No Justice for Marcia Powell
Marcia Powell was probably not the most sympathetic figure; a middle-aged schizophrenic with no living relatives, and a repeat offender whose most offensive “crime” seems to have been prostitution, she was executed without trial, judge, or jury last May by employees of the State of Arizona corrections department.
And after reviewing a 3,000 page report produced internally, prosecutors have declined to press any criminal charges against anyone in connection with Powell’s execution.
Despite the fact that the county medical examiner cited heat exposure as the cause of Marcia Powell’s death, and despite the gruesome evidence (Powell had burns and blisters all over her body) and despite the fact that she had been kept in a cage in an Arizona desert for (allegedly not more than) 2 hours (but possibly 4 hours or more) on a day when the temperature peaked at over 107 degrees Fahrenheit, possibly without access to any water, and despite the fact that ADC Director Charles Ryan unilaterally (and lacking legal authority) decided to terminate Powell’s life support — despite all of this, those charged with protecting and upholding “the law” can find no evidence of any crime.
Her core body temperature upon examination was 108 degrees Fahrenheit.
Let that sink in for a minute. A human being, in a cage, in the desert heat. Any part of that sound even remotely cruel or perhaps unusual?
Surely no man with even an iota of conscience could fit that torture within the boundaries of acceptable human behavior, nor for punishment save for the most heinous offenses. What sort of animal does this? What monster sits by and watches, tolerates, enables, or allows such atrocities to continue unimpeded?
There aren’t any monsters, at least not in the conventional sense.
Remember that those individuals primarily and unforgivably responsible for carrying out the day-to-day operations that sustain, strengthen and perpetuate the grossest human tragedies, have always considered themselves to be normal people, and largely their neighbors and contemporaries have considered them “normal”, too.
Everyone involved in composing the report who either couldn’t (or wouldn’t) find enough evidence of an obvious crime, every lawyer and prosecutor who refused to see or look for criminal wrongdoing in those pages, every guard who could’ve spoken up, or could’ve offered aid, but didn’t, because nobody’s gonna miss some junkie schizo prostitute.
“Normal” people who can no longer judge the difference between right and wrong. And so they go on about their ways, “just following orders” day-in and day-out.
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
Saturday, September 11, 2010
Friday, September 10, 2010
AR: Man Shot aggressive cop in Self-Defense
Fox 16 in Little Rock is reporting there will be no charges in the July, 2010 Diamondhead shooting, when a police officer was wounded. The Garland County prosecuting attorney’s office says charges will not be filed against homeowner Jerry Chambliss, who says an off-duty police officer attempted to run him over with a car and shot at him.
More importantly, no charges will be filed against police officer Fred Ensminger, according to Prosecuting Attorney Steve Oliver (readers may remember P.A. Oliver from an earlier shooting case). Even though strong evidence exists officer Ensminger used excessive force (at the worst running over Chambliss and then shooting at him as he retreated to his garage), the prosecuting attorney has decided not to bring charges.
The 911 call from Cindy Nelson shows no contradictory evidence in her story. There are, however many discrepancies between the evidence recovered from the scene and from witnesses in regards to officer Ensminger’s story. Ensminger says he never left his vehicle; a spent cartridge from his firearm was found on the front windshield of his vehicle. Ensminger also said Chambliss fired first; a witness heard gunshots, then a pause, then more gunshots from a different firearm. This account from the witness matches Chambliss’s report which says he was struck by Ensminger’s truck, then he ran to the garage as he was being shot at by Ensminger.
Public pressure will surely come to bear on the Garland County prosecuting attorney’s office to charge Ensminger, especially since Ensminger’s past is coming to light. Ensminger shot a suspect in 2005 while an Alexander law enforcement officer, but was later said to be justified in the shooting. Months later, he was fired from the Shannon Hills police department for an alleged assault. He resigned from the Alexander police department in 2006 after being arrested for assaulting his girlfriend.
Both of today's stories may make an Arkansan wonder; why are we taking the guns away from heroes, especially when our most trusted public officials are shooting at us?
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
Thursday, September 09, 2010
More bungled DNA testing -- this one in Australia
Two people convicted of rape, one of drug trafficking, and one of armed robbery could be freed after a review of DNA evidence in their cases. One of the four has been in jail for rape for four years. And just last week, a woman was acquitted on appeal of a drugs charge after the DNA case against her fell away.
Hundreds of cases involving DNA are being reviewed after a more conservative approach was adopted towards analysing DNA evidence.
Police Association secretary Greg Davies today said it was unclear whether current investigations would be affected. But he said such a result would be “unfortunate in the extreme’’
"Obviously we will have to wait and see,’’ Mr Davies said. "But if it did impact adversely on ongoing matters that would be very unfortunate and cause a lot of distress to a lot of victims not to mention police officers that have worked hard to bring matters to the courts. "If some sort of irregularity was to derail those investigations or court proceedings it would be unfortunate in the extreme."
Kelly Hazell Quill Lawyers director Justin Quill said anyone acquitted as a result of the review would likely have problems suing. But any payout could be significant. "If these people are found to have been wrongly convicted, then they might have a case against the state,"Mr Quill said. "Although they would have to show not just that there was a wrong result, but that there was something wrong with the system. "That might not be that easy.
"So while you might have sympathy for them, that doesn't necessarily translate into a legal right to compensation. "If they were successful though, any damages award would likely be substantial."
Late last year, it was found that statistical analysis of DNA evidence had not kept pace with technology. This led Chief Commissioner Simon Overland to ban police forensic scientists from giving evidence for a month, while a review of procedures took place. Since then, forensic evidence in 370 of 430 cases still before the courts has been reviewed.
In five, the statistical strength of the DNA evidence was reduced. One of those was the case of Florina Alecu. She was given a 21-month suspended jail term after being convicted of cultivating cannabis in a water tank beneath a shed at a hobby farm in Litchfield, in the Mallee, in 2006. She was linked to DNA on a gardening glove found nearby.
The jury at her 2008 trial was told the likelihood of the DNA being from someone chosen at random, rather than her, was one in 10,000. Forensic scientists rated this evidence as "very strong". But under the new methodology, that statistical likelihood fell to just one in nine.
Last week, the Court of Appeal ruled the new DNA report "largely (if not wholly) obliterates" what was "an important strand in the cable that was the circumstantial case against her". The prosecution conceded there should be a retrial. But as her suspended sentence had almost expired, the court directed an acquittal instead. Her de facto husband, Jim Theoharethes, is serving at least two of four years' jail over the case.
The Director of Public Prosecutions, Jeremy Rapke, QC, is believed to have been advised last week that new DNA reports in the four other current cases, where the DNA likelihood had been reduced, would be provided by month's end.
Charges in at least one other case have been dropped after the new DNA statistical analysis left it too weak to proceed.
At the DPP's invitation last year, nine closed cases, where lawyers regarded the DNA evidence as potentially doubtful, were also submitted for review. A reassessment of the evidence in the first five, including a murder and a rape, has cleared those convictions.
A police spokeswoman told the Herald Sun that work was continuing on a national standard in DNA interpretation and the force was "rolling out new procedures that will enable it to interpret low-level DNA profiles with even more confidence than (now)". "It should be noted that in a vast majority of cases Victoria Police will not proceed if DNA is the sole source of evidence," she said.
Farah Jama was awarded $550,000 compensation this year after serving 16 months' jail for a rape he didn't commit. A DNA sample had been contaminated. A revised analysis reduced the statistical likelihood of the DNA belonging to someone else from one in 800 billion to one in 150 million.
Retired judge Frank Vincent, who conducted a government inquiry into the case, said in his report that he was "troubled by such an extraordinary variation".
Original report here. (Via Australian Politics)
(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 people convicted of rape, one of drug trafficking, and one of armed robbery could be freed after a review of DNA evidence in their cases. One of the four has been in jail for rape for four years. And just last week, a woman was acquitted on appeal of a drugs charge after the DNA case against her fell away.
Hundreds of cases involving DNA are being reviewed after a more conservative approach was adopted towards analysing DNA evidence.
Police Association secretary Greg Davies today said it was unclear whether current investigations would be affected. But he said such a result would be “unfortunate in the extreme’’
"Obviously we will have to wait and see,’’ Mr Davies said. "But if it did impact adversely on ongoing matters that would be very unfortunate and cause a lot of distress to a lot of victims not to mention police officers that have worked hard to bring matters to the courts. "If some sort of irregularity was to derail those investigations or court proceedings it would be unfortunate in the extreme."
Kelly Hazell Quill Lawyers director Justin Quill said anyone acquitted as a result of the review would likely have problems suing. But any payout could be significant. "If these people are found to have been wrongly convicted, then they might have a case against the state,"Mr Quill said. "Although they would have to show not just that there was a wrong result, but that there was something wrong with the system. "That might not be that easy.
"So while you might have sympathy for them, that doesn't necessarily translate into a legal right to compensation. "If they were successful though, any damages award would likely be substantial."
Late last year, it was found that statistical analysis of DNA evidence had not kept pace with technology. This led Chief Commissioner Simon Overland to ban police forensic scientists from giving evidence for a month, while a review of procedures took place. Since then, forensic evidence in 370 of 430 cases still before the courts has been reviewed.
In five, the statistical strength of the DNA evidence was reduced. One of those was the case of Florina Alecu. She was given a 21-month suspended jail term after being convicted of cultivating cannabis in a water tank beneath a shed at a hobby farm in Litchfield, in the Mallee, in 2006. She was linked to DNA on a gardening glove found nearby.
The jury at her 2008 trial was told the likelihood of the DNA being from someone chosen at random, rather than her, was one in 10,000. Forensic scientists rated this evidence as "very strong". But under the new methodology, that statistical likelihood fell to just one in nine.
Last week, the Court of Appeal ruled the new DNA report "largely (if not wholly) obliterates" what was "an important strand in the cable that was the circumstantial case against her". The prosecution conceded there should be a retrial. But as her suspended sentence had almost expired, the court directed an acquittal instead. Her de facto husband, Jim Theoharethes, is serving at least two of four years' jail over the case.
The Director of Public Prosecutions, Jeremy Rapke, QC, is believed to have been advised last week that new DNA reports in the four other current cases, where the DNA likelihood had been reduced, would be provided by month's end.
Charges in at least one other case have been dropped after the new DNA statistical analysis left it too weak to proceed.
At the DPP's invitation last year, nine closed cases, where lawyers regarded the DNA evidence as potentially doubtful, were also submitted for review. A reassessment of the evidence in the first five, including a murder and a rape, has cleared those convictions.
A police spokeswoman told the Herald Sun that work was continuing on a national standard in DNA interpretation and the force was "rolling out new procedures that will enable it to interpret low-level DNA profiles with even more confidence than (now)". "It should be noted that in a vast majority of cases Victoria Police will not proceed if DNA is the sole source of evidence," she said.
Farah Jama was awarded $550,000 compensation this year after serving 16 months' jail for a rape he didn't commit. A DNA sample had been contaminated. A revised analysis reduced the statistical likelihood of the DNA belonging to someone else from one in 800 billion to one in 150 million.
Retired judge Frank Vincent, who conducted a government inquiry into the case, said in his report that he was "troubled by such an extraordinary variation".
Original report here. (Via Australian Politics)
(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
Wednesday, September 08, 2010
B*stard British cop gets only 6 months
Though that is 6 months more than most American rogue cops get. Six months was apparently the maximum for the offences he was charged with. Clearly he should have been charged with more serious offences. Not noted below is what a big thug he is. He was about a foot taller than the woman
A BRITISH policeman who was filmed on a security camera dragging a 57-year-old woman across the floor and leaving her bleeding and unconscious in a cell was yesterday jailed for six months.
Sergeant Mark Andrews, 37, a former soldier, was recorded in July 2008 dragging Pamela Somerville, now 59, across the floor of a police station in Wiltshire, southwestern England, after she was arrested for falling asleep in her stationary car and allegedly refusing a breathalyser test.
Ms Somerville, who had never been in trouble with police before, hit her head on the ground when she was thrown into the cell and sustained a gash above her eye. On the footage, blood can be seen dripping from her wound before she calls for help. She was taken to the hospital and needed stitches after the incident.
Andrews, who is expected to lose his job, was convicted at Oxford Magistrates' Court of assaulting Ms Somerville and causing the woman actual bodily harm, after a five-day trial. Passing sentence, Deputy District Judge Peter Greenfield said: "In my view, you presided over an atmosphere of bullying and intimidation upon Ms Somerville which culminated in the cell later that morning."
Patrick Geenty, assistant chief constable of Wiltshire Police, apologised for the incident outside court. In a statement he said: "He breached the service of care that every police officer gives to the public. There is no place in Wiltshire Police Force for an officer like this. "I fully support the comments of the judge and the sentence handed down today. The officer let the public down, he let his colleagues down and he let himself down. He was a disgrace."
Chief Con Geenty added: "I am proud of the officer who came forward and reported him to his supervisor. That officer uphold the standards of the service that we all expect."
But despite his strong criticism of Andrews, he stressed custody is a difficult place to work and said that aside from the 2008 incident national inspections found that Wiltshire Police treated people with respect and dignity.
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
Though that is 6 months more than most American rogue cops get. Six months was apparently the maximum for the offences he was charged with. Clearly he should have been charged with more serious offences. Not noted below is what a big thug he is. He was about a foot taller than the woman
A BRITISH policeman who was filmed on a security camera dragging a 57-year-old woman across the floor and leaving her bleeding and unconscious in a cell was yesterday jailed for six months.
Sergeant Mark Andrews, 37, a former soldier, was recorded in July 2008 dragging Pamela Somerville, now 59, across the floor of a police station in Wiltshire, southwestern England, after she was arrested for falling asleep in her stationary car and allegedly refusing a breathalyser test.
Ms Somerville, who had never been in trouble with police before, hit her head on the ground when she was thrown into the cell and sustained a gash above her eye. On the footage, blood can be seen dripping from her wound before she calls for help. She was taken to the hospital and needed stitches after the incident.
Andrews, who is expected to lose his job, was convicted at Oxford Magistrates' Court of assaulting Ms Somerville and causing the woman actual bodily harm, after a five-day trial. Passing sentence, Deputy District Judge Peter Greenfield said: "In my view, you presided over an atmosphere of bullying and intimidation upon Ms Somerville which culminated in the cell later that morning."
Patrick Geenty, assistant chief constable of Wiltshire Police, apologised for the incident outside court. In a statement he said: "He breached the service of care that every police officer gives to the public. There is no place in Wiltshire Police Force for an officer like this. "I fully support the comments of the judge and the sentence handed down today. The officer let the public down, he let his colleagues down and he let himself down. He was a disgrace."
Chief Con Geenty added: "I am proud of the officer who came forward and reported him to his supervisor. That officer uphold the standards of the service that we all expect."
But despite his strong criticism of Andrews, he stressed custody is a difficult place to work and said that aside from the 2008 incident national inspections found that Wiltshire Police treated people with respect and dignity.
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
Tuesday, September 07, 2010
Trust me: You can trust us
Northern Virginia's police departments are determined to keep the public from knowing what they're doing
In April I wrote a column about the secretive habits of three large police departments in Virginia's Washington, D.C., suburbs: Fairfax County, Alexandria, and Arlington. As Connection Newspapers reporter Michael Pope showed in a series of reports that began in March, they are among the least transparent departments in the country, having interpreted Virginia's Freedom of Information Act in a way that allows them to turn down nearly all requests for information.
Recently there have been a couple of attempts to make Virginia's law enforcement agencies more transparent. As I reported in June, Nicholas Beltrante, an 82-year-old former cop and Navy medic, started the Virginia Citizens Coalition for Police Accountability. And in January, state Sen. John Edwards (D-Roanoke) introduced a bill that would force police to turn over public records in cases where the investigation has been completed.
Michael Pope's initial attempts to obtain information, even about mundane cases or arrests the department itself was highlighting in press releases, met with astonishing disdain. Police were not only stingy with information; they were smug and arrogant about it. When asked why she couldn't release the name of a Virginia police officer who shot and killed an unarmed man last November, Fairfax County police spokeswoman Mary Ann Jennings replied, "What does the name of an officer give the public in terms of information and disclosure? I'd be curious to know why they want the name of an officer."
After Pope's first article on the lack of disclosure, Alexandria Commonwealth's Attorney Randolph Sengel, the city's elected chief prosecutor, responded with a sneering, condescending letter to the editor brimming with contempt for outsiders who try to hold law enforcement agencies accountable. "Last time I checked there were multiple safeguards in place to assure the integrity of the criminal justice system," Sengel wrote. "Conscientious and dedicated judges, prosecutors, public defenders, and law enforcement officers work in a system which is as transparent as it needs to be...The sacred 'right of the public to know' is still (barely) governed by standards of reasonableness and civility."
Meanwhile, the elected officials who are supposed to oversee law enforcement in these jurisdictions told Pope they saw nothing wrong with all the secrecy. "I am in the corner of trusting our police department," said Arlington County Board Member Barbara Favola.
Sen. Edwards' bill—which was considered by the Virginia Freedom of Information Advisory Council, a state agency that advises lawmakers and government officials, at a hearing last week—is a partial response to such attitudes. If enacted, it would make Virginia's police departments a bit more transparent, although they would still have the power to routinely deny requests for information about open cases.
In response to fierce opposition from law enforcement, Edwards amended his bill to require that people seeking information about closed cases ask a judge for an order requiring police departments to turn over public documents. But as Pope reported this week, the change did not appease the bill's opponents. Instead of requiring police departments to provide a compelling reason for withholding public records, the latest compromise plan would put the burden on the petitioner to convince a judge that the records should be released. Even that isn't enough for the bill's critics, who prefer that police departments have complete discretion to withhold department records.
Pope reported that "police chiefs, prosecutors, and sheriffs from across Virginia" spoke against Edwards' bill" at last week's hearing, complaining that "incident reports were raw and unedited documents full of accusations and opinions that would reveal police operations to criminals." They also warned that releasing such documents would "create a chilling effect on victims and witnesses," discouraging them from "coming forward to share information." These worries are red herrings. Nearly every other police department in the country releases police reports to the public without compromising investigations, public safety, or the security of witnesses. Sensitive information such as the identity of police informants or the names of witnesses can be redacted.
The real motive for the current policy seems to be preventing watchdogs and journalists from scrutinizing police reports for accuracy and consistency or examining the history, training, and temperament of officers who are involved in shootings. Consider the case of Jonathan Ayers, a pastor killed by undercover narcotics officers during a botched drug sting in Lavonia, Georgia, last year. Ayers, who was counseling a prostitute and low-level drug offender, was unarmed, had no drugs on him, and appears to have done nothing wrong. An internal investigation and a Georgia Bureau of Investigation inquiry cleared the officers involved in Ayers' death of any wrongdoing. But months later, a local TV station and attorneys for Ayers' widow discovered that Billy Shane Harrison, the officer who killed Ayers, not only hadn't received proper training in the use of lethal force but wasn't legally permitted to carry his service weapon. In fact, under state law, he wasn't even permitted to be a police officer. If Harrison had killed Ayers in Virginia, we might still not know his name, much less that he had no business wearing a badge that day.
Alexandria Commonwealth's Attorney Sengel, who insists the criminal justice system does fine on its own without intrusion by nosy outsiders, attended last week's hearing on Edwards' bill to reiterate his opposition to greater transparency. "Other than people out there who want to write books like Truman Capote, I don't think we've heard a compelling need for this," Sengel said, according to Pope's report on the hearing. "It's designed to address a problem that really doesn't exist, and it would create a situation that's much worse than what we have today."
We could just take Sengel's word for it. But the truth is that we don't know if there are problems inside Northern Virginia's police departments, because Northern Virginia's police departments refuse to release any information to the public. When Sengel investigates a business in Alexandria for fraud, he doesn't let its executives off the hook as long as they give him their word that everything is on the up and up. Yet Sengel would have us believe that law enforcement officials are incapable of corruption, collusion, and deceit—because they (and he) say so.
Law enforcement officials are as fallible as the rest of us. The major difference between them and us is that they are entrusted with the most direct and dramatic power we give the government: the power to arrest, to detain, and to kill. Their failures can rob people of their freedom or their lives. That's more than enough reason to hold them at least as accountable as any other government official. And it's more than enough reason to take back their power, their office, and their paycheck when they refuse to make themselves answerable to the people they serve.
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
Northern Virginia's police departments are determined to keep the public from knowing what they're doing
In April I wrote a column about the secretive habits of three large police departments in Virginia's Washington, D.C., suburbs: Fairfax County, Alexandria, and Arlington. As Connection Newspapers reporter Michael Pope showed in a series of reports that began in March, they are among the least transparent departments in the country, having interpreted Virginia's Freedom of Information Act in a way that allows them to turn down nearly all requests for information.
Recently there have been a couple of attempts to make Virginia's law enforcement agencies more transparent. As I reported in June, Nicholas Beltrante, an 82-year-old former cop and Navy medic, started the Virginia Citizens Coalition for Police Accountability. And in January, state Sen. John Edwards (D-Roanoke) introduced a bill that would force police to turn over public records in cases where the investigation has been completed.
Michael Pope's initial attempts to obtain information, even about mundane cases or arrests the department itself was highlighting in press releases, met with astonishing disdain. Police were not only stingy with information; they were smug and arrogant about it. When asked why she couldn't release the name of a Virginia police officer who shot and killed an unarmed man last November, Fairfax County police spokeswoman Mary Ann Jennings replied, "What does the name of an officer give the public in terms of information and disclosure? I'd be curious to know why they want the name of an officer."
After Pope's first article on the lack of disclosure, Alexandria Commonwealth's Attorney Randolph Sengel, the city's elected chief prosecutor, responded with a sneering, condescending letter to the editor brimming with contempt for outsiders who try to hold law enforcement agencies accountable. "Last time I checked there were multiple safeguards in place to assure the integrity of the criminal justice system," Sengel wrote. "Conscientious and dedicated judges, prosecutors, public defenders, and law enforcement officers work in a system which is as transparent as it needs to be...The sacred 'right of the public to know' is still (barely) governed by standards of reasonableness and civility."
Meanwhile, the elected officials who are supposed to oversee law enforcement in these jurisdictions told Pope they saw nothing wrong with all the secrecy. "I am in the corner of trusting our police department," said Arlington County Board Member Barbara Favola.
Sen. Edwards' bill—which was considered by the Virginia Freedom of Information Advisory Council, a state agency that advises lawmakers and government officials, at a hearing last week—is a partial response to such attitudes. If enacted, it would make Virginia's police departments a bit more transparent, although they would still have the power to routinely deny requests for information about open cases.
In response to fierce opposition from law enforcement, Edwards amended his bill to require that people seeking information about closed cases ask a judge for an order requiring police departments to turn over public documents. But as Pope reported this week, the change did not appease the bill's opponents. Instead of requiring police departments to provide a compelling reason for withholding public records, the latest compromise plan would put the burden on the petitioner to convince a judge that the records should be released. Even that isn't enough for the bill's critics, who prefer that police departments have complete discretion to withhold department records.
Pope reported that "police chiefs, prosecutors, and sheriffs from across Virginia" spoke against Edwards' bill" at last week's hearing, complaining that "incident reports were raw and unedited documents full of accusations and opinions that would reveal police operations to criminals." They also warned that releasing such documents would "create a chilling effect on victims and witnesses," discouraging them from "coming forward to share information." These worries are red herrings. Nearly every other police department in the country releases police reports to the public without compromising investigations, public safety, or the security of witnesses. Sensitive information such as the identity of police informants or the names of witnesses can be redacted.
The real motive for the current policy seems to be preventing watchdogs and journalists from scrutinizing police reports for accuracy and consistency or examining the history, training, and temperament of officers who are involved in shootings. Consider the case of Jonathan Ayers, a pastor killed by undercover narcotics officers during a botched drug sting in Lavonia, Georgia, last year. Ayers, who was counseling a prostitute and low-level drug offender, was unarmed, had no drugs on him, and appears to have done nothing wrong. An internal investigation and a Georgia Bureau of Investigation inquiry cleared the officers involved in Ayers' death of any wrongdoing. But months later, a local TV station and attorneys for Ayers' widow discovered that Billy Shane Harrison, the officer who killed Ayers, not only hadn't received proper training in the use of lethal force but wasn't legally permitted to carry his service weapon. In fact, under state law, he wasn't even permitted to be a police officer. If Harrison had killed Ayers in Virginia, we might still not know his name, much less that he had no business wearing a badge that day.
Alexandria Commonwealth's Attorney Sengel, who insists the criminal justice system does fine on its own without intrusion by nosy outsiders, attended last week's hearing on Edwards' bill to reiterate his opposition to greater transparency. "Other than people out there who want to write books like Truman Capote, I don't think we've heard a compelling need for this," Sengel said, according to Pope's report on the hearing. "It's designed to address a problem that really doesn't exist, and it would create a situation that's much worse than what we have today."
We could just take Sengel's word for it. But the truth is that we don't know if there are problems inside Northern Virginia's police departments, because Northern Virginia's police departments refuse to release any information to the public. When Sengel investigates a business in Alexandria for fraud, he doesn't let its executives off the hook as long as they give him their word that everything is on the up and up. Yet Sengel would have us believe that law enforcement officials are incapable of corruption, collusion, and deceit—because they (and he) say so.
Law enforcement officials are as fallible as the rest of us. The major difference between them and us is that they are entrusted with the most direct and dramatic power we give the government: the power to arrest, to detain, and to kill. Their failures can rob people of their freedom or their lives. That's more than enough reason to hold them at least as accountable as any other government official. And it's more than enough reason to take back their power, their office, and their paycheck when they refuse to make themselves answerable to the people they serve.
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
Monday, September 06, 2010
Maybe the NRA’s right to be paranoid
I did not believe the National Rifle Association and all its Second Amendment hype until now.
My daughter gave her daddy a gun for his birthday. As a law-abiding citizen he went to transfer ownership. Ten days later a letter arrived from the Department of Justice — transfer denied, stated my husband is a felon and he can’t have fire arms. Shock: He knew he was not a felon, had bought and registered guns for years, and now that department states that he is a felon since 1972 and can’t have any guns.
My husband called the Department of Justice. No, they could not tell him what his crime was or anything about it. They could only talk to him about it if he brought up what the crime was first. As he did not know what his crime was, he could not tell them and they refused to give him any information. Their answer was he would have to go to the police department and pay to have a Live Scan or copy of his record done. He did that. Three week later, still no answers.
He started calling the Department of Justice over and over. No, they did not have the Live Scan request. No, they did not know what the problem was. No, they still could not give him information about the alleged crime. Over and over, still no answers, and sorry we now have lost your file. I will have to give my husband credit: He did not yell, swear or threaten these jerks that we are paying to so-called protect us from registered gun owners.
One month later panic is about to set in, as hunting season is getting close. Another interesting piece of information: He bought his hunting license and deer tag before he tried to transfer that gift from our daughter. No problem, it was issued without the slightest objection.
One more final phone call to the Department of Justice stating we were going to hire an attorney. So, interesting, they now said, “Oh sorry. Someone made a mistake. You are not a felon. No we have not sent you a copy of your record (that we paid for). No, we won’t send you a letter saying you’re not a felon but we have flagged your file and you should not have any further problems.”
What is going on when a government agency can write a letter stating, “You are a felon, you may not have guns, no we won’t tell you what you did, but you’re guilty until you prove different?” Then, when we did not back off, “Gee, sorry. Guess you are not a felon, but we won’t put it in writing.”
Now I am scared. The NRA may be right. We have heard from several hunter friends they have had the same experience. Either the Department of Justice is a total joke or the government is building a database so they know where to go and pick up private citizens’ guns.
My husband is a Native American. His family has already had to endure being destroyed by our government once. My family came to this country in 1641. They have fought in every war and conflict our government has asked them to fight in. We believe in our flag, our freedom, and we fought and spilled blood to keep our rights intact.
I believe our government is supposed to be “we the people.” “We the people” are supposed to be running things, not the government. So pay attention, vote and force the government to be the servant of “we the people.”
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
I did not believe the National Rifle Association and all its Second Amendment hype until now.
My daughter gave her daddy a gun for his birthday. As a law-abiding citizen he went to transfer ownership. Ten days later a letter arrived from the Department of Justice — transfer denied, stated my husband is a felon and he can’t have fire arms. Shock: He knew he was not a felon, had bought and registered guns for years, and now that department states that he is a felon since 1972 and can’t have any guns.
My husband called the Department of Justice. No, they could not tell him what his crime was or anything about it. They could only talk to him about it if he brought up what the crime was first. As he did not know what his crime was, he could not tell them and they refused to give him any information. Their answer was he would have to go to the police department and pay to have a Live Scan or copy of his record done. He did that. Three week later, still no answers.
He started calling the Department of Justice over and over. No, they did not have the Live Scan request. No, they did not know what the problem was. No, they still could not give him information about the alleged crime. Over and over, still no answers, and sorry we now have lost your file. I will have to give my husband credit: He did not yell, swear or threaten these jerks that we are paying to so-called protect us from registered gun owners.
One month later panic is about to set in, as hunting season is getting close. Another interesting piece of information: He bought his hunting license and deer tag before he tried to transfer that gift from our daughter. No problem, it was issued without the slightest objection.
One more final phone call to the Department of Justice stating we were going to hire an attorney. So, interesting, they now said, “Oh sorry. Someone made a mistake. You are not a felon. No we have not sent you a copy of your record (that we paid for). No, we won’t send you a letter saying you’re not a felon but we have flagged your file and you should not have any further problems.”
What is going on when a government agency can write a letter stating, “You are a felon, you may not have guns, no we won’t tell you what you did, but you’re guilty until you prove different?” Then, when we did not back off, “Gee, sorry. Guess you are not a felon, but we won’t put it in writing.”
Now I am scared. The NRA may be right. We have heard from several hunter friends they have had the same experience. Either the Department of Justice is a total joke or the government is building a database so they know where to go and pick up private citizens’ guns.
My husband is a Native American. His family has already had to endure being destroyed by our government once. My family came to this country in 1641. They have fought in every war and conflict our government has asked them to fight in. We believe in our flag, our freedom, and we fought and spilled blood to keep our rights intact.
I believe our government is supposed to be “we the people.” “We the people” are supposed to be running things, not the government. So pay attention, vote and force the government to be the servant of “we the people.”
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
Sunday, September 05, 2010
Lifted like a rag doll and hurled into cell: Shocking video of British police brutality... on 5ft 2in tall woman, 59, guilty of no offence
All because she wanted to know why she was being arrested and they wouldn't tell her. And the cop is facing a maximum of only 6 months in jail!
Captured on film, a burly police sergeant flings an innocent 5ft 2in woman on to a concrete floor, knocking her unconscious.
By the time the then 57-year-old market researcher Pamela Somerville comes round several minutes later, blood is streaming from a wound above her left eye.
Disorientated and bewildered, she manages to lift herself off the floor, but can only stagger around the room. Blood forms in small pools at her feet. Then she presses an intercom and cries: ‘I’m hurt, please, please help me.’
The incident, in the sleepy Wiltshire market town of Melksham, will inevitably stoke debate about the deteriorating relationship between the public and the police following the death of newspaper vendor Ian Tomlinson, pushed to the ground by a police officer during last year’s G20 protests.
Unlike that case, however, the officer involved – 6ft 3in, powerfully built former soldier Mark Andrews – was brought before a court. Earlier this summer, Sergeant Andrews, 37, was convicted of assaulting Ms Somerville on a July morning two years ago.
He had denied the charge, but was found guilty at Oxford Magistrates’ Court after a five-day trial. He will be sentenced on Tuesday when he faces up to six months in jail. [Is that all??]
CCTV footage of the incident obtained by The Mail on Sunday also shows Andrews dragging a terrified Ms Somerville across the floor.
It was, she says, the first time she had been inside a police station. Not having had ‘so much as a parking ticket before’ it was also her first encounter of any kind with the police. ‘I am just an ordinary, middle-aged, middle-class Miss Goody Two-Shoes. I had done absolutely nothing wrong,’ she said.
‘What happened to me was extraordinary, terrifying, and no one should ever be treated in the same way again, no matter what they are said to have done. 'It’s the kind of thing that might go on in a tin-pot dictatorship in Latin America, maybe, but not in rural Wiltshire.’
Police took Ms Somerville into custody after she spent the night asleep in her car in a rural lane. They say she was arrested because she refused to provide a breath sample – something she strongly denies. Although she was later charged, the police dropped the case against her....
She awoke at around 8.30am and, after getting out of the car, saw a female community police officer walking towards her. ‘I was delighted to see her,’ said Ms Somerville. ‘I asked her if she had some jump leads but she walked off as if to make a call.’ Within minutes a patrol car pulled up alongside her Mercedes estate and two police officers, one male and one female, got out.
‘I asked if they had brought the jump leads but they simply said, “Shut up. We are the f****** police.” Then they pushed me on to the back of the car, pushed my arms up high behind my back and handcuffed me very roughly.
'I was astounded and assumed it was a case of mistaken identity. One of the officers was particularly aggressive and kept telling me to shut up when I asked what was happening.’
Ms Somerville admits she became angry and abusive when the two officers repeatedly refused to explain why they wanted to take her to a police station. ‘I came out with a few choice expletives when they kept telling me to shut up, and the male officer used the F-word again when I told him he was making a mistake.’
It was on arrival at Melksham police station, where cameras are installed in the custody suite and holding cells, that Ms Somerville first encountered Sgt Andrews.
CCTV footage shows Ms Somerville flanked by two officers as she stands handcuffed at the front desk at around 10.20am.
An edited version of the film was later used in evidence against Andrews. There is some sound, but only at the start, and the timings at the bottom of the screen appear to be out of sequence in places.
Before taking her to a cell, Andrews shouts from behind his desk: ‘Oh shut up. Listen to me. You are in my custody now and you will be quiet and you will listen. Do you understand?’
Ms Somerville admits shouting at the officer, but only because he would not explain why she had been arrested. She was then taken to a cell. ‘I was starting to become very frightened by then,’ she said.
Later that morning, police eventually called paramedics who took Ms Somerville to the Royal United Hospital in Bath.
‘I can remember trying to explain to the paramedics that I didn’t understand why I was there,’ she said. ‘When they saw blood coming from my mouth, they put the sirens on and I was taken straight into A&E. I thought to myself, “This is it, Pam. You’re going to die.” I was still concussed.’
During the several hours she spent in hospital she was kept in handcuffs and accompanied by two police officers, despite protests from nurses.
‘The officers at the hospital wouldn’t let me call my partner, or anyone. I said it was my right and they replied that it might be like that on American TV programmes but not here.’
After the gash above her eyes was stitched and her head X-rayed, she was driven back to the police station.
‘My eye was still bleeding and one of the officers told me off because he would have to clean the blood off the back seat of the car,’ she said.
Soon after returning, at 6.45pm, she was charged with failing to provide a specimen of breath and released on bail. Officers told her she would have to take a taxi home but when she started vomiting outside the station, they called an ambulance and she was taken back to hospital.
Her partner John, who still thought she was staying at her daughter’s, was eventually told about her whereabouts by a community policeman, who told him she had been arrested and was injured. ‘John burst into tears when he saw me at the hospital covered in blood with my eye closed and swollen,’ Ms Somerville said.
At his Wiltshire home yesterday, Sgt Andrews declined to comment. He sped off in a Honda Civic, the hood of his anorak pulled tightly around his face.
In a statement, Assistant Chief Constable Patrick Geenty said: ‘The court has heard from a number of witnesses in connection with an incident within the custody suite at Melksham police station two years ago which resulted in a 57-year-old woman sustaining an injury to her head.
‘We are very concerned when anyone is injured while in our custody and the court has decided that this injury was as a result of a criminal assault by Sgt Mark Andrews, a member of Wiltshire Police who was performing duty as a custody sergeant at the time.
‘We respect the decision of the court and the force has formally apologised to the injured lady for the assault she suffered while in our care.
'The incident was reported by another police officer within the custody centre who was concerned at what had taken place.
'The officer found herself in a very difficult situation created by her own supervisor but performed her duty to the highest standards in bringing this unacceptable incident to the attention of another supervisor.
‘As soon as the incident was brought to attention, the officer concerned was removed from public-facing duties and the incident was voluntarily referred to the Independent Police Complaints Commission who decided they would be satisfied with a local investigation by the force itself. 'This investigation resulted in a file being sent to the CPS which led to the trial of Sgt Andrews.
‘The public have a right to expect that the police will always act with their safety and welfare as their first priority. 'This is especially so when in police custody and considerable effort and importance is placed on ensuring that processes, systems, training and staff attitude is directed towards facing up to that responsibility.
‘Some 16,000 people a year are dealt with in police custody centres in Wiltshire and the public will understand that this environment is a very difficult one with hostility, conflict, violence towards staff and unpredictability.
'That does not excuse any unacceptable or unlawful behaviour by police officers or staff but it is important to put this difficult job into context.
More here. (Video at link)
(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
All because she wanted to know why she was being arrested and they wouldn't tell her. And the cop is facing a maximum of only 6 months in jail!
Captured on film, a burly police sergeant flings an innocent 5ft 2in woman on to a concrete floor, knocking her unconscious.
By the time the then 57-year-old market researcher Pamela Somerville comes round several minutes later, blood is streaming from a wound above her left eye.
Disorientated and bewildered, she manages to lift herself off the floor, but can only stagger around the room. Blood forms in small pools at her feet. Then she presses an intercom and cries: ‘I’m hurt, please, please help me.’
The incident, in the sleepy Wiltshire market town of Melksham, will inevitably stoke debate about the deteriorating relationship between the public and the police following the death of newspaper vendor Ian Tomlinson, pushed to the ground by a police officer during last year’s G20 protests.
Unlike that case, however, the officer involved – 6ft 3in, powerfully built former soldier Mark Andrews – was brought before a court. Earlier this summer, Sergeant Andrews, 37, was convicted of assaulting Ms Somerville on a July morning two years ago.
He had denied the charge, but was found guilty at Oxford Magistrates’ Court after a five-day trial. He will be sentenced on Tuesday when he faces up to six months in jail. [Is that all??]
CCTV footage of the incident obtained by The Mail on Sunday also shows Andrews dragging a terrified Ms Somerville across the floor.
It was, she says, the first time she had been inside a police station. Not having had ‘so much as a parking ticket before’ it was also her first encounter of any kind with the police. ‘I am just an ordinary, middle-aged, middle-class Miss Goody Two-Shoes. I had done absolutely nothing wrong,’ she said.
‘What happened to me was extraordinary, terrifying, and no one should ever be treated in the same way again, no matter what they are said to have done. 'It’s the kind of thing that might go on in a tin-pot dictatorship in Latin America, maybe, but not in rural Wiltshire.’
Police took Ms Somerville into custody after she spent the night asleep in her car in a rural lane. They say she was arrested because she refused to provide a breath sample – something she strongly denies. Although she was later charged, the police dropped the case against her....
She awoke at around 8.30am and, after getting out of the car, saw a female community police officer walking towards her. ‘I was delighted to see her,’ said Ms Somerville. ‘I asked her if she had some jump leads but she walked off as if to make a call.’ Within minutes a patrol car pulled up alongside her Mercedes estate and two police officers, one male and one female, got out.
‘I asked if they had brought the jump leads but they simply said, “Shut up. We are the f****** police.” Then they pushed me on to the back of the car, pushed my arms up high behind my back and handcuffed me very roughly.
'I was astounded and assumed it was a case of mistaken identity. One of the officers was particularly aggressive and kept telling me to shut up when I asked what was happening.’
Ms Somerville admits she became angry and abusive when the two officers repeatedly refused to explain why they wanted to take her to a police station. ‘I came out with a few choice expletives when they kept telling me to shut up, and the male officer used the F-word again when I told him he was making a mistake.’
It was on arrival at Melksham police station, where cameras are installed in the custody suite and holding cells, that Ms Somerville first encountered Sgt Andrews.
CCTV footage shows Ms Somerville flanked by two officers as she stands handcuffed at the front desk at around 10.20am.
An edited version of the film was later used in evidence against Andrews. There is some sound, but only at the start, and the timings at the bottom of the screen appear to be out of sequence in places.
Before taking her to a cell, Andrews shouts from behind his desk: ‘Oh shut up. Listen to me. You are in my custody now and you will be quiet and you will listen. Do you understand?’
Ms Somerville admits shouting at the officer, but only because he would not explain why she had been arrested. She was then taken to a cell. ‘I was starting to become very frightened by then,’ she said.
Later that morning, police eventually called paramedics who took Ms Somerville to the Royal United Hospital in Bath.
‘I can remember trying to explain to the paramedics that I didn’t understand why I was there,’ she said. ‘When they saw blood coming from my mouth, they put the sirens on and I was taken straight into A&E. I thought to myself, “This is it, Pam. You’re going to die.” I was still concussed.’
During the several hours she spent in hospital she was kept in handcuffs and accompanied by two police officers, despite protests from nurses.
‘The officers at the hospital wouldn’t let me call my partner, or anyone. I said it was my right and they replied that it might be like that on American TV programmes but not here.’
After the gash above her eyes was stitched and her head X-rayed, she was driven back to the police station.
‘My eye was still bleeding and one of the officers told me off because he would have to clean the blood off the back seat of the car,’ she said.
Soon after returning, at 6.45pm, she was charged with failing to provide a specimen of breath and released on bail. Officers told her she would have to take a taxi home but when she started vomiting outside the station, they called an ambulance and she was taken back to hospital.
Her partner John, who still thought she was staying at her daughter’s, was eventually told about her whereabouts by a community policeman, who told him she had been arrested and was injured. ‘John burst into tears when he saw me at the hospital covered in blood with my eye closed and swollen,’ Ms Somerville said.
At his Wiltshire home yesterday, Sgt Andrews declined to comment. He sped off in a Honda Civic, the hood of his anorak pulled tightly around his face.
In a statement, Assistant Chief Constable Patrick Geenty said: ‘The court has heard from a number of witnesses in connection with an incident within the custody suite at Melksham police station two years ago which resulted in a 57-year-old woman sustaining an injury to her head.
‘We are very concerned when anyone is injured while in our custody and the court has decided that this injury was as a result of a criminal assault by Sgt Mark Andrews, a member of Wiltshire Police who was performing duty as a custody sergeant at the time.
‘We respect the decision of the court and the force has formally apologised to the injured lady for the assault she suffered while in our care.
'The incident was reported by another police officer within the custody centre who was concerned at what had taken place.
'The officer found herself in a very difficult situation created by her own supervisor but performed her duty to the highest standards in bringing this unacceptable incident to the attention of another supervisor.
‘As soon as the incident was brought to attention, the officer concerned was removed from public-facing duties and the incident was voluntarily referred to the Independent Police Complaints Commission who decided they would be satisfied with a local investigation by the force itself. 'This investigation resulted in a file being sent to the CPS which led to the trial of Sgt Andrews.
‘The public have a right to expect that the police will always act with their safety and welfare as their first priority. 'This is especially so when in police custody and considerable effort and importance is placed on ensuring that processes, systems, training and staff attitude is directed towards facing up to that responsibility.
‘Some 16,000 people a year are dealt with in police custody centres in Wiltshire and the public will understand that this environment is a very difficult one with hostility, conflict, violence towards staff and unpredictability.
'That does not excuse any unacceptable or unlawful behaviour by police officers or staff but it is important to put this difficult job into context.
More here. (Video at link)
(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
Saturday, September 04, 2010
Life for poker
The arrest of online gambling entrepreneur Daniel Tzvetkoff
Daniel Tzvetkoff, a young Australian entrepreneur who co-founded the online payment processor Intabill in 2007, had a brief, flashy run as a multimillionaire before his business collapsed amid accusations of financial mismanagement. But his real crime, according to the U.S. government, was doing precisely what Intabill purported to do: facilitate online payments, including bets by American poker players.
When Tzvetkoff was arrested during a visit to Las Vegas in April, it was the first time anyone had been publicly charged with violating the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act. Enacted in 2006, the law makes it a federal crime for someone “engaged in the business of betting or wagering” to accept a payment in connection with “unlawful Internet gambling.”
Since Tzvetkoff did not run any gambling businesses, the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Manhattan accuses him of conspiring with others who do, including the operators of such popular websites as PokerStars and Full Tilt Poker. The indictment also alleges a conspiracy to violate the Illegal Gambling Business Act. Based on the same transactions, U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara threw in two money laundering counts and a bank fraud charge, which alleges that Tzvetkoff misled American financial institutions about where money drawn from their customers’ accounts was going.
When the penalties for the four counts are added together, Tzvetkoff faces up to 75 years in prison, plus more than $2 billion in asset forfeiture, for the crime of helping Americans play poker. All this is based on a New York state offense, “promoting gambling in the second degree,” that is classified as a misdemeanor and arguably does not cover poker.
Tzvetkoff’s unindicted co-conspirators are the same creditors who lined up in Brisbane for the money they said Intabill owed them. Viewed as legitimate businesses in the rest of the world, online gambling companies are treated as criminal enterprises in the U.S., and Tzvetkoff could face life in prison for helping them.
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 arrest of online gambling entrepreneur Daniel Tzvetkoff
Daniel Tzvetkoff, a young Australian entrepreneur who co-founded the online payment processor Intabill in 2007, had a brief, flashy run as a multimillionaire before his business collapsed amid accusations of financial mismanagement. But his real crime, according to the U.S. government, was doing precisely what Intabill purported to do: facilitate online payments, including bets by American poker players.
When Tzvetkoff was arrested during a visit to Las Vegas in April, it was the first time anyone had been publicly charged with violating the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act. Enacted in 2006, the law makes it a federal crime for someone “engaged in the business of betting or wagering” to accept a payment in connection with “unlawful Internet gambling.”
Since Tzvetkoff did not run any gambling businesses, the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Manhattan accuses him of conspiring with others who do, including the operators of such popular websites as PokerStars and Full Tilt Poker. The indictment also alleges a conspiracy to violate the Illegal Gambling Business Act. Based on the same transactions, U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara threw in two money laundering counts and a bank fraud charge, which alleges that Tzvetkoff misled American financial institutions about where money drawn from their customers’ accounts was going.
When the penalties for the four counts are added together, Tzvetkoff faces up to 75 years in prison, plus more than $2 billion in asset forfeiture, for the crime of helping Americans play poker. All this is based on a New York state offense, “promoting gambling in the second degree,” that is classified as a misdemeanor and arguably does not cover poker.
Tzvetkoff’s unindicted co-conspirators are the same creditors who lined up in Brisbane for the money they said Intabill owed them. Viewed as legitimate businesses in the rest of the world, online gambling companies are treated as criminal enterprises in the U.S., and Tzvetkoff could face life in prison for helping them.
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
Friday, September 03, 2010
Fort Worth police officer lightly reprimanded for causing brain damage
The Fort Worth (Texas) city council approved a $120,000 settlement for a man beaten in police custody. According to a newspaper report, the victim received a broken nose, a shattered eye socket, and traumatic brain damage, while the officer responsible for the abuse received only a light reprimand for his actions.
In late 2008, Carey Cass Hudson was arrested on suspicion of driving while intoxicated, a charge later dropped by prosecutors. Hudson initially only filed an insurance claim for his medical bills, which prompted an informal inquiry into the incident. The police did not release a video, and no disciplinary punishment was issued.
It was not until several months later that Hudson sued two officers, including Collin Harris, at the station where he was being held. Seemingly unprovoked, Harris can be seen in the video (above) slamming the handcuffed Hudson against a wall and then throwing him to the floor. Harris refused two paramedics and a nurse access to the once-unconscious Hudson even as blood can be seen coming from Hudson’s head area. It was only after Hudson had posted bail and was released several hours later did he receive medical attention, according to his lawsuit that incidentally was thrown out of court.
An official complaint was not filed until August of 2009, when Hudson sued, several months after the city had initially dismissed any allegation of misconduct. Only after Hudson sued did the internal investigation uncover video of the abuse. “During that time, the clock on the type of discipline that could be imposed on officers was ticking, and it ran out in December 2008,” said the Star-Telegram article.
According to the state’s civil service privileges, disciplinary complaints must be filed within 180 days of an incident. Instead of being fired, as the recently installed police chief had wanted, the officer was given a written reprimand and ordered to attend anger management classes.
The settlement offered by the city will not cover the medical expenses for Hudson’s injuries, which he estimates are $300,000.
Lessons to Learn
Police abuse is becoming a growing problem, and has been for a long time, in part because of the imbalance of power in the police’s favor and the deference they get from the public. Their word is the law. Nothing is more authoritarian (and ripe for abuse) than that, and they have a multi-million dollar organization behind them that can throw the book at you. I am sure that many officers get into this line of work to help the public. That is very admirable. But we can see how even well-intentioned people can become tainted by the disproportionate power they hold over others, particularly when the power is granted by an already aggressively violent institution. The police are wrongly granted special privileges but at least should be held to a higher standard because of it. The fact that they police their own only leads to greater infringements of liberty. It goes to show that when giving a monopoly the sole responsibility for providing a service, the quality of that service they provide will reflect the poorest of quality for an exuberant price.
Even if Hudson is fully restituted for the moral crimes committed against him, it will not be the officers responsible for his injuries who pay. It will be taxpayers who get the bill. With the city of Fort Worth already facing a historic $77 million budget deficit next year, or 15 percent of its general fund, it will give even more reason to push for higher taxes, already some of the most expensive in the state, to an even greater level.
Original report here (Video at source)
(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 Fort Worth (Texas) city council approved a $120,000 settlement for a man beaten in police custody. According to a newspaper report, the victim received a broken nose, a shattered eye socket, and traumatic brain damage, while the officer responsible for the abuse received only a light reprimand for his actions.
In late 2008, Carey Cass Hudson was arrested on suspicion of driving while intoxicated, a charge later dropped by prosecutors. Hudson initially only filed an insurance claim for his medical bills, which prompted an informal inquiry into the incident. The police did not release a video, and no disciplinary punishment was issued.
It was not until several months later that Hudson sued two officers, including Collin Harris, at the station where he was being held. Seemingly unprovoked, Harris can be seen in the video (above) slamming the handcuffed Hudson against a wall and then throwing him to the floor. Harris refused two paramedics and a nurse access to the once-unconscious Hudson even as blood can be seen coming from Hudson’s head area. It was only after Hudson had posted bail and was released several hours later did he receive medical attention, according to his lawsuit that incidentally was thrown out of court.
An official complaint was not filed until August of 2009, when Hudson sued, several months after the city had initially dismissed any allegation of misconduct. Only after Hudson sued did the internal investigation uncover video of the abuse. “During that time, the clock on the type of discipline that could be imposed on officers was ticking, and it ran out in December 2008,” said the Star-Telegram article.
According to the state’s civil service privileges, disciplinary complaints must be filed within 180 days of an incident. Instead of being fired, as the recently installed police chief had wanted, the officer was given a written reprimand and ordered to attend anger management classes.
The settlement offered by the city will not cover the medical expenses for Hudson’s injuries, which he estimates are $300,000.
Lessons to Learn
Police abuse is becoming a growing problem, and has been for a long time, in part because of the imbalance of power in the police’s favor and the deference they get from the public. Their word is the law. Nothing is more authoritarian (and ripe for abuse) than that, and they have a multi-million dollar organization behind them that can throw the book at you. I am sure that many officers get into this line of work to help the public. That is very admirable. But we can see how even well-intentioned people can become tainted by the disproportionate power they hold over others, particularly when the power is granted by an already aggressively violent institution. The police are wrongly granted special privileges but at least should be held to a higher standard because of it. The fact that they police their own only leads to greater infringements of liberty. It goes to show that when giving a monopoly the sole responsibility for providing a service, the quality of that service they provide will reflect the poorest of quality for an exuberant price.
Even if Hudson is fully restituted for the moral crimes committed against him, it will not be the officers responsible for his injuries who pay. It will be taxpayers who get the bill. With the city of Fort Worth already facing a historic $77 million budget deficit next year, or 15 percent of its general fund, it will give even more reason to push for higher taxes, already some of the most expensive in the state, to an even greater level.
Original report here (Video at source)
(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
Thursday, September 02, 2010
A policeman lashes out. An innocent man dies. So why does no one seem to care?
A newspaper vendor inadvertently gets caught up in a demonstration. A policeman in riot gear hits him from behind with a baton and then pushes him to the ground. The incident is caught on video. within minutes, the newspaper vendor is dead. The policeman in question has never been charged, not even for common assault. There has never been a proper inquiry.
The official line is that the 47-year-old vendor died of a heart attack brought on by coronary artery disease.
A miscarriage of justice in some dodgy foreign country? The sort of thing that goes on in Russia, China or an African hellhole where the rule of law does not apply? No, this happened in Britain.
Ian Tomlinson collapsed and died after he had been hit and pushed by a British policeman.
It is our own legal system that has denied him justice. Perhaps you will think that he was a rioter surreptitiously attacking the police. He wasn't. No one suggests he was.
Mr Tomlinson was wandering home from work on April 1, 2009, when he encountered riot police who were dealing with protesters during the socalled G20 riots in the City of London. He might have had a drink or two, though it would hardly be a crime if he had.
How can it be that no legal action has been taken against the policeman - PC Simon Harwood of Scotland Yard's Territorial support Group - who struck Mr Tomlinson?
The reason has a great deal to do with Dr Freddy Patel, who carried out an initial post mortem on Mr Tomlinson and declared that he had died of a heart attack. This is the same Dr Freddy Patel who was found guilty of misconduct by the General Medical Council on Tuesday.
The GMC panel found that in three postmortem examinations between 2002 and 2005, Dr Patel had made serious mistakes, and that his fitness to practise was impaired.
In one case, involving a woman in 2005, he decided that she had died from a blood clot in the coronary arteries. A month later, he changed his opinion to a brain haemorrhage after a second postmortem by another pathologist.
He told an inquest that he had made the change 'to satisfy the family'. Anyone can make a mistake, perhaps, but three? I am afraid it gets worse. There is reason to believe that Dr Patel may not have followed proper procedures during his postmortem on Mr Tomlinson. In his first assessment, he said that he had found three litres of 'fluid blood' in Mr Tomlinson's stomach.
Twelve months later, however, he wrote another report in which he said that there had been 'fluid with blood'. Following this change of wording, the Crown Prosecution-Service (CPS) decided that it could no longer prove that Mr Tomlinson had died from internal bleeding.
Two other pathologists had judged that the newspaper vendor died as the result of internal bleeding after 'blunt force' had been applied to his abdomen. They based their findings partly on Dr Patel's description of the fluid. However, when he changed his mind, they were unable to stand by their earlier judgments. Dr Patel had not kept the fluid.
No case has been brought against PC Simon Harwood who, by the way, has been previously investigated on two occasions for allegedly aggressive behaviour. He faces internal disciplinary procedures for gross misconduct, but that is not at all the same thing as having to answer to a court of law.
The CPS has recently announced he will not even be prosecuted for common assault - a crime of which the video evidence alone would appear to convict him - because too much time has elapsed and such a charge must be brought within six months. So that's that, then.
We like to pride ourselves on the workings of British justice but, my goodness, how easily those workings can get furred up. All it takes is one incompetent pathologist - and the three cases just considered by the GMC do testify to exceptional incompetence - and an innocent man can be assaulted, and the act caught on video, without his assailant being prosecuted.
Does no one care? Does Keir Starmer, the Director of Public Prosecutions, toss and turn at night as he considers the CPS's failure to bring a case? I doubt it. Does Sir Paul Stephenson, the seemingly decent and honourable Metropolitan police Commissioner, who declared himself 'concerned' by the video, want to put PC Harwood in the dock? I'm afraid not.
He says that it is entirely a matter for the Independent police Complaints Commission. But, as so often in the past, the IPCC does not seem noticeably robust. In a recent statement, its Deputy Chair, Deborah Glass, said that she understood that 'it is a very difficult time for Mr Tomlinson's family'. You bet it is.
But if you are hoping for a statement from the IPCC denouncing police behaviour, or bemoaning the failure to bring any kind of prosecution, forget it. That is not the way it does business.
Can no one help? Does no one care? Let me suggest one obvious line of inquiry. Did the City of London police, knowing about Dr Patel's weaknesses, approve his selection to carry out the first postmortem on Mr Tomlinson?
Incidentally, we would have never learnt about the assault on him had an American investment fund manager not been present with a camera.
The case bears some resemblance to that of Jean Charles De Menezes, the Brazilian who was shot seven times in the head at Stockwell Underground station in July 2005 by police who mistook him for a terrorist. no one ever had to answer in a court of law for that either.
Horrific though it was, the killing of Mr De Menezes could at least be partly understood as a terrible error by hyped up police officers only two weeks after 56 people had died in terrorist attacks in London.
The death of Mr Tomlinson is open to no such interpretation. He was assaulted for no defensible or, indeed, understandable reason by a police officer who at that moment was not under attack from anyone.
Mr Tomlinson's family have every right to complain about a miscarriage of justice. They have been badly let down by Dr Freddy Patel, the Crown prosecution service, the Independent police Complaints Commission, the City of London police and the whole shooting match. Is there no one with a burning belief in justice who will come to their rescue?
But this is not just a matter for the Tomlinson family, grievously treated though they have been. It has to do with relations between the police and the public. There was a time, I admit, when I believed that a British police officer could not be seen to hit an innocent man in cold blood and be allowed to get away with it. I imagine many took a similar view.
The police, alas, have grown further away from the law abiding people whom they are supposed to protect. Of course, in my heart I still believe they are on our side. But I do not trust them as I once did, and when I see an attack on a blameless newspaper vendor go unpunished, I begin to wonder whether I should trust them 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
Wednesday, September 01, 2010
LA: NOPD under fire for Katrina killings
In the wake of Hurricane Katrina disturbing allegations of murder and cover up against members of the new orleans police department have shaken the confidence of this city and placed a cloud of corruption over the entire department. The task of lifting that cloud belongs to the newly appointed Police Superintendent Raul Serpas.
Ronal Serpas has been on the job for just four months... In May, this 30-year career officer was sworn in as New Orleans' new Police Chief.
He spent 20 years on the force here.... was the city's deputy chief before leaving for the Washington State Patrol in 2001..and later, six years as the top cop in Nashville. He was heavily recruited to return to New Orleans by new mayor, Mitch Landrieu.
The New Orleans Police Department is reeling from allegations of murder, conspiracy and civil rights violations in the chaotic days following Hurricane Katrina. When the storm hit dozens of police abandoned their posts. CBS News cameras caught others apparently looting stores. More than 500 officers were fired or disciplined for their actions.
Sherrel Johnson's son, 17-year old James Brissette, seen here in the only photo to survive the storm was shot six times by police while crossing the Danziger bridge five days after the storm. The police claimed self-defense. Five officers have pleaded guilty to covering up the shooting. Four others could receive the death penalty if convicted.
But efforts are being made to clean up the force. 18 current and former officers are under federal indictment. The Justice Department has launched at least 8 separate investigations and has stepped in to overhaul the entire police force. Something Serpas says, the city needs
Even before katrina, New Orleans was one of the most violent cities in America. Today the city's murder rate (49 per.100,000) is down from its post-katrina record (76.7 per 100,000) but New Orleans still ranks as the nation's murder capital. Crimes like theft and burglary are down 10 percent and police recruitment is up -- bringing the force almost back to a pre-2005 level (1,500 vs 1700) .
Chief Serpas has an aggressive 65-point plan to improve the department:Opening up meetings to the public; appointing a civilian to head the public integrity unit for the first time; creating a community outreach program; and introducing a zero-tolerance code of conduct.
Serpas says there is still a long way to go but he is not second guessing his decision to come back to New Orleans.
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
Monday, August 30, 2010
Watching is a crime?
The resisting-arrest conviction last week of Felicia Gibson has left a lot of people wondering. Can a person be charged with resisting arrest while observing a traffic stop from his or her own front porch?
Salisbury Police Officer Mark Hunter thought so, and last week District Court Judge Beth Dixon agreed. Because Gibson did not at first comply when the officer told her and others to go inside, the judge found Gibson guilty of resisting, delaying or obstructing an officer.
Gibson was not the only bystander watching the action on the street. She was the only one holding up a cell-phone video camera. But court testimony never indicated that Hunter told her to stop the camera; he just told her to go inside.
Asked to explain the charge of resisting arrest, Salisbury Police Chief Rorie Collins provided general comments. He was not discussing the specifics of the Gibson case.
Post: What is “resisting arrest” or “resist, delay, obstruct an officer” in the performance of his/her duties?
Collins: “These are basically the same charge. Some call the charge simply “resisting arrest,” and some call it by its longer and more official title. This crime can be found in the North Carolina General Statutes under chapter 14, subsection 223 (G.S. 14-223).
“This crime is considered a Class 2 misdemeanor and involves:
“Any person who shall willfully and unlawfully resist, delay, or obstruct a public officer in discharging or attempting to discharge a duty of his office.
“Obviously, this charge is rather broad and can encompass many different types of actions that are designed to, or serves to hinder a law enforcement officer as he/she performs their duties.
“This charge is most commonly used in situations where a person who is being arrested refuses to cooperate and either passively or aggressively resists an arrest or tries to run away.
“Another very common situation in which this charge is used involves instances when an officer is conducting an investigation and the individuals with whom he/she is dealing provide a false identity when required to identify themselves.
“As you can imagine, there are also many other circumstances in which this charge would be appropriate.”
Post: If the police stop someone in a car in front of my house, do I have the right to stand in my yard or on my porch and watch?
Collins: “The answer to this question is not quite as clear cut as the first. The short and quick answer is, ‘yes,’ in general, you do have that right!
“However, just as with many other scenarios, it is important to remember that every situation is based upon its own merits/circumstances. There are some circumstances in which the police who have stopped the vehicle in front of your house may determine that it is in the interest of safety (the officer’s, yours or the individual stopped) to require that folks move. As with other circumstances, it is best advised that an individual merely obey by the officer’s commands.”
To draw our own conclusions, Hunter could have felt that he, the bystanders or the suspects were in danger that night on West Fisher Street. No problem there. But concerns about safety do not explain why Gibson was singled out for arrest. That lingering question will have even the most law-abiding citizens wondering where their rights stop and police authority starts.
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
Sunday, August 29, 2010
MN: City to pay $165,000 to "zombies"
Minneapolis will pay seven college kids who were jailed for having fun
The Minneapolis city attorney's office has decided to pay seven zombies and their attorney $165,000.
The payout, approved by the City Council on Friday, settles a federal lawsuit the seven filed after they were arrested and jailed for two days for dressing up like zombies in downtown Minneapolis on July 22, 2006, to protest "mindless" consumerism.
When arrested at the intersection of Hennepin Avenue and 6th Street N., most of them had thick white powder and fake blood on their faces and dark makeup around their eyes. They were walking in a stiff, lurching fashion and carrying four bags of sound equipment to amplify music from an iPod when they were arrested by police who said they were carrying equipment that simulated "weapons of mass destruction."
However, they were never charged with any crime.
Although U.S. District Judge Joan Ericksen had dismissed the zombies' lawsuit, it was resurrected in February by a three-judge panel of the Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which concluded that police lacked probable cause to arrest the seven, a decision setting the stage for a federal trial this fall. The settlement means there will be no trial.
"I feel great that the city is being held accountable for the actions of their police," said Raphi Rechitsky, 27, of Minneapolis, one of the seven zombies, who said he and his friends were performing street theater when they were arrested. He is a Ph.D. candidate in sociology at the University of Minnesota.
Minneapolis City Attorney Susan L. Segal said it was in the best interests of the city to settle. "We believe the police acted reasonably, but you never know what a jury is going to do with a case," she said.
If a jury had concluded that the seven plaintiffs' constitutional rights had been violated and awarded $50,000 to each, plus defense attorney's fees, "it could have been quite substantial," Segal said.
Zombies had no IDs
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
Saturday, August 28, 2010
The Government Can secretly Use GPS to Track Your Moves
Government agents can sneak onto your property in the middle of the night, put a GPS device on the bottom of your car and keep track of everywhere you go. This doesn't violate your Fourth Amendment rights, because you do not have any reasonable expectation of privacy in your own driveway — and no reasonable expectation that the government isn't tracking your movements.
That is the bizarre — and scary — rule that now applies in California and eight other Western states. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which covers this vast jurisdiction, recently decided the government can monitor you in this way virtually anytime it wants — with no need for a search warrant.
It is a dangerous decision — one that, as the dissenting judges warned, could turn America into the sort of totalitarian state imagined by George Orwell. It is particularly offensive because the judges added insult to injury with some shocking class bias: the little personal privacy that still exists, the court suggested, should belong mainly to the rich.
This case began in 2007, when Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents decided to monitor Juan Pineda-Moreno, an Oregon resident who they suspected was growing marijuana. They snuck onto his property in the middle of the night and found his Jeep in his driveway, a few feet from his trailer home. Then they attached a GPS tracking device to the vehicle's underside.
After Pineda-Moreno challenged the DEA's actions, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit ruled in January that it was all perfectly legal. More disturbingly, a larger group of judges on the circuit, who were subsequently asked to reconsider the ruling, decided this month to let it stand. (Pineda-Moreno has pleaded guilty conditionally to conspiracy to manufacture marijuana and manufacturing marijuana while appealing the denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained with the help of GPS.)
In fact, the government violated Pineda-Moreno's privacy rights in two different ways. For starters, the invasion of his driveway was wrong. The courts have long held that people have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their homes and in the "curtilage," a fancy legal term for the area around the home. The government's intrusion on property just a few feet away was clearly in this zone of privacy.
The judges veered into offensiveness when they explained why Pineda-Moreno's driveway was not private. It was open to strangers, they said, such as delivery people and neighborhood children, who could wander across it uninvited.
Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, who dissented from this month's decision refusing to reconsider the case, pointed out whose homes are not open to strangers: rich people's. The court's ruling, he said, means that people who protect their homes with electric gates, fences and security booths have a large protected zone of privacy around their homes. People who cannot afford such barriers have to put up with the government sneaking around at night.
Judge Kozinski is a leading conservative, appointed by President Ronald Reagan, but in his dissent he came across as a raging liberal. "There's been much talk about diversity on the bench, but there's one kind of diversity that doesn't exist," he wrote. "No truly poor people are appointed as federal judges, or as state judges for that matter." The judges in the majority, he charged, were guilty of "cultural elitism."
The court went on to make a second terrible decision about privacy: that once a GPS device has been planted, the government is free to use it to track people without getting a warrant. There is a major battle under way in the federal and state courts over this issue, and the stakes are high. After all, if government agents can track people with secretly planted GPS devices virtually anytime they want, without having to go to a court for a warrant, we are one step closer to a classic police state — with technology taking on the role of the KGB or the East German Stasi.
Fortunately, other courts are coming to a different conclusion from the Ninth Circuit's — including the influential U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. That court ruled, also this month, that tracking for an extended period of time with GPS is an invasion of privacy that requires a warrant. The issue is likely to end up in the Supreme Court.
In these highly partisan times, GPS monitoring is a subject that has both conservatives and liberals worried. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit's pro-privacy ruling was unanimous — decided by judges appointed by Presidents Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush and Bill Clinton.
Plenty of liberals have objected to this kind of spying, but it is the conservative Chief Judge Kozinski who has done so most passionately. "1984 may have come a bit later than predicted, but it's here at last," he lamented in his dissent. And invoking Orwell's totalitarian dystopia where privacy is essentially nonexistent, he warned: "Some day, soon, we may wake up and find we're living in Oceania."
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
Government agents can sneak onto your property in the middle of the night, put a GPS device on the bottom of your car and keep track of everywhere you go. This doesn't violate your Fourth Amendment rights, because you do not have any reasonable expectation of privacy in your own driveway — and no reasonable expectation that the government isn't tracking your movements.
That is the bizarre — and scary — rule that now applies in California and eight other Western states. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which covers this vast jurisdiction, recently decided the government can monitor you in this way virtually anytime it wants — with no need for a search warrant.
It is a dangerous decision — one that, as the dissenting judges warned, could turn America into the sort of totalitarian state imagined by George Orwell. It is particularly offensive because the judges added insult to injury with some shocking class bias: the little personal privacy that still exists, the court suggested, should belong mainly to the rich.
This case began in 2007, when Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents decided to monitor Juan Pineda-Moreno, an Oregon resident who they suspected was growing marijuana. They snuck onto his property in the middle of the night and found his Jeep in his driveway, a few feet from his trailer home. Then they attached a GPS tracking device to the vehicle's underside.
After Pineda-Moreno challenged the DEA's actions, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit ruled in January that it was all perfectly legal. More disturbingly, a larger group of judges on the circuit, who were subsequently asked to reconsider the ruling, decided this month to let it stand. (Pineda-Moreno has pleaded guilty conditionally to conspiracy to manufacture marijuana and manufacturing marijuana while appealing the denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained with the help of GPS.)
In fact, the government violated Pineda-Moreno's privacy rights in two different ways. For starters, the invasion of his driveway was wrong. The courts have long held that people have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their homes and in the "curtilage," a fancy legal term for the area around the home. The government's intrusion on property just a few feet away was clearly in this zone of privacy.
The judges veered into offensiveness when they explained why Pineda-Moreno's driveway was not private. It was open to strangers, they said, such as delivery people and neighborhood children, who could wander across it uninvited.
Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, who dissented from this month's decision refusing to reconsider the case, pointed out whose homes are not open to strangers: rich people's. The court's ruling, he said, means that people who protect their homes with electric gates, fences and security booths have a large protected zone of privacy around their homes. People who cannot afford such barriers have to put up with the government sneaking around at night.
Judge Kozinski is a leading conservative, appointed by President Ronald Reagan, but in his dissent he came across as a raging liberal. "There's been much talk about diversity on the bench, but there's one kind of diversity that doesn't exist," he wrote. "No truly poor people are appointed as federal judges, or as state judges for that matter." The judges in the majority, he charged, were guilty of "cultural elitism."
The court went on to make a second terrible decision about privacy: that once a GPS device has been planted, the government is free to use it to track people without getting a warrant. There is a major battle under way in the federal and state courts over this issue, and the stakes are high. After all, if government agents can track people with secretly planted GPS devices virtually anytime they want, without having to go to a court for a warrant, we are one step closer to a classic police state — with technology taking on the role of the KGB or the East German Stasi.
Fortunately, other courts are coming to a different conclusion from the Ninth Circuit's — including the influential U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. That court ruled, also this month, that tracking for an extended period of time with GPS is an invasion of privacy that requires a warrant. The issue is likely to end up in the Supreme Court.
In these highly partisan times, GPS monitoring is a subject that has both conservatives and liberals worried. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit's pro-privacy ruling was unanimous — decided by judges appointed by Presidents Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush and Bill Clinton.
Plenty of liberals have objected to this kind of spying, but it is the conservative Chief Judge Kozinski who has done so most passionately. "1984 may have come a bit later than predicted, but it's here at last," he lamented in his dissent. And invoking Orwell's totalitarian dystopia where privacy is essentially nonexistent, he warned: "Some day, soon, we may wake up and find we're living in Oceania."
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
Friday, August 27, 2010
False flag cell phone guns
One alleged reason that the police are so quick to take action against anyone who uses a cell phone to make a video recording of their activities is because the cell phone might actually be a weapon. And there are two reported incidents of firearms that are disguised as cell phones.
The first was discovered in 2000. The second was discovered in 2008. Their existence was verified by Snopes. There are a few problems with the reports though.
First, the only reports of these disguised firearms come from reports of the police finding them. There are no reports of anyone ever actually using these firearms. There is never even any follow-up to the stories, such as trials for those the police seized these firearms from.
Second, although the design of cell phones has changed during the eight years between the two stories, the pictures are nearly identical to the point where it is very possible that they are pictures of the same firearm. If they are not the same firearm then they were manufactured from identical cell phones by the same person and function the same way.
Third, there are only two incidents in eight years. One report could mean this is an isolated incident of one person trying to disguise a gun. More than one report means these are being manufactured in some bulk. But if they are being manufactured in that way why are there only two incidents?
To believe the official version of events it is necessary to believe that the government never runs any false flag operations. On the other hand, to believe that this is a set up by the government to give police an excuse to confiscate any cell phones (that coincidentally have cameras) is to be a conspiracy theorist. Never mind that when cell phones are returned the videos have been deleted.
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
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Police: "If you come home to find your house burglarized and you call, we're not coming,"
Budget cuts are forcing police around the country to stop responding to fraud, burglary and theft calls as officers focus limited resources on violent crime.
Cutbacks in such places as Oakland, Tulsa and Norton, Mass. have forced police to tell residents to file their own reports — online or in writing — for break-ins and other lesser crimes.
"If you come home to find your house burglarized and you call, we're not coming," said Oakland Police spokeswoman Holly Joshi. The city laid off 80 officers from its force of 687 last month and the department can't respond to burglary, vandalism, and identity theft. "It's amazing. It's a big change for us."
Jim Pasco, executive director of the Fraternal Order of Police, the nation's largest police union, said cutbacks are preventing many police agencies from responding to property crimes. "The chiefs are putting the best face on this they can," Pasco said. "But think of this: that next property crime could involve a junkie who killed someone the night before."
In Tulsa, which lost 110 officers to layoffs and retirements, the 739-officer department isn't sending cops to the scene of larceny, fraud and car theft.
Tulsa police spokesman Jason Willingham says some residents have said they won't bother to report those crimes any more. "They think nothing is going to be done, so why mess with it," he said.
In the Boston suburb of Norton, police told residents there may be delays or no response at all to some calls, including vandalism. The department posted the new policy on its website. "We wanted to let people know about this," Norton Police Chief Brian Clark said. "We didn't want people to be surprised."
Bernard Melekian, director of the Justice Department's Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, said the actions reflect are a reflection of the hard economic times across the country.
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
Budget cuts are forcing police around the country to stop responding to fraud, burglary and theft calls as officers focus limited resources on violent crime.
Cutbacks in such places as Oakland, Tulsa and Norton, Mass. have forced police to tell residents to file their own reports — online or in writing — for break-ins and other lesser crimes.
"If you come home to find your house burglarized and you call, we're not coming," said Oakland Police spokeswoman Holly Joshi. The city laid off 80 officers from its force of 687 last month and the department can't respond to burglary, vandalism, and identity theft. "It's amazing. It's a big change for us."
Jim Pasco, executive director of the Fraternal Order of Police, the nation's largest police union, said cutbacks are preventing many police agencies from responding to property crimes. "The chiefs are putting the best face on this they can," Pasco said. "But think of this: that next property crime could involve a junkie who killed someone the night before."
In Tulsa, which lost 110 officers to layoffs and retirements, the 739-officer department isn't sending cops to the scene of larceny, fraud and car theft.
Tulsa police spokesman Jason Willingham says some residents have said they won't bother to report those crimes any more. "They think nothing is going to be done, so why mess with it," he said.
In the Boston suburb of Norton, police told residents there may be delays or no response at all to some calls, including vandalism. The department posted the new policy on its website. "We wanted to let people know about this," Norton Police Chief Brian Clark said. "We didn't want people to be surprised."
Bernard Melekian, director of the Justice Department's Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, said the actions reflect are a reflection of the hard economic times across the country.
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
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
North Carolina’s corrupted crime lab
A damning state report finds systematic abuse, including in death penalty cases
Greg Taylor served 16 years in prison after he was falsely convicted of murdering a prostitute in Raleigh, North Carolina. He was released in February by a special three-judge panel after it was discovered the blood police claimed to have found in his SUV wasn't blood at all. In the wake of that debacle, North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper ordered two retired FBI agents to conduct an investigation on the State Bureau of Investigation (SBI) crime lab. The report came out last week, and it is damning.
The report found that SBI agents withheld exculpatory evidence or distorted evidence in more than 230 cases over a 16-year period. Three of those cases resulted in execution. There was widespread lying, corruption, and pressure from prosecutors and other law enforcement officials on crime lab analysts to produce results that would help secure convictions. And the pressure worked.
A stunning accompanying investigation by the Raleigh News & Observer found that though the crime lab’s results were presented to juries with the authoritativeness of science, laboratory procedures were geared toward just one outcome: putting as many people in prison as possible. The paper discovered an astonishingly frank 2007 training manual for analysts, still in use as of last week, instructing researchers that “A good reputation and calm demeanor also enhances an analyst's conviction rate.” Defense attorneys, the manual warned, often “put words into the analyst's mouth to try and raise inaccuracies.” The guide also instructs analysts to beware of “defense whores”—analysts hired by defense attorneys to challenge their testimony.
Forensic science in America is corrupted by a fundamental conflict of interest. In far too many states, crime labs fall under the auspices of law enforcement, usually reporting to the state attorney general. A forensic analyst's real aim should be to follow the science, even if results prove disappointing to bosses who are trying to secure convictions. But the pressure from prosecutors, even when it’s not overt (which it often is), produces bias even in the work of the most fair-minded analysts.
The relationships between SBI crime lab researchers and North Carolina prosecutors aren’t just cozy, they’re downright cuddly. The News & Observer reports that in one case two blood-spatter specialists ran through multiple experiments in order to produce even one that would make the blood patterns on a defendant's shorts support the prosecution's case. The two analysts are seen on video high-fiving after finally producing the desired result.
For those clinging to the notion that analysis in a law enforcement-managed laboratory can be independent, the newspaper uncovered prosecutor reviews of crime lab analysts indicating the contrary. In 2003, for example, prosecutor Ann Kirby, wrote in a review of a drug analyst, "If Lisa Edwards gets any better on the witness stand, the Johnston County defense bar is going to try and have her banned from the county!"
These weren't a few rogue analysts; the crime lab's problems extend across a wide array of forensic disciplines. Until 1997, the lab's serology unit didn't release negative test results as a matter of policy. If tests showed that a substance that police claimed was blood wasn't in fact blood, analysts simply kept those results to themselves.
Greg Taylor was wrongly convicted precisely because of this policy. A substance that police falsely identified as blood was found in Taylor’s truck. But the field tests that police use to find blood at a crime scene have a high margin for error. More sophisticated lab tests showed that the substance wasn’t blood, but a SBI analyst testified at Taylor's innocence hearing that technicians were told to ignore these tests if they contradicted the field-test results.
In another case, an attorney for a woman accused of killing her mother was shocked to learn that the lab's DNA tests on blood found at the crime scene matched his client. He called the lab and asked them to retest. They refused. He was finally able to obtain a court order for a new test. It was negative. It turned out that a lab technician had swapped the sample provided by his client with blood taken from the crime scene.
The SBI crime lab scandal is only the most recent story of forensics malfeasance. In recent years there have been forensics scandals in Virginia, Maryland, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Nebraska, California, Michigan, Texas, and at the FBI. And this is only a partial list. At some point, it becomes sensible to conclude that these scandals aren't the result of isolated bad actors, but of a system that produces them.
Last year the National Academy of Sciences released a scathing report on the use of forensics in the courtroom, finding systemic problems ranging from analysts routinely overstating the implications of their test results, to the widespread use of forensic specialties like bite-mark analysis that have little basis in science at all.
Most forensic disciplines were invented by police investigators, not scientists. Courts have allowed these disciplines to be admitted into evidence before they've been subjected to any serious scrutiny from the scientific community. The methods used in most crime labs disregard critical scientific principles such as blind testing, competency testing, peer review, and statistical analysis. Yet when a forensic specialist testifies in the courtroom, his testimony usually carries the weight and veneer of actual science. (See here for some suggested reforms.)
North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper is a good illustration of the political hurdles standing in the way of fixing any of these problems. Cooper deserves praise for ordering such a comprehensive investigation. It takes guts for a politican to risk being labeled “soft on crime,” especially a politician who is a current or former prosecutor.
Still, Cooper was made aware of the problems in SBI as long ago as 2005, when he was pressed by local media and activists to look into how Floyd Brown, a developmentally disabled man who can't recite the alphabet past the letter K, was able to articulate to SBI investigators a detailed confession about how he murdered an elderly woman in his neighborhood. Brown seved 14 years in a mental institution before he was exonerated in 2007. Cooper didn't order an investigation into Brown's case until last year, and even then only in the face of a lawsuit.
And even after Cooper’s own damning report and the series of follow-on investigations by the News & Observer, Cooper is treating the SBI scandal as if it were a series of isolated cases and not a systemic problem. Cooper told the paper he sees nothing wrong with lab researchers consulting with prosecutors before performing their analysis, a practice proven to produce biased test results (SBI analysts are also discouraged from consulting with defense attorneys). He also objected to moving the crime lab to a different government agency so that analysts wouldn't be reporting to prosecutors, telling the News & Observer, "You don't want to hobble law enforcement by removing key tools such as technology to prevent them from solving crime." No, you don't. But moving the lab wouldn't do that. It would merely prevent analysts from feeling they need to please prosecutors by providing them with favorable test results.
More 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 damning state report finds systematic abuse, including in death penalty cases
Greg Taylor served 16 years in prison after he was falsely convicted of murdering a prostitute in Raleigh, North Carolina. He was released in February by a special three-judge panel after it was discovered the blood police claimed to have found in his SUV wasn't blood at all. In the wake of that debacle, North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper ordered two retired FBI agents to conduct an investigation on the State Bureau of Investigation (SBI) crime lab. The report came out last week, and it is damning.
The report found that SBI agents withheld exculpatory evidence or distorted evidence in more than 230 cases over a 16-year period. Three of those cases resulted in execution. There was widespread lying, corruption, and pressure from prosecutors and other law enforcement officials on crime lab analysts to produce results that would help secure convictions. And the pressure worked.
A stunning accompanying investigation by the Raleigh News & Observer found that though the crime lab’s results were presented to juries with the authoritativeness of science, laboratory procedures were geared toward just one outcome: putting as many people in prison as possible. The paper discovered an astonishingly frank 2007 training manual for analysts, still in use as of last week, instructing researchers that “A good reputation and calm demeanor also enhances an analyst's conviction rate.” Defense attorneys, the manual warned, often “put words into the analyst's mouth to try and raise inaccuracies.” The guide also instructs analysts to beware of “defense whores”—analysts hired by defense attorneys to challenge their testimony.
Forensic science in America is corrupted by a fundamental conflict of interest. In far too many states, crime labs fall under the auspices of law enforcement, usually reporting to the state attorney general. A forensic analyst's real aim should be to follow the science, even if results prove disappointing to bosses who are trying to secure convictions. But the pressure from prosecutors, even when it’s not overt (which it often is), produces bias even in the work of the most fair-minded analysts.
The relationships between SBI crime lab researchers and North Carolina prosecutors aren’t just cozy, they’re downright cuddly. The News & Observer reports that in one case two blood-spatter specialists ran through multiple experiments in order to produce even one that would make the blood patterns on a defendant's shorts support the prosecution's case. The two analysts are seen on video high-fiving after finally producing the desired result.
For those clinging to the notion that analysis in a law enforcement-managed laboratory can be independent, the newspaper uncovered prosecutor reviews of crime lab analysts indicating the contrary. In 2003, for example, prosecutor Ann Kirby, wrote in a review of a drug analyst, "If Lisa Edwards gets any better on the witness stand, the Johnston County defense bar is going to try and have her banned from the county!"
These weren't a few rogue analysts; the crime lab's problems extend across a wide array of forensic disciplines. Until 1997, the lab's serology unit didn't release negative test results as a matter of policy. If tests showed that a substance that police claimed was blood wasn't in fact blood, analysts simply kept those results to themselves.
Greg Taylor was wrongly convicted precisely because of this policy. A substance that police falsely identified as blood was found in Taylor’s truck. But the field tests that police use to find blood at a crime scene have a high margin for error. More sophisticated lab tests showed that the substance wasn’t blood, but a SBI analyst testified at Taylor's innocence hearing that technicians were told to ignore these tests if they contradicted the field-test results.
In another case, an attorney for a woman accused of killing her mother was shocked to learn that the lab's DNA tests on blood found at the crime scene matched his client. He called the lab and asked them to retest. They refused. He was finally able to obtain a court order for a new test. It was negative. It turned out that a lab technician had swapped the sample provided by his client with blood taken from the crime scene.
The SBI crime lab scandal is only the most recent story of forensics malfeasance. In recent years there have been forensics scandals in Virginia, Maryland, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Nebraska, California, Michigan, Texas, and at the FBI. And this is only a partial list. At some point, it becomes sensible to conclude that these scandals aren't the result of isolated bad actors, but of a system that produces them.
Last year the National Academy of Sciences released a scathing report on the use of forensics in the courtroom, finding systemic problems ranging from analysts routinely overstating the implications of their test results, to the widespread use of forensic specialties like bite-mark analysis that have little basis in science at all.
Most forensic disciplines were invented by police investigators, not scientists. Courts have allowed these disciplines to be admitted into evidence before they've been subjected to any serious scrutiny from the scientific community. The methods used in most crime labs disregard critical scientific principles such as blind testing, competency testing, peer review, and statistical analysis. Yet when a forensic specialist testifies in the courtroom, his testimony usually carries the weight and veneer of actual science. (See here for some suggested reforms.)
North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper is a good illustration of the political hurdles standing in the way of fixing any of these problems. Cooper deserves praise for ordering such a comprehensive investigation. It takes guts for a politican to risk being labeled “soft on crime,” especially a politician who is a current or former prosecutor.
Still, Cooper was made aware of the problems in SBI as long ago as 2005, when he was pressed by local media and activists to look into how Floyd Brown, a developmentally disabled man who can't recite the alphabet past the letter K, was able to articulate to SBI investigators a detailed confession about how he murdered an elderly woman in his neighborhood. Brown seved 14 years in a mental institution before he was exonerated in 2007. Cooper didn't order an investigation into Brown's case until last year, and even then only in the face of a lawsuit.
And even after Cooper’s own damning report and the series of follow-on investigations by the News & Observer, Cooper is treating the SBI scandal as if it were a series of isolated cases and not a systemic problem. Cooper told the paper he sees nothing wrong with lab researchers consulting with prosecutors before performing their analysis, a practice proven to produce biased test results (SBI analysts are also discouraged from consulting with defense attorneys). He also objected to moving the crime lab to a different government agency so that analysts wouldn't be reporting to prosecutors, telling the News & Observer, "You don't want to hobble law enforcement by removing key tools such as technology to prevent them from solving crime." No, you don't. But moving the lab wouldn't do that. It would merely prevent analysts from feeling they need to please prosecutors by providing them with favorable test results.
More 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
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
The power of knowing your rights
Every American has the constitutional right to be politically active. But more and more, these are the Americans being targeted by the programs put in place to survey Muslims. Whether it’s the Tea Party, or the ANSWER Coalition, activists on both sides of the aisle are finding themselves the subject of inquiry. So, it’s important for Muslims, but also all Americans, to know what they can do to protect themselves when stopped, searched or arrested or searched by any law enforcement officer or federal agent.
To be clear from the outset, what follows does not constitute legal advice. I am not a lawyer. However, this is consistent with the advice of attorneys working for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the Asian Law Caucus (ALC) and the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), who should be consulted to clarify any misunderstanding.
The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution reads, “No person shall… be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law.”
This amendment is the single most important thing to keep in mind when visited by any officer or agent. The best thing you can do, even if you are a law abiding citizen, is keep your mouth shut and demand legal counsel. You are not obligated to answer any questions with two important exceptions. In most states you obligated to identify yourself by name if asked, and obligated to present your papers if stopped while driving.
Under current law, you have the legal right to have a lawyer present whenever speaking with law enforcement, whether you are a citizen or not. Refusing to answer questions cannot be held against you, but answering incorrectly, even by accident, could be construed as a serious crime. Even if your intention is to help law enforcement to the best of your ability you are safer, and your rights more secure, with a lawyer present.
Many people choose to cooperate without legal counsel imagining that officers will go easy on them if they have nothing to hide. Instead, what we have seen is that one interview leads to others as agents try to establish permanent informants in the community, or agents use minor discrepancies in someone’s recollection to threaten them with prosecution and coerce further cooperation. Always remember, lying to an agent, even by accident is a crime, but they can legally lie to you. What we have seen is that agents make promises, such as offering to resolve someone’s immigration issues, in exchange for help in an investigation, when in reality they never actually help the person, and likely don’t have the power to do what they promised anyway.
Remaining silent does not make you look guilty, and cooperating does not make things easier. The very best thing you can do when approached by a law enforcement officer is get their business card and tell them you will have your lawyer call them. Practice saying, “I will have my attorney call you” because it can be very nerve wracking the first time you have to say it to a man with a badge and a gun. Even if you don’t have a lawyer, this should buy you the time to find one. The ACLU, ALC and CAIR all offer free legal services, and the ALC has Arabic speakers on hand if needed. Their contact information is provided bellow.
If you decide to speak with an officer it’s very important to stay calm. Expressing frustration or appearing aggressive will escalate hostility. If they can reasonably claim that they felt intimidated or threatened by you they can hurt you. Understand that officers are trained to use deceptive and intimidating language to trick you. When they say “I’m going to have to ask you…” this is likely a request not an order. When in doubt remember even if you have already engaged in conversation you can choose to remain silent at any time. You can choose which questions you are comfortable answering and which you are not. Once you say you want a lawyer they officer should stop asking questions. If he does not, you can still remain silent.
If an officer comes to your door you do not have to let them in your home or office if they do not have a valid warrant. If they claim to have a warrant, you may ask to see it before allowing them in. If they do not have a warrant and you decide to speak to them it is best to step outside and close the door behind you. People have been arrested for making minor mistakes in conversations with law enforcement and if they decide to arrest you they can search the immediate area without a warrant. If you are standing in the door way they may search the room. So, it’s best to speak to them outside just in case.
If they have a warrant you should be polite, so as not to escalate tension, but you may still remain silent. It is a good idea to state, for the record, that you do not consent to the search so that they may not search beyond what is specified in the warrant.
In any interaction it is a good idea to get the names, badge numbers and business cards of all agents and officers involved. If you have a cell phone a good trick is to record the conversation by calling yourself and leaving a message. You’ll get 10-15 minutes of recording time that they cannot delete if they confiscate your phone.
Afterwards you should report the incident to the ACLU, ALC or CAIR. Reports are completely confidential and their legal services are free. These organizations document incidents on an ongoing basis and collaborate to identify patterns of rights violations. Even if you have been questioned in the past, reporting the encounter can help these organizations better protect the rights of all Americans in the future.
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
Monday, August 23, 2010
ACLU sues Illinois over absurd law forbidding recording of cops
There’s been a misconception in the media lately about it being illegal to videotape cops in three states; Maryland, Massachusetts and Illinois. That’s not exactly true.
In Massachusetts, it is illegal to secretly record anybody without their consent, but there is no law against openly videotaping anybody in public with or without their consent, including cops. In fact, charges have been dropped against people who have been arrested for videotaping cops in public in Massachusetts.
In Maryland, state police and a certain prosecutor treat it as if it is illegal but another state attorney as well as the attorney general disagree that it is illegal to videotape cops in public. The debate should be settled entirely by the time Anthony Graber goes to trial on October 12. Also, the ACLU, which is backing Graber in this case, is asking the law to be further clarified.
That leaves us with Illinois where Radley Balko reported that it is illegal to audio record cops, even if they happen to be in public with no expectation of privacy.
Fortunately, the ACLU is now trying to change this law after filing a federal lawsuit in Chicago Wednesday to challenge the Illinois Eavesdropping Act, according to the Chicago Tribune:
Unfortunately, the article also builds on the misconception that it is illegal to record cops in public in other states.
In Oregon, it is not illegal to record conversations that take place in public settings because they would not have an expectation of privacy. This issue was clarified in a memo from the Beaverton City Attorney last month that was distributed to police departments, which didn’t stop a certain police chief to vow continuing arresting people videotaping officers in public.
The ACLU lawsuit mentions six Illinois residents who have faced felony charges for recording cops in public, including Charles Drew, a street arrest who is still awaiting trial for having recorded police who were shaking him down for trying to sell art without a permit.
Coincidentally, I received an email yesterday from Jeremy Lindsey who was investigated by Granite City Police Chief Rich Miller for posting videos of cops he shot in public. Lindsey ended up removing the audio from two videos in order to comply with the law.
This is what the chief told him in an email.
While it is a step in the right direction for the ACLU to attempt to change state laws in compliance with common sense First Amendment laws, we need to go a step further and pass a national law that specifically allows citizens to videotape cops in public as long as they are not interfering.
The resolution introduced by Democratic Congressman Ed Towns last month is the first step in doing this. The National Press Photographers Association, which got involved with our Metrorail escapade, is also asking Towns to change his resolution to a Congressional Bill.
According to last month’s NPPA press release:
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
There’s been a misconception in the media lately about it being illegal to videotape cops in three states; Maryland, Massachusetts and Illinois. That’s not exactly true.
In Massachusetts, it is illegal to secretly record anybody without their consent, but there is no law against openly videotaping anybody in public with or without their consent, including cops. In fact, charges have been dropped against people who have been arrested for videotaping cops in public in Massachusetts.
In Maryland, state police and a certain prosecutor treat it as if it is illegal but another state attorney as well as the attorney general disagree that it is illegal to videotape cops in public. The debate should be settled entirely by the time Anthony Graber goes to trial on October 12. Also, the ACLU, which is backing Graber in this case, is asking the law to be further clarified.
That leaves us with Illinois where Radley Balko reported that it is illegal to audio record cops, even if they happen to be in public with no expectation of privacy.
Fortunately, the ACLU is now trying to change this law after filing a federal lawsuit in Chicago Wednesday to challenge the Illinois Eavesdropping Act, according to the Chicago Tribune:
Unfortunately, the article also builds on the misconception that it is illegal to record cops in public in other states.
Illinois is one of only a few states, including Massachusetts and Oregon, where it is illegal to record audio of conversations that take place in public settings without the permission of everyone involved.
In Oregon, it is not illegal to record conversations that take place in public settings because they would not have an expectation of privacy. This issue was clarified in a memo from the Beaverton City Attorney last month that was distributed to police departments, which didn’t stop a certain police chief to vow continuing arresting people videotaping officers in public.
The ACLU lawsuit mentions six Illinois residents who have faced felony charges for recording cops in public, including Charles Drew, a street arrest who is still awaiting trial for having recorded police who were shaking him down for trying to sell art without a permit.
Coincidentally, I received an email yesterday from Jeremy Lindsey who was investigated by Granite City Police Chief Rich Miller for posting videos of cops he shot in public. Lindsey ended up removing the audio from two videos in order to comply with the law.
This is what the chief told him in an email.
It is illegal to record a persons conversation without permission. In fact we are reviewing your post yesterday of Officer Klump to see if you violated he law. I am aware you have altered it today. I have the Original post. Also when at a call for service you should refrain from interfering or you are subject to arrest for obstructing. Chief Miller
While it is a step in the right direction for the ACLU to attempt to change state laws in compliance with common sense First Amendment laws, we need to go a step further and pass a national law that specifically allows citizens to videotape cops in public as long as they are not interfering.
The resolution introduced by Democratic Congressman Ed Towns last month is the first step in doing this. The National Press Photographers Association, which got involved with our Metrorail escapade, is also asking Towns to change his resolution to a Congressional Bill.
According to last month’s NPPA press release:
Despite consistent court rulings protecting the First Amendment rights of both citizens and the media to take photographs in public places, and despite many law enforcement agencies spelling it out in their official policies, the officer on the street either doesn’t get the word or decides to act on his own in the name of “security” or “terrorism laws,” often citing rules that don’t exist and exerting authority that’s non-existent. And recently in some states police have started citing old wiretapping laws that have been on the books for decades as their excuse for ordering photographers to cease videotaping officers as they’re doing their jobs in public, either during traffic stops or street arrests or while interfering with photographers who are breaking no rules and who are posing no threats to safety.
“It is extremely disturbing that some states have misrepresented the intent of wiretapping laws and modified them to affect news photographers and everyday people who are photographing or videotaping police actions in a public place,” NPPA president Bob Carey wrote to Rep. Towns today.
“We believe that such misuse of these state laws are unconstitutional and need to be addressed at both the state and national levels. NPPA has been dealing with police interference with visual journalists in public places for years. We are pleased that your Resolution is currently before the Judiciary Committee and we stand ready to testify if needed.”
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
Sunday, August 22, 2010
Israel: Baranes awarded NIS 5m., 34 years after wrongful murder conviction
Thug police coerce confession
A man wrongfully convicted of murder was awarded NIS 5 million in damages by the Tel Aviv District Court on Thursday, over thirty years since he was sentenced to life in prison for a crime he did not commit.
Amos Baranes, 66, was convicted in 1976 of the murder of 19- year-old soldier Rachel Heller, whose naked body was found on the side of a highway between Ceasariya and Or Akiva earlier that year. A few months after Heller's body was found, two separate special police investigative teams set up to crack the case hit a dead end.
Baranes was first questioned about the murder after he voluntarily went to police and offered to assist their investigation, saying that he was an acquaintance of Heller's from the Rutenberg Institute in Haifa. Several months later, after public pressure had forced police to set up a third special investigative team, Baranes was called back in for questioning and eventually confessed to the murder, after he was subjected to a violent interrogation in which he was deprived of sleep for four days and repeatedly struck by police.
In the ruling on Thursday, presiding Judge Magen Altuvia said that during the 1976 trial the court was not aware of evidence that may have helped Baranes' defense, therefore denying him the right to a fair trial.
Baranes' compensation includes NIS 4 million for his loss of freedom and social ostracism, NIS 720,000 for damage to his ability to be employed, NIS 144,000 for emotional suffering, and an additional NIS 95,000 for legal expenses.
Eight and a half years after he was sentenced to life in prison, Baranes' sentence was commuted by then-president Chaim Herzog. Baranes decided to continue the fight to clear his name and sought a full exoneration. A man of principle, Baranes denied all compromises that would have implied an admission of guilt, insisting on nothing less than a retrial to clear his name.
In 2002, Baranes was finally granted a retrial, which ended with the state retracting the murder charge it had filed against him. The 2002 acquittal was the first of its kind in Israel.
"All I can say is that the court accepted my version of the story and understood the depth of the scars that I have for the rest of my life," Baranes said Thursday. "For 30 years I was in the garbage of Israel. I wasn't a citizen, I was a war criminal. My words weren't heard. Today, they were heard clearly."
Baranes' story has fascinated Israelis for decades and was the subject of the 2005 docu-drama Murder for Life. The film covered the murder and the decades-long legal battle waged by Baranes to clear his name. The movie claims that Baranes' conviction was the result of conspiracy on the part of police and prosecutors to find a scapegoat for the murder, largely due to public pressure to solve the case.
The state has still never admitted that it erred in the identity of Heller's murderer, only that the investigation and trial of Baranes were flawed.
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 police coerce confession
A man wrongfully convicted of murder was awarded NIS 5 million in damages by the Tel Aviv District Court on Thursday, over thirty years since he was sentenced to life in prison for a crime he did not commit.
Amos Baranes, 66, was convicted in 1976 of the murder of 19- year-old soldier Rachel Heller, whose naked body was found on the side of a highway between Ceasariya and Or Akiva earlier that year. A few months after Heller's body was found, two separate special police investigative teams set up to crack the case hit a dead end.
Baranes was first questioned about the murder after he voluntarily went to police and offered to assist their investigation, saying that he was an acquaintance of Heller's from the Rutenberg Institute in Haifa. Several months later, after public pressure had forced police to set up a third special investigative team, Baranes was called back in for questioning and eventually confessed to the murder, after he was subjected to a violent interrogation in which he was deprived of sleep for four days and repeatedly struck by police.
In the ruling on Thursday, presiding Judge Magen Altuvia said that during the 1976 trial the court was not aware of evidence that may have helped Baranes' defense, therefore denying him the right to a fair trial.
Baranes' compensation includes NIS 4 million for his loss of freedom and social ostracism, NIS 720,000 for damage to his ability to be employed, NIS 144,000 for emotional suffering, and an additional NIS 95,000 for legal expenses.
Eight and a half years after he was sentenced to life in prison, Baranes' sentence was commuted by then-president Chaim Herzog. Baranes decided to continue the fight to clear his name and sought a full exoneration. A man of principle, Baranes denied all compromises that would have implied an admission of guilt, insisting on nothing less than a retrial to clear his name.
In 2002, Baranes was finally granted a retrial, which ended with the state retracting the murder charge it had filed against him. The 2002 acquittal was the first of its kind in Israel.
"All I can say is that the court accepted my version of the story and understood the depth of the scars that I have for the rest of my life," Baranes said Thursday. "For 30 years I was in the garbage of Israel. I wasn't a citizen, I was a war criminal. My words weren't heard. Today, they were heard clearly."
Baranes' story has fascinated Israelis for decades and was the subject of the 2005 docu-drama Murder for Life. The film covered the murder and the decades-long legal battle waged by Baranes to clear his name. The movie claims that Baranes' conviction was the result of conspiracy on the part of police and prosecutors to find a scapegoat for the murder, largely due to public pressure to solve the case.
The state has still never admitted that it erred in the identity of Heller's murderer, only that the investigation and trial of Baranes were flawed.
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
