Student is quizzed for eight hours by British police and charged with fraud after headphones he sold on eBay for £140 got lost in the mail

Presumption of innocence? Fuggedaboudit!

A medical student was arrested and held for eight hours, had his fingerprints and DNA taken and his laptop and mobile phone seized – because a pair of £140 headphones he sold on eBay went missing in the post.

Faris Quayum, 24, spent seven weeks living in fear that a conviction would mean the end of his medical career before prosecutors dropped the case at the first court hearing.

Yesterday, Mr Quayum accused the police and prosecutors of a 'scandalous waste of resources' and said he planned to sue Derbyshire Police over his ordeal.

'It was very stressful — a conviction could have spelled the end of my medical career before it has even begun. I have no previous convictions and I find it incredible how much money and resources have been wasted on this case – with Lancashire and Derbyshire police involved, plus my £1,500 legal fees, paid for out of legal aid because I am a student.

'Why would I risk my five-year university course – which costs me around £8,000 a year in accommodation alone – to make just £140? Why would I try to con someone? 'The whole affair is ridiculous. I feel like the victim and I plan to sue the police for what they did.'

Mr Quayum's ordeal began last May when he sold the Beats by Dr Dre headphones to a buyer from Lancashire.

The customer later told him they had not arrived and Mr Quayum, who is studying at St George's, University of London, offered a refund 'three or four times', on the understanding that he would be able to claim the value of the lost item back from Royal Mail himself.

He did not, however, alert the Royal Mail. The buyer refused to accept the offer and two months later two police officers arrived at Mr Quayum's family home in Littleover, Derby, where he was revising for exams.

He said they urged him to 'admit what you have done' and that the matter could be resolved by paying back the buyer. Mr Quayum refused and was charged with fraud. His bank statements were seized along with his phone and computer.

He said: 'Police knocked on my door and told me the matter would be quickly dealt with if I just admitted I'd taken the money and not sent the goods.

'The buyer specifically declined the option of paying an extra £15 to have the headphones sent by special delivery because he only wanted to pay £5 for normal postage.

'I've sold hundreds of items in the past through eBay and never had a problem. I've never ripped anyone off in my life.'

Mr Quayum's ordeal only ended on September 10, when he arrived at Derby magistrates' court to be told that witnesses had declined to make a statement and that prosecutors considered the incident a civil rather than a criminal matter. However, his laptop – containing his coursework – and other belongings were not returned for another five weeks.

A CPS spokesman said: 'Following a review, it was decided that there was no longer a realistic prospect of a conviction.'

An eBay spokesman said it worked with law enforcement agencies when necessary.

Royal Mail spokesman James Eadie said: 'We would always encourage anyone sending items of value, or where confirmation of delivery is required, to use the appropriate tracked service.'

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 Keystone Kop Tasers blind man

A "terrified" blind man has been hit with a 50,000 volt Taser gun after UK police mistook his white stick for a Samurai sword.

Stroke victim Colin Farmer, 61, collapsed to the ground in shock after he was hit in the back with the gun while walking down the street in Chorley, Lancashire.

Police had received reports of a man walking through the town armed with the deadly martial arts weapon and raced to the scene to hunt down the offender.

Meanwhile Mr Farmer, who has suffered two strokes and walks at a "snail's pace", was on his way to the pub to meet friends for a drink and did not realise anything was afoot.

He had no idea a police officer had mistaken his thin white stick for a machete and ordered him to stop before pulling the trigger on the Taser gun.

Mr Farmer cried out, "I'm blind! I'm blind!" while collapsed on the floor but was still handcuffed by the officer from Lancashire Police.

"The whole thing was like being trapped in a nightmare," he told the Chorley Guardian.

Mr Farmer said he heard shouting on the street but did not know what it was about and thought he was about to be "attacked by some hooligans".

He was then struck by the Taser and fell to the ground, dropping his white stick on the floor before a policeman handcuffed him.

He was taken to Chorley Hospital for treatment and was later released following the incident at about 5.45pm last Friday.

Chief Superintendent Stuart Williams, from Lancashire Police, said: "We received a number of reports that a man was walking through Chorley armed with a Samurai sword and patrols were sent to look for the man.

"One of the officers believed he had located the offender. Despite asking the man to stop, he failed to do so and the officer discharged his Taser.

"It then became apparent this man was not the person we were looking for and officers attended to him straight away.

"Lancashire Constabulary deeply regrets what has happened. We have clearly put this man through a traumatic experience and we are extremely sorry.

"We have launched an urgent investigation to understand what lessons can be learned and the matter has also been referred to the Independent Police Complaints Commission."

Mr Farmer is reportedly considering legal action against the force.

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

The Justice System’s Imprisonment of Innocent Citizens

It is frequently said that a civilized people would rather let ten guilty men go free than put one innocent person in prison. I would revise the ratio, myself, yet we are starting to get a glimpse into just how often innocent people are convicted in this country.

Damon Thibodeaux is the 300th convict exonerated through DNA evidence. He is an innocent man who was threatened and intimidated into giving a false confession that never withstood a cursory comparison to the facts. Not only was he innocent, but one of the crimes to which he confessed—sexual abuse—appears never to have happened to the murder victim.

These releases have blown a hole in the myth that the justice system almost never damns the innocent. Some would suggest that the return of these individuals’ freedom shows the system is working—yet for years they have been deprived of their birthright of liberty, and rarely ever receive restitution . Moreover, many more remain imprisoned and are likely never to be released.

Thibodeaux’s ordeal reminds us that even when the facts appear to clearly prove the prosecution’s case, behind-the-scenes criminal justice shenanigans often obscure the picture seen by jurors. The Washington Post reports that among exonerations in the last five years, “as many as a quarter of the cases involved a false confession.” This might shock Americans who have never learned about the way police interrogators can psychologically manipulate suspects, breaking them down hour by hour, until the suspects no longer have any conception of reality or identity.

Research out of the University of Michigan indicates a 2.5 percent to 4 percent error rate in capital cases. And in June, “researchers examining biological evidence from hundreds of Virginia rape convictions between 1973 and 1987 determined that new DNA testing appeared to exonerate convicted defendants in 8 percent to 15 percent of cases.”

This means that for the 140,000 on death row or serving life imprisonment alone, “many thousands of innocent individuals could be in prison for crimes they didn’t commit.” In some categories of offenses, it would seem the U.S. is getting awfully close to an error rate that would mean letting everyone out of prison would satisfy the moral standard that imprisoning an innocent person is worse than letting ten guilty people go. This sounds crazy, but that is the degree of injustice our system has wrought.

Unfortunately, most innocent people will probably never be released, since the vast majority of cases resulting in DNA-based exoneration involve rape where there is DNA evidence to test. There are many more cases in which confessions and eyewitness testimony—two notoriously unreliable forms of proof—are the main ways prosecutors secure convictions. Compounded by the highly problematic reliance on plea bargains, and we see how things can get so awful.

It is almost a certainty that thousands of innocent Americans are behind bars, potentially subject to brutal conditions, violence, and very often rape. This of course does not even touch on those who are punished for peaceful acts that should not be crimes in a free society—like drug or gun ownership or illegal immigration—nor does it take account of the many property criminals who would be more humanely and justly handled through restitution to their victims rather than imprisonment; nor does it consider the hundreds of thousands imprisoned on petty parole and probation violations where no one was actually hurt. Maybe if the criminal justice system were only focused on violent crime, it could better ensure that fewer innocents were locked up, but even this would require eternal vigilance on the part of the people.

Despite the criminal justice system comprising one outrageous injustice mounted atop another, this gets very little attention in mainstream discourse. Why?

Perhaps it is because this reality poses a major inconvenience for the dominant forms of modern political ideology. The progressives believe government is more humane and efficient than the market, and if a system of checks and balances, due process protections, and unanimous jury verdicts has failed so utterly in protecting the rights of the innocent, it only demonstrates why we might not trust it with running education, protecting the environment, or guaranteeing health care to all. Modern conservatives, on the other hand, believe that, while government deserves suspicion in the areas of welfare and regulation, the criminal justice system is a proper role of government and that liberal criticisms have served to coddle criminals and weaken the state’s ability to protect the people from crime. Thus, they trust government with the unparalleled powers of execution and imprisonment where they would distrust it to run the economy or care for the needy. Yet on all fronts, government deserves much less trust, not more.

It is no wonder that almost any other issue is more likely to be discussed in the national debates than the horrible state of our criminal justice system. Countless innocent people are being abused and have had their lives stolen from them by overzealous prosecutors and police, biased judges, and jurors willing to give the state the benefit of the doubt. This one of the greatest injustices in modern American life and exposes the immoralities in pro-government ideologies that have come to dominate modern politics.

So long as this is the system we have, jurors concerned with actual justice need to become far more vigilant. The presumption of evidence means that prosecutors and police should not be given the benefit of the doubt, as they typically are. Independent Institute Senior Fellow Robert Higgs’s rule of thumb is: “whenever any government functionary, especially one connected with the so-called criminal justice system, makes a statement, presume that it is a lie. It may not be, of course, but unless overwhelming independent evidence is adduced in support of it, the odds are that it is a lie.”

This might seem cynical, but that is the proper attitude with which to approach the legal system. Only a principled skepticism can possibly keep the system functioning anywhere close to the ideal, where people are treated as innocent until proven guilty.

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

Bungling British Fraud investigators

Bungling is British

Flamboyant property tycoons Robert and Vincent Tchenguiz could sue the Serious Fraud Office for £100million following the collapse of Britain’s biggest-ever fraud inquiry.

The brothers – who were arrested as they prepared to stage a champagne party on their yacht in Cannes – were questioned as part of an investigation into the collapse of Icelandic bank Kaupthing.

However, the inquiry quickly became bogged down in legal disputes which exposed procedural blunders by SFO officials.

Yesterday, in a humiliating climbdown, the agency dropped its inquiry into Robert, 52, just four months after ending its case against his 55-year-old brother.

Now Robert is threatening to join Vincent, who has issued a £100 million ‘letter before action’ over compensation. The claim would almost certainly break the agency, which faces questions over its future and ability to handle the most complex cases.

The brothers – who are said to have had a combined wealth of £4billion before the 2008 banking crisis – are renowned for their playboy lifestyle.

They bought their first property – a £47,000 one-bedroom flat in London’s Marble Arch in 1979 – after their father, the Shah of Iran’s former jeweller, gave them £1million with which to go into business. Just six months later, they had sold it for £73,000.

Before long, the brothers were major London landlords, renting out flats to students and tourists. Soon after, they founded their company, Rotch. The pair have continued to live a jet-set lifestyle. In 2010, despite reports that he lost £1billion in just 24 hours in the collapse of the Icelandic banks, Robert had allegedly commissioned a 200ft yacht.

In a statement yesterday, SFO director David Green said he has discontinued the investigation because there is ‘insufficient evidence to justify its continuation’.

The SFO moved in during a probe into the collapse of Kaupthing, one of three Icelandic banks which failed in October 2008.

The fraud inquiry was one of the biggest-ever seen in Britain, with a senior Tory donor, at least one multi-millionaire and a leading luxury property developer all being dragged into the net. They are now not under suspicion. At one point, investigators even considered sending undercover officers into the Mayfair nightclub Annabel’s to gather evidence.

The Iranian brothers, who once owned 1 per cent of all British residential property, were arrested in March last year after questions were raised over the circumstances in which they secured huge cash loans against their property portfolios while also being depositors. The close links between the bank and one of its major investors was key to a 2,300 page report ordered by the Icelandic parliament.

In July, the High Court set aside warrants against both Tchenguizes, after finding that they had been unlawfully obtained. A month later it ruled the agency had acted unlawfully and unfairly in its search of the Tchenguizes properties.

In a damning verdict two judges questioned whether the SFO was adequately funded and accused it of being incompetent.

Earlier this year it also emerged that the SFO had secretly offered to accept a £50million payment to charity from Robert in return for closing its investigation.

The climbdown is another setback for the organisation following a series of high-profile failures.

In 2006 the SFO caved into pressure by halting the investigation of alleged corruption at BAE Systems. Its cases against employees of DIY chain Wickes and Durex maker SSL also collapsed.

In a statement, Robert Tchenguiz said he ‘welcomed the decision by the SFO to clear him formally of any wrongdoing in the collapse of Kaupthing Bank’. He added: ‘I look forward to closing this chapter and getting on with business.’

An SFO spokesman insisted a closed case was not a failed case. He added: ‘It would be unrealistic to expect every investigation to lead to a prosecution.’

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

Three freed under an Alford plea now aiming for complete exoneration

Alford pleas are just ass-covering for the authorities

It was a case that stunned the nation including, it would seem, Johnny Depp. Few failed to be gripped by the gruesome tale of three eight-year-old boy scouts, killed in Arkansas almost 20 years ago, and the teenagers charged with their deaths.

Damien Echols, Jessie Misskelley Jr. and Jason Baldwin were sentenced to death in 1993 but have staunchly maintained their innocence ever since.

Last year they gained their freedom, with the help of the Pirates of the Caribbean star and other high-profile names who developed an interest in their case. The three became the subjects of a series of documentaries called Paradise Lost which captured Depp's attention and inspired him to help pay the legal fees to free them.

Pearl Jam's Eddie Vedder, Natalie Maines of the Dixie Chicks, musician Henry Rollins, and filmmaker Peter Jackson also contributed to the fund and the trio were released in August 2011.

They got involved in the case after reading Echols' 399-page memoir, Life After Death, penned from his death row cell.

Jackson has since produced another documentary, called West of Memphis, which premiered last month.

Echols and his two co-defendants stepped free from jail after agreeing to an Alford plea, allowing them to maintain their innocence while pleading guilty, though not fully exonerating them.

Echols still has three counts of capital murder on his record, he said, which has caused him trouble trying to enter Canada and will restrict his right to vote next month.

Exoneration is now his main focus as he works to rebuild his life in Salem, Massachusetts with his wife Lorri Davis with whom he will be promoting his book mid-November.

The first battle for Echols and his legal team will be to force the exposure of 200 pages of FBI documents connected tot he case that have never before been seen. They also want some pieces of evidence to be revisited, echoing claims made in 2007 that DNA taken from the crime scene did not match any of the three men convicted.

'I do know that they never had any physical evidence attaching me or [Misskelley and Baldwin],' he said.

'They actually had physical evidence putting [Hobbs - one of the murdered boys' stepfather] at the crime scene and we have several witnesses who have come forward who said relatives told them he did it.'

Aside from legal issues, Echols is still learning how to deal with his freedom, which has brought with it 'crushing anxiety and stress'.

He described how he 'constantly trips down stairs,' the result of spending 15 years with chains on his feet, and struggles to use cutlery having not been allowed to use knives during mealtimes.

'I have to learn all of that, sometimes over again,' he said. 'Now I’m just trying to find my way from point A to point B.'

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

Family torn apart by false cruelty allegations

Opinionated medical evidence again

A mother whose family was ripped apart after her partner was wrongly jailed for child cruelty has won a five-year legal battle to get her children back.

Jennie Gray’s children were taken away following accusations that her two-month-old daughter Ellie had suffered ‘shaken baby’ injuries at the hands of her boyfriend Ben Butler, the children’s father.

Butler, 32, was jailed over the allegations and forced to share a prison cell with a convicted child abuser.

His conviction was quashed after fresh medical evidence suggested Ellie’s head injury was caused at birth, and he was freed in 2010 after serving four months of his 18-month sentence.

But it took another two years for the parents to persuade judges and social workers that Ellie and sister Isabella should be returned to their 32-year-old mother, an artist.

High Court judge Mrs Justice Hogg praised the parents as she ruled the two girls should be allowed to go home to their mother.

She said: ‘The last five and a half years must have been an extraordinarily difficult time for the parents . . . [They] have weathered the storm. They have each been resilient and determined, and shown tenacity and courage.

‘I hope now that the record is put straight, that with their tenacity they will be able to put behind them those difficulties and look forward to a more positive future. I wish the parents well: they too deserve joy and happiness.’

The family’s ordeal began in 2007 when Mr Butler, a removal man, noticed Ellie had gone limp and was gasping for air.

The new father called an ambulance and the baby was taken to hospital and diagnosed with bleeding on the brain, bleeding in the eye and swelling of brain tissue –injuries typical of a ‘shaken baby’ who has been deliberately injured.

Mr Butler, from Sutton, Surrey, insisted he had not hurt his daughter and Miss Gray supported him. But the couple, who were not living together, were arrested and Mr Butler was charged with grievous bodily harm and cruelty, and subsequently convicted and jailed.

He described the ordeal as ‘horrendous’. He said: ‘I was put with sex offenders. I never spoke to the guy I shared a cell with – it’s like being put in a mental hospital when you’re not mental. It was just a horrible, dirty feeling where everyone is on a different wavelength.’

Ellie made a full recovery but social services took her and sister Isabella away from Miss Gray.

Ellie was allowed to live with her grandparents, Miss Gray’s parents, but Isabella was put into foster care and social workers said she should be adopted. Mr Butler’s conviction was quashed as ‘unsafe’ in 2010, but he and Miss Gray faced a court battle for their daughters.

Mr Butler was allowed to see Ellie only twice a year, for two hours at a time, at a social services contact centre, and Miss Gray was allowed to see her only six times a year.

Miss Gray said: ‘I was told at one point that if I went against Ben it would be to my advantage and I’d have more chance of getting my daughter back. It’s outrageous.’

Mrs Justice Hogg said Ellie, five, and three-year-old Isabella, should be returned to their mother. She added: ‘It is seldom that I see a “happy end”. It is a joy to oversee the return of a child to her parents.’

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 police terrorize law-abiding househhold

No apology and no compensation for damage they did

Paul Brown was working on his computer in his north suburban home when police smashed in the front door, pointed guns at and handcuffed him and other family members, and ransacked the house in a search for drugs.

The authorities had burst in immediately after a postal worker delivered a package to the home that they said contained marijuana. But a search of the house found no further contraband, and officers left without making an arrest.

Brown, outraged, said he was sure the cops had the wrong house. Police maintained they had the right place, but the target of their investigation wasn’t there at the time.

Brown, a 58-year-old who works in building design, said he supports law enforcement in general. But he said innocent bystanders shouldn’t be subject to such dangerous and damaging searches without any compensation.

“I was scared to death,” he said. “I really felt like a hostage. These guys are supposed to be on my side.”

The package delivered to the home in a middle-class neighborhood on Adelphi Avenue was addressed to someone named Oscar, who Brown said has never lived there and is unknown to him.

Brown would have liked police to pay for the $3,000 leaded-and-stained-glass door, lock and frame they broke, to clean up the mess they made, and to apologize. Police say that won’t happen.

Well of course that isn’t going to happen. Because the police aren’t on your side, Mr. Brown. They’re fighting a war. And you got in the way.

Sullivan did not release the complaint that states the evidence upon which the warrant was based, citing the ongoing investigation. But, he said, “we had a valid warrant, and it was a good search.”

After another member of the household accepted the package outside as he arrived home, officers knocked on the door and announced themselves, and waited an unspecified “reasonable” amount of time, as required by law before breaching the door, Sullivan said.

Brown disputed that, saying his 77-year-old mother-in-law was about 15 feet from the door but did not hear anything, and his two small dogs, who always bark when someone knocks, were silent.

Brown said the people who conducted the raid were dressed in SWAT-style clothing with black sweaters that said “police,” though at first he didn’t even realize who they were. He said they handcuffed and questioned him, along with his son-in-law, who had accepted the package but never opened it, and his son-in-law’s brother, who live in the house along with Brown’s daughter, wife and mother-in-law.

Notice how rarely the victims of these raids actually hear the knock-and-announce the police claim to have given? Going back to English common law, the entire point of the knock-and-announce requirement was to preserve the sanctity of the home—to give the occupants an opportunity to avoid the violence of a forced entry. Over the last 25 years or so, its purpose has changed to protect the police. Today, they announce themselves only so you won’t attempt to shoot them when they break down your door seconds later. The Supreme Court has ruled that as few as eight seconds between knocking and entering is sufficient. That’s hardly enough time for someone who is, say, sleeping to wake up and answer the door. And even if you could, the courts have also ruled that police can break down your door without waiting if they hear movement or see a light go on inside the house. The fear is that these could be indications that someone inside is arming themselves. Because the safety of police is more important than the safety of the rest of us, the fact that movement or light in the house could mean someone is merely trying to answer the door doesn’t really matter.

All of which means the centuries-old principle that the knock-and-announce requirement is necessary to preserve the home as a man’s castle and place of sanctuary . . . is as dead as Kathryn Johnston.

Sullivan said police have to enter such raids in a rush with overwhelming force, to prevent people from flushing or destroying evidence, and to prevent anyone from attacking police. Though Lake County MEG personnel have never been shot during such a raid, officers elsewhere have, and MEG officers have found guns next to dangerous criminals in the past, Sullivan said, making it a potentially dangerous mission.

Got that? Preserving a quantity of illicit drugs small enough to be quickly flushed down the toilet so the person in possession can later be prosecuted is a higher priority than not subjecting innocent people to having their doors torn down, physical abuse, and the terror of having guns pointed at their heads. Oh, and officer safety. Officer safety takes priority over everything else. Everything. Better a 77-year-old woman get rush, knock to the floor, and handcuffed than a single cop wearing Kevlar, holding an assault weapon, and carrying a ballistics shield be “attacked.”

He acknowledged that Brown might not be aware of any illegal activity by anyone in the house but said, “some people have secrets.” He added that police still expected to close the case with an arrest. As of Friday, Sullivan said there were no new developments in the case to report, and court records in Lake County showed no criminal charges filed in the case against members of Brown’s household.

Again, it’s about the priorities on display, here. Because one guy who may or may not be a relative of acquaintance of these people may have committed a marijuana offense, Sullivan sees nothing wrong to subjecting the entire family to the terror, violence, and danger of a tactical police raid.

“I understand when you walk away (without an arrest), that brings up a lot of questions,” Sullivan said. “But there’s a series of checks and balances … to make sure we’re doing everything right. We are concerned about the public as much as they are about themselves.”

So how did those checks and balances work out for Brown, his wife, his brother-in-law, and his mother-in-law? Let’s be clear, here. The “checks and balances” Sullivan is referring to here could better be called “formalities.” And when you tear down a man’s door, scare the hell out of him and his family, acknowledge they all may well be innocent, then refuse to repair the damage you’ve caused or apologize for what you subjected them to, “We are concerned about the public as much as they are about themselves” is so transparently false, I can’t help but wonder if Sullivan was smirking when he said it.

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 cop befriended pedophile



A policeman sent a sordid 'joke' to a paedophile about raping a colleague and provided the pervert with a 'shoulder to cry on' when he was on bail for sexual abuse, a court was told.

As well as befriending sex offender Robert Meade, Paul Woollard also used a police computer to run checks on him - and is now fighting to save his career at the High Court.

Wiltshire Chief Constable, Patrick Geenty, is adamant that Mr Woollard must be sacked and is challenging the 'bizarre' and 'irrational' decision of the Police Appeals Tribunal (PAT) to order his reinstatement on the force and issue him with a final warning.

John Beggs QC, for Mr Geenty, told the court Mr Woollard had used his police email address to send Meade a series of explicitly-worded messages including one which read: 'Just waitin for the women to come and open up. I might rape her as theres noone else here (sic).'

Meade, who Mr Woollard knew through a shared interest in cricket and angling, admitted sexual activity with a 14-year-old girl at Swindon Crown Court in October 2009 and was jailed for a year.

Mr Beggs, in his written submissions to the court, conceded there was no evidence Mr Woollard knew about Meade’s crime when he sent the 'rape joke' email, but added that he had 'continued to associate' with his friend even after he was charged and on bail.

He had also committed flagrant breaches of the Data Protection Act by repeatedly accessing the 'Niche' police intelligence computer to look up details about Meade, the QC told the court.

Mr Geenty’s predecessor as Chief Constable, Brian Moore, had ordered Mr Woollard’s dismissal from the force but, in May last year, he was overruled by the PAT which directed he be reinstated and given a final warning.

Challenging that ruling, Mr Beggs argued: 'No reasonable tribunal could have imposed a sanction other than dismissal for an officer found gulity of such a cumulative litany of allegations which undermined public confidence in the reputation of the police service'.

Describing parts of the PAT’s reasoning as 'bizarre', the QC asked: 'How would a Wiltshire victim of rape react to learning that a sexual offences trained officer "joked" about raping a woman himself? Would that encourage her to come forward to Wiltshire Police?'

He added: 'How would a man on the Devizes omnibus view the fact that one of his local officers, on duty, is sending foul emails to an inappropriate associate, joking about home-made and barely legal pornography and masturbation.

'How would a local citizen respond to the knowledge that one of his local officers is lending a shoulder to cry on to a child sex offender on bail?

'What would the 14-year-old victim of Robert Meade, or her parents, or her friends, or other victims of sexual assault think of the police if they discovered that Mr Woollard accessed intelligence about Meade’s offence not for the proper policing purpose of detecting crime, but to check up on his friend?'

Hugh Davies, for Mr Woollard, conceded that his misconduct had been serious and that the court would be 'wholly unimpressed' by his behaviour. However, he had expressed remorse and the case did not concern his 'honesty and integrity'.

Urging Mr Justice Wyn Williams to find that 'a lesser outcome than dismissal' was acceptable, the barrister said the Chief Constable 'does not have a monopoly of wisdom' on what is and is not behaviour justifying the termination of a police officer’s career.

Emphasising that Pc Woollard had not accessed police intelligence 'at the direction of Meade', the barrister argued that the overall effect of the allegations he faced was 'misleading and prejudicial' and that dismissal should not be 'the default sanction' in such cases.

The language used by the PAT in condemning PC Woollard 'could hardly be stronger' and it had clearly not underestimated the seriousness of his misconduct, he added.

Mr Justice Wyn Williams has now reserved his judgment on the Chief Constable’s appeal until a later date.

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

Moment a British cop lost his temper. . . and his career: CCTV catches officer using 'pain restraint' to calm 15-year-old who refused to do as he was told

From what I can see, the cop just gave the kid what the kid was asking for

PC Stephen Hudson bent the 15-year-old boy’s arm behind his back and lifted him off the ground after he refused to empty his pockets.

CCTV captured the 6ft 1in officer – who in a 12-year career suffered injuries including a suspected fractured skull, cracked rib and broken finger while tackling criminals – slam the 4ft 8in boy on to the counter, causing him to scream in pain.

The 43-year-old then pushed his face against the teenager’s ear and shouted: ‘You are not the big man. You might think you are but you’re not.’

However the divorced father-of-three was himself arrested after the boy – described in court as a ‘local nuisance’ who had repeatedly tried officers’ patience – complained of bruising and a nosebleed.

Hudson claimed to have been using an authorised police restraint technique called ‘pain compliance’ and said he himself had been assaulted by the youth.

The boy, who cannot be named for legal reasons, had been arrested for a breach of bail. He had been in the custody suite at Swinton police station in Greater Manchester ‘numerous times’ before and had previously kicked cell doors and refused to obey the rules, a court heard.

However a jury at Bolton Crown Court found the former officer, who worked at the suite, guilty of misconduct in a public office.

Hudson, who has quit his job, was given a nine-month jail term suspended for 18 months.

The court heard he had been left ‘a broken man’ facing bankruptcy, while his children had to be taken out of school as a result of bullying over the incident. In addition, he faces being sued by the boy’s family.

But Judge Peter Davies accused Hudson, of Westhoughton, near Bolton, of ‘besmirching’ the reputation of a force which last month lost two female officers in a shooting by inflicting ‘deliberate degradation and humiliation’ on the teenager.

And he branded the laughter of three other watching officers, including a sergeant, ‘bullying of the worst form’ and said they ought to have been in the dock alongside Hudson. The two PCs and a custody sergeant are now facing disciplinary action.

Judge Davies declared: ‘The overwhelming majority of police officers discharge the faith and trust invested in them by the public with diligence, courage and fortitude.

‘A tiny few, however, betray that trust, and I am afraid you have been found to be one of those few.’

Iain Simkin, prosecuting, said Hudson had used ‘far more force than proportional or reasonable’ against a boy who was simply being ‘cheeky’. Hudson said he had acted in accordance with his police training, saying: ‘I was frustrated and a bit angry that he wouldn’t comply.

‘I was trying to do a legitimate search and he just wasn’t doing what he was told. ‘I didn’t lose my temper. I was just being assertive.’

The boy’s mother said: ‘That man should never have been called a police officer. He abused my son at the end of the day.’

Detective Chief Superintendent Paul Rumney, from Greater Manchester Police, said: ‘PC Hudson overstepped the boundaries of reasonable force and acted instead with excessive force.’ ‘His actions were totally unacceptable,’ he added.

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 cop spared jail after hitting musician cyclist with 'catastrophic, life changing injuries' while driving 68mph in a 30 zone

Putting a British cop in jail is very, very difficult. Approaching a humped bridge at speed is a pure moron act and the cop is not a moron -- just grossly irresponsible

A police officer who caused 'catastrophic life-changing' injuries to a cyclist while responding to an emergency call in his van has been spared jail.

David Lynch, 31, was found guilty of dangerous driving earlier this year for hitting Joseph Belmonte after driving over a humpback bridge in Hackney, east London at 68mph in a 30mph zone.

Horrified eye witnesses described hearing a ‘loud bang’ before the musician was propelled onto the bonnet then thrown towards a tree like a ‘rag doll’.

Mr Belmonte, who was just a week away from releasing his debut album, spent nine days in an induced coma after suffering brain, spinal, and facial injuries, as well as a broken right arm and finger.

Lynch, a former British Transport Police officer, who had since resigned from his job, was today given an eight-month suspended jail sentence at Southwark Crown Court.

Judge Jeffrey Pegden QC, sentencing Lynch to eight months in prison suspended for 12 months, said: 'What has weighed significantly with me is your intense guilt, remorse and utter distress at the injuries you caused that day, coupled with your immediate and appropriate response not only at the scene but in your determined efforts afterwards, until you were told it was inappropriate, to seek information about the welfare of Mr Belmonte.'

Lynch, from Hitchin in Hertfordshire, was also ordered to carry out 240 hours of community service and told he must be electronically tagged and subject to a 7pm to 6am curfew for 12 weeks. He was also banned from driving for 15 months and ordered to pay £1,000 towards prosecution costs.

The court heard how Lynch and front seat passenger PC Gary Thomas, had been racing to assist a colleague at Hackney Downs station on March 31 last year.

Lynch had come on to the rise of the unmarked bridge in Queensbridge Road at 68mph while in a 30mph zone. He had reduced his speed to 63mph before his vehicle 'took off' and became 'airborne' - landing so hard that it made gouges in the road.

The police officer 'lost control' of the van, which swerved to the left, hitting the kerb, and then to the right, hitting Mr Belmonte from behind at a speed of 45mph.

The judge described the speed at which he drove over the bridge as ‘very dangerous’. He said: ‘You lost control of the vehicle, first steering to the left and clipping the curb and then to the right and hitting Mr Belmonte from behind at a speed of 45mph.'

The court heard that Mr Belmonte, 31, who was not wearing a helmet, was in a medically induced coma for nine days after the collision and suffered spine, knee, brain and facial injuries.

He had a broken right elbow and little finger which resulted in him having to learn to play the guitar again.

He also suffered severe psychological effects and his head and associated brain injury mean he is likely to be left with permanent cognitive impairment.

Lynch had already pleaded guilty to careless driving but denied one charge of dangerous driving.

The court heard that the married father-of-two had two previous speeding convictions. In 2005, before he joined British Transport Police, he was banned from driving for two months and fined £250 for driving at 98mph on a motorway. In 2008, he was handed a fixed penalty notice for driving at 40mph in a 30mph zone.

Judge Pegden said he was persuaded to suspend the sentence by what he described as Lynch’s ‘intense guilt, remorse, and utter distress’ at the injuries he caused Mr Belmonte and a ‘raft of fine character references’.

He said: ‘In my view you have shown these general characteristics over the last 18 months and no doubt will bear them for the rest of your life.’

The court was told he had driven 500 response calls in an 18-month period since qualifying as a response driver.

Lynch had told jurors he had had no time to react to the cyclist after his vehicle left the ground as he came over the brow of the hill. He said: ‘As I tried to gain control of it in that split second I saw the cyclist on my left hand side. ‘In the course of my correction I hit the cyclist from behind causing him to come off and on to the near side of my bonnet. ‘I was braking the whole time so after the impact he was thrown forward as my vehicle decelerated. ‘The cyclist was thrown forward and came to a stop by a tree.

‘It felt like the blink of an eye. It happened that quickly from impact to stepping out of the vehicle.’

Defence counsel Ben Summers had said it was important to balance Lynch’s ‘momentary lapse’ against the ‘much longer lasting, perhaps permanent consequences for Mr Belmonte’

He said: ‘It is difficult [to pass sentence] in the particular circumstances of this case because this is a case in which there was no decision, for reasons of bravado, thrill-seeking or aggression, to drive in a way that was at least potentially dangerous, this was an officer responding in the course of his duty to an emergency call.’

Reading from Lynch’s letter of resignation he said: ‘Given the media coverage of my case I would not wish to cause the BTP any further embarrassment, but, more than that, I feel I can no longer carry out the roles and responsibilities associated with my position. ‘I feel morally obliged to give up the role which I’ve cherished for the last five years.’

Earlier this year singer-songwriter Mr Belmonte, also known as Pepe, said: I miss my life as it was before the accident. I was young and living the life of a working musician cycling round London looking for venues to play and musicians to play with.'

Speaking after the officer’s trial in August, the musician’s mother Patsy Belmonte, from Weybridge, Surrey, said: ‘Pepe was just a week away from launching his first album when he was hit.

‘He has since spent 15 months recovering. It has had a huge impact on every area of his life, including his career and his independence. ‘Physically, he will never be the same.’

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

The sacred cause of “officer safety”

“It’s just about being safe.” Thus spoke Deputy Corry Bassett of the Lincoln County, Wyoming Sheriff’s Office as he struggled to justify handcuffing Robert Pierson during an August 11, 2011 traffic stop.

Pierson, a Marine combat veteran, had been riding his motorcycle near Alpine when another motorist called to complain about a biker passing a number of slow-moving motor homes. Pierson was not charged with a traffic violation or a criminal offense -- but he was arrested and detained in handcuffs for 45 minutes because the sight of a Mundane carrying a firearm caused Bassett to irrigate his underwear.

“I know you have a gun,” Bassett said a few seconds into the stop, which was recorded on Pierson’s cell phone. “Are you a cop?”

When Pierson indicated that he was not part of the armed revenue-extracting caste, Bassett muttered: “OK, what I’m going to do is – put your hands behind your back right now.”

As he handcuffed the compliant motorist, Bassett explained, “I don’t like someone with a gun,” while insisting, “You’re not under arrest.”

The second statement is an unalloyed lie: Whenever a police officer restrains someone, that person is under arrest. The first statement is a lie by omission: If Pierson had been a police officer, Bassett would not have complained about him carrying a gun. The category of “someone” thus applies only to Mundanes, whose very existence is seen as a threat to the unimaginably precious personages who wear state-issued costumes.

“It’s the first thing you should have told me, [that] you’ve got a gun,” simpered Bassett, whose panic-tinged voice was thrown into sharp relief by Pierson’s composure.

“Well, actually I’m not required to tell you in either Idaho or Wyoming,” Pierson correctly pointed out.

“Yes, you are,” insisted Bassett. “If you’re packing a gun, I want to know about it.”

“Well, I’m open-carrying,” Pierson observed, stating the obvious. As Bassett began a rote speech describing the sacred imperative of “officer safety,” Pierson pointed out that he had done nothing wrong or illegal, that the deputy’s safety “is not in any way in jeopardy," and that actually “it’s not my concern.”

“It is!” yelped Bassett. “It’s my concern!”

“My only concern is my personal rights and individual liberties, which you are violating right now,” noted Pierson.

“No, I am not,” Bassett lied.

“You have me handcuffed,” Pierson reminded the increasingly petulant officer.

“You asked me if I could get off my bike, and you said `yes,’” recounted Pierson.

“I understand your concerns about search and seizure, but you have to understand one thing about where we’re at in law enforcement,” stated Bassett. “I’m asking you for my safety. I don’t know you. I don’t know your intentions.”

The same could have been said by Pierson about Bassett, who was, after all, just another armed stranger. One critical difference, of course, is that Pierson knew that Bassett’s intentions were malign: After all, the deputy had detained him, which is an act of aggression by any definition.

Recall that when Bassett noted that Pierson had a gun, his first question was: “Are you a cop?” If Pierson had been a fellow member of the Brotherhood of Official Plunder, this would have allayed Bassett’s concerns.

In fact, after noticing that Pierson carried a military ID, Bassett suggested that the detainee should see the encounter in terms of “force security” in a battle zone.

“You’re in the military,” Bassett began. “You ever been shot at? Would you like, if you roll up on somebody you have no idea who they are … wouldn’t it be a question in your mind if this person’s got weapons on them?”

Bassett, who never served in the military, clearly saw himself as part of an army of occupation – and insisted on unqualified submission to his supposed authority.

“Your safety does not trump my right and my liberty,” Pierson tutored the deputy.

“When I stop you, yes it does,” asserted Bassett.

“Your personal safety is more important than all the laws, the Constitution, and every one of my personal rights and liberties,” summarized Pierson, his voice heavy with disgusted incredulity.

“When I’m in a traffic stop, yes,” declared Bassett. “I’m in control of this situation.”

“The Constitution is in control of this situation,” Pierson rejoined.

“No – I am… and if I feel that I’m going to be threatened by the fact that you have a gun on your side, by hell I’m gonna do it,” concluded Bassett.

Forty-five minutes later, Deputy Rob Andazola arrived to provide “backup.” At that point, as Bassett has admitted in a sworn deposition, the deputies offered to unshackle Pierson if he allowed Andazola to draw his weapon and shoot the motorcyclist in the event he made any gesture perceived as a “threat.”

Pierson didn’t agree to those terms. Eventually a patrol supervisor reached the scene and acknowledged that the motorcyclist had done nothing wrong. Until that happened, however, Pierson was handcuffed, disarmed, and entirely at the mercy of two armed strangers who considered it their right – if not their duty – to kill him if he displayed any behavior that made them uneasy.

“I didn’t know whether kicking my leg over the bike, or walking away, or what they could possibly constitute as a hostile act,” Pierson told the Associated Press. “And I was a little unnerved by the fact that they were threatening lethal force with a deadly weapon against a man who was compliant, in handcuffs, who had been screened.”

In the sacred cause of “officer safety,” no precaution is excessive, no imposition unjustified – and no constitutional “guarantee” of individual rights is binding.

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

Detective Who Shot Unarmed Man On GCP Previously Accused Of Misconduct

Hassan Hamdy is a Muslim name

Family, friends and authorities are still trying to determine why an NYPD detective fatally shot and killed an unarmed driver on the Grand Central Parkway on Thursday.

It continued to be the big question Friday as the Queens District Attorney Richard Brown opened a criminal investigation into the killing of 22-year-old Army reservist Noel Polanco. He died from a bullet fired by 39-year-old detective Hassan Hamdy, who also has military ties with a stint in the Marines.

Hamdy said nothing when CBS 2 cameras spotted him outside his Long Island home. The DA’s office is working with the NYPD’s Internal Affairs Division to investigate the incident, CBS 2′s Jessica Schneider reported.

Police Commissioner Kelly met with Polanco’s mother Friday night at her Queens residence to express his condolences.

Hamdy’s 14 years with the NYPD have been marked by moments of bravery. In May, Hamdy went into a burning apartment to search for victims.

Four years ago, he helped negotiate the surrender of a man who attacked a neighbor with a machete and threw firebombs at police, but Hamdy has also been accused of misconduct.

He was one of 16 cops in a 1999 excessive force case, which was settled for almost $300,000. Hamdy is also one of six cops who was sued in 2007 by Dorothy Garcia and her grandson, Tyrell.

“I know that they were very aggressive,” Garcia told CBS 2′s Tony Aiello.

The Garcias claimed police abused Tyrell Garcia, including kicking, punching and hitting him with their guns, during an arrest on a minor violation.

According to the 2007 lawsuit, Hamdy was part of group of cops who grabbed Garcia and dragged his body across a chain link fence.

Attorney Fred Lichtmacher said the city paid $235,000 to settle that case.

The lawyer said he was not surprised to learn Hamdy was involved in the Grand Central Parkway shooting.

“Why wouldn’t an officer involved in a case earlier be involved in another incident? The NYPD doesn’t do anything. They don’t discipline their officers for most things they do,” Lichtmacher told CBS 2′s Tony Aiello.

The Police Department strongly disputed such a notion and promised a full investigation into what Hamdy did in the moments leading up to the fatal shooting.

Sources told CBS 2 the team of officers that pulled over Polanco was made up of a total of nine members of the NYPD force. They’d just come from executing a warrant for narcotics in the south Bronx.

Meanwhile, Polanco‘s mother said she wants justice for her son, who police said was pulled over for driving erratically on the Grand Central Parkway.

Polanco’s mother, Cecilia Reyes, said her son had no criminal record and didn’t deserve to be shot by a cop.

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

NY Police Fatally Shoot an Unarmed Driver on the Grand Central Parkway

A New York police detective shot and killed an unarmed man, whose hands, a witness said, were on the steering wheel of his Honda, after he had been pulled over early Thursday for cutting off two police trucks on the Grand Central Parkway in Queens, the authorities said.

The shooting, which occurred at 5:15 a.m., was the latest in a series of episodes in which police officers fatally shot or wounded civilians. While the Police Department had explanations in the other instances, it could not immediately provide one for the shooting on Thursday.

The detective, Hassan Hamdy, 39, a 14-year veteran assigned to the Emergency Service Unit, fired one bullet through an open window of the car, which his squad had just pulled over with the help of a second police vehicle. The bullet struck the driver, Noel Polanco, 22, in the abdomen. He was declared dead less than an hour later at New York Hospital Queens.

Paul J. Browne, the department’s chief spokesman, initially said there were reports of movement inside the car, although he did not elaborate. Mr. Browne said a small power drill was found on the floor on the driver’s side, but he later appeared to play down the importance of that information.

“We looked for a weapon, we didn’t find any; we found a drill,” he said in a news briefing at Police Headquarters. “I’m not saying it played a role. I’m just saying we looked for a weapon. We did not find a weapon. The only thing we found was that drill.”

A passenger in Mr. Polanco’s car, Diane Deferrari, said in a phone interview Thursday night that just before pulling the car over, officers appeared irate that Mr. Polanco had cut them off. She said that one of the officers — but not Detective Hamdy — stuck up his middle finger and was screaming obscenities from one of the moving police trucks.

“As soon as we stopped — they were rushing the car,” Ms. Deferrari said. “It was like an army.”

She said a group of officers swarmed the car, yelling for the three people in Mr. Polanco’s car to put their hands up. Mr. Polanco, whose hands were still on the steering wheel, had no time to comply, Ms. Deferrari said. At that instant, a shot rang out, and Mr. Polanco gasped for air, she said. “I felt the powder in my face,” she said.

Officers then dragged Mr. Polanco from the car and onto the highway, where traffic was snarled, as early-morning commuters slowed to look, she said.

“This is all a case of road rage on behalf of the N.Y.P.D. — that’s all this is,” she said.

Mr. Browne said late Thursday that Ms. Deferrari’s assertions would “be investigated in the ongoing review of the shooting by the district attorney and Internal Affairs.”

Police union officials were perplexed by the shooting on the parkway.

“I see a spike in police shootings; I do,” said Edward Mullins, president of the Sergeants Benevolent Association. “For the most part, they are all coming back as justified. This is the first one that’s up for question.”

Mr. Mullins said the reason for the shooting was unclear. He said the shooting, like any other, would be thoroughly investigated by the Police Department and the Queens district attorney.

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

Lt. Jonathan Josey, Philadelphia cop caught on video hitting woman in face, will lose his job



Even cops find video evidence hard to skate around



The Philadelphia police officer who was caught on video hitting a woman in the face during the city's Puerto Rican Day festivities will lose his job and could face criminal charges, reports CBS Philly.

Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey said Wednesday that Lt. Jonathan Josey will be suspended for 30 days with the intent to dismiss for hitting 39-year-old Aida Guzman and knocking her to the ground on Sunday. He also indicated that Josey, a veteran of the Highway Patrol division, could be charged for the incident.

"Obviously, he could be criminally charged. The DA would have to make that decision."

The video, which was posted on YouTube Sunday and has now been viewed more than 1.3 million times, was brought the department's attention on Monday. On it, Josey is seen handcuffing Guzman after hitting her. She is then led away, her face bleeding, by two other officers. Guzman was charged with disorderly conduct for allegedly throwing a beer bottle, but CBS Philly reports that the District Attorney decided Wednesday to drop those charges.

"I am an older woman. I am 39-years-old. I don't have time to be playing around or throwing water to be disrespecting another person," Guzman told the station through her daughter, who translated.

CBS Philly reports that Ramsey said he agreed with the DA's decision to drop the charges.

"In looking at the video and looking at the charges, clearly there was some discrepancies there. So, I'm not at all surprised in the ... I'm rather pleased that they did decide to drop the charges. I think it's appropriate in this manner," said Ramsey.

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

Bizarre TSA “Freeze” Security Drill Caught on Camera

The TSA’s bizarre new policy where it orders travelers who have already passed security to “freeze” on command has been caught on camera, with the clip illustrating once more how the federal agency has implemented a series of ludicrous policies that seemingly have no other purpose than to act as an obedience test for the traveling public.

The video shows the final 24 seconds of a 2 minute period during which travelers were ordered to “freeze” by TSA workers and were not allowed to move.

One TSA screener is heard to say, “stay right where you are,” at a man who is walking through the airport, as the other static travelers look on in bewilderment.

According to the You Tube user responsible for uploading the clip, “This video was shot within the “secure” area of the terminal, BEYOND the security gate.”

“Note that the TSA “guard” is offering no explanation, only giving harsh threats and orders to stay still. Note that there was NO event or threat taking place of any kind,” he adds.

As we have previously highlighted, the “freeze” policy, which has been experienced by numerous travelers across the country, is known as Code Bravo Sierra or simply Code Bravo by the TSA.

New York Times columnist Joe Sharkey described how he was caught up in the policy on two separate occasions last year while traveling through airports in Atlanta and Los Angeles.

When Sharkey failed to obey a TSA screener who shouted “freeze,” he was assailed by another traveler who “growled” at him, “You’re supposed to freeze!” as other passengers complied with the bizarre demand. Sharkey later discovered that the TSA had no power to force travelers to comply with the command.

“Passengers are not required to ‘freeze’ in place like statues,” TSA spokeswoman Kristin Lee admitted.

“It was clear to me that travelers believed they were required to stop and stand motionless — even those who had cleared security and were merely within shouting distance of the checkpoint. Officers seemed to reinforce that impression, too,” writes Sharkey.

As WeWontFly.com’s James Babb describes, this is nothing more than “obedience training.” The American people and travelers in general are being ‘broken in’ to accept their subservience in what represents the human equivalent of horse training.

“There is literally no other purpose to this “drill” than to reinforce the notion in travelers’ heads that this is a “security state”, and that you may be told to stop dead in your tracks by a TSA “voice of authority” at any time. Legally, TSA has NO RIGHT TO STOP YOU… but it’s hard to imagine that defending your rights by walking away would end well in a (phony) tense situation if there happens to be an armed police officer nearby,” concludes the You Tube user who uploaded the video.

This absurd policy has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with security. Would a terrorist really be so dumb as to make himself stand out from the crowd by refusing to freeze and making himself look conspicuous?

It makes no sense whatsoever, until you realize that this is just another “layer” of pointless TSA security theater. It’s about reinforcing the notion that people are mandated to obey every order made by someone in uniform no matter how asinine.

The TSA has also provoked controversy by implementing other preposterous policies which have a tenuous security justification, most notably a new procedure where TSA agents test travelers’ drinks for explosives after they have already passed through security and purchased beverages inside the secure area of the airport.

Given that these bizarre policies are solely based around coercing obedience and have nothing to do with genuine security, we are encouraging Americans to show civil disobedience and reclaim their human dignity by opting out and filming TSA procedures during Thanksgiving week November 19-26. Click here for more details about the campaign or click here for the Facebook page.

Remember, it is your right to opt out of radiation firing naked body scanners and the TSA’s website also admits that it is perfectly legal to film TSA procedures, whether that’s inside an airport, in a subway, at a political event, a music concert or wherever else TSA screeners have infested. The TSA also admits it has no power to force you to “freeze” as is depicted in the video above.

Back in February 2012, Infowars reporters Rob Dew and Aaron Dykes encountered a TSA blockade in Austin-Bergstrom Airport after exiting a flight. Hundreds of passengers were preventing from passing through the walkway in the secure area for several minutes until a non-incident was declared over. Many of these passengers grumbled about the pointless exercise of power, evidently enjoyed by TSA employees on the scene.

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

Where does she go to regain her reputation? Will the prosecution be punished?

American prosecutors hold enormous amounts of authority and the courts have deferred to them at every step. Even when there is prosecutorial misconduct or when prosecutors bring cases to trial while knowing they have no evidence, they almost never are punished. Only the innocent, who often have to spend themselves into financial oblivion to defend themselves, are made to pay a price.

Last week, a West Virginia jury acquitted former teacher Autumn Rae Faulkner of having sex three times with a 15-year-old student. What is remarkable is the jury was out only for an hour before returning the acquittal, and anyone who has served on a jury knows that when someone is acquitted that quickly, jurors knew almost from the start that the prosecution had a false case.

In a blog post elsewhere, I bring up the question of what should happen to prosecutors who do this sort of thing? A judge earlier in the case had dismissed the original charges because prosecutors had illegally withheld exculpatory evidence, and for spite, the prosecution got a second set of indictments. Why? As far as I can tell, Steven Jory, the special prosecutor hired by the State of West Virginia to oversee the case, did it because he could do it. After all, Jory did not have to spend a dime of his own money while Faulkner and her family had to spend nearly all they had.

Because the U.S. Supreme Court has given prosecutors absolute immunity from lawsuits from private citizens, it is up to government authorities to discipline their own, and the government’s record in that department is abysmal. Defenders of the high court’s rulings say that prosecutors must be free to perform their jobs, and they should be free to make honest errors of judgment, even if the results are tragic.

Such a viewpoint is far to rosy for me. As Lord Acton famously wrote, “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” In a just system, Faulkner should be free to sue Jory and his staff into oblivion, especially since there will be no disciplinary action from state officials. Jory’s recklessness and abuse of power in a case in which he not only had zero credible evidence, but also suborned perjury should have a better outcome than his going to the office the next day to see who next to prosecute.

In the meantime, Faulkner must pick up the pieces. She was accused of being a sexual predator, had her mug shot plastered throughout the media and the Internet, lost her teaching job, and was the subject of vile abuse from authorities, along with people who immediately assumed she was guilty. Even though the prosecution’s case was weak from the beginning, nonetheless she is the one who pays the price while the real lawbreakers are free to abuse both the law and innocent people again and again. If this is the best that the American system of “justice” can do, then it is a system that is not worth supporting and certainly not worth saving.

Update: The original prosecutor in the case, Richard T. Busch, was found to have engaged in misconduct that apparently was so bad that even West Virginia authorities no longer could cover for him. This website referred to Busch as a “congentital liar,” and The Record, West Virginia’s legal journal, reported last June that the “Lawyer Disciplinary Board, the prosecutorial arm of the state Supreme Court, filed a two-count statement of charges Feb. 13 against Richard T. Busch.”

The article is worth reading if only to see just how dishonest Busch really is. Randolph Circuit Judge Jaymie Godwin Wilfong finally acted against him after he lied to her in open court in the Faulkner case and in another one.

What is shocking to me, after reading this, is that the State of West Virginia continued to pursue criminal charges against Faulkner even though the state had no evidence other than the boy’s shifting claims of sex. Prosecutors should only bring charges when they themselves are absolutely convinced of the defendant’s guilt and the evidence is clear. Instead, West Virginia authorities continued to push the charges against Faulkner and ultimately ran into a brick wall, which jurors easily exposed.

Busch at the very least deserves to be disbarred and probably should be charged criminally. However, given the state of cronyism and corruption that infects West Virginia, I will be surprised if any real discipline is meted out to Busch at all.

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

MA: Lab probe starts with 1,140 inmate cases

Massachusetts court administrators have set up the first special court sessions to deal with the legal fallout from the actions of a state chemist charged with faking drug test results in criminal cases.

Defense lawyers have been told that hearings will be held during the weeks of Oct. 15 and Oct. 22 for drug defendants currently serving sentences in Suffolk County cases in which chemist Annie Dookhan tested drug samples. A judge will hear motions to put the sentences on hold and to request bail.

Details of the court sessions were described in an email sent by the Committee for Public Counsel Services, the state's public defender agency, to defense lawyers. Joan Kenney, a spokeswoman for the state Trial Court, said Judge Christine McEvoy has been assigned to hear the cases.

Dookhan, 34, of Franklin, was charged Friday with obstruction of justice on allegations that she altered drug tests and skirted testing procedures at a state drug lab. She pleaded not guilty. Her alleged mishandling of drug samples prompted the shutdown of the lab in August and led to the resignation of the state's public health commissioner.

Since the lab closed, about 20 drug defendants have been released while their attorneys challenge the charges against them based on Dookhan's conduct.

State police, who took over operation of the lab from the Department of Public Health on July 1, have said Dookhan tested more than 60,000 samples covering 34,000 defendants during her nine years at the lab.

State officials said last week that they have identified 1,141 defendants who are currently serving time in county jails or state prisons based on samples tested by Dookhan. It is unclear how many of those samples were tainted by Dookhan's alleged actions.

Gov. Deval Patrick has said dealing with the cases of people already incarcerated is the state's top priority. After that, officials want to hear the cases of people who have already served their sentences and people currently awaiting trial.

Robert Mulligan, chief justice for administration and management of the state's trial court, said each county will have special designated court sessions to handle the large volume of cases expected to be challenged because of Dookhan's alleged actions.

In the email sent to defense attorneys, the public defender agency said the special sessions for Suffolk County cases will be held to hear requests for bail and requests to put sentences on hold. The email said each correctional facility will have a day when defendants in that facility will have their hearings, via video monitor.

"The case schedule is being established now in an orderly and coordinated manner," Kenney said.

Defense attorney Bernard Grossberg, who already has had one client's prison sentence put on hold because of Dookhan's handling of drug samples, said he believes judges who sit in the special sessions need little information except that Dookhan was involved in the testing.

"My feeling is as soon as they call the case, if Dookhan's name is on the (drug) certificate, nothing further needs to be asked and the sentence should be (put on hold) immediately," Grossberg said. "Later on, you can figure out motions to withdraw guilty pleas or upset convictions."

Jake Wark, a spokesman for Suffolk District Attorney Dan Conley, said his office is assembling a task force and support staff to work on the cases to be heard during the special court sessions.

"It's a promising plan and we look forward to its implementation," Wark 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

KY: Victim of former Harrodsburg DARE officer's sexual abuse files lawsuit

Police chief complicit


Elder

A woman who had a three-year sexual relationship as a minor with a former Harrodsburg police officer has sued him, the city of Harrodsburg, its police department and a former police chief who is now Mercer County sheriff.

The officer, Jason Elder, resigned from the department in May 2011. He was sentenced in April to three years in prison after pleading guilty to 141 felony counts of rape, sodomy and sexual abuse.

The lawsuit, filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Lexington, alleges that Elder engaged in sexual misconduct "with the full knowledge and approval of the city, and its chief, both of which failed to act to protect" the girl "from a known and obvious harm, with deliberate indifference to her constitutional rights."

Elder was an officer who conducted Drug Abuse Resistance Education, or DARE, classes in Mercer County schools. The girl was 14 when the sexual relationship began, and it ended when she was 17. Under state law, the girl was unable to give consent because she was a minor.

She is now 18, and she is named as the plaintiff in the suit, but the Herald-Leader typically does not identify victims of sexual abuse.

The lawsuit says the girl's father and others told acting Harrodsburg Police Chief Ernie Kelty Jr. about the inappropriate and illegal conduct. It says Kelty "failed or refused to take any action to discipline" Elder, or to alert the appropriate authorities "or take any corrective action which might have stopped, or further prevented the abuse being perpetrated" upon the girl.

Kelty retired as Harrodsburg police chief in 2008 and was succeeded by Rodney Harlow. Kelty was elected sheriff in 2010. The relationship between Elder and the girl began in November 2007 and ended in November 2010, according to the lawsuit.

Kelty denied the allegations that he failed to alert authorities.

"None of that is true," Kelty said Thursday. "None of that was reported to me (as chief), and when it was, I was already retired and I turned it over to the current chief the very next day."

The city of Harrodsburg "explicitly or implicitly authorized, approved or knowingly acquiesced to the clearly unconstitutional actions and conduct of its employee," the lawsuit says.

Doug Greenburg, attorney for the city of Harrodsburg, declined to comment Thursday.

The suit seeks damages for assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, and failure to report child abuse.

Elder is serving time at the Kentucky State Reformatory in LaGrange, and is scheduled to be released in 2015, the lawsuit says.

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

Innocent British man spent FIVE MONTHS in prison after forensics mix-up meant he was falsely accused of rape

The guy should sue the pants off the negligent firm

An innocent man spent five months in jail falsely accused of rape following a DNA blunder.

Adam Scott, 20, was arrested after a plastic tray containing a sample of his saliva was re-used by a forensics company. It meant his saliva was wrongly linked to a violent attack on a woman in Manchester – carried out when he was hundreds of miles away in Plymouth.

Yesterday a report by the forensics watchdog found he was the ‘innocent victim of avoidable contamination’.

The Forensic Science Regulator said the lack of records meant it was impossible to work out which laboratory technician was behind the mistake – meaning they are likely to have kept their job.

The watchdog has allowed the firm, LGC Forensics, to keep its licence despite fears of other miscarriages of justice.

Mr Scott had been arrested and a saliva sample taken after a street fight. But the tray holding his DNA was re-used for the rape test and a positive match showed up.

He was arrested by Greater Manchester Police, despite never having been to the city. The only evidence was forensic but despite his denials he was charged and remanded into custody on October 23 last year. He was only released on May 7 when the case was withdrawn following an investigation. Phone records showed he was 300 miles away on the south coast when the rape took place.

Upon his release in May Mr Scott, from Exmouth, Devon, said he had endured a ‘living nightmare’. He said: ‘I am furious at the pain it put me and my family through.’ ‘They kept me in a segregation wing which was full of rapists and paedophiles. ‘I suffered lots of verbal abuse and other inmates spitting at us and shouting “paedos”.’

The blunder came despite the firm detecting an earlier, similar error. The real rapist has still not been caught.

Regulator Andrew Rennison said: ‘The contamination was the result of human error by a technician who failed to follow basic procedures for the disposal of plastic trays.

‘The procedures themselves were not adequate, leading to no records maintained by the technicians and nothing done to mark used trays. These errors were compounded by the failure at LGC to consider the possibility of contamination despite concerns expressed by the investigating officer.’

Ministers have been criticised over the decision to close the Government-funded Forensic Science Service and hand the work over to the private sector. Critics claim this will lead to more miscarriages of justice in future.

Mr Scott’s solicitor, Philippa Jefferies, of Rundle Walker Solicitors, said she was ‘dumb-struck that this could happen’. She told the BBC yesterday: ‘I’m sure [LGC] is very, very sorry it’s happened because it’s a black stain – a terrible fundamental error.

‘Being responsible for processing DNA material that may result in convicting or acquitting a defendant, it must be of paramount importance safeguarding issues [are taken seriously].’

LGC Forensics said it deeply regretted the incident.

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

MO: Federal judge blasts St. Louis police board

A federal judge has rebuked the St. Louis Board of Police Commissioners, writing that a "reasonable jury could conclude" that it was either "deliberately indifferent" to "a widespread persistent pattern of unconstitutional conduct" or "tacitly approved" it.

The criticism by U.S. District Judge Carol Jackson comes about four years after another federal judge, E. Richard Webber, used similar language to accuse the board in an unrelated case of casting a "blind eye" to complaints that officers were using excessive force.

Jackson also faulted some of the department's leadership, saying that Chief Dan Isom and Lt. Col. Reggie Harris "failed to supervise" three staff members, including Lt. Henrietta Arnold. She is accused of having her son's girlfriend, 17, arrested outside the city limits on a false charge, with a falsified police report.

The judge's comments came in her written rejection of the board's request that the judge dismiss a damage lawsuit filed by the teen. Jackson also wrote that the arresting officer and a supervisor "conspired to conceal Arnold's role in the arrest."

The police department declined to comment on Jackson's findings, which were filed last month.

Among the commissioners, Richard Gray, the president, and Tom Irwin, who noted that he was not on the board during the Arnold incident, declined to comment. Bettye Battle-Turner has a personal policy against speaking to reporters. Mayor Francis Slay did not respond to a request for comment. The fifth board spot is vacant.

On Nov. 6, voters will be asked whether to dissolve the board — comprising four gubernatorial appointees and the mayor — which has operated the police department since the Civil War era.

If the measure passes, the department would become a city agency under the mayor, like the fire department. Passage also would award sole disciplinary authority over police employees to the city civil service commission, and seal those records from the public.

AN ARREST IN QUESTION

The girl in Arnold's case, identified only as "S.L." in court papers, sued Arnold, the police board, senior staff and other officers in 2010, alleging unlawful arrest and false imprisonment.

In court documents, she claims she was arrested by Arnold and Officer Susie Lorthridge after Arnold returned to her home in Riverview in the middle of the day on July 3, 2010, and caught the teen in her son's bedroom.

Lorthridge refused to let the girl leave, instead arresting her for trespassing. Lorthridge then falsified a police report, using a nearby address inside the city limits and fabricating a witness, according to testimony and documents.

The girl later gave birth to Arnold's granddaughter, although she did not know she was pregnant at the time of the arrest.

Arnold has not responded to requests for comment; Lorthridge could not be reached.

In court filings and in testimony at Arnold's police board trial, Arnold said she had previously caught the girl at her home and told her not to return. She denied the teen's claims and said the department knowingly used false testimony against her.

Jackson's ruling came in a lawsuit filed by the teen. Her attorneys allege that board members "are not only woefully removed from their proper role overseeing SLMPD officers by structural barriers, they are in fact almost entirely unfamiliar with the rules they are charged with enforcing."

The board, the teen's attorneys claim, failed to take action to deal with a known problem. On 23 occasions in the five-year period before the teen's arrest, they say, officers were accused of submitting false reports to conceal unlawful conduct — including planting evidence, committing perjury, drug dealing, accepting bribes and falsifying information in search warrants. None of those officers appeared in internal affairs reports, the attorneys say, suggesting that they were never investigated.

Her attorneys say that at least 16 instances of false reporting by police never surfaced in the past two years. They also say that the board's failure to react to Webber's 2008 ruling represents "deliberate indifference."

Jeff Jensen, one of the teen's attorneys, said, "The board intentionally does not learn about misconduct if there is likely to be a board trial and they don't learn about misconduct if the investigation is being conducted by the FBI, so I don't see how you manage a department if you're intentionally kept in the dark."

Despite Jackson's language and refusal to toss out the civil suit, she did grant dismissal of counts against Sgt. Lathan Isshawn-O'Quinn, a supervisor, and threw out the entire lawsuit naming Lt. Col. Antoinette Filla, who has since retired.

A spokeswoman for the Missouri attorney general's office, which is defending the case and signaled last week that it would appeal Jackson's decision, referred questions to the police. No such appeal has been filed so far.

Arnold was fired last year. Lorthridge resigned in 2010.

POLICING POLICE ABUSE

The issue before Judge Webber in 2008 was a similar motion in a suit on behalf of Kenneth Rohrbough, a Marine Corps veteran who claimed he was beaten while handcuffed during an arrest in 2002.

Citing department statistics, Webber said that in the five years before 2002, the department received 322 complaints of "physical abuse" but sustained only one.

"This evidence is sufficient for a reasonable jury to find that the (board is) deliberately indifferent to the risk that officers are using excessive force," he wrote.

The first trial ended in a hung jury. The second delivered a verdict in Rohrbough's favor for $365,000 in actual damages and $500,000 in punitive damages. The board appealed and later settled the case for $500,000.

Chris Goodson, then president of the police board, disputed Webber's findings, saying his statistics missed the full picture. Goodson insisted that the board had disciplined and even fired officers brought up on other departmental charges in cases where the internal affairs unit did not sustain an abuse charge.

At the time, the police department provided updated statistics saying five of 205 complaints of physical abuse were "sustained" from 2003-07. More than a quarter of 568 charges of "conduct unbecoming" were sustained. That charge is catch-all for a variety of misconduct claims, but it is not clear how many might have been associated with physical abuse.

Fourteen officers were fired during that period for a variety of offenses, and 37 resigned under charges, the department said.

ISOM'S FUTURE

Meanwhile, Isom danced around questions about his rumored retirement when questioned by a reporter after Wednesday's police board meeting.

"I don't know what my future holds," Isom said when asked whether he intends to resign to take a teaching position at his alma mater, the University of Missouri-St. Louis. His police contract expires in October 2013.

Isom became the department's 33rd chief in October 2008, about 20 years into his career here.

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