Gangsters in Blue

If you spend any amount of time reading the laundry list of crimes committed by police officers at Injustice Everywhere, you may start to think to yourself, “Man, what does a cop have to do to get fired?”  Corrective counseling, short suspensions, or just a good ole talking to, seems to be the punishment of choice for crimes that would land you or me in jail.  Every once in a while a deserving cop gets fired, but as the case of King County Sheriff’s Deputy Kevin Savage demonstrates, it can take a long list of egregious behavior to finally end up in the unemployment line.  Deputy Savage was fired recently after 22 internal investigations and 26 finding of misconduct over the course of two years.  Not 26 accusations, but 26 actual sustained findings of misconduct.  That is apparently what it takes for a cop to get fired in King County.

Deputy Savage came to work for the King County Sheriff in 2006.  In 2010, he was assigned to patrol Vashon Island where because of its small size, he worked without the supervision of a sergeant.  According to residents, he quickly gained a reputation for being a bully.  During his time on the island he was accused of buying alcohol while in uniform, playing pool in local bars while on duty, physically threatening and intimidating witnesses in a effort to have them change their stories, and breaking into a home without a warrant and arresting a woman without probable cause.  In just 9 months on the island, it was found that Savage committed misconduct 18 different times.  His punishment?  He was given a 5 day suspension and reassigned.

It did not take long before Savage was again racking up complaints on his new beat, including allegedly telling a teenage girl that he could sexual assault her with a pen and that there was nothing that she could go to stop him.  Savage was finally put on paid vacation administrative leave in June.  Between that time and his firing, he received over $28,000 in pay.

Christopher Harris after being slammed into a wall by Matt Paul

It should come as no surprise that it took this long for Savage to be fired.  It is more surprising that he was fired at all.  Remember, King County Sheriff’s Deputy Matt Paul?  He slammed an innocent man, Christopher Harris, into a wall so hard that the he was left paralyzed.  He also has a long history of using violence, up to six times more often than other officers who walked same beat as him.  His superiors were aware of his tendency to escalate situations and to cause injuries.  He still has a job with the King County Sheriff.

Of course, the proclivity for not firing bad cops is not limited to King County Washington.  A Superior Wisconsin police officer, Kirk Babic, who has admitted to stealing more than $5,000 from his fellow officers will receive a suspension, and extra training, but will not be fired for his felony theft.  Can you guess the reason the Police and Fire Commission decided not to fire Babic?  Because they NEVER fire police officers for committing crimes!  They decided it would be unfair to fire Babic for committing a crime when they have never fired other officers for committing crimes, including a hit and run, domestic assault, damaging property, and giving false testimony.  This decision, along with the admission that they can’t fire an officer for breaking the law, because they never have before, gives other officers in the department permission to just go ahead and commit crimes, because they are indeed above the law.

Maybe we are being to hard on these departments for not firing bad cops.  The reality is that many times they will be forced to rehire the bad cop anyway by a judge or an arbitrator, so why go through the trouble in the first place?  Early this year I told you the stories of several bad cops who were fired, then rehired and then continued to be their normal thuggish selves.  One such cop, Boynton Beach Florida Police Officer David L. Coffey, has now once again been fired for excessive force.  This time, for slamming a man into a game-console at a restaurant while making an arrest without trying to first handcuff the individual.  He is also facing charges stemming from an incident in which he activated his taser inches from a fellow officer’s ear in retaliation for her honking her horn at him.

Even incompetent police officers can get their jobs back.  San Jose Police Officer, Matty Hrncir, was fired in 2010 for mishandling several sexual assault cases. Hrncir’s incompetence, which included failing to follow up on leads, not turning over crucial evidence to prosecutors, misquoting victims and witnesses, and even minimizing crimes in her reports, resulted in criminals walking free without being charged for their crimes.  An arbitrator recently ruled that she should be reinstated with back pay.   Can you imagine keeping your job if you sucked at it that bad?

We can only hope that Deputy Savage doesn’t get reinstated, but with the apparent job security provided to police officers I wouldn’t hold your breath.

Want Job Security? Become a Cop is a post from Cop Block - Badges Don't Grant Extra Rights

Cop Block is a decentralized project supported by a diverse group of individuals united by their shared goals of police accountability, education of individual rights and the dissemination of effective tactics to utilize while filming police.

That decentralization means contributors don’t always agree. And it’s not that I disagree 100%, just some, but I think that “some” is an important difference to tease out. After all, discussion is healthy.

On November 9th Cop Block contributor George Sand* posted to Cop Block’s Facebook page:

“We all need to recognize cops are the enemy. They’re not just the enemy of the black guy. They’re not just the enemy of Miguel who came across the border without a bureaucrats permission first. They are our enemy too, they will pick on us as well. When we allow government to prey on societies least liked memebers, it’s only a matter of time before they prey on us too” – Becky Akers

The quote was lifted from an interview Akers, a LewRockwell.com columnist, did with Scott Horton of Antiwar Radio (listen here, 26-min.).

The Akers quote attracted this comment by Quinn Mack:

They are your neighbors and the person your standing in line with at the grocery store. Educate yourself and get to know them and we can all be on the same page. Have you ever taken a ride along with your local PD? Have you ever went to a pancake breakfast and learned what they talk about? Do you even know one personally? Didn’t think so. You are depending on a story or some third party blurb to make drastic decisions about your viewpoints are without taking the time to form your own opinions with real data imo. I have some of those things planned in the near future to learn about them. I don’t know enough yet to form a valid firm opinion but plan on learning and talking with them.

A short time later Sand responded to Mack with the post “You can’t judge cops unless you’ve eaten pancakes with them first,” in which she likened his statement to “the good ‘ole ‘walk a mile in their shoes, before you judge’ argument.”

Sand then detailed that she had gone on a ride-along with someone she “truly believe[d]” was one of the “‘good apples.’” Yet that person was “either completely ignorant of the law when he arrested a parolee for no reason, or simply didn’t care.”

Assuming this is true – that the person was “completely ignorant of the law” or “simply didn’t care,” does that make them worthy of an absolute communication ban? Can’t ignorance can be overcome through information? Couldn’t the sub-par work ethic be remedied through the introduction of competition**?

Sand continues, “Regardless of whether you accept that all cops are enemies, the idea that eating pancakes and making small talk with someone somehow has bearing on the American ‘justice’ system, the problems of police brutality, and lack of government accountability is absurd.  I cannot emphasize enough how FUCKING STUPID this line of logic is.”

I disagree, and Sand’s own statement a couple of sentences later discloses why: “Police must be judged for their individual actions . . .”

There is no benefit to write-off an entire group of people based on their place of employment. Yes, cops subsist via political means*** (stolen money, aka taxes), but if that is the lone criteria for a policy of non-communication then does Sand cease communication and view as an “enemy” anyone who takes money doled-out by the great fiction**** of the State?  Including local, state, and federal government employees (and military)? Contractors? Social welfare recipients? Corporate welfare recipients? College students?

Don’t you think it likely that some of those individuals might, once exposed to new, better ideas, shed their old, worse ideas? Like anyone else the average cop has been exposed to a lifetime of pro-State, defer-to-authority rhetoric. Hell, my own views were once similar to those Sand now rightly decries, but I’ve learned and I know I’m a better person.

Also, when in conversation (with a cop or anyone else) the impact to the audience – those in the immediate area (or, in more increasing numbers with cops, via videos online) – shouldn’t be overlooked.

And to go back to Sand’s question of how a “small talk with someone somehow has bearing on the American ‘justice’ system” – it does. Accountability will come only after individuals cease to grant extra rights to someone simply because its claimed (cue the Marginal Revolution).

Sand later left two comments to the article:

they [cops] are NOT decent folks to the people they ‘serve.’ They routinely say shit like ‘no stop is routine’ and ‘officer safety first.’ This is very simple. This means they view every single person as a potentially dangerous criminal, and will kill you if they are scared. There is no dispute about this.

—–

I also disagree that talking to police personally enlightens an individual about why these abuses occur or where they stem from. The abuses quite clearly stem from police behaving in an out-of-control manner, because they can. They do not get punished when they do, therefore, they are more reckless about their actions.

Yes. But to halt there without asking why that is the case is to stop short. The badges-grant-extra-rights mentality exists only because people believe it to be the case. A policy of non-communication toward individuals wearing a specific costume casts them as “the other,” which only pays homage to, rather than erodes, the artificial power claimed.

It is to ones determent to treat those employed as police officers as a monolith that should receive the exact same treatment (in this case the silent treatment) rather than as individuals that think for themselves. Again, I’m not saying invest all your time here but it’s worth a try. Bradley Jardis did it. And more and more cops are speaking out against the aimless violence caused by their colleagues at Occupy events.

One mind at a time, consent of the violent, ineffective, monopolistic organization will be withdrawn whether due to morality- or efficiency-based rationales. As Nicholas Recker commented on Sand’s post, “
Looking at them as the enemy will leave us all guilty of stripping the other of their humanity.

”

*I have nothing but love and respect for George Sand!!

** Today the provision of “law enforcement” is provided by a monopoly. That is bad. Think about it this way: If two or more individuals reach a consensual arrangement everyone is better off, otherwise they wouldn’t have made the arrangement. They would voluntarily buy or barter or gift a good or service. Today, with no competition there’s an oversupply of policing, and they have a lot of guns and thrive on the fear they peddle. But that monopoly exists only because people believe it so. Law is emergent. Its creation and interpretation cannot be granted to or conducted by an individual or group of individuals. The surest (most moral, most efficient – take your pick) way to have a safe and prosperous society, free from institutionalized brutality and double-standards, is not through centralization but decentralization. For more watch this 5-min. video Problem: Police, Solution: Agorism based on a speech given by Austin-activist John Bush.

***From The State  by Franz Oppenheimer (1919), “There are two fundamentally opposed means whereby man, requiring sustenance, is impelled to obtain the necessary means for satisfying his desires. These are work and robbery, one’s own labor and the forcible appropriation of the labor of others.”

**** Government by Frederic Bastiat (1848), “Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else.”

A Response to George Sand’s Pancake Post is a post from Cop Block - Badges Don't Grant Extra Rights

This post was sent to us via CopBlock.org’s Submit Tab.

In September of 2010, I was arrested. Several months later, I was tried, convicted, and sentenced.

My crime? Resisting arrest.

Here’s the story.

I had recently quit smoking, was irritable, and needed to do something. After drinking a full bottle of ginger-flavored brandy by 9:00pm on this Friday night, I decided to walk to the local bar to get a beer or two. I went in, legally purchased a 12 oz bottle of Samuel Adams, and walked through the room.

The bar was noisy, crowded, and filled with assholes. I felt uncomfortable, even with my buzz, and decided to walk out of the door.

A few seconds after I walked out, I heard noises behind me, which I ignored and walked away. A few seconds later, somebody yanked my beer out of my hand, which I was still apparently carrying in the public parking lot. OK, I thought – no harm done. They took my beer, which I didn’t even have a sip of, but no big deal. I realized I felt more tired than I had originally thought and I continued to walk home; until I met up with officer Jaime Branch of the Manchester Police Department.

“Hey, you!”, he yelled at me. I figured out pretty soon that he was talking to me and I asked him, “Am I being detained?” or “Am I free to go?”.  He said that I was being detained.  I asked him why and he refused to answer. He spoke with the person that had stolen my beer and another employee at the bar, asking them a few questions, investigating why I was being detained. We were both curious, apparently.

The officer asked to see my identification. I told the him that I knew my 4th Amendment rights and told him that I didn’t need to show him my identification as I was not driving a car. I also informed him that he did not have probable cause that I had committed a crime. I asked him for “articulable facts” that I was committing a crime, as well.

He said that he DID have probable cause that I had engaged in, “possessing an open alcohol container”; which is not actually illegal in the state of NH and the closest ordinance it comes to is “public drinking”, an ordinance violation that prohibits CONSUMING alcoholic beverages in a public place. I asked him again if I was being detained or if I was free to go, and he said I was being detained. I exercised my right to remain silent and he continued in his investigation. He talked to the employees (who I believed were cooperating out of fear that they would get in trouble), looked at the bottle (which was technically stolen evidence), and found that it was full. All of them agreeing that I had not consumed any.

He started asking me more questions, and I exercised my right to remain silent. He decided to write me out a ticket for “possessing an open alcohol container”, which I gladly accepted but he insisted that I showed him identification. I asserted my 4th Amendment rights and refused to show him my “papers”. He then asked for a name. I gave him one but it wasn’t good enough for him.

He then stated that if I didn’t show identification, I would be placed under arrest. I believed this to be a clear violation of the 4th Amendment and proceeded to have a half-hour long conversation about the 4th Amendment with the officer, including me giving him a full etymological history of the phrase “probable cause”. During this discussion I found out that the officer; 1) didn’t know what the 4th Amendment was and could not recite it, and 2) told me that the 4th Amendment, in his own words, “doesn’t apply to my job” – which was repeated multiple times, by multiple officers that night.

The officer asked me other questions such as, what my social security number was; to which I replied, “do I have the right to remain silent?”  He said, clearly and emphatically, that I did NOT have that right and that if I didn’t answer the questions, I would be placed under arrest. At this point, I started wondering if he was even a “real” cop.

He then continued his investigation, during which time I continued to ask if I was free to go. At one point, he said “yes, yes, yes”, and motioned for me to leave. I stared walking away and seconds later I was being man-handled by the guy with one hand in handcuffs.

I asked him why violence was necessary. He denied that he was using violence. I thought a demonstration was in order and I moved my free hand to the right side of my body. He told me to move it down behind my back, and I disobeyed his commands. He then yanked my hand down to tie it, at which point I asked a simple question:

“If I did to you what you just did to me, would I be charged with ASSAULTING a police officer?”, simply to show the officer that he was, in fact, using violence.

The question startled him for a second. He said, “yes, but….”, and stood there speechless before he continued his “assault”.  I was sent to Manchester police station where I had some laughably painful conversations, then proceeded to county jail.

When I got there, there was a man I knew only as “Wolfy” who was the most disgusting, depraved human being I’ve ever met in my life. He forced me to answer all kinds of questions, promising that I would be able to sleep in my “nice warm bed” if I did. He asked me what my sexual orientation was, what my religion was, what my political affiliations were, all under the understanding that non-cooperation would be punished with violence. He then forced me to strip naked and checked me for drugs, after which I put on an orange jump suit. He then escorted me to my cell. He and a couple other guys decided to play a joke on me and make it look like I was going to get beaten and raped by a particularly insane inmate. I know, that’s hilarious, isn’t it?

I didn’t sleep or eat for those three days. During “free time”, which lasts about an hour each day, I tried to make a phone call, but they made it difficult to the point of being psychological torture. You need to use your inmate number to make a call, and mine didn’t work ( I think that was deliberate, but I can’t prove anything), so I had to violate the rules and use somebody else’s. You can only call land lines (no cell phones) no more than once, and there is a message being played for the majority of the call, leaving you only 10 seconds out of about a minute and a half to actually say something.

I spent 3 days in jail with my cell mate, who was a heroine addict. He told me how easy it is to get his fix “inside” and how many people who “used to be straight” become heroine addicts after doing some time because it’s easily accessible and there’s nothing else to do. He also told me how most people who meet inside hook up later to hang out, do drugs, and get into other criminal activity.

At the bail hearing (after 3 days without food or sleep), Judge William H. Lyons felt that I was too dangerous to let go on my own reconnaissance, so I was forced to stay there until my “speedy” trial 3 months later. Luckily, I was bailed out.

I had apparently signed up for a public defender when I was scared shitless and had gone without food and sleep for 3 days. Her name was Donna Esposito. She didn’t return my phone calls, didn’t return my emails, and didn’t even bother reading the arrest report. Her incompetence was so great that I got the distinct impression that she was working with the state in an attempt to get a conviction. I called other lawyers, who basically said that I didn’t have a chance; not because of the evidence of the case, but because of the “conservative judges” who would find me guilty regardless of the facts of my case. I soon learned why they said that.

The charges were changed several times, the final change right before the trial. The original charge was “possessing an open alcohol container in a public place”, which was dropped because there wasn’t actually a law against that – the cop either made it up or got the law completely wrong (I found out that the cops around here use a “cheat sheet” that has a mistake on it).

The original charge of “resisting arrest” was changed as well. It was originally because I had lifted my hand up to the side during the arrest, making the officer push it down. In the arrest report it stated that I “struggled” with him as he attempted to handcuff me. That was changed to me walking away when I “wasn’t supposed to” (because I thought I was free to go). The reason for the change was obvious; it is circular reasoning to be arrested for resiting that very same arrest, so they had to arrest me for something else.

During the trial, both the cop and I testified. We gave our stories, which matched perfectly except for a couple of things. According to him, 1) I never asked if I was being detained and he never stated that I was, 2) I never even mentioned the 4th Amendment, 3) He never threatened to arrest me for not showing ID, and 4) He saw me “in violation” BEFORE he detained me, rather than the truth that he had detained me before he even started to investigate what was going on. All four of these statements were lies, made under oath. This means he committed perjury, which is a felony.

The reason why he lied is simple: if he DID threaten to arrest me for not showing ID, it COULD have been considered a violation of the 4th Amendment. If he detained me prior to his investigation, it COULD have been argued that it was an illegal detainment. If I mentioned the 4th Amendment and didn’t like his answer, It COULD have been argued that I did not “recognized him as a law enforcement official”.

Still, this shouldn’t have changed anything, as the only thing left I was charged with was the “resisting arrest” charge; and in order to prove that “beyond a reasonable doubt”, they have to show that I “recognized him as a law enforcement official” (which wasn’t actually true, as I recognized that he was breaking the law). They also had to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that I “willfully and knowingly interfered” with him, which I didn’t as I thought I was free to go at the time.

Since both of these things are describing activity IN MY OWN HEAD rather than what was going on objectively, it makes no sense whatsoever to take the cops word over my own.  While the cop may be a more reliable witness to what was going on around me, he can’t possibly be a better witness to what was going on in my head, can he?

The judge (William H. Lyons) decided that I was guilty. That’s right, the judge said that the cop was a “more credible witness” to what was going on in my own head. The judge said that this was not an illegal detention because, as he stated in his court order, “Where a police officer has reasonable suspicion that a person has been, is being, or is about to commit a crime, he is permitted by the forth amendment to seize or detain an individual”. He later defines crime as, “an offense punishable by a jail sentence”, even though the ordinance violation doesn’t qualify, especially given the fact that the ordinance violation didn’t exist. He was grasping at straws for reasons to convict me. He WANTED to convict me. He was committed to BREAKING the law, not enforcing it.

A couple months after I was sentenced, I received a note that explained that walking out of a bar with a beer is a misdemeanor. It would have been nice to actually be told what crime I was committing BEFORE I was arrested, or at least before the trial or, at the very least, before I was sentenced. Apparently that is too much to ask.

So, in short, I was illegally detained, threatened with an unconstitutional arrest, unlawfully arrested, and sentenced because the judge re-defined the word “crime” so that I would qualify as a criminal.

At that point, I realized a few things.

The first thing I realized is, despite the massive tome of words that is commonly called “the law”, there is really only one law – OBEY THE COMMANDS OF THE STATE. You do what you’re fucking told, or else violence will be used against you. You want a fair trial? Tough shit. You think the constitution protects you? You thought wrong. The constitution is a worthless scrap of paper with meaningless scribbles on it. The people who interpret the law can interpret it any way they like. They can even re-define the word “crime” in order to turn you into a criminal.

I also realized that Judge William H Lyons, Officer Jaime D Branch, and the Manchester Police Department didn’t care about the law they are supposed to enforce or the constitution they were sworn to protect. These people are criminals and should be viewed as such.

That day, something died in me – any hope or faith that I had in my country.

Fuck you, Officer Branch.
Fuck you, Judge Lyons.
Fuck you, Manchester Police Department.

Fuck you for destroying my faith in my country and in the constitution.

Fuck you.
Joshua Jacob Albert Freeman

Judge William H. Lyons re-defined the word “crime” to turn me into a criminal. is a post from Cop Block - Badges Don't Grant Extra Rights

On September 17th, disillusioned individuals gathered in a lower Manhattan park and spawned the Occupy Wall Street movement, which now has a presence in over 1,000 cities and towns worldwide. Those involved represent a diversity of views – from those who wish to control the violence of the State for their own purposes, to those who advocate for self-government.

While discourse and idea sharing on how we got here and how to best move forward is what’s needed, focus has centered on interactions between those who wear badges and those who don’t, and for good reason. Those in the former have systematically violated the rights of those in the latter.

While it’s nothing new (once arbitrary authority is granted there is no accountability until it’s withdrawn), the shear scale of this movement coupled with camera-savvy occupiers means the misdeeds – including arrests – are being captured. And now one site specifically is documenting them: OccupyArrests.com.

I caught-up with site-creator, Chris Ernesto, who was kind enough to share some info about his motivations and goals for the site and the Occupy movement.

- What motivated you to spearhead OccupyArrests.com?
To help draw attention to the magnitude of the Occupy arrests, and to help tell the stories of the people being violated by cops all around the country for simply expressing their views.  How is it that we live in the “land of the free” yet more than 4,000 people have been arrested for utilizing their First Amendment rights, and why do we have the highest incarceration rate in the world?  Plus, Americans love scoreboards…

- How can people help you with the site? Any specific talents or capacity needed to help take it to the next level?
The police, media, corporations and government obviously don’t want people to know how many protesters have been arrested during the Occupy protests, so making sure that we get the word out is important.  We have a counter that people can put on their websites and blogs.

- What is the significance of many Occupy events occurring around the world?
The ruling class, and those who protect it have been put on notice, and people appear to be realizing how much power they potentially have.

- What recommendations do you have for those participating at an Occupy event on how to mitigate potential rights-violations by those wearing badges?
No matter how difficult it is, don’t fight back when the cops act brutally.  And make sure arrests and acts of police aggression are videotaped and spread on the internet.  Two women getting pepper sprayed in New York, an Iraq war vet getting injured by cops in Oakland, and students at UC Davis getting assaulted all led the public to take the side of the Occupy protesters.  If people acted violently in return the public would likely have had no remorse for the real victims and their cause.

- What is your end-goal, both in lieu of the site and your activism in general?
First, to help insure that people don’t become desensitized to police brutality.  If nobody pays attention to thousands of people getting arrested for protesting, then cops would have a better chance of getting away with acting even more violently towards demonstrators.   And second, to help stop the U.S. empire from destroying the lives of people around the world and here in the U.S.   As bad as we have it here due to a corrupt system that is filled with greed and institutionalized violence, the people in Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan, Iraq and Afghanistan have it even worse in large part due to our country’s desire for global domination.  As citizens of the empire I think it’s our responsibility to help stop the destructive path our country is on.

Thanks to Chris for allocating his scarce time to such a worthy effort!

If you know of arrests not-yet documented on the site send details to: info@occupyarrests.com. And if you’re in the Tampa/St. Pete area be sure to check out another site Chris runs: StPeteForPeace.org.

And much love to mutual friend and liberty-activist James Cox for introduction. Check out his project: Peace, Freedom & Prosperity.

OccupyArrests.com Brings Accountability is a post from Cop Block - Badges Don't Grant Extra Rights

On March 4, 2011, at about 1:00 a.m. My son Brian Bieganski was traveling westbound on a 2007 Suzuki Motorcycle on East Green way Road on his way home from work. He was a line cook at a restaurant in Scottsdale.

After proceeding through a private business drive on the South East corner of 40TH St. and East Greenway Rd he stopped in the exit lane. A 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe, owned by the City of Phoenix and driven by Phoenix Police Officer Timothy Miller drove at a high rate of speed into the exit lane and crashed into his motorcycle, rolling over him and his motorcycle.

At all times Officer Miller was acting within the scope of his employment for the City of Phoenix. As a result he was seriously injured and taken by ambulance to a local hospital for treatment. Officer Miller was negligent per se in that he was operating his vehicle in violation of Arizona Revised Statutes 28-701(a).

In addition, while it appears that Officer Miller intentionally drove his vehicle into him, at best he was negligent in that he was inattentive, failed to keep a proper lookout for vehicles in the driving portion of the roadway and driveway, failed to exercise reasonable care in the operation of his motor vehicle for the protection of others, failed to stop in time to avoid colliding with my son’s motorcycle, failed to apply his brakes in time to avoid colliding with my son’s motorcycle, and failed to turn his vehicle to the left or to the right to avoid colliding with his motorcycle, although by a reasonable exercise of his faculties, he could have and should have done so.

This was all from the result of Officer Timothy Miller’s attempt to pull my son over for a TRAFFIC VIOLATION?? $165,000 later just in medical bills and a crushed helmet which was the only thing that saved his life I might add!!! No skid marks on pavement what so ever!!!!

Phoenix Police ran over my kid with their 3 ton SUV is a post from Cop Block - Badges Don't Grant Extra Rights

Guest post submitted via our submit tab

While we hear about police brutality on the news frequently, and we read blogs like Cop Block, which help us understand that excessive police force is not an isolated phenomenon, sometimes more context is required to get the bigger picture. Pick up a few of these books and arm yourself with the knowledge that police brutality has been deeply entrenched in our system longer and more pervasively than you may have thought.

1. Police Brutality: An Anthology, ed. Jill Nelson

If you want to place police brutality in a historical context, and get several different views on police violence from different people, then look no further than this book. Comprised of twelve different essays, Police Brutality offers readers a multiplicity of perspectives, outlining the circumstances under which police brutality in America began, explaining its ties to racism, and offering potential solutions to stem the rising tide of police violence.

2. Our Enemies in Blue: Police and Power in America by Kristian Williams

Published in 2007, Our Enemies in Blue is hailed as a very well-researched account of police brutality in America, dating police-led abuse from as far back as colonial times. Although many critics find Williams’ conclusion—that the police system should be abolished altogether, replacing the existing setup with volunteer, community-led law enforcement—controversial and naïve, the author still gives readers an interesting insight into possible alternatives.

3. Brotherhood of Corruption by Juan Antonio Juarez

Subtitled “A Cop Breaks the Silence on Police Abuse, Brutality, and Racial Profiling,” this narrative is one of the few books out there that gives an insider’s perspective on police brutality. Juarez, who served seven years as a narcotics office for the Chicago Police Department, tells in shocking detail the extent to which corruption exists within police departments. Most importantly, Juarez explains how a strict interdepartmental code of silence enables police corruption to continue undetected among the general public.

4. Beat the Heat: How to Handle Encounters with Law Enforcement by Katya Komisaruk

Although not specifically about police brutality, Beat the Heat is an informative, jargon-free guide that educates readers about their rights when dealing with law enforcement. Considering that police corruption is so firmly entrenched, many of us average citizens will unwittingly forgo our rights when dealing with forceful, corrupt police. This book lucidly explains what we should know and say when faced with common situations that involved police.

By-line: Jane Smith is a freelance writer and blogger. She writes about free background checks for Backgroundcheck.org. Questions and comments can be sent to: janesmth161 @ gmail.com

Jane Smith

4 Must Read Books about Police Brutality is a post from Cop Block - Badges Don't Grant Extra Rights

The monotony of a surveillance camera inside a parking garage is shattered as a man runs into view. Immediately he’s tackled by a second man who punches him in the face. A third man joins the fray and delivers repeated kicks to his head. Thirteen to be exact.

An assault? Without question. But, despite the video evidence, it’s doubtful the assailants will be held accountable. They wear badges. Or, wore badges.

Robert Woolever

John Doyle

John Doyle and Robert Woolever were the aggressors. Nicholas Blume was their victim.

Murry Conrad, direct supervisor to Doyle and Woolever at Albuquerque PD who followed-up on the incident concluded that the pair was “completely justified” in their actions. This, after claiming to watch the video “hundreds of times.” Not all took Conrad at his word.

Prompted by a bevy of shootings and brutality allegations from those wearing “Albuquerque PD” badges, the Albuquerque Journal filed a Freedom of Information Act to obtain video of the incident (props!). Apparently the police knew that not all depicted would bode well for them – the first video released didn’t include what a later version disclosed: Doyle and Woolever’s celebratory chest-bump after beating-down Blume.

In light of that new evidence, Beth Paiz – deputy chief, called Doyle and Woolever’s actions “unjustified.” The two were fired. And it *only* took nine months – the incident happened last February.

Conrad (now retired) accused department brass of bending to bending to “political pressure and pressure from the media,” and praised Doyle and Woolever for their actions under the guise of officer safety.

Does anyone honestly believe that in their four years at APD this was the first time Doyle and Woolever used a level of force their colleagues (or more importantly those who don’t wear a badge and subsist on stolen money) would deem “unjustified”? Or that this was the first time Conrad covered for the actions of such aggressors?

Sure, they lost their jobs but those of us who believe justice more than an amorphous concept should not be content with half-measures. Put yourself in this situation – what would be the outcome?

If you and a colleague beat-down someone else while on the clock you would not only be fired but you’d almost assuredly be caged. (Not that I think caging people is the best course of action, but this is demonstrative of the double-standard afforded to individuals based solely on their place of employement.)

And while we’re told “The kicking incident has been turned over to a special prosecutor in Torrance County for possible criminal charges against Doyle, and the FBI is monitoring the criminal case” how realistic are real, tangible repercussions for Doyle and Woolever? It’s probable such political gesturing will evaporate as soon as the media cycle moves on.

It’s important to get justice for Blume and other victims of police brutality. But doing so reactively is tantamount to treading water. To address the issue the monopoly on “law enforcement” must end, which means each of us individually ceasing to grant arbitrary authority to someone based on their title or costume. If you’d view actions of a friend or neighbor as wrong don’t let pro-State indoctrination cause you to make excuses or look the other way when the same action is done by someone wearing a badge.

Ask yourself: how much more accountable and cost-effective would those providing “law and order” be if they were subject to competition? If they were hired (and fired) voluntarily, like the providers of any other good or service?

More:
The State is Not Great: How Government Poisons Everything (50min YouTube by Jacob Spinney)
Liberty On Tour’s Resource’s page (tons of links for relevant audio, events, quotes, books, essays, and videos)

*UPDATE (2011.11.19) We advocate for transparency so upon reflection I thought it worth sharing what happened before Doyle and Woolever assualted Blume in the parking garage. Blume was being chased on foot after he crashed a stolen car he’d been driving. Is Blume a saint? No. But were Doyle and Woolever out of line? Yes.

Thirteen kicks to the head “unjustified” is a post from Cop Block - Badges Don't Grant Extra Rights

This post was sent to us via CopBlock.org’s Submit Tab.

This past summer I was arrested, in Marietta GA., for blowing a .01 BAC % into a breathalyzer at age 19; which is illegal in the State of GA.  I also received a fraudulent possession charge for less than a gram of marijuana; which will be reviewed in court. My friend Mario Sanchez admitted to the cops prior to arrest that it was his marijuana.  Records can be retrieved from the Cobb County Magistrate Court.

When I first arrived in jail, the sheriffs painfully ripped colorful yarn out of my hair.  Shortly after, I was stripped and asked to squat down while female sheriffs snicked behind my nude body. During this early stage of my experience I overheard the civil police and sheriffs taunting an Asian man’s name and dietary habits.  A Hispanic woman, who later learned she would be deported and separated from her child, was ridiculed for her ethnicity.  My Hispanic comrade, Mario, was inappropriately groped and ridiculed.  Meanwhile, the police who arrested me mocked my last name and continued to browse my cell phone, camera, and Ipod; all trivial matters.

I was placed in a female holding cell alone. Fraught with humiliation, I hysterically shredded the toilet paper given to me in the holding cell for the sheriffs to pick up.  A group of sheriffs flooded into my cell with body chains.  I was chained  around my waste and violently thrown into solitary confinement – “female observation”- where I accepted my fate and concentrated on meditating.  Occasionally I stood up to look out of the window.  A male sheriff sexually harassed me outside the window,  provocatively taunting me to show him my tongue.  I complained to a sheriff of the incident and was told I could go online and file a code violation “17.4”; an option that I later learned was not available to the public. In the meantime, I was barefoot and denied socks because, “I wasn’t in Macy’s”.

As is routine, I was taken from solitary confinement into the nurse’s office to undergo a Tuberculosis test injection. The room was unsterile and smelled of urine.  Without explaining the shot, the nurse asked me to hold out my arm.  Because I refuted her request, a police woman, Officer Jerked, ordered me to subdue my arm or I would be taken “upstairs where people shit on each other, shit on themselves, and will shit on you”.  In response, I kept my word and disgraced her barbaric occupation, Officer Jerked grasped my shirt collar and violently slung me back into solitary confinement.

Midway through the experience I was temporarily released from solitary confinement to contact my parents; after spending approximately 6 hours meditating alone between four white walls.  I could not reach them.  At this stage, I was having my fingerprints taken and was charged $1300 to bail myself out of jail.  The possibility of losing financial aid and getting transferred to the “population” of the detention center flooded my emotions.  I was allowed to sit with the rest of the new inmates and cynically watch FOX news, if I behaved.

My father contacted the detention facility and negotiated the bail with a sheriff I had complained to.  In the meantime, I overheard Officer Jerked and her fellow minions taunt my desire to report sexual harassment.  Nearly hysterical and humiliated by her jests, I told Jerked that I didn’t want to “see her, hear her, breathe the oxygen she was breathing, smell her, or taste her”.  She angrily charged me, scaring me further into my seat.  She tore me out of my shocked position and hoisted me into the concrete floor where I suffered a subluxation in the upper region of my spine.  Sobbing, I was thrown back into solitary confinement where I was given Fritos and red punch.

Several hours later, a sheriff entered my cell to inform me that I was being released without bail.

To cope with this experience, I want to voice this experience through the United States’ Media to inform the general public of the degree of corruption existing in America’s jails.  The Cobb County Adult Detention Center is the black heart of this town, slowly pulsating venomous blood throughout our streets.  Solitary Confinement has not yet been reviewed by the Supreme Court of its Constitutionality;  neither has sexual harassment, or unjustified physical abuse.  This injustice must come to a standstill.

In the words of Martin Luther King;  “An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law.”

I am currently gathering and organizing information to communicate this experience to Amnesty International in London, and I greatly appreciate any constructive feedback.

Amanda Constantinides

Victim of Police Brutality in Cobb County, Georgia is a post from Cop Block - Badges Don't Grant Extra Rights

According to SFGATE.COM

Dozens of campus police in riot gear descended on students in a violent confrontation outside UC Berkeley’s Sproul Hall on Wednesday and arrested seven protesters as they tried to set up an “Occupy Cal” encampment.

The protesters were among about 1,000 students, faculty and Occupy activists participating in a statewide protest that marked the first banding of the Occupy movement with students against the financial handling of the state’s higher education system.

Students voted to set up an encampment in defiance of university orders, and as soon as they had three tents erected in front of Sproul Hall, baton-wielding police moved in on them.

“Put the guns down!” shouted students who had linked arms as police shoved and swung batons, whacking anyone who stood between them and the impromptu encampment outside the administration building.

“It really, really hurt – I got the wind knocked out of me,” said doctoral student Shane Boyle, raising his shirt to reveal a red welt on his chest. “I was lucky I only got hit twice.”

Six UC Berkeley students and one faculty member, English Professor Celeste Langan, were arrested for resisting and delaying police officers, said Lt. Alex Yao of the UC Berkeley Police, which got help from the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office and other UC police.

Full article

Berkeley Police Violently Attack College Kids With Batons 11/9/11 is a post from Cop Block - Badges Don't Grant Extra Rights

This post was sent to us via CopBlock.org’s Submit Tab.

In an opinion released on August 26, 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit ruled that a private citizen’s right to videotape police officers performing their duties in a public space is “unambiguously” protected by the First Amendment. Glik v. Cunniffe, et al., No. 10-1764 (1st Cir. Aug. 26, 2011).

In 2007, Simon Glik encountered three police officers making an arrest in the Boston Common. Concerned that the officers were using excessive force,  he began to record video footage of the arrest with his cell phone. One of the officers told Glik, “I think you have taken enough pictures,” and Glik replied that he was videotaping the arrest. When Glik affirmed that his cell phone recorded audio, he was arrested and subsequently charged with violation of Massachusetts’ wiretap statute, disturbing the peace and aiding in the escape of a prisoner. The latter charge was voluntarily dismissed for lack of probable cause and, in 2008, the Boston Municipal Court granted Glik’s motion to dismiss the remaining two charges. Thereafter, Glik filed a civil rights action against the officers and the City of Boston in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, alleging claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of his First and Fourth Amendment rights, in addition to various state law claims. The district court denied the police officers’ motion to dismiss Glik’s complaint on qualified immunity grounds, and the defendants immediately appealed the ruling to the First Circuit on interlocutory review.

To determine whether public officials are entitled to qualified immunity, the court considers whether the facts alleged by the plaintiff make out a violation of a constitutional right and, if so, whether the right was “clearly established” at the time of the defendant’s alleged violation. With regard to Glik’s First Amendment claim, the First Circuit unequivocally concluded that there is a constitutionally protected right to videotape police carrying out their duties in public, explaining that “[i]t is firmly established that the First Amendment’s aegis extends further than the text’s proscription on laws ‘abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press,’ and encompasses a range of conduct related to the gathering and dissemination of information.”

The court cited precedent firmly establishing that videotaping of public officials is an exercise of First Amendment liberties and observed that gathering information on government officials protects free discussion of government affairs, aids in the uncovering of abuses, and promotes effective functioning of government. Although the right to film is subject to reasonable time, place and manner restrictions, the court opined that the peaceful recording of an arrest in a public space that does not interfere with police duties is not reasonably subject to limitation.

The First Amendment right to gather news does not only inure to the benefit of the news media, but also to the benefit of private individuals, the court further noted. Recognizing that evolving technology has allowed private citizens to increasingly contribute to news gathering and dissemination, the First Circuit stated:

Moreover, changes in technology and society have made the lines between private citizen and journalist exceedingly difficult to draw. The proliferation of electronic devices with video-recording capability means that many of our images of current events come from bystanders with a ready cell phone or digital camera rather than a traditional film crew, and news stories are now just as likely to be broken by a blogger at her computer as a reporter at a major newspaper. Such developments make clear why the news-gathering protections of the First Amendment cannot turn on professional credentials or status.

In addition, the First Circuit concluded that Glik’s Fourth Amendment rights were violated by his arrest without probable cause, relying on the fact that his recording in plain view was not “secret” within the meaning of the state wiretap statute. Even if the officers did not actually know that Glik was recording audio on his cell phone, the court found that the conspicuous use of a cell phone commonly known to record audio is sufficient evidence from which to infer actual knowledge of the recording.

Rodman Gomez

Breaking Down the Police Videotaping Decision is a post from Cop Block - Badges Don't Grant Extra Rights