposted the archives (past posts) for Wicked Thoughts HERE or HERE or here

Sexual predators in the British police are abusing power to target victims, investigation warns

Sexual predators among the police are abusing their power to rape, sexually assault and harass the victims of crime they are supposed to be helping, it has emerged.

There have been more than 50 cases in four years of officers who were either found to have abused their position to rape, sexually assault of harass women or were investigated over such claims.

But campaigners warn that the scale of the problem is largely hidden, with no official statistics kept and few details released about internal disciplinary action relating to such cases.

An investigation by the Guardian analysed the data available, including court cases and misconduct proceedings, in an attempt to estimate the scale of sexual corruption with the police.

It found that officers have been convicted or disciplined for crimes ranging from rape and sexual assault to misconduct in public office relating to inappropriate sexual behaviour with vulnerable women they have met while on duty.

Other officers are awaiting trial for alleged offences, though many are never formally charged and are dealt with through the force's own internal disciplinary procedures.

The investigation, to be concluded by November, was prompted by the case of Stephen Mitchell, a constable with Northumbria police who was last year jailed last year for raping women while on duty.

Mitchell, 43, assaulted drug addicts in the cells and interview rooms of a city-centre police station, knowing that if they complained they were unlikely to be believed.

Questions have been raised about the efficacy of vetting for police recruits after it emerged his bosses were unaware Mitchell had already stood trial for sex offences before joining the force.

Those targeted by police officers are mostly women, but in some terrible cases complaints have come from children and young people.

Many of the complaints have come from female officers, amid claims that there is a pervasive culture of sexism within the police force where abusive behaviour is allowed to carry on unchecked.

In many cases, officers used the police national computer to track down vulnerable women and young people and bombard them with phone calls and texts in an attempt to initiate sexual contact.

Debaleena Dasgupta, a lawyer who has worked with women sexually assaulted and raped by policemen, told the Guardian the victims she works with are among the most damaged victims of sex crimes.

'The damage is far deeper because they trusted the police and ... believed that the police were supposed to protect them from harm and help catch and punish those who perpetrate it.

'The breach of that trust has an enormous effect: they feel that if they can't trust a police officer, who can they trust?'

The police officers involved in sexual misconduct are drawn from all ranks, with the most senior example being a deputy chief constable who was subject to 26 complaints from 13 colleagues.

Deputy Chief Constable David Ainsworth, from Wiltshire Police, hanged himself in his garage fearing he would 'lose everything' because of the misconduct inquiry.

In another case, a detective sergeant was jailed for eight years after he broke into the home of a woman he had met on a date and raped her while her child lay sleeping in a nearby room.

Trevor Gray attacked the 43-year-old woman after the pair had been out for drinks in Nottingham city centre that night, after meeting through mutual friends.

The Guardian's research into police officers abusing their authority to commit sex crimes is the first attempt to investigate the scale of the problem which has long been susptected anecdotally.

The 56 cases documented by the paper happened between 2008 and 2012 and involve 25 forces, 48 officers from the rank of constable up to deputy chief constable, five police community support officers, one special constable, one civilian police officer and one member of police staff.

Cases included abuse of position to commit rape, sexual assault, harassment, grooming, and inappropriate relationships with vulnerable women and young girls. Some are still awaiting trial over alleged offences.

Perhaps the worst case involved Constable Stephen Mitchell of Northumbria Police, who was jailed for life in November last year for raping and sexually assaulting women he met on duty.

Ten victims of Mitchell are now seeking compensation from the force, which has already paid out £31,500 to some of the women and is still considering other claims.

One of Mitchell's victims a 19-year-old drug addict when he first struck, estimated she had been abused 100 times as he kept track of her using the police computer.

Yet his colleagues ignored a series of warnings about his behaviour – some of them from his own wife. They were unaware that he had already stood trial for sex offences before he was recruited to the force.

He was eventually sacked in 2007 for having ‘consensual’ sex with one of his victims, only to be reinstated on appeal eight months later.

And when he was finally stopped, a senior detective with Northumbria Police offered him ‘a get out of jail free card’ if he agreed to resign. He refused, opting to take his chances in court.

Mitchell – a tall, muscular former soldier – was found guilty of two rapes, three indecent assaults and six charges of misconduct in a public office, involving a total of seven women.

He was cleared of three further rape charges, two indecent assaults and counts of misconduct involving another nine women. But police suspect he attacked at least a further 14.

In another, similar case Derbyshire Police Constable Jasbir Dhanda was jailed for two-and-a-half years in January for having sex with a prostitute while on duty in return for not arresting her.

Dhanda, 52, regularly turned up at the woman’s house in uniform and demanded sex in return for not executing a warrant on her. He also targeted two other vulnerable women, one a crime victim, by using a police computer to access their details.

The IPCC, the police watchdog, last month published a report on police corruption which identified abuse of authority by officers for personal gain, including engaging in sexual intercourse with women while on duty, as one of the five key corruption threats to effective policing.

Another threat identified was the use of police computer systems to access details of vulnerable females.

The watchdog's figures show that 15 per cent of the 837 corruption cases they investigated between 2008 and 2011 involved abuse of authority by an officer, while 9 per cent involved misuse of databases.

One area the IPCC must examine is whether there have been vetting failures during a massive surge in police recruitment from 2001 onwards. The overall manpower of the service grew by more than 16,000 between 2001 and 2007.

In the case of Mitchell, the rapist constable had been investigated in 1991 over the alleged attempted rape of two men and sexual assault of a third while he was serving in the Armed Forces. Military police questioned him but the case went no further after he claimed that it was nothing more than ‘horseplay’.

In 1997, following a complaint from one of the alleged victims in the Army sex case, he stood trial in Edinburgh only for it to collapse when two witnesses refused to give evidence.

Even so, the allegations alone should have been enough to end his police career before it had begun – but thanks to an extraordinary oversight, details were not recorded on the police intelligence database. If they had been, it is almost certain there would have been enough doubt about his character to stop his recruitment by the Northumbria force.

A study of vetting within the police service by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary six years ago revealed 'disturbing' failures that had allowed suspect individuals to become police officers.

While many sexual predators target vulnerable women they meet while on duty, often their victims are among their own colleagues inside the police station, strengthening the culture of impunity surrounding sexist, exploitative behaviour.

Professor Jennifer Brown of the Mannheim centre for criminology at the London School of Economics carried out a survey 19 years ago which revealed 800 policewomen had claimed to have suffered rape of sexual assaults at the hands of male colleagues. The Home Office never published the results of the research.

Inspector Kate Pain, the Police Federation chair for Wiltshire police, where Deputy Chief Constable David Ainsworth received his 26 complaints before committing suicide last year, said the sexist culture within the force discouraged many women from speaking out.

'The police force is still male-dominated and it is very difficult for people to come forward to challenge poor behaviour and performance because they are worried about promotion to the next rank, they are worried about not being supported by their boss and they are worried about being isolated,' she told the Guardian.

Deputy Chief Constable Bernard Lawson of Merseyside police, Acpo's lead on counter-corruption, who is working with the IPCC on the joint report, told the Guardian abuses of power were having an 'incredibly damaging impact' on public trust in the force.

'There is a determination throughout policing to identify and remove those who betray the reputation of the overwhelming majority of officers,' he said.

Original report here




(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today. Now hosted on Wordpress. If you cannot access it, go to the MIRROR SITE, where posts appear as well as on the primary site. I have reposted the archives (past posts) for Wicked Thoughts HERE or HERE or here

Arlington family files wrongful death suit after ATF raid

The morning he was killed, Harry Wilson Aguilar Sr. stood in the kitchen of an Arlington apartment making school lunches for his grandchildren.

Outside the apartment, about 6:30 a.m., agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the FBI and other law officers were lined up in tactical formation.

The ATF and FBI agents broke open the front door. A federal lawsuit filed in Fort Worth says an unidentified ATF agent was standing at the doorway or just outside when he fatally shot the 55-year-old father of three adult children in the neck without provocation.

"They just broke down the door and they shot," said his widow, Margarita Aguilar. He died on the way to the hospital.

Harry Aguilar, a house painter, was unarmed, did not pose a threat or imminent danger to the agents and didn't hinder the agents from entering the apartment, the lawsuit, filed by Aguilar's family, contends. Aguilar's son was the subject of the search warrant.

The lawsuit, filed Feb. 3 in U.S. District Court, accuses the agent of shooting Aguilar immediately.

Danny Burns of Fort Worth, one of the attorneys representing the family, said the ATF may say the agents believed that Aguilar had a weapon. A search of the apartment found no firearms, illegal drugs or drug paraphernalia but did discover an air pistol, a gun magazine and a bullet, according to the testimony of a Fort Worth FBI agent in the case involving Aguilar's son.

The government has not filed an answer to the lawsuit, though a footnote to the court motion says the "United States disputes much of the basis for [the family's] complaint, such as whether Aguilar Sr. complied with verbal orders of the ATF agent and whether Aguilar Sr. made threatening motions toward the ATF agent"

An ATF agent referred questions about the case to the U.S. Attorney Sarah R. Saldaña's office. Her spokeswoman said the office wouldn't comment on the pending litigation.

After the October 2008 raid, the ATF said it was investigating internally. No one would comment on the results.

The shooting was investigated by the Arlington Police Department and forwarded to the Tarrant County district attorney's office for review. A police spokeswoman said she did not know what recommended charge, if any, was forwarded to prosecutors.

Melody McDonald, a spokeswoman for the district attorney, said the case was presented to a grand jury in March 2009 and the panel "decided to take no action."

McDonald said she could not provide additional information, such as the agent's name, because the matter was sent by referral by a police agency. "He was not charged with a crime, and his name and the details are not public record," she said.

Agents were searching the apartment in relation to Aguilar's son, Harry Aguilar Jr., who court records say is a drug dealer, convicted murderer and member of the Texas Syndicate prison gang. the younger Aguilar, known as "Charlie Brown," was part of a sweep of syndicate members in the Fort Worth area.

ATF has been under scrutiny for what some have condemned as shameful abuses related to its Fast and Furious operation to monitor gun trafficking to Mexico.

But the agency has also recently suffered other black eyes for blunders.

On the evening of June 13 in Rochester, N.Y., Nancy Dominicos was at home texting on her cellphone when agents entered with guns pointed at her. Agents said they had a federal warrant to search the home for narcotics.

Dominicos, 59, said there was one glaring problem with the raid: Agents had the wrong house. The house that agents had apparently been watching for a year was a couple of doors down and a different color, she said. The suspect was also a different race from Dominicos.

Dominicos asked how law officers could make such a mistake. She said she was told, "Well, it's dark and the guys are amped up."

Dominicos said she hasn't had a public apology. "If they can do that to me, they can do that to anybody," she said. "There is no accountability whatsoever."

But Douglas Leahey of Georgia, a retired senior ATF special agent and a former instructor at the Federal Enforcement Training Center in Georgia, said agents are dealing with the unknown when searching a home and have to take precautions, as was the case in New York.

"Mistakes happen. It's terribly embarrassing," he said. He added that agents "strive not to do that. It doesn't look good on the old annual evaluation."

Leahey said that without more details in Aguilar's shooting death in Arlington, he couldn't make an informed comment. But he said that when he served search warrants, "You never know what's behind the door."

Leahey noted that sometimes police officers lose their lives just seeking to arrest someone for a misdemeanor offense. Officers "are shot and killed for what seem like mundane little things," he said.

The Aguilars' lawsuit seeks up to $2 million, which includes funeral expenses, according to court documents. A judge ruled June 25 that the case would proceed, rejecting a government motion to dismiss it based on technicalities in the way the family made its claims.

Original report here




(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today. Now hosted on Wordpress. If you cannot access it, go to the MIRROR SITE, where posts appear as well as on the primary site. I have reposted the archives (past posts) for Wicked Thoughts HERE or HERE or here

Australian bus passenger Tasered for not showing his ticket quickly enough

So he's suing the lying SOB's

A golf day ended in the rough for Michael Lindsay. A few beers at hole 19 and a bus ride to his Freshwater home went from a 26th birthday celebration to being wrongfully arrested and shot with a Taser by police.

Mr Lindsay's first mistake on May 27 last year was not producing his ticket fast enough for inspecting transit officers at Dee Why terminal at 7pm. The second, as he searched for his errant pass, was making a wisecrack that the four officers were a waste of taxpayers' money.

One of the officers got upset about the jibe, and the builder apologised for being a "smart-arse". But his mea culpa was not enough and the officer called northern beaches police.

Three police officers boarded the bus and ordered Mr Lindsay off. When he got off the bus and went to walk away from police - shocked at how a joke could go so wrong (his third mistake) - things got much worse and potentially fatal.

The officer in charge, Constable Ryan Godfrey, drew his Taser and sent 50,000 volts into Mr Lindsay's lower back. An ambulance was called and police charged Mr Lindsay with offensive language, resisting arrest and assaulting police.

But then police would go on tell a court their version of events.

Under cross examination at the Downing Centre Local Court on March 12, Constable Godfrey repeatedly said Mr Lindsay had and been "loud and aggressive" towards officers on the bus.

He told the court that when Mr Lindsay was asked to leave the bus, "He's replied with words similar to, 'This is f---ed, it takes f---ing four of you c---s to do this, this is f---ed."'

Constable Godfrey then described a struggle on the footpath outside the bus when trying to handcuff Mr Lindsay. "That was proving rather difficult. As I said, he's of large stature. He was overpowering us."

He then fired his Taser into Mr Lindsay's lower back.

"After further police arrived to assist us, Constable [Sam] Parkinson approached me and said that he'd been assaulted by Mr Lindsay. He said he was elbowed in the face."

When Mr Lindsay's barrister, Greg Jones, asked Constable Godfrey if in fact his client had been polite and on the bus used the expressions "please" and "excuse me", he replied, "I don't recall that."

Constable Parkinson and Constable Christopher Gould along with four transit officers all corroborated Constable Godfrey's story that Mr Lindsay was "loud and aggressive", intoxicated and using "f--- and c---" towards officers. The court was then shown a passenger's mobile phone footage of what happened on the bus.

The footage, which will be central to Mr Lindsay's upcoming District Court case for wrongful arrest, false imprisonment, assault and malicious prosecution, tells a different story.

Indeed, it shows Mr Lindsay repeatedly using the phrases "please" and "excuse me" when addressing officers. At no point does he swear. A bus passenger is heard warning him not to swear at police, while another is heard saying to the police that Mr Lindsay had apologised to the transit officer. Mr Lindsay is seen getting off the bus without any aggression towards the police.

After the footage was shown to the court, the police prosecutor, Sergeant Grant Bucknell, immediately withdrew all the charges.

When quizzed by the court about the sudden change of heart, Sergeant Bucknell said that when Mr Lindsay was arrested, "police officers had not heard [him] using offensive language". Rather, Constable Godfrey had "reconstructed what was heard from what he was told by the transit officers".

The magistrate, Lee Gilmour, warned Sergeant Bucknell "to stop mucking around". "I want to stop you for a moment before you say anything else because I don't think it would be fair to place you in a situation of complicity in relation to trying to argue something that clearly was a lie and that's what you're doing."

Sergeant Bucknell responded: "I have nothing further to say."

Ms Gilmour said the proceedings were based on "bad faith" because Constable Godfrey lied under oath. She awarded $12,000 in costs to Mr Lindsay. "The problem for the prosecution in this case is that … clearly, unfortunately, this officer has lied both as to what he said occurred and the basis upon which he [Mr Lindsay] was asked to move off the bus; there does not seem to be any lawful basis upon which he was," Ms Gilmour said.

Despite Constable Godfrey repeatedly saying Mr Lindsay swore, the magistrate found the police had not heard any offensive language.

"The bus driver is clearly seen in some of the evidence before the court. He was not interviewed; nor was anybody independent of the transit police officers and that would seem to me, in these circumstances, to have been a deliberate omission," she said.

According to NSW police policy, Tasers are only to be used in "high-risk" cases to protect life, or when there is violent confrontation or an officer is being overpowered.

NSW police have begun an internal investigation of Constable Godfrey's actions, as is standard procedure for failed police prosecutions. "It has now been referred to the Professional Standards Command for investigation and will be oversighted by the NSW Ombudsman," police said.

Original report here




(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today. Now hosted on Wordpress. If you cannot access it, go to the MIRROR SITE, where posts appear as well as on the primary site. I have reposted the archives (past posts) for Wicked Thoughts HERE or HERE or here