Gangsters in Blue

Written by Ali Winston

Federal Judge Thelton Henderson and the court monitors overseeing the Oakland Police Department have been frustrated for years by the lack of accountability in the department when it comes to police officer misconduct. Typically, the department places officers accused of wrongdoing on paid administrative leave pending the outcome of an internal affairs investigation. But then if internal affairs recommends an officer be disciplined, or even fired, that recommendation often is overturned later by an arbitrator.

This arbitration system is guaranteed by the union contract between the city and the Oakland Police Officers’ Association, and it often helps cops avoid department recommended discipline or termination. However, Judge Henderson recently indicated that he might add a new way to punish officers who commit wrongdoing. And if he chooses to implement this new disciplinary process, it will be the first of its kind in the country.

Henderson is considering holding officers in contempt of court if they violate a sweeping set of police reforms in the consent decree that stems from the Riders case. These reforms cover nearly every aspect of police conduct, so the judge, in effect, could discipline officers even if an arbitrator says they shouldn’t be.

The judge decided to explore this new path in the wake of an Oakland police officer’s decision to tape over his nametag during a confrontation with Occupy Oakland protesters following the November 2 General Strike. In a January 27 order, Henderson stated that officers accused of misconduct could be subjected to investigation by the Independent Monitoring Team that oversees OPD’s federal consent decree. Henderson also recently granted monitoring team members the power to carry out their own probes into officer misconduct based on their own initiative or at the request of Henderson or John Burris and Jim Chanin, the civil rights attorneys who filed a class action suit twelve years ago against four rogue West Oakland cops.

Judge Henderson’s assertion of the court’s power to conduct independent investigations and mete out contempt of court sanctions outside the normal union arbitration process came in an order relating to the nametag-taping incident involving Officer John Hargraves and former Lieutenant Clifford Wong on November 2. Hargraves was found to have violated policy by taping over his nametag, and Wong was found to have acted improperly by failing to report the incident to internal affairs and also turning off Hargraves’ lapel camera, which video of the incident shows was on when a photographer first raised the issue. The department suspended Hargraves for thirty days and demoted Wong to sergeant, but Henderson may decide to further discipline them through contempt of court proceedings.

The court’s ability to conduct independent inquiries into OPD policy and discipline is a “game changer,” said Rashidah Grinage of the police watchdog group People United for a Better Life in Oakland. Henderson’s order also circumvents the six-year-old barrier on disclosing police officer misconduct that has been in place throughout California since the 2006 State Supreme Court decision The Copley Press, Inc. v. The Superior Court of San Diego County (see “Deadly Secrets,” 10/12/2011), which barred independent police watchdogs from publicly identifying officers in misconduct complaints.

According to Grinage and Chanin, Henderson’s order affirming the court’s right to conduct future hearings on individual officers actions does not violate Copley because that ruling does not apply to court orders. In other words, Henderson’s decision also means that for the first time in six years, Oaklanders may have access to misconduct complaints about individual officers through the federal courts.

OPD’s long struggle to comply with federal reform efforts has already broken new ground in that it is the first department to face the possibility of a full federal takeover. Henderson’s decision to hold officers directly accountable through contempt of court sanctions also makes good on a threat he made last May when he asked the monitoring team to “get me a name” of any officer impeding or counteracting the consent decree reforms.

In addition to Hargraves and Wong, there may be another group of officers who could end up in front of Henderson over their actions during Occupy Oakland protests. This group appears to have acted contrary to departmental policy for how they treated protesters and for shuttering their lapel-mounted cameras during key moments of Occupy Oakland’s protest on January 28. Oakland police officers fired less-than-lethal beanbag rounds and threw tear gas-loaded “stinger” grenades at demonstrators gathered at 10th and Oak streets that afternoon, and once again at a group of several hundred demonstrators that police had surrounded, or “kettled,” at a park on 19th Street just off Telegraph Avenue. OPD’s actions on January 28, according to Chanin, show that the department has backslided from reforms undertaken after OPD fired on peaceful demonstrators at the Port of Oakland in April 2003.

“I think at this point the violations are so massive it’s as if they ripped up the crowd control policy and threw it away,” Chanin said

For their part, Oakland police officers contend that they were attacked with rocks, metal pipes, and bottles on January 28. And footage from dozens of lapel-mounted Vievu cameras, or “Personal Data Recording Devices,” worn by OPD officers could clarify what happened that day.

OPD purchased 350 Vievu cameras in September 2010 at a cost of $540,048. The devices were intended as a transparency tool to hold officers accountable for their actions during interactions with the public, and to deter false complaints against officers. Each device has four gigabytes of memory and can record up to four hours of video. OPD’s official policy for camera use states that officers must keep their cameras on while conducting vehicle or walking stops, and while making arrests. No stipulations are made for crowd control situations in the policy. But department instructions for lapel camera usage in OPD’s operations plan for November 2 stated that officers that had been issued lapel cameras were required to wear them and turn them on “if directly engaged with the crowd (i.e. dispersal order given, skirmish line moves toward crowd or during arrests or physical contact with members of the crowd).” However, videos and images from January 28 appear to show several OPD officers with their lapel cameras off during confrontations with demonstrators and while making arrests, including at least one officer who was photographed firing less-than-lethal rounds from his shotgun at fleeing demonstrators at 10th and Oak streets.

During the January 28 march toward Laney College, Officer Rodney Kirkland was photographed alongside Officer Bryan Clifford. Kirkland’s camera is off, while Clifford’s camera is on — as indicated by the green coloring around the lapel camera’s lens. Video footage shows Officer Kirkland apparently pushing Joanne Warwick, an Oakland attorney, to the ground as she stood in front of police lines with her bicycle on 9th Street near Laney College. Warwick was dragged behind police lines and arrested. Video footage shows that Kirkland’s camera was off during the incident. Kirkland was photographed later that afternoon near the Alameda County administrative building on Oak Street with his camera turned on. Warwick is currently charged with obstructing Officer Kirkland and blocking the street. She is one of eleven people who have been served with stay-away orders from Frank Ogawa Plaza.

When demonstrators advanced on a police line behind homemade shields after an initial volley of flash-bang grenades at 10th and Oak streets, OPD responded with more flash-bangs and shotgun-fired beanbag rounds, scattering the crowd. Among the shotgun-wielding officers of OPD’s Tango team was Acting Sergeant Casey Johnson. Multiple photographs and video show Johnson firing his shotgun at demonstrators — one image shows Johnson with his camera off and shotgun in a firing position, while three adjacent officers have their cameras on.

While OPD’s policy on lapel cameras is not clear-cut regarding crowd-control situations, it clearly states that officers must have their cameras while making arrests. Sergeant Ronald Holmgren was photographed making three arrests on January 28. During the first arrest in the afternoon, his camera is on. During the second arrest, his camera is turned off. Holmgren’s third arrest took place in front of the Rite Aid at 14th Street and Broadway, where a young man was arrested for attempted vandalism. Video and photos show Holmgren and two other supervisors, sergeants David Faeth and Lisa Ausmus, with their cameras off while Officer Bryan Alaura handcuffed the suspect.

OPD spokeswoman Officer Johnna Watson said officers could have turned their cameras off if the memory was full or if their battery packs had run down. However, Watson also said that Vievu cameras have internal monitors that show if cameras are low on battery, and that data will be crosschecked with footage to see whether officers are following procedure and truthfully documenting their camera usage.

“If officers are found turning off the system when policy requires it be on, that would be a policy violation and would lead to an internal affairs investigation,” Watson said.

According to Sergeant Chris Bolton, chief of staff to Police Chief Howard Jordan, OPD has had problems with non-functioning, lost, and stolen Vievu cameras. Since October, 86 cameras have been sent back to the manufacturer for various problems, and ten cameras have been lost or stolen since last April. When cameras malfunction, officers must immediately report the problem to their supervisor. The Internal Affairs Division is examining lapses in camera use during crowd control situations. However, Bolton said last week that the department had not yet decided whether officers violated departmental policies on January 28. “It would be premature to come to any conclusion for a specific officer or incident at this time,” he said.

Video by Jacob Crawford (Copwatch) and Ali Winston

This post was sent via CopBlock.org’s Submission Tab, click here to submit your story.

Oakland Police Caught Violating Camera Policy is a post from Cop Block - Badges Don't Grant Extra Rights

SC Patriots Under Fire For Exercising First Amendment Rights
Kim M.
SoCal Martial Law Alerts
February 17, 2012

In the never-ending “Like-Button” Chronicles of Kershaw County, two South Carolina patriots recently came under fire from WIS reporter, Jody Barr (jodybarr@wistv.com), for exercising their first amendment right to speak about government, government corruption and lawful protest against unconstitutional checkpoints conducted against innocent, law-abiding citizens.

Sounding just like a page out of a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) playbook, reporter Barr used inflammatory and decidedly-biased words such as “plot,” “harass” and “extremist” to describe an informal and impromptu talk given by Larry Risvold and Jeff Mattox before a regular breakfast meeting of local businessmen known as the Cayce Mafia (a name which is firmly tongue-in-cheek, of course, but has fabulous propagandistic potential. And it probably also doesn’t help that Mattox wore a camo shirt and chose not to shave that day? Oh, the power of propaganda!)

Reporter Barr apparently found a YouTube video of the meeting online and decided to file this rather one-sided report, in which local law enforcement is interviewed and portrayed in glowing terms, while Risvold and Mattox are portrayed as dangerous “extremists” and are not even given an opportunity to respond.

(Prior to filing the report, reporter Barr admits that he went to Risvold’s home and took a photograph of his car and then went onto Risvold’s property and left a business card in his door. Risvold told me that he was home at the time and did not hear a knock.)

Risvold, a 28-year Marine Corps veteran (and whose family has a long tradition of service), is currently serving on the Elgin City Council. He was invited to speak before the Cayce Mafia on the spur of the moment by the day’s master of ceremonies, Steve Isom.

Not having prepared a topic beforehand, Risvold decided to speak about the large rash of unconstitutional sobriety checkpoints being conducted in Kershaw County (all in the name of “saving lives,” of course) and, in particular, the one being conducted by a special new unit of the Kershaw County Sheriff’s department. (The unit is “revenue neutral,” which essentially means that the deputies must write enough tickets [i.e. bring in enough "revenue"] to sustain themselves — which rather belies the point of “saving lives” for any thinking person, now doesn’t it?)

As is his right, Risvold took exception to the profusion of checkpoints, the regular Fourth Amendment violations that occur against law-abiding citizens and then asked his listeners what country this reminded them of. Reporter Barr said that Risvold compared “law enforcement’s efforts in stopping drunk drivers to Nazi Germany,” which is not exactly true (but, again, it has great propagandistic potential for readers who will investigate no further).

Risvold was then followed by Mattox, who is another very vocal opponent of the unconstitutional checkpoints and whose main claim to fame occurred when he clicked the “Like” button on an anti-tyranny story on Facebook, for which he was promptly attacked in the media by local Sheriff, Jim Matthews. The attack was so fierce and one-sided that Mattox was promptly and unceremoniously removed from his GOP chair position and forced to resign from Kershaw County Patriots, a tea-party-type group that he had founded.

Mattox spoke to the Cayce Mafia of possibly protesting the unconstitutional checkpoints by placing signs warning motorists of upcoming checkpoints and organizing squads of protestors to drive through the checkpoints in order to “slow them down.” Mattox’s plan also includes possibly asking participating deputies pointed questions about the constitutionality of their operation.

Even though Risvold didn’t speak of, and denies participation in, Mattox’s protest plan, reporter Barr’s inflammatory headline was: “Elgin councilman involved in plot to ‘harass’ Kershaw Co. deputies.” (Involved. Plot. Harass. Such a manipulative choice of words!)

Regardless, protest is a First-Amendment-protected right and protesting checkpoints is nothing new — at least one successful checkpoint protest was conducted in Oxnard, California in July 2011 — and the point of such protest is certainly not to “harass” law enforcement, but to protect law-abiding citizens from official oppression and unnecessary harassment themselves.

Indeed, Barr’s report was so one-sided and so reminiscent of Sheriff Matthews’ earlier media attack that Mattox couldn’t help but wonder if Matthews was somehow involved? Couple that with the fact that Sheriff Matthew’s wife, Heather Hoopes-Matthews, used to be a reporter for WIS TV and Mattox’s observation that “WIS is the only one reporting this stuff” and… one does have to wonder.

Mattox also has concerns about Sheriff Matthews’ lifelong military, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) background and the fact that he is not local to the area. (I also took note of Matthew’s DEA “Media and Public Information Training” as well as his DEA “Airport” and “Highway Interdiction” training on his rather lengthy resume. Hmm.) Add all this together with the fact that South Carolina does indeed have an intelligence “fusion center” and who wouldn’t be concerned?

One last interesting thing to note about Sheriff Matthews is the fact that he has managed to garner four (yes, four) defamation lawsuits against him in the short time that he has been in office — one of which was brought by the former Sheriff, who says that Sheriff Matthews’ has ruined his reputation and negatively impacted his “earning capacity” (among other things) and another by the Sheriff department’s former Narcotics Division head. Considering how difficult it is to win a defamation suit, the fact that Sheriff Matthews has racked up four is extraordinary.

So I said all that to say:

Freedom of speech and freedom from unreasonable search and seizure are certainly having a difficult time surviving in South Carolina these days.

LINKS:

Elgin councilman involved in plot to ‘harass’ Kershaw Co. deputies

Sheriff, Police on High Alert After GOP Chair “Likes” Anti-Tyranny Article on Facebook

Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment

Countywide DUI crackdown starts Saturday

Sheriff, chiefs warn officers after Web post

GOP leader asked to resign after discussing “when to shoot a cop”

Kershaw County Patriots Facebook page

Oxnard protesters warn drivers of checkpoint

Matthews Kershaw County Sheriff

South Carolina Fusion Center (Component of the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division)

Ex-sheriff suing Jim Matthews for $2M

Former KCSO narcotics head sues Matthews

- Kim M.

This post was sent via CopBlock.org’s submission tab, submit your stories by clicking here.

SC Patriots Under Fire For Exercising First Amendment Rights is a post from Cop Block - Badges Don't Grant Extra Rights

The Houston Police department might have just won the award for most hypocritical police force in the nation. According to “A Texas Badge in Question“:

The Houston Police Department has been accused of a number of things, brutality, corruption, misconduct…

And now there is another deficiency on the table — low scores whenever it comes to solving burglary and theft cases. In fact, the problem is so wide-spread, KPRC-TV in Houston has taken a closer look and the statistics are disturbing.

HPD records show between January and October of last year the department’s Burglary and Theft division “received” more than 100,000 cases. Of those cases, HPD records show only about 11 percent were solved.

“Did you actually speak to any detective on your cases?” asked Local 2 Investigator Robert Arnold. “I’ve never spoken to a detective on my case,” one victim answered. She told Local 2 her home was burglarized twice. 

Her sense of frustration is shared by many Local 2 spoke with and said they never spoke to a detective about their case. HPD records show out of the cases received by the burglary and theft division between January and October of last year, only approximately 8 percent were assigned to a detective.

“It was suggested I check pawn shops,” the woman said.

Seems the taxpayers of Houston have a decision to make. Keep paying the guys who do nothing to catch criminals or stop paying them. Folks have already tried filming the Houston police, but according to a blog published on A Texas Badge in Question in 2011:

Houston Police Chief Charles McClelland went on the defensive Thursday during a meeting with local journalists, saying officers have made recent traffic stops in which residents leave their vehicles to take pictures or shoot video — encounters he says could endanger officers and that have increased following the release of the Chad Holley beating footage.

“Officers are telling me that they’re being provoked,” the chief said. “Even when they try to write a simple traffic ticket, people are jumping out with cell phone cameras scanning their badge numbers and their nametags. And I’ve asked them to remain calm and treat people with respect and dignity.”

When will the police understand that filming them is nothing personal, it’s – filming – a right. No one has an expectation of privacy while in public and public officials, working for all of us, have no privacy whatsoever on the job. More so, I hope the police officers who see the harm government regulation (control) has brought their profession. I hope they make the right choice and stop working for the government. All police officers have a skill, protecting others, and could provide it better without the governments involvement.

Just think, 92% of people who have been robbed in Houston haven’t spoken to a detective, that’s alot of people. If each person gave a current LEO in Houston $50 to help them – no promises (same deal the government gives) – they’d make more than they do working for the City. Plus, they’d only have to focus on each customer (not every single person, which is impossible) and not all the other government control jobs.

Houston Police Department A Texas Size Disgrace is a post from Cop Block - Badges Don't Grant Extra Rights

Those following the Occupy demonstrations over the past 5 months probably remember Tony Bologna – especially after the Daily Show ripped him up. He’s a ‘deputy inspector’ for the NYPD and the man who decided to pepper spray several people after other NYPD officers trapped them on a public sidewalk using an orange mesh fence.

Now, according to NYDailyNews.com:

Chelsea Elliott and Jeanne Mansfield are suing Deputy Inspector Anthony Bologna in Manhattan Federal Court for blasting them in the face with pepper-spray during a protest last Sept. 24 near Union Square.

The incident was caught on video, and 1.5 million people watched it on YouTube, prompting outrage and drawing attention to the Occupy Wall Street movement.

Bologna was docked 10 days of vacation for violating NYPD regulations.

In an interview Monday, Mansfield, 24, a Boston writer, said she was suing because she wanted to put the NYPD on notice that what Bologna did was wrong.

“I was attending a peaceful demonstration when I was met with what I feel was an undue amount of force,” she said.

Whether or not to sue, from an activists perspective, is subjective. I, personally, understand the reasons given for both but with the system the way it is, do what you want. What I would like to talk about is who pays when someone (or a company) is sued.

For example, if there’s a razor blade in a burger at McDonald’s and someone is harmed by this, they could sue McDonalds and McDonalds may (or should) pay them. Sure McDonald’s could add the additional expense (of paying settlements) to the cost of their burgers, essentially having the customer’s pay for it – overtime – and some people might be fine with paying more. Yet, if McDonalds kept putting, or having, razors in their burgers eventually they would go out of business. Not only because they’re paying out millions in lawsuits but also because people would stop eating at McDonalds. Either because they don’t want to eat razor blades or the cost of the burgers would be too high.

When suing a (actual) person or company, the settlement comes from the person or company. Sure, like I stated above, the cost of the lawsuits would be passed on to consumers but the consumer would still have a choice. Since no person or company can force you to pay for their service without their consent.

Now look at the police, individual police officers are RARELY sued, instead people sue the ‘City.” Which would be the same as suing McDonalds, which is fine, if the City were collecting revenue (tax) for its customers voluntarily but they don’t. They collect it from everyone regardless if you want (or like) the service they provide to you at the barrel of a gun. So, here you are with a legitimate reason to sue a company – the government – for doing harm to you. But what happens when you try to hold those in government (law enforcement) accountable by their rules, their courts and their system? You lose no matter what. Even if you “win”  you end up punishing yourself, your neighbor and millions of others you haven’t met. Since the government will, just like McDonalds would, pass the expense of the lawsuit down to the consumer, ie – taxpayer. Only difference is the government doesn’t ask you if you want to pay for the additional cost, they just expect you to because it’s what being a good citizen means.

Think about this, are you happy with how the government spends your money? Have you ever thought, “why do I let them take MY money? I wouldn’t let a stranger take MY money, even if they threatened to jail me? What makes it right for the government, when it’s wrong for anyone else?” What’s my point? Freedom of choice is the point. Until people realize they have the FREEDOM to CHOOSE what type of protection service they want – to the same degree one has for fastfood places – nothing will change and the government will continue to spend your money on things made to control you. Not protect you. Until more people realize that, you might as well sue, help expose fiat currency for what it is, smoke and mirrors.

To learn more about Free Markets click here.

Suing Who?? is a post from Cop Block - Badges Don't Grant Extra Rights

CULPEPER, Va. (story via WUSA – Linked below) — An eyewitness to a fatal police shooting in Culpeper, Virginia is contradicting the State Police version of the story.

Kris Buchele says he saw a Culpeper Town Police officer shoot 54-year-old Patricia Cook to death in the  Epiphany Catholic School  parking lot at around 10 a.m. Thursday, February 9.

Buchele is a carpenter who was working on the house next door. He says he heard loud arguing outside and looked through a window where he had a clear view of the school parking lot. Cook was in her Jeep Wrangler .

State police say Cook rolled up the window, catching the officer’s arm inside, and then dragged him.

Buchele says it didn’t happen that way.  He describes an encounter which looked and sounded like the officer shooting a person a point blank range,  not because he feared for his life, but because the woman did not obey his order to stop rolling up the window.

“He was right next to the vehicle.  He had one hand on the door handle and one hand on his weapon.  And she was rolling the window up.  And they were exiting out of the parkng lot.

The window was half way up he said ’stop or I’ll shoot.’  (Read entire article here)

An eyewitness to a fatal police shooting is contradicting the Police version. is a post from Cop Block - Badges Don't Grant Extra Rights

Politics is a form of violence. In a society where everyone has been brainwashed to worship democracy, this fact is intentionally disguised, but an objective assessment leads to this undeniable truth. The truth is Americans are just as base, violent, and oppressive as humanity has ever been. Democracy has not fixed this; it has only masked it with false language, artful systems, and an illusion of choice.

In democracy, theft by government is “taxation.” Murder by government overseas is “collateral damage” and murder by government domestically is “security.” Censorship,  arbitrary imprisonment, lack of due process, and vague laws further are justified by “security” concerns and are purportedly for the good of all, no matter the devastating consequences of such policies.  Murder and theft have not been mitigated, and violence is not on the decline because of civilization; they have simply been redesigned, repackaged, and resold by the most successful and brilliant PR campaign of all time.

Victims of such policies are placed in the odd situation of feeling helplessly tyrannized, while being told they voluntarily chose the particular circumstances they find themselves in, because they live in a democracy. Indeed, people are as violent, savage, and uncivilized as ever, but have managed to convince themselves they are evolved and actually value peace.

Thus, there is a reason people are told to avoid politics (and usually religion) in most social settings. No one says it is best to avoid discussion of music, food, exercise, or the arts. This is because at the very foundation of politics is the threat of violence. When people express an “opinion” on politics, it is not merely an opinion the way “I love Chagall’s use of colors” is an opinion. Two people arguing about Chopin will very rarely start to foam at the mouth in rage because whether you think Chopin’s style tends more toward melancholy, versus romance, there is no threat of violence implied in the discussion.

On the other hand, an “opinion” on politics is a declaration that you are willing to use theft, robbery, or violence (imprisonment) to force your opinion on the person you are speaking to. It is a decree that you are willing to send police with guns, or a SWAT team to someone’s house, in order to force your opinion down their throat, under the penalty of bodily injury. In its mildest form, it is an expression that you are willing to steal from someone (e.g. tickets, fines, taxes) in order to force your opinion upon them. When the falsely deified justification of democracy is removed, this is a translation of what people are really saying -

If political “opinions” were purely opinions, they’d look more like this -

The reason political debates get heated is because the practical effect of politics is reflected by Table 1, rather than Table 2. A discussion of politics is no more than two people screaming at each other about who is willing to use more violence in order to subjugate the other into compliance. Table 2 is a representation of pure opinions and the (relatively mild) implications thereof. Table 1 is a representation of how politics actually work. Behind every political opinion is the necessary assertion that you are willing to use some pretty egregious and violent tactics to force someone into submission. Despite many alleged strides in civilization, it appears people are all still pretty much cavemen – they are prone to beating their chests, rounding up posses, and using violence and fear to subdue dissent.

Sounds like a breed of people we are very familiar with here at Copblock – the police. Yet, unlike the police, most people, in their personal lives, do not demonstrate the behavior described in Table 1. Few people catch their children doing drugs, and believe it’s appropriate to beat them into submission, and lock them in the basement for years, as the police do. Few people see their friends or family making poor choices about their health or their lives and deem it proper to handcuff their loved ones, and lock them in a room to secure compliance, as the police do.

Arguably, people are capable of not behaving like violent lunatics, because most of the time, they do not engage in such tactics in their personal lives. Yet, it seems to be peoples’ vile self-righteousness, and sociopathy that leads them to believe it is acceptable for police to use such methods upon strangers, when it is never a path they would choose or accept for their loved ones.

“My kid shouldn’t be in jail for weed – but all those other kids out there – they are truly bad…. I can jaywalk/speed/roll stop signs safely, but everyone else is a goddamn idiot, of course…I, and people I know are capable of using drugs safely and in moderation, but everyone else is too dumb, and should be locked up for doing the same…” While these sentiments are embraced by most in society, they are most are prominently exemplified by politicians who have at times engaged in drug use or other illegal activity that could land them in prison. Instead, they are powerful, rich, or they are even Presidents. They can afford to have this hypocritical mentality, because it works for them. They are the lawmakers, and will usually indeed find a way to get away with actions that accord everyone else with severe punishment.

If you are not a politician however, you are not only a disgusting and violent human being for thinking this way, you are deluded. One of these days, the policies you support will come crashing down upon your own head, or that of your loved ones. And then it will be everyone else saying, “well I can drink, do drugs, and break laws responsibly, but that motherfucker [insert the name of your loved one here] deserved to go to jail/be shot by police because only the stupid ones get caught.” At the very least, you will be stolen from or robbed to fund programs, wars, or projects you find abhorrent and immoral.

Needless to say, if you support this type of political process, I believe you should rethink your ideology – if not for ethical reasons, at the very least for personal ones – unless you’re some kind of politician or government crony, you are not immune from some very tragic victimization.

Your Political Ideology is a Violent One is a post from Cop Block - Badges Don't Grant Extra Rights

Hello fellow Copblockers,
My name is Tony and I would like to thank the site and all the people who contributor to it. I live in lovely South Florida, Broward county. Home of the orignal Navarro bad boys. I have been steadfastly defending my rights against these repressive gang members for the last 20yrs. I have been on the wrong side of the law, paid my dues and consider myself a model of rehabilitation. I have been with the same woman for 24 yrs and married to her for 11. She was my high school sweetheart and has turned into a pill head. All by her doctors design and big pharma.

I have had 5 to 7 narcs bang on my door, all suited up in black and ready to go. ” Can we come in” We have a report of suspicious activity at this residense. “do you have a search warrant” No we do not but if you have nothing to hide, we do not see a problem for us to enter. Well there is a problem, this is a private residence and you have no warrant. So no, I do not have anything to hide, and no, you may not enter my house. That was the first time.

Second time my friend is a gardner and uses hydroponics for growing inside. We go buy some Nitrous for the plants and 2 weeks later boom, DEA, BSO show up at my door, his door and his mothers house. All so called “grow houses.” Again they say, “can we enter?” “Do you have a warrant?” “No”, well have a nice day. Luckily I have informed my friend of what to say and and what they would say. He was one second from saying yes, you may search, but got smart when the cop said. Well if you have nothing to hide. Oh wake up time, no you may not enter. Same thing on all three houses. So yeah I am hot with the police, by knowing my rights.

Well last Saturday I am working and I get a call from my 16yr old. There is SWAT with guns drawn on 2 11yr olds for riding a Honda mini trail up and down the street. Apparently someone made an anonymous tip that some heavy set man with glasses was coming out of my house waving a gun. The Swat team shows up with guns draw, orders everyone out of house and then commences to harass all of them. I have two American Pitbull terriers, my 5yr old female was outside at the time. Luckily the police had enough restraint to have my daughter put my female and my 2yr old male in the room. Once all that was done, they did their little show and left. NEVER even searched the house, for the man with the gun. WTF is that, all this forcec and a half ass job in investing the call.

Some noisy neighbor, with no balls to ask them to stop riding the mini trail, decides to call the cops on kids, make an outrageous claim about a man with a gun and put my entire family in harms way. I am moving and getting out of here but I sure won’t be a nice neighbor anymore. Loud car, lots of kids over for my kids to play with and a BBQ on the front lawn every weekend.

- Tony C

Send your stories about police abuse, police issues or suggestions on improving police tactics to CopBlock.org, via the submission tab.

Anonymous Tips is a post from Cop Block - Badges Don't Grant Extra Rights

One would think Rick Van Wickler, Superintendent of the Cheshire County “Correctional” Facility, was committing career suicide when testifying at the House Criminal Justice Committee (See video above) – you know, that committee focused on justice and stuff – in New Hampshire. Only when employed by the government is it logical for y0u to take a “vacation day” (which is still paid for the same way – taxes – as “regular days”) and testify for something that would cost your employer billions of dollars – and keep your job.

Now I don’t want to take anything from Rick and the courage he has for speaking the truth about the war on drugs. He honestly has my respect for that but as a man who’s been “on the bad end of him doing his job so well” (a statement I made to him at his Keene State College speech) I find it questionable, in terms of his character, to have such a clear understanding of the “War on Drugs” and still go to work where the majority of ‘his’ inmates are there due to drug prohibition.

Don’t you just want to ask him, “How can you know that [prohibition failed] and go to work everyday and continue to contribute to this problem?”

He may even say something like, “I’m advocating against the system – just like you do. I’m sure you, like me, dislike the compromises we make against our principles. You don’t like to pay taxes of any kind knowing they’ll go to fund more things you rather not support. I feel guilt when I see marijuana users in my jail but I’m doing what I can and trying to fix it the only way I know how.”

Though I bet Rick would feel better if he weren’t part of the system that was built off something he seems to despise. Regardless, it’s nice to see someone not blinded by the paycheck, who has the courage to speak the truth. Thanks.

Superintendent Advocates Against Drug War is a post from Cop Block - Badges Don't Grant Extra Rights

On 07/02/11 I crossed from Nogales, Mexico into Nogales, AZ and when I did I, as usual, I refused to answer questions unrelated to a legally required customs and citizenship declaration. The result was my being manhandled into the back room, yelled at, threatened, arrested, handcuffed, and placed in a cell. I remained in the cell for approximately forty-five minutes until a ICE Special Agent arrived and told the legally inept CBP officers that I hadn’t actually broken any laws. I wrote in detail about my arrest here.

Since my arrest I have retained the services of Attorney Keith Knowlton, a civil rights attorney in Arizona, who is pursuing a Bivens action against the Department of Homeland Security for my unlawful arrest.  He requested a copy of video from the Nogales Point-of-Entry as well as my arrest report.  Stunningly, they could not locate the video or an official arrest report… but they did locate the “inspection report.”

You’ll note that I was accused of murdering a federal officer (18 USC 1114) and “forcibly … impeding” a federal officer (18 USC 111) .  According to the report I was let go with a verbal warning.   Not bad I’d say for a homicide.

The very next day following my arrest I filed an official complaint with DHS/ICE/CBP’s Professional Standards Division regarding my illegal arrest and the unprofessional conduct exhibited by the officers.  I had an over-the-phone interview on 07/03/11 and was told that an investigation was started and that I would hear back within a month.

After hearing only crickets coming from the direction of the Department of Homeland Security for approximately four months, I filed a complaint with New Hampshire United States Senator Jeanne Shaheen’s office regarding their apparent unwillingness to investigate misconduct on the part of their own employees.  I also filed a complaint with the Arizona FBI office for a violation of the criminal civil rights law, 18 USC 242.  (The FBI has subsequently reported that they are not interested in investigating this further.)

I received a phone call from Senator Shaheen’s office today and was informed that ICE/CBP’s official position is that I was never arrested.  This clearly is because of the misleading, inaccurate, and lying report filed by the federal officer who arrested me.  I informed Senator Shaheen’s staffer that the CBP Officer lied on his report by omitting the fact that he both told me “you’re under arrest” and handcuffed me, prior to putting me in a cell.  The staffer, a very nice woman named Letizia Ortiz, told me that CBP reported me as being repeatedly uncooperative when I cross the border and that it is their position that I was never arrested on 07/02/11.  Their position that I was never arrested is based on the report filed by CBP Officer Aldrich.

If that is where they get their official position from, wouldn’t it also be their position that I murdered a federal officer?

Complete lies.

Be careful when dealing with the government.

FACT: Police Will Violate Your Rights and Lie/Omit to Cover It Up is a post from Cop Block - Badges Don't Grant Extra Rights

By Ian Freeman, blogger at FreeKeene.com:

Back in 2010, on a visit to the NH Attorney Genital’s office, we met “investigator” Dick Tracy. More recently, Copblock’s Ademo and I were in the area so we dropped in again with some more questions, this time meeting “investigator” James Brown. Neither man was interested in speaking on the record and Brown attempted to intimidate us into not recording. We did not stop. Here’s what happened:

Remember, it is supposed to be your right to record government bureaucrats in public places. Though, we know they don’t care about what your rights are, so there’s always a chance you could be aggressed against and caged. Sometimes it can be scary when they threaten you, but if you have backup also willing to not back down, your odds of walking away without being caged increase.

Just say NO – to demands you quit recording them.

Don’t Stop Recording: Meet James Brown is a post from Cop Block - Badges Don't Grant Extra Rights