Gangsters in Blue

A San Diego activist, Steven Holman participated in a checkpoint protest in Escondido (north San Diego county) on February 11, 2011. Mr. Holman is part of a phone tree that notifies activists when a checkpoint is announced on the Natural Rights Coalition Facebook page. The page is managed by another activist, Matt Bologna and helps organize people for such protests. Usually, some members will drive around to anticipated checkpoint sites until they find it, then notify the others to congregate a few blocks ahead of the checkpoint with signs.

On this particular occasion, 12+ activists held signs saying “Checkpoint Ahead” or “Car Thieves Ahead” and other similar warnings.

All night, Steven watched as Officer S. Walters, #307 pulled people over for turning right just before the checkpoint, regardless of whether people had been influenced by the signs. Many people were arrested and had their cars impounded for reasons unrelated to DUIs. Steven was unable to talk to many of the people who were arrested, as they were taken away, but this is what he learned from the few passengers he was able to speak with. From what Mr. Holman witnessed, there were no DUI arrests at the checkpoint itself, and only one DUI arrest the entire night. Mr. Bologna was able to catch many of the encounters on video.

Later in the night, when the number of participants started to dwindle, Steven decided to wrap up the protest and make his way home. He went to the crosswalk and pressed the button. He chatted with a friend as he waited for the light to turn, and when he began to cross, the crosswalk sign was flashing a red hand. Although it is perfectly acceptable to cross the street when the hand is still flashing, out of an abundance of caution, Steven decided to wait. He pressed the button yet again and waited for the “walk” sign to appear. When it did, he made his way across the street.

At this time, Matt, who had been recording the events of the night stopped recording because he received a phone call. As soon as S. Walters #307 saw that Matt had stopped filming, he sped out of the parking lot where he was parked, and pulled up alongside Mr. Holman, nearly hitting him. S. Walters #307 declared that Mr. Holman was being detained, and cited him for jaywalking, despite the presence of 5 witnesses who would be able to testify that no such thing occurred.

Mr. Holman will be fighting the ticket. All the witnesses have agreed to testify. One witness was not a part of the activism, but happened to be sitting in the parking lot at the time.  Mr. Holman finds S. Walters #307′s actions shameful. “His actions were petty and did nothing but reinforce our position that this system of governance is broken, and moreover is fundamentally flawed. His actions could not be justified in any way and in fact could only be understood in the context of someone who was trying to stifle dissent.”

The video below was taken by Matt and begins immediately after Mr. Holman is detained.

For more statistics on the Escondido Police Department, go to Naturalrightscoalition.org.

By Dylboz and Jenn

According to a police report drafted by Officer Philip Mauro, badge no. 91, documenting a domestic violence incident on August 12, 2010, the following events occurred -

Upon my arrival to the above residence, I was met in the driveway by an adult female later identified as Clara Colon. She stated her husband, Egberto Colon, is crazy and she wanted him arrested. She advised she sustained a visible bruise on her right inner bicep caused by Mr. Colon grabbing her. Mrs. Colon was asked where Mr. Colon was and she stated he left in his personal vehicle just minutes prior to our arrival. She advised me Mr. Colon was a police officer with the Elizabeth Police Department and he was armed. Mrs. Colon further stated as the verbal argument continued, Mr. Colon became physical and began to destroy two laptop computers that were in their upstairs bedroom. Mrs. Colon advised me she had it and she was in fear for her life as well as her children’s…Mrs. Colon was then escorted to the Stafford Township Police Department to initiate the restraining order process…At approximately 0340 the Elizabeth Police Department was contacted and notified regarding the above incident.

The report revealed that subsequently, Judge Damian Murray granted a temporary restraining order and set the bail for simple assault at $1,000. A Supplemental Investigation Report indicated Mr. Colon later turned himself into the Stafford Township Police Headquarters (located in New Jersey) on his warrant and handed his duty weapon and magazine over to Detective Chris Mulch.

This appears, on its face, to reflect some degree of police accountability, as Mr. Colon turned himself in, was made to turn in his duty weapon and was subject to a restraining order for simple assault. However, Clara Colon has a very different story to tell.

Ms. Colon told Cop Block that she had long suffered from vicious attacks by her husband. On various occasions, he had broken her nose, teeth and ribs, raped her shortly after she had a c-section, and otherwise beat her. On the night at issue, her husband attacked her first with a hammer. He put a hole in their bedroom door with the hammer, when she ducked to avoid it. He swung the hammer so hard it broke. He then proceeded to put his service gun to her head and said he was going to “blow [her] brains out.” She pushed him away, grabbed their baby, and ran out of the house. He proceeded to trash the house, destroying two computers in the process, then packed some personal items and left in his car.

Ms. Colon said she had bruises all over her body from her husband’s malicious attack. She gave all of these details to Officer Mauro and another responding officer. The officers came inside the house, and saw how the master bedroom had been trashed. She recalled that Officer Mauro in particular appeared helpful and sympathetic. She remembered that in contrast, the other responding officer did not even want to take her to a judge to obtain a temporary restraining order. However, when Ms. Colon requested a copy of the police report, many of the details she related mysteriously failed to show up in Officer Mauro’s report. The one bruise he documented in his report was a minor one she had from 2 weeks prior. She said the broken hammer was also in plain sight when he came to take her statement. She tried to contact him regarding this discrepancy, but to no avail.

She suspects the original report was either edited or written in a different manner due to pressure from superiors. Ms. Colon did not express any bitterness toward Officer Mauro, but sighed, saying “He is an African American gentleman, and this is a really white town.” Interestingly enough, a few months after Ms. Colon’s harrowing experience, a memo from Officer Mauro, the only Black police officer in the Stafford Township police department surfaced. According to the memo, Mayor John McMenamin, who was a police lieutenant at the time, said, “we have to get rid of that [racial slur].”  Mauro stated he was walking by the briefing room at the police department when he heard McMenamin say this to another officer. He waited years to report it because he feared for his job security.

It’s safe to say that Officer Mauro has seen his share of office politics. Of course, the real victim of all the “office politics” is Ms. Colon, who unsuccessfully went through two attempts at getting a restraining order. While she was pursuing the first restraining order, she began receiving anonymous phone calls leading up to her court date. The caller demanded that she cease her efforts, or her head would be chopped off. She was extremely frightened. “I got intimidated and didn’t show up to court,” said Ms. Colon.

After that, the threats came directly from her husband. Ms.Colon reported that he called her saying he would burn the house down and described various ways in which he would kill her. He said he was going to disconnect the carbon monoxide and smoke detectors and burn her and the children while they slept. Ms. Colon sought help from the chief of police, and from her husband’s brother (who is employed with the same police department in Elizabeth, NJ), and also contacted internal affairs, all of whom either ignored her calls or were otherwise unhelpful. She finally decided to press for another restraining order.

She was successful in obtaining the second restraining order, which basically says Mr. Colon is prohibited from stalking her, among other things that he shouldn’t be doing anyway. Shortly after the restraining order was secured, he emptied their bank accounts. The prosecutor in charge of her husband’s case reviewed the report by Officer Mauro and allowed the charges against Mr. Colon to be pled down to disorderly conduct because there was not enough evidence documented. Further, Cop Block was able to confirm through a telephone call to the Elizabeth Police Department that Colon continues to be employed there.

Internal affairs has since called Ms. Colon and expressed an interest in taking a statement from her. Because of her encounters with the police, she says she will not do so until she has obtained legal representation.

“I don’t sleep at night,” says Ms. Colon. She is intent on fighting this matter and finding a civil rights attorney to represent her. Since her experience, she has reached out to others who have suffered similar abuse at the hands of their police officer spouses. “We’re just supposed to go away, shut up and take it.”

Several attempts were made to reach Officer Mauro for comment. He did not respond. A representative at the courthouse in New Jersey where Colon’s criminal case was filed denied our request for a copy of the records, stating the only way to access such records is to view the original located at the courthouse. The prosecutor in charge of Mr. Colon’s case also was unavailable when contacted at her office.

When I was jailed for telling a judge I disapprove of his actions, I had plenty of time at night, alone in my cell, to think and write. During the day I spent most of my time talking with inmates and jailers, which ultimately lead to this post.

You’re Responsible (Period) by Ademo

(Written while serving 16 days for telling a judge I disapproved of his actions.)

Let’s pretend for a minute – say Person A and Person B have never met before, yet, life has brought them face to face for the moment. During their encounter, Person A tells Person B a story of personal injustice. After hearing the story, Person B, who has the ability to verify the story, also suspects Person A has been wronged. Given the information provided by Person A (assuming Person B is in a position to help), is Person B responsible in any way for the injustice Person A faces if they fail or refuse to help Person A? Are they responsible if they actively help carry out that very injustice against Person A?

What if Person B was a police officer, and Person A was providing them information about a theft, rape or murder? Would the police officer be responsible (in part) if he failed to act on such information? Would the officer be held accountable if he helped someone commit such an act? If you knew your neighbor were a serial killer, and yet you did nothing, would you feel responsible for the lives that could have been saved if you’d taken action? What if it was the justice system itself that was failing you?

Take a moment to think about those questions. . .

This is the situation I’m currently facing (authors note: I’m no longer in jail, I was released after 16 days), while serving my 60 day sentence. I’m being held at the Cheshire County Jail (NH) – thanks to judge Burke, on a contempt of court sentence. My crime was telling a judge I didn’t approve of his order to keep my friend behind bars for wearing a hat in court. To me, Burke should have watched the video I published, and ended the whole ordeal right there. He didn’t, and I did what I think everyone should do, and spoke out. I understand that I should have used better language, but swearing isn’t a crime in NH. Even if it was, I doubt we’d be able to build all the jails needed to house people who swore at someone.

I know that the primary person at fault is Judge Burke, who, for whatever reason, set out to make an example of me. Yet as I sit in the County Jail, I’ve had plenty of time to share my story with others here. Including booking officers, jailers, nurses, the jail doctors and even the superintendent – I even wrote my story on the wall of my cell while in segregation (a post is coming on that soon). Most staff wouldn’t even take the time to listen, stating, “I’m just doing my job,” and the ones that would listen would say something like, “I have to keep my thoughts to myself.” Really? Would you keep your thoughts to yourself if we were discussing a murderer or child molester?” (Note: often times jailers point out child molesters to other inmates – then inmates harass them and jailers allow it. My point is not whether that tactic is right or wrong, but it highlights that jailers do in fact form their own opinions on each ‘convict’). I doubt it, especially if you were witness to their horrendous crime (a rape or murder), and I’m sure you’d have no problem telling such a person what you thought of them then.

I understand you didn’t sign the paperwork that sent me to jail, but you’re working to keep me here. I encourage you to view my file and to watch the YouTube video. Ask yourself, is society safer with me behind bars (at taxpayer expense)? Were jails built for such “criminals”? And finally, is it the best possible use of limited jail resources? If you truly feel I should be in jail, so be it, but don’t give me some lame excuse like “I’m just doing my job” or “I have to keep my thoughts to myself.” Those are cop outs (no pun intended) and weak excuses because what you’re really saying is, “even though I don’t think you should be here, I’m willing to overlook my morals/beliefs for a paycheck.” At that point I’d say, “Congratulations, you’re officially a robot. Carry on.”

Although, if you think I shouldn’t be in jail, then as a public servant, it’s your duty to do something. Tell your colleagues, bosses, and even the judge himself, because if you do nothing, then YOU’RE RESPONSIBLE (period).

When I was jailed for telling a judge I disapprove of his actions, I had plenty of time at night, alone in my cell, to think and write. During the day I spent most my time talking with inmates and jailers, which ultimately lead to this post. You’re Responsible (Period) by Ademo (Written while serving [...]

In late December of 2010, we posted about John T. Williams, who was shot and killed by Seattle Police Officer Ian Birk. Mr. Williams was fifty years old, a chronic alcoholic, and was deaf in one ear. He was walking down the street, holding a whittling knife with a 3-inch blade when Birk chased after him, yelling for him to drop the knife. Mr. Williams appeared not to hear Birk (he was hard of hearing, after all), and was shot by Birk in a matter of seconds (original article here).

At an inquest into this matter, jurors unanimously found  Mr. Williams was carrying an open knife when first seen by Birk. However, four said “no” and four answered “unknown” when asked if the blade was extended when Birk fired (here). Thus, it is reasonable to conclude Mr. Williams was shot for hobbling along with an unextended knife. Since the shooting, Birk has been on paid leave (what a sweet job! You get to kill someone and still get paid on the taxpayer’s dime — where do I sign up?!).

King County Prosecutors have recently decided not to file criminal charges against Birk the murderer. Although no criminal charges were filed, the Seattle Times reported that the department’s Firearms Review Board reached a final decision that the August 30th shooting was not justified.

The incident was subject to several reviews, one by a San Diego Police Department homicide commander, and another by the Austin Police Department in Texas. The results of both these reviews are worthless and too negligible to mention in detail because they did not come to the necessary conclusion that this killing was murder and instead lodged petty criticisms against the Seattle Police Department for “conducting too many telephone interviews” and not giving an officer an opportunity to “orally explain their decision to use deadly force” (according to the Seattle Times). Unsurprisingly, the investigation of this particularly despicable police officer was conducted by other police officers, not an independent entity.

The Seattle Times reports prosecutors faced a legal hurdle in deciding whether to charge Birk because state law protects officers from criminal prosecution when they claim they used deadly force in self-defense unless it can be shown they acted with malice and lack of good faith. As the prosecutors have declined to file charges, it is reasonable to assume they believe chasing down a slow, hobbling, half-deaf elderly man and shooting him in a matter of 3-4 seconds is not an act characterized by “malice” or lacking in “good faith.” Effectively, as long as an officer claims he used deadly force in self-defense, even murder is excusable under the law.

At any rate, it’s quite clear what is going on here. Police officers have the legal authority to commit murder. In the event they do commit murder, they get a special panel composed of people highly sympathetic to them to judge and review their actions, before any possibility of criminal prosecution is considered. This is to contrast with an ordinary murderer, who would likely be immediately arrested and charged, and certainly with no free pass decreed by a panel of loyal and sympathetic comrades.

After review by three panels of highly sympathetic peers (San Diego, Austin, and the Seattle police department’s Firearms Review Board), even if one of them does find the officer engaged in an unjustified shooting, criminal charges still do not ensue. The Seattle department’s Firearms Review Board apparently found the shooting unjustified, yet Birk will still escape criminal punishment. The more succinct word for “unjustified shooting” is murder.

After committing murder, and three useless reviews by useless people in uniforms, a murderer escapes with only resignation from his pathetic job. We cannot be too cynical here, though. Police serve a very important function in society. Without them, there would be no one to ticket people for playing chess, no one to fine people $2,000 for recycling, no one to Taser 64-year old cancer patients, no one to Taser 10-year-old children, and no one to torture people into confessing to crimes they did not commit.

There would be no one to fuel gang crime with drug prohibition. There would be no one to arrest those damn do-gooders trying to feed the homeless. There would be no one to loot and destroy stores under the protection of the law, just to steal cigarettes and candy for themselves. Without police, rape would decrease. Without police, there would be no one to harass and arrest random people (with a tendency toward minorities) for a plant that was decriminalized 30 years ago. Without police, who would dress in all black, kick down doors in the middle of the night, and murder your grandfather? Above all, and most importantly, without police, who would perform the indispensable task of shooting caged kittens?

Without all this murder, animal abuse, rape, theft and torture, society would surely become disorderly and eventually descend into chaos.

Therefore, we must not judge these hard working members of law enforcement because of the crimes of just one man. And his pal from San Diego. And the entire crew involved in the Austin review. And all the King County prosecutors involved who refuse to file charges. And Birk’s entire department who stands idly by. And everyone in the city government responsible for a policy of continuing taxpayer-funded paychecks to a degenerate while he sits at home, jerks off, and laughs about how he got away with murder.

If you are angry about this shooting, check out this Facebook page.

Note: There is a poll embedded within this post, please visit the site to participate in this post's poll.

Fellow CopBlock.org contributor, Pete Eyre, and I were assaulted (or arrested depending who you ask) by Todd M. Dodge (and some of his co-workers) last July for filming him and other public officials (county sheriffs) inside a public building (the Franklin Co Jail lobby). The ‘state of Massachusetts’ claims we broke their law (which I’ve never agreed to) because we wouldn’t stop filming and/or due to part of a telephone call being published online (when we were in jail!) – remember all actions were done in plain sight and with everyone’s knowledge. Since then we’ve returned to Greenfield, MA three times (counting this visit) for court proceedings because if we don’t the same men who assaulted us will come to our home (with guns) and take us to their court against our will. (For a complete overview click this meta post, which will bring you up to speed.)

Today’s hearing was slightly more productive, from the states eyes, than previous ones, mostly because the judge kept moving along despite our objections or questions. It started with me, who was called up first, because I had a lawyer who claimed to be representing me (he stopped returning my phone calls months ago and I decided to represent myself) so after he was removed from my case Pete was called to join me. We were asked several questions about understanding the procedures of the court, the charges against us and discussed the motions filed before the court. Here’s how it broke down.

The first thing the judge did was appoint us ‘stand by counsel.’ When Pete and I objected the judge noted it and appointed us counsel anyways. The judge said that counsel would be critical to our defense because procedure plays such an important roll in trial settings. I wanted to ask him, “are you saying that determining if someone committed a wrong against another won’t be the issue at my trial but whether or not I follow your rules is? How is that justice?” Also, in previous court appearances the ‘court’ asked us to pay $150 for state representation, which we refused, and now they ordered counsel to ‘stand by’ us – at no cost? I guess if you live in MA and can’t afford a lawyer you should do what we did, refuse to take one and the state will appoint one for you anyways, silly isn’t it. I wish those being forced to pay for it had a say in it; I’m sure the taxpayers of Greenfield wouldn’t approve of attorneys being paid for nothing.

After that, the motion to join our cases into one trial, even though there was also a motion to dimiss which – to me – would make more sense to hear first, was presented by the state. Both of us objected to the joining motion – due to our different charges, different defense tactics (possibly) and could have argued, if we believed in such document, that the constitution allows us to have separate trials – and the judge  noted our objections then ruled - allowed. I even mentioned how the DA stated that this would be cost effective for the state yet the state doesn’t seem to worry about my expenses or time. Why should we be denied the right to our own trials so the state can save a few bucks (money the government forcibly taxes from people anyways). The judge again noted my objection for the record but still favored the state in his decision.

We then moved on to the motion to dismiss filed by Pete and myself (Pete did the leg work on this). The judge listened to our statements about there being no victim, no body of crime and that without such our alleged charges have no merit. We touched base on a few of the fallacies provided in the states documents (which were just given to us that day) and the judge heard the state’s response. I guess it was a good sign when the judge said he’d take it into consideration and rule within 30 days. It was probably the only thing the judge did that was even close to favorable for us.

Once that issue was over the judge asked me about a motion I filed two court appearances ago to have our property returned to us, video cameras and cell phones. I stated how the state has kept my property, that is my livelihood, for several months and I’d like it returned. The state objected saying they need the cameras and cell phones for evidence, I responded with they’ve had almost 9 months to obtain a search warrant to copy said footage. The back and forth on the issue continued until, like usual, the judge sided with the state. The judges ruling on the motion was that all property that wasn’t ‘evidence’ can be returned and that the state has an undetermined amount of time to provide me with copies of the footage and/or my actual property – which is code for never. I went on to add that I shouldn’t be punished because the state is inefficient and lazy with retaining my footage for evidence, though the judge seemed to agree with this statement he didn’t change his ruling.

We were then told the date (July 18th) we could return for our two day trial. Which, even though we’ve harmed no one the people who are demanding our presence have harmed many and continue to do so on a daily basis – until we stop them. So instead of having men with guns follow us around, we’ll be in their court, playing by their rules, which will most likely end in us doing time – at taxpayer expense of course. Why? Because we don’t know their rules, we don’t work with these people everyday (like the judge and DA do) and because we know we didn’t do anything to violate anyones rights. I can’t wait til the footage comes out, if it’s not deleted, not only were the ones who accuse us of these alleged crime doing the same thing but they couldn’t even explain the law (if there is such) to us while it was happening. The whole thing is a joke.

We’d like to thank those who came to court with us, again, to show support – we really appreciate it. If only the system was as interested as you to find and support what’s right, then we wouldn’t be in this mess.

Libertarian activist Julian Heicklen was arrested this morning in his Teaneck, New Jersey home. Below is an account of what happened, posted by bile on Tyranny Fighters.

Latest Update: Julian has been been released  according to Antonio SJ Musumeci a.k.a. “bile”, who’s on the phone with Julian now (9:26 pm est) – Ademo

Julian is a great person and a principled activist. Thanks for your support!

Last March, Houston, TX police chased down someone apparently guilty of a real crime — burglary — but the pursuit ended with the cops committing an even more serious crime than their suspect.

15-year-old Chad Holley was fleeing police, but was clipped by a police cruiser and took a dive. After falling, Holley laid himself on his stomach and put his hands behind his head to indicate that he was surrendering. But that didn’t stop the police from swarming him and subjecting him to an unbelievably brutal beating.

Immediately after Holley surrendered, one officer stomped on his head. Then three more officers joined in and repeatedly punched, kicked, and stomped on Holley’s head, torso, and legs. One officer even kicked Holley after he had been placed in handcuffs. In an interview with KVUE.com, Holley said that he blacked out during the beating.

The beating was captured by a nearby storage facility’s surveillance camera. The district attorney, mayor, police chief, and a federal judge all worked to prevent the video from being released for months supposedly because allowing the public to see it would prevent the officers from receiving a fair trial. ABC News was finally able to obtain a copy two weeks ago. You can see it for yourself below:

Raw video here

Holley filed a lawsuit last year against one the officers alleging that he suffered a brain injury as a result of the beating. He was convicted of burglary last October and sentenced to probation until his 18th birthday.

After the beating, the four officers who participated were given paid vacations and finally fired after a two month investigation. They were all charged with misdemeanor “official oppression.” They each face a maximum punishment of one year in jail and a $4,000 fine. ABC’s story insinuates that the officers should have been charged with assault instead, but considering the type and amount of force they used, I think it would have been more appropriate to charge them with attempted murder.

All four officers plead “not guilty” at an indictment. I imagine they’ll have difficult times explaining themselves when their trials roll around.

Yesterday, Houston Police Chief Charles McClelland said during a meeting with journalists that he is becoming concerned about people filming the police. “Officers are telling me that they’re being provoked.” McClelland 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.”

McClelland said that this phenomenon, in conjunction with supposedly intensifying “anti-police rhetoric,” will lead to officers being attacked or killed. “This rhetoric can give someone a free pass to try to assault a police officer or kill a police officer, and I’m not going to allow that,” McClelland claimed. “My officers should be able to go out here and work in the neighborhoods and keep this city safe without fear and without hesitation.”

Something tells me that most people filming Houston cops aren’t trying to provoke or injure police so much as they’re trying to prevent a repeat of the Chad Holley beating. The four officers who beat Holley may have been fired, but this clearly isn’t a case of just a few bad apples. Several other officers were present when Holley was beaten, but none of them did anything to intervene. And the Chad Holley beating certainly isn’t the first or last time that Houston police have committed crimes.

Now that the Houston police know they’re being watched, maybe they’ll conduct themselves at least a little more appropriately in the future.

According to the 3rd Quarter Report of The National Police Misconduct Statistics and Reporting Project, police officers were accused of sexual assault at a rate of 79 per 100,000 law enforcement personal. The rate of accusations for the general public is 28.7 per 100,000 general public.  When corrected for gender these numbers tell us that there are 1.5 times more accusations of sexual assualt among  male law enforcement officers than among the general male population.  The fact that rapists seem to be concentrated among a group of armed individuals who have the purported authority to detain and arrest other individuals should be more than a little alarming for even the most prolific police bootlicker. In just the last month, several stories of officers committing disgusting crimes have been in the news.

A Miami-Dade police officer, Juan Carlos Rodriguez, was charged with two counts of lewd and lascivious molestation for fondling teenage girls during a traffic stop. After pulling over a vehicle, Officer Rodriguez told the driver to park behind a CVS pharmacy and ordered the five teenage girls inside to exit the vehicle.  He then proceeded to touch all five of the girls’ breasts. Three of the girls were 16 and two of the girls were 14.  During the investigation, it was concluded that these girls were most likely not his first victims.

A former Fredericktown, Missouri police captain and Boy Scout leader, Kenneth D. Tomlinson II, was sentenced to three consecutive life terms plus 22 years for sexual contact with two boys, beginning when they were 11 and 13 years old. Evidence presented at sentencing included videos from Tomlinson’s computer, including one taken in the shower at a Scout camp. Tomlinson’s attorney asked for a much lighter sentence of 20 years, citing Tomlinson’s many years as a police officer as one of the reasons that he should receive a shorter sentence.

A Houston Police Officer, Abraham Joseph, has been charged with an aggravated sexual assault that allegedly occurred while he was on duty. Officer Joseph has been accused of handcuffing a woman and then raping her on the trunk of his patrol car.  He has now been implicated in five other sexual assault cases.

The city of Charlotte, North Carolina will pay a 17 year old victim of former police officer Marcus Jackson, $350,000 to settle her lawsuit against the city.  Jackson is now serving a two year sentence for sexually assaulting six women while on duty. The 17 year old victim was assaulted during a traffic stop.  She was told by Jackson that she would be written a ticket if she did not perform a sex act on him.  Jackson was hired despite previous allegations of violence against women.

A now former Florida Highway Patrol Officer, Ariel Valentin, plead guilty to simple battery and official misconduct in a plea agreement to avoid a trial for sexual battery while in a position of authority.  In doing so he avoided a possible 30 year sentence and instead will spend the next five years on probation. He also agreed to never seek employment in law enforcement again. The victim said that after being involved in a car accident, Valentin told the other driver that they could leave and then proceeded to tell her that he needed to search her. She agreed. He then said that he needed to search her further and suggested that they go to her home. There he coerced her into having sex. The victim said she had an expired registration and “was scared of going to jail.”

A Wisconsin state patrolman has been charged with sexual assault of a child for alleged assaults on a foster child in his care. The assaults allegedly began when she was 15 and continued until she was removed from the home this year. She is now 18.

A New Orleans, Louisanna police officer, Henry Hollins, was convicted of attempted aggrevated rape and second degree kidnapping in an apparent case of jury compromise. The victim testified that Hollins stopped her and put her in the back of his patrol car. He then took her to a warehouse and raped her. Hollins’ attorney called the victim a “whore” and “trash” during his closing arguments and pointed to her past criminal and sexual history as evidence that her testimony was unreliable. The prosecutor argued that her past criminal history is exactly why Hollins targeted her.  The prosecutor also reminded the jury of the “portable sex kit” in the trunk of his patrol car. The “kit” included sex toys, unused condoms and a bag of used condoms.

A Provo Utah police officer, Jeffery Westerman, was sentenced to 180 day in jail and 3 years probation for fondling a woman in exchange for not arresting her. The incident occurred while Westerman was investigating a minor traffic accident involving two vehicles.  He eventually told the other driver that they could leave and then, after performing a field sobriety test on his victim, said that she was intoxicated.  He drove her car to a parking lot, searched it, and then told her she would be arrested on felony charges if she did not lift up her shirt so he could fondle her breast. The victim says that she complied because she feared arrest. She said, “If it was anyone other than a police officer I could have turned and walked away. I no longer feel safe in the presence of a police officer. I feel like I’m being stalked whenever I’m with a cop.” The sentencing judge said that “she literally had nowhere to run to.  Where could her protection be found when her perpetrator was a police officer?” The victim’s father was disgusted when he learned that Westerman committed his crime while in uniform, calling him “a predator with a badge”.

How is woman supposed to protect herself from a “predator with a badge”? The weapon of choice for many of the above officers was their purported authority. When the perpetrator can threaten you with time in a cage, how likely are you to stand up for yourself? When the perpetrator is armed with a sidearm, pepper spray, a Taser and handcuffs, how is even the toughest person supposed to fight off unwanted advances?

Unfortunately, there may be few things you can do to protect yourself from a rapist with a badge. Even if you successfully resist an attack, you still may end up doing time for “resisting arrest” or assaulting a police officer. You may still be victimized. But, there is one weapon you have at our disposal to help prevent yourself from becoming a victim of a badged rapist; the video camera. Use it. Every time you interact with a police officer, you should record that interaction. If they want to know why you are recording them, tell them the truth,  “I fear for my safety. You could be a rapist.”

Authors Note:  This post was originally published with this opening paragraph:

According to the 3rd Quarter Report of The National Police Misconduct Statistics and Reporting Project, police officers were accused of sexual assault at a rate of 79 per 100,000 law enforcement personal. That is over two times the rate in the general public (28.7 per 100,000). The fact that rapists seem to be concentrated among a group of armed individuals who have the purported authority to detain and arrest other individuals should be more than a little alarming for even the most prolific police bootlicker. In just the last month, several stories of officers committing disgusting crimes have been in the news.

I changed it due to comments made about the numbers used that brought to my attention the need to correct for gender when comparing the liklihood of the general public and LEOs being accused of rape.

Back in October of 2010, I wrote a piece about a terrible shooting in Phoenix, Arizona, where one Officer Chrisman was accused of shooting to death not only an unarmed man suspected of nothing more severe than a domestic dispute with his mother, but also the family’s small dog. He was arrested and charged on the basis of the testimony of his partner that night, Officer Virgillo.

At the time, I promised to follow up as developments occur. At this point, there isn’t a whole lot to say with respect to Officer Chrisman or his former partner Officer Virgillo, who admirably (though uncharacteristically for the police) reported his crimes rather than covering them up. The case is still in court, where Chrisman has been indicted for 2nd degree murder, aggravated assault, and animal cruelty, but he has yet to go to trial. Despite an earlier injunction by a judge blocking his termination, he is no longer a member of the Phoenix Police Department or employed as a law enforcement officer in any capacity. He is, however, still a member of the local police union, the Phoenix Law Enforcement Association, as is his accuser, Officer Virgillo. But the union immediately chose Chrisman’s side, covering his bail while refusing to acknowledge whether or not they are paying for his attorney (when something like that can be neither officially confirmed nor denied, it is fair to assume it is true).

Apparently, PLEA and Judicial Watch, a right-wing pro-cop think tank, got together to try and thwart the case against Chrisman by complaining to the Maricopa County Attorney’s office that two Phoenix city councilmen, Michael Nowakowski and Mike Johnson, had made personal calls to Officer Virgillo regarding Daniel Rodriguez’s death, which the police union painted as an attempt to influence the primary witness in the case. How they came by that knowledge is a question of some concern, given that PLEA has posted supposedly “secure” internal Phoenix Police Department e-mails on its website by way of making their accusation, and about which they had “no comment.” Ultimately, the subsequent investigation found no wrongdoing at all, but it is demonstrative of how far PLEA will go to try and poison the well with respect to Virgillo. It seems that the police union ALWAYS backs the killer in cases like these and, unfortunately, if there is another officer brave enough to testify to the homicidal abuse of power, they will throw him or her under the bus, regarding them as a traitor and a snitch, instead of the person of courage and integrity that they actually are.

Thus, true to form, police officers and their supporters are busy in the comment section of nearly every blog post and news article that covers this case trying to smear Virgillo and lionize Chrisman, despite the former’s exemplary record, and the latter’s inclusion on the Brady list, a national registry of officers whose testimony is considered untrustworthy due to documented instances of official misconduct. In Chrisman’s case, he planted drug paraphenalia on a mentally handicapped homeless woman, and later claimed “it was a joke.” While it is true that Virgillo’s wife was convicted of having a small role in a drug ring, a crime for which she was punished with 3 years probation, there was never any evidence of his involvement, nor was he ever arrested or charged in that case, and his record as a police officer is spotless. Yet PLEA and their agents would have you believe he is a liar and a rat with an axe to grind, while Chrisman, with his documented record of misconduct and dishonesty, is the man whose story about this shooting we should accept as fact. I think not.

Unfortunately, the PLEA and Joe Arpaio backed Republican candidate Bill Montgomery prevailed in the recent election for Maricopa County Attorney, and while his predecessor was brave enough to investigate the police union’s role in attempting to sabotage the case against Chrisman, it is unlikely their hand-picked successor will be as zealous in his pursuit of justice in this matter. Only time will tell. But I wont be holding my breath.