Gangsters in Blue

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

There are so many people who have said that Marion County, West Virginia’s Justice system is one of the worst places to find yourself in trouble. I agree, based off my own past and current experiences. They seem to do what they want here and ignore where they are wrong.

I was arrested, in January of 2011, on a Malicious Assault charge in which there was no thorough investigation on both parties; there was only consideration on the alleged victims behalf. The alleged victim had no witnesses to the said crime and I, as the defendant, did. How was I accused of Malicious Assault when I was the one who took the alleged victim to the hospital and I signed their hospital release form? What is the definition of MALICIOUS? I was released on bond one month afterwards. I was later arrested again, around 49 days afterwards, for Violation of the Restraining Order. I saw the alleged victim in one store as I entered my appointment in another location. I did not approach or speak, and kept a maximum distance between me and the the alleged victim. The alleged victim wrote in their statement that I had no reason to go into the place I went, when actually I had proof that I did have a reason; in writing and on another document. I was again released on bond. Two months later we went to court for my Bond Revocation which was continued and the “IDEA/SUGGESTION” from an “OUTSIDE SOURCE” to place me on Home Confinement, to “SHUT the ALLEGED VICTIM UP”, was granted in court that day although it was ABSOLUTELY NOT ORIGINALLY part of either one of my bond conditions.

In June of 2011, we went to Family Court and none of us were sworn in! The alleged victim stated that they lived with me in their original Order of Protection court document, yet lied in Family Court stating that they did not live with me prior to and during the alleged criminal accusations filed against me in January of 2011. I was accused of making more than three times more than I did at my job, which I indicated was WRONG. I had documented proof from my legitimate job. Changes were made in Family Court after our hearing and during my absence concerning the Final Court Order. It seems the Judge made a seemingly audible biased cheer toward my absence. I purchased the Family Court DVD Transcript and all I have mentioned concerning that case is on that DVD.

To brings things up to date, the alleged victim has been trying to contact me. They told the Prosecuting Attorney what they were doing, then went as far as filing a Court Petition to dismiss the charges. The Prosecutor was furious more so at me and said I was already indicted and that the State had taken over the case. The Petition to dismiss charges against me by the alleged victim was, of course, denied. What also seems wrong to me, is that the Prosecutor told me that we both violated the restraining order even if she approached me. I also think that it is unfair that if the alleged victim admitted breaking the restraining order, directly to the Prosecuting Attorney, then why didn’t the alleged victim get arrested?

There is more to this case. As with many other cases here, if there was an investigation by the RIGHT authorities or people, they would find so much police misconduct, unjustified cases, violations of ethics, violations of human rights, abuse of power, improperly investigated cases and a lot of  unprofessional conduct within the Justice System in Marion County, West Virginia.

I have filed an appeal in my Family Court case in June of 2011, and haven’t heard anything. I am also still waiting to go to court for my Malicious Assault case. I have a court appointed lawyer whom I had doubts about until recently. I think mine and other’s cases, who obviously seem to get no justice here, need to be urgently looked into and these unfair authorities need to be exposed. I have been trying to get direct and useful help (here and elsewhere online), but haven’t been able find any. Please help us here in WV! Thank you and thank you for this site.

Obvious Unfair Justice System in Marion County, WV is a post from Cop Block - Badges Don't Grant Extra Rights

Imagine a man threatened to burn your house down with your kids and disabled, elderly mother inside. You call 911, and attempt to continue to the store you were heading for. Less than 2 minutes after the threat, you are being viciously assaulted, kicked, punched, thrown to the ground, hair ripped from the scalp, by the man’s girlfriend, and her friend. Then, just when you finally think all will be well, the cops are there dealing with it, the officer comes over to talk to you, he opens his mouth, and says, “Ok, I’ve talked to my Corporal, and this is what she said we’re doing. You’re being charged with Battery. You’ll receive a notice in the mail to appear for arraignment.” Um, EXCUSE ME?!

Fact is, it happened. It happened to a disabled woman and her husband, Jason, and Geneva Robinson, on a ‘good’ day for her, one where she was walking, and not forced by pain into her wheelchair. The girlfriend mentioned above, Tina Jones, was quite aware of her disability, as she happened to be the assistant manager of the Dollar General store the couple was walking, to purchase food for their 5 young children. So how is it that a disabled woman can be brutalized in such a manner and the police choose to overlook the obvious facts? Quite frankly the answer is found in the officer’s statement, “…talked to my corporal…”.

Back in January, during a different incident, the woman was sexually assaulted (assault: any unwanted, unsolicited touch or strike) by an officer, Officer Procter, under the command of Corporal Melanie Law. When Mrs. Robinson requested of Corporal Law to file a report, and wanted to press charges on the Officer Procter for his actions, Corporal Law outright refused, and ignored Mrs. Robinson’s requests, finally telling her to just ‘file a complaint’ at the department, Panama City Police Department (Panama City, Florida), which she did. There was some harassment from the PCPD after the complaint was made, from bogus traffic stops to code enforcement (commonly called lawn nazi’s). The assault was the first time, however, that Corporal Law had run across Mrs. Robinson herself.

On the scene of the assault, while sitting holding her ribs, mouth bleeding, and clumps of hair in her hand, Mrs. Robinson, after being informed she was to be charged with Battery, repeatedly requested to file a report, as well as victim statements. Under the direction of Corporal Law, per his own statements, the officer refused, and ignored the requests, sending the Robinson’s to walk home.

SEE PICS OF THE EXTENSIVE BRUISING FROM THE ASSAULT

Currently, Mrs. Robinson has been speaking with Corporal Law’s Lieutenant, Lt. Clayton, and Officer McMillan, the ‘investigative officer’ on the case. At first, they tried to pander around and avoid answering questions. After speaking twice with the local prosecutor’s office, and being told to , “go to PCPD, and get in their faces until they let you file the victim statement”, 5 days after the attack, the Robinsons were finally allowed to file their statements. What hasn’t been answered satisfactorily, is why they were refused on the scene, and had to go to such extremes just to be allowed their basic right. At present, PCPD has still not allowed a report to be filed on the initial verbal threats, which were made by Mr. Jimmy F Bailey, the son, and worker, of his parents’ gas station, Bailey’s Gas Station, from which he was yelling the threats. In fact, during the most recent, and voice recorded, phone conversation with Officer McMillan, Mrs. Robinson was asked, “why haven’t you filed a report on the threats of his burning down your house?”. Point in fact, she made the initial 911 call due to those threats, the assault was a secondary issue that occurred after the 911 call was placed.

NOW AVAILABLE!!

Police Report with the Obvious Inconsistencies

911 Call Log Showing ROBINSON Number as the \’Initiating Call\’

MEDICAL DX FROM THE ASSAULT

Prior Report For BATTERY On Initial Attacker, Katherine Ashton

There remain many questions, and few good answers. It seems as though the longer it goes, the harder the questions PCPD has to answer to the Robinsons. This isn’t just a 3rd hand knowledge issue, either. I, the author, personally witnessed it. More than just witnessing, I am Geneva (Eva) Robinson. My hair was ripped out, I was repeatedly kicked, hit, scratched, and thrown to the ground by 2 women, Tina Jones, and Katherine Ashton. My husband and I were verbally assaulted by Ms. Jones’ boyfriend, Jimmy Bailey. Please, I invite you, look at the ‘witness’ statements (2 alleged witnesses were employees of Ms. Jones, the third was her own boyfriend, Mr. Bailey!), the ‘victim’ statements by Ms. Jones, and Ms. Ashton, and the intrepid Officer McMillan’s ‘Investigative Summary’. I will publish a list of various inconsistencies, though it’s hardly necessary, as even my own 10 yr old daughter can see them immediately. Form your opinion, and please, let me know what you think, and how you feel! I will post a separate post with a more detailed account of all that transpired, as well as an account of the initial incident involving Cpl. Law, and her sexual assaulting Officer Procter. I’m far from alone, this is epidemic everywhere. Let’s work together, and stop this from occurring!

To voice your opinion, and ask WHY this incident was handled in such a manner, please call PCPD at (850) 872-3112.

Molon Labe!

Disabled Woman Assaulted, and They’re Charging WHO With Battery?! 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

Over 30 people were arrested when Occupy Oakland was raided on Monday morning. One of them was Cami G.,  a graduate student and a member of the media committee of OO. This is her account of the experience.

On February 1, 1960, four students from the all-black Agricultural and Technical College of North Carolina—Joseph McNeil, Franklin McCain, Ezell Blair, Jr., and David Richmond—strolled into the Woolworth store in downtown Greensboro, North Carolina, sat down at the lunch counter, and ordered coffee. Because of the counter’s “whites only” policy, they were refused. Several employees and a manager asked them to leave, but they remained until the store closed, when they peacefully dispersed.

The next day, the teenagers came back, this time joined by fifteen others. Again, they were refused service, and, again, they stayed until closing time. The next day, there were more than sixty demonstrators, and by the fourth day, over 300 people were participating in sit-ins at lunch counters across the city. By the following week, the movement had spread not only throughout the state but across the entire South. The sit-ins lasted for almost six months, and on July 25, due to boycotts, diminishing profits, and outside pressure prompted by the publicity of the sit-ins, Woolworth desegregated all of its stores, allowing blacks to sit at lunch counters and receive the same service as whites.

There were, of course, difficulties before this victory was achieved. On the very first day, one black employee accused the young men, now called the Greensboro Four, of hurting rather than helping race relations. The demonstrators were heckled and threatened by mobs, with some protests turning violent. Many years later in February of 2008, Franklin McCain discussed the danger of blacks demonstrating in the 1960s South: “I had pre-concluded if I were lucky, I would go to prison for a long, long time. If I were not so lucky, I would come back to my university campus in a pine box.” The four also lamented the difficulty of getting people to commit to sitting in the stores from open to close, to returning day after grueling day. Considering all this, one might ask why the right to be served lunch next to white people was important enough to risk their lives devoting five months to idle loitering. One might ask what sitting passively at a lunch counter was expected to accomplish when the enormity of race problems in the South was so overwhelming.

I would argue that small acts like these are the essential building blocks of successful dissent, but we can’t always see at first how they will factor in the account of history. In retrospect, we understand the impact of the Greensboro sit-ins; we know that four black students sitting at a Woolworth five-and-dime was the first domino in a chain that spread to parks, libraries, museums, beaches, and other facilities across the South. We know that it was the catalyst that led to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which desegregated all public spaces. But on February 1, 1960, the Greensboro Four didn’t know that. They only knew that they were tired of talking, tired of waiting for somebody else to do something, and they were going to walk into the store and stand up for themselves by sitting down.

Very early on the morning of November 14, I stood on the edge of the Occupy Oakland encampment in Oscar Grant Plaza and listened to reports that hundreds of riot police were approaching. Admittedly, I was nervous, and I had plans to disappear the moment I faced the possibility of being arrested.

Yet, a few moments later as I watched the police close in, I began to think about what their presence meant, and I began to imagine the disappearance of the camp where I had spent so much of my time and made so many friends in the past weeks. It had all but emptied out as hundreds took to the intersection of 14th and Broadway, drumming and chanting, and the quiet that fell over the vacated tents was eerie. A group of people had silently linked arms at the Interfaith tent, surrounded by candles. Here and there, people sat, meandered aimlessly, packed their belongings, and even slept, but it wasn’t the bustling tent city I had begun to think of as a second home, where I could start a conversation with almost anyone, exchange ideas, hear peoples’ life stories or tell my own, be fed, pick through free books, meditate, learn yoga, listen to people sing and play instruments, and watch children play.

We all knew that there was nothing that we could do to stop what was coming—that we couldn’t defend the camp, and that the police would destroy it no matter what, and they would arrest as many of us as they needed to in the process. We had no choice but to acknowledge that the military arm of the local government was too powerful, and, judging by their billy clubs and tear gas guns, they weren’t afraid to commit violence as they had done before. Many in the camp had already gone to jail and couldn’t risk it again, and still others had jobs, school, and families which they couldn’t abandon to spend a day or more being detained for silly misdemeanors.

All of this led me to a feeling of profound despair. Our reluctant resignation and the imminent dismantling of the camp suddenly represented something more to me. It represented the forced invisibility of millions of people, the overwhelming majority of the planet’s seven billion people, in fact. And it represented the dehumanization of those near and dear to me, too. I thought primarily of my mother, who raised two children in abject poverty, often working more than one job, often tolerating the abuses of an alcoholic husband, often welcoming neighborhood kids into her home when their own homes became too volatile or unstable. This latter detail about my mother is what emerged most prominent in my mind—the fact that despite the obstacles in her way, the stresses of raising children and working constantly, and the paucity of her home and the environment in which we lived, she never closed her arms to anyone who needed her help, no matter their past, their problems, or their ideologies. Maybe it’s melodramatic, but my mother symbolizes for me a vision of Liberty, saying, “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free!” Because of her, it is clear to me that Liberty is not a blue-blooded woman doling out charity from a safe distance but a fierce, penniless yet empowered, broken-but-not-beaten mother defending her children against the injustices of a system that functions without conscience or accountability.

I realized that what I had come to appreciate about the people at Occupy Oakland was that many of them shared this same attitude of unabashed goodwill and inclusivity. They were full of optimism and zeal. They often came to the camp with little but freely offered whatever they did have—bread, soup, energy bars, books, clothing, blankets, electronics, artwork, kind words, ideas, laughter, music, and prayers—so many commodified things (because yes, even prayer is a commodity, these days) were given purely out of the kindness of peoples’ hearts. We had begun to build a community, a real community!

Was it muddy and stinky? Sure. Were there disagreements and arguments? Of course. Was there even some drug use and unspeakable violence (which I will still argue was not prompted by the presence of the encampment)? Yes. But these are human problems, not problems exclusive to Occupy Oakland. In fact, the fetishization of these problems by the mainstream media, the government, and detractors is representative of the way in which the problems of the marginalized have always been used by those in power to further alienate and disenfranchise those deemed “undesirable”—as though these same problems don’t exist across socioeconomic boundaries and aren’t often a direct product of a long history of cultural and social denigration. I’ve heard many on the outside call us degenerates, but what I saw at the camp was the extraordinary capacity for human kindness. An incredible passion for justice. Each person made me proud. Each person in some way or another embodied the principles of Liberty that my mother, by her actions, taught me to value.

So when I imagined the cops tearing down those tents, I imagined them tearing down a home like the one my mother had made. Those in power didn’t want the camp gone because it was dangerous or a threat to public health; they wanted it gone because the people there lived their successes and their failures too publicly, right in front of City Hall where they could no longer be ignored. Those in power didn’t want to have to look at, to be forced to deal with the problems of homelessness, joblessness, poverty, and violence endemic to our society, just as they didn’t want to give us the opportunity to congregate and work together to build a new one. Those in power have their own agenda, and the possibility of our uniting against them to address the real, every day issues we face was too great. They’d rather see us disappear and suffer alone in silence and shame.

At that thought, I decided that I couldn’t abandon the camp. I may be one small person, but the very least I could do was try to be like Greensboro Four who decided that a minor act of passive resistance was better than nothing at all. Sitting for two-and-a-half-hours surrounded by riot police isn’t much. Spending ten hours in police custody napping and singing show tunes with a group of cheerful women, many of them clergy members, isn’t much. It isn’t much compared to what those who participated in the Civil Rights Movement faced fifty years ago, nor is it much compared to what protestors in Tunis, Cairo, and across the Middle East and North Africa face today. It isn’t the self-immolation of Mohamed Bouazizi. And it doesn’t seem to do much. It doesn’t do much to actively help the silent peoples from Oakland to Brazil to rural China who daily face the horrors of poverty, exploitation, sickness, and violence, or the middle class citizens who are finding themselves suddenly jobless and homeless. But it’s what I could do in the moment to show how much that camp meant to me, and how tearing it down was another act of aggression by the powers-that-be that was only going to strengthen my resolve. It was my way of extending solidarity to Occupy camps across the globe, which I think of as extended sit-ins. I couldn’t disappear. I refused to be ignored.

We won’t disappear. We must refuse to be ignored.

As Franklin McCain said forty years after he first sat down at the lunch counter at Woolworth in Greensboro, North Carolina: “This is my country… I fought for the chance to make it right. No one’s going to deny me the opportunity. I am going to be a full participant in every aspect of this community.” I think this is the goal of Occupy Oakland, no matter how they try and stop us.

Why I got arrested at Oscar Grant Plaza by Cami G. is a post from Cop Block - Badges Don't Grant Extra Rights

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

The police are not there to protect you.

Now, at first glance, the notion seems preposterous.  These fine men and women put their lives on the line to protect us, right?  Certainly one would think so if you follow the principles of Bastiat that says; law is a common force and a substitution of individual force, and the common force can only do what the individual force can naturally and lawfully do (meaning no one is above the law and no one can legally do what another cannot, regardless of position). Is it not noble for one to take on the thankless job of being the “mediator” of disputes and defender of liberties?

Many of those who say the police provide a role in protecting the people, are those who are either living off the government paycheck. There are also those who have yet come to realize that this formerly noble profession, is now no longer required to do the job we entrust and fund them to do.  The blind ignorance can be equally attributed to Hollywood and prime-time TV, who glamorize those in uniform and yet turn a blind eye to the fundamental errors of the modern-day law enforcement as compared to their role not too long ago.

If we look at a few court opinions, we can see that the premise of what we know as the police’s function in society has seriously eroded from what it was originally intended for.  For example, the recent SCOTUS case, Kentucky vs. King, ruling allows police to break into your home if they “think” you are destroying or hiding evidence, of course, without a warrant.  The vague, looseness of this ruling sets the legal precedence for police to gain entry to your home by force, violate your Fourth Amendment right, and search your premises and detain you with no warrant.

Question: If the police can circumvent your Constitutional right because they “think” something might be happening, then what is the point of the Fourth Amendment? What is the point of the Constitution if your rights are easily trampled on by the police at their whim?

A quick look into Warren vs. District of Columbia (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981), we see that the Appeals Court stated that, “official police personnel and the government employing them are not generally liable to victims of criminal acts for a failure to provide adequate police protection.”  This calls into question a few general points.

If the police are not liable or can not be held responsible for a lack of duty or not providing protection, then who is responsible to provide protection?

If it is their job to “serve and protect”, why are the courts saying that they are not responsible for protection of the citizenry, in as much as not being held responsible for failing to provide protection?

It is with this ruling, the argument, “to serve and protect”, is made null and void.  In the real world if a doctor fails to render aid to someone in need of care, they can be charged with criminal neglect and loose their license and career; however, in law enforcement there is no level of repercussions that come from a failure to do one’s job or uphold an oath once taken.  Nice work if this makes sense to you.

Another look into another court opinion, Riss v. City of New York, 22 N.Y. 2d (1968), brings forth a major question in regards to the police and their ability to be held responsible for neglectful actions.

“Is a municipality liable for failure to provide special police protection to a member of the public who was repeatedly threatened with personal harm and eventually suffered injuries for lack of protection? ”

Of course, the courts stated “No” and upheld the appeals court ruling on the matter.  Here we can see, that again the courts affirmed, that the people have no “right” to be protected.  The dissenting opinion on this case brought up a very valid point that, “…officials can either improve public administration or accept the cost of paying damages to injured people”.  However, the courts ruled against this concept, thus allowing ineptitude of public officials to be able to exist unchecked in a court of law.  In essence, the police can fail to protect you and continue to fail with no repercussions.

It is also fair to note that both the Warren and Riss cases took place in municipalities that prohibit or restrict handgun ownership.  So this then draws into question another point, made by the dissenting justice in the Riss v. NYC case:

“What makes the city’s position particularly difficult to understand is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law, Linda did not carry any weapon for self-defense (former Penal Law, § 1897). Thus, by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of New York which now denies all responsibility to her. “

Here we see that even the judge noticed the fallacy and breakdown of a government responsibility that prevents her from possessing a weapon for self-defense, yet isn’t responsible to provide her protection.  This only provides more proof that there is a massive misappropriation of power the “state” has taken from the individual.

Lastly, we look at the horrendous case of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005).  I end on this because the case involved a law abiding citizen doing as the court ordered her to do; call the police when there was a violation of a restraining order by her abusive ex-husband.  Because of police lack of action and refusal to uphold the court order for protection, the ex-husband kidnapped their three children, murdered them, and commenced to have a shoot out with police when he walked into the police station. (If there has ever been a more tragic case involving police neglect and apathy, I have not seen it.)

Here, the SCOTUS upheld the original dismissal of the case, thus overturning the appeals court ruling. In this event, the Supreme Court ruled that the police have no obligation to protect your right to due process (Fifth Amendment) by enforcing existing restraining orders and that the court order did not provide her special treatment under the law.  This premises states that only people in custody of the government or in mental institutions are afforded unquestionable protection from law enforcement personnel.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court upheld that the police officers that did not provide her court ordered protection were protected from prosecution for violating her Constitutional rights under the “qualified immunity” doctrine that removes personal liability of government officials for violations of other’s Constitutional rights.

Let me state this again.

The police officers could not be individually prosecuted under civil or criminal law because police officers are given immunity from acts that violate one’s Constitutional rights under the “qualified immunity” doctrine.

Time after time, the state and federal courts have ruled in favor of the police and have allowed law enforcement agencies a “Get Out Of Jail Free” card when it comes to being responsible for the protection of the citizenry.  Be it the badge, or the car, or the trite oaths taken “To Serve And Protect”, we see that these are just words with no apparent legal meaning.

So, if the police, that we entrust for our protection of body and property, are no longer responsible for protecting us, we must question their purpose and role in our society.  What purpose do they serve on the backs of the tax payer? What has once be heralded as a truly selfless calling, has been trivialized to simple thuggery protected by the legislation and the courts.  Now we have seen an evolution from selfless service to what they are now; a revenue stream for local, state, and federal governments. It is now safe to dispose of, “To Serve and Protect”, and call it what it really is.

“To Enforce and Collect” seems much more fitting.

References:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

http://www.4lawnotes.com/showthread.php/116-Riss-v.-City-of-New-York

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_immunity

Luke K

To “Protect and Serve” or “Enforce and Collect”? 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

A Guest submission from a Cop Block supporter describing their police encounter and arrest.

On Tuesday August 23rd, 2011, at approximately 12:38 Eastern Standard time, I was pulled over for speeding in Monroe County Michigan, about 30 miles south of Detroit. I was only doing 74 mph in a 70 mph zone. I had California license plates as I was on a road trip from California across the country.
An illegal search performed by Officer Thomas Murphy (Sergeant) resulted in my arrest under a concealed weapon charge.

A drug dog was used to sniff the outside of my car. Officer Murphy said the K9 alerted, to which I did not hear a bark or see the dog do anything. The police report states it alerted on my trunk, which I have never had drugs in. Later my lawyer notified me that the dash cam video was NOT WORKING so the only footage and audio was what I took, which helped me to get the plea bargain I took. I was also reported to Homeland Security.

In jail the 2nd day, I was brought into an office and questioned by a Homeland Security employee and one from the Secret Service.

I had some “The Obama Deception” burnt DVDs inside my car and other items the police and Homeland Security deemed “suspicious.”

In the police report the “unknown liquid” found in my trunk was olive oil used for cooking that I had in my survival kit along with zip ties, rope and other such items you may need for example to build a home in the wilderness.
I was asked my whole life story including my family, career, mental health, views on Obama and our country. I was entirely cooperative, in part, because as an Innocent man I don’t want to be shipped off to Guantanamo or something of that nature.
After giving my whole life information to these two men and the next day showing footage of my travels such as filming in Washington D.C., they seemed satisfied. They left and it seemed I was only left with my concealed weapon charge.
The conditions at the Monroe County jail were in some ways inhumane to me but I will not get into these details unless asked.

Because the officer used a canine to say he sniffed drugs on my car it was a case that could not be easily dismissed and instead of having to fly back and forth from California to Michigan I decided to take a plea bargain for a Misdemeanor of “Improper possession of firearm in motor vehicle.”

The whole incident which is in violation of my rights (specifically those stated in the 2nd and 4th amendment) cost my family and I over $15,000 for legal defense, bail and travel expenses.

A copy of the police report Here

RIGHTS VIOLATED; Monroe County, Michigan is a post from Cop Block - Badges Don't Grant Extra Rights

My brother has been calling me the past two months about traffic stops from the Wilmington Police Department. He calls me every time he is stopped, which has been about 6 times up to this date.

The main problem is the officer’s continuous unconstitutional searches of his vehicle and his person. The first starting with an officer pulling him over for running a stop sign, in which he attempted to dig his hands into my brother’s pants to search for drugs. When my brother refused, he contacted a K-9 unit to search his vehicle and found nothing. They then escorted him downtown to the police station to strip search him (Yes for the running of a stop sign). I must admit that my brother has had a few run-ins with LEOs but this is too much!! They then let him go with just a warning ticket.

He has filed plenty complaints with WPD and none have been investigated at all. The is some serious ethics violations here!!

Another time he was pulled over for the same thing, this time having a friend with him. The officers demanded the two step out of the car, without notifying them of their violations. They began to search his friend, digging their hands into the back of his pants, discovering a bag of weed he was hiding. My brother was taken to be searched again due to this discovery. When my brother advised them of wanting to have his lawyer present, they forced him into the search. Thy found nothing and found out later that his car had been towed.

On another occasion, they pulled him for no reason, held him downtown claiming he was drunk, yet failed to give him a breathalyzer. Luckily he called me and I told him to demand a breathalyzer before they decided to write him up for a will refusal without notifying him of his rights.

They have detained him numerous times without reading any rights or informing him of his alleged crimes. They are using their power to terrorize and harass him. He has come a long way in the 2 years since he did 4 months for a petty drug charge. It seems police have a new tactic of provoking people into fits of anger by degrading them to make them feel less than human. I have overheard outrageous statements by an officer over the phone, so I have advised my brother to make sure he records everything. There has been little effort by WPD to keep the peace. Even while there have been 6 murders in the city, they spend most of their time harassing citizens…

Wilmington NC PD is a post from Cop Block - Badges Don't Grant Extra Rights

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

A videographer capturing news footage became the news, when he filmed part of his own arrest while trying to capture video of a police crime scene.

Suffolk County Police sergeant Michael Milton did not want the videographer there telling him to just “GO AWAY”. Confused he respectfully tried to reason with the officer, but that didn’t work so he moved a block away, and resumed shooting.

He sergeant then got in his car and drove towards the videographer almost running him over. Despite being a credentialed member of the press and standing in a public area around other people, he was arrested and charged with obstruction of governmental administration. His video was taken “for evidence,”

The cameraman was then taken into custody and his video was taken “for evidence,” The video of the arrest, which was later returned to him, was later posted on YouTube.

The charges were later dropped against the cameraman.

Cameraman Arrested by Suffolk County Police is a post from Cop Block - Badges Don't Grant Extra Rights

Disclaimer: Some states do require that you identify yourself and show your concealed weapons permit, check your local laws to be certain.

From the YouTube description.

This video shows how the police have no concept of your rights or your civil rights under the constitution.This is an excellent example of how to invoke your rights when confronted by the police. Rights that you do not use or are unaware of, do not exist. Protecting your rights is never the job of the police, only you can claim what is yours. This cop has no concept of the 1st, 2nd or 4th amendments. Notice how the intended victim invokes his rights not to identify himself and to carry a gun, which stymies the cop sending him back to his car with his tail between his legs.

The people in this video are exercising their rights to Freedom of, expression, religion (This was an abortion clinic), to peaceably assemble, to bear arms, to be secure in their persons, papers, and effects. And the right not to be deprived of their life, liberty, or property, and the right to stand up to tyranny. You also have the right to observe the government, its employees and agents. There is no enforceable law against videoing the police and your interactions with them.

There is nothing more American than what you see in this video. I wish I had been there. Folks, we live in dangerous times, a government that does not trust its citizens to bear arms, is a government not to be trusted by its citizens.

The right to keep and bear arms should be of great importance to all Americans , if we are to remain a free country we MUST NOT let this right be taken from us

Please keep your comments limited to the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. I, The Dancerooster, am not in the video, so don’t waste you time attacking me.

Remember, freedom isn’t free, and no cop is going to protect it for you, that’s your job, so flex your rights.

How To invoke your rights with The Police is a post from Cop Block - Badges Don't Grant Extra Rights