On the Cop Block Facebook page, comments on this blog, and on my YouTube channel, and really anywhere you say anything negative about police in general, there is one common theme you can expect to hear from the voting cattle and government propagandabots. “You shouldn’t paint with such a broad brush, sure there are some bad cops out there, but most cops are good guys. Maybe not most, but some of them exist. Someday you might need a cop” or some variation thereof.
This is absolute nonsense. The fact of the matter is, the best cop on the planet, would be a do nothing tax leech. Literally, the best case scenario for a police officer, would be somebody who showed up for work, got in his squad car, parked it, and went to sleep. Now of course, we see this from time to time, and perhaps we could thank those sleepy evildoers for not harming anyone that day, except for the fact that they are getting paid to do the exact opposite, and they are paid by taxation.
Taxation is theft. No matter what your opinion on taxes is, this is proven by the fact that myself and others do no consent to taxation. Our money is taken from us without our consent, and under threat of violence. If we do not pay, men (cops, actually) will break into our homes, shoot our pets, and kidnap us. If we resist, they will gun us down without a second thought. If you think that’s a morally justifiable thing because some slave owners wrote a document 230 some odd years ago, that’s a topic for another article, but it’s still theft.
So really, when the highest possible aspiration for a man with a uniform is literally that of being a lazy thief, one can easily imagine that the jump to heroic savior of mankind is rather unlikely.
Because the other thing that we know is, cops have quotas, or at least, some expectation that they will go out and generate revenue, like any other job. If said good guy cop went fishing instead of victimizing innocent motorists and kidnapping hippies for possessing plants, he’d not be a cop for long, would he?
Of course not. In fact, we can safely make the assumption that the longer he’s been a cop, the more innocent people he has harmed. If he has moved up in the ranks at all, then we can safely assume he did it with a particular enthusiasm that warranted promotion. So by the time one reaches the esteemed title of “homicide detective” or “armed robbery investigator” we know that he has stolen hundreds of thousands of dollars from people who committed the heinous crime of “driving to work” and that each one of those thefts involved a death threat.
When a police officer turns on his flashers, he’s not making a polite request to have a chat with you. He’s informing you that your car is about to stop, whether it’s because you pull the car over, or because he runs it off the road and shoots you in the face. This is not a negotiation, and if you think it is, then by all means, the next time one of these “good guy cops” catches you speeding, just wave to him and keep on driving. Make sure your camera is running at the time, and if you survive the encounter, be sure to submit the video to CopBlock.org after.
Victor Taglia shared this post for the second portion of the Bitcoin-Fueled Content Contest.
Too often do guilty lawbreakers go free because of a technicality. Even though I dislike it just as much as the next person, it does not mean I do not support it, because in fact, I do. If a person’s rights are violated, they have been violated. It does not matter who the person is or what the person has done. People who are coerced into testimonies should not be put in jail based on that testimony because more often than not, those coerced testimonies are false and the person is innocent.
In an infamous 1991 rape-murder case in Chicago, three teenage boys were arrested for the rape and murder of a 14-year-old southwest suburban girl. Harsh interrogation tactics were used against them and they were ultimately coerced into signing a false confession. One boy was told he would go home right after he signed this piece of paper. Another was told that if he didn’t sign it, he would die in jail. In the end each had a confession to a crime they did not commit and were sentenced on those statements alone, even though the DNA evidence said otherwise. Each of those men lost 27 years of his life for a crime he did not commit.
In America, rights are everything. As long as rights are being violated, nothing is going to happen to lawbreakers. However, there is a way to stop innocent people from going to jail and guilty people from getting out. Stop coercing statements and violating people’s rights! If that were to happen, innocent men would never be put in jail and guilty men would never be let out. But because that is not going to happen, guilty men will keep being let out of jail on technicalities because even though what they did was wrong, their rights were still violated and that will not be tolerated.
Story mentioned above:
90 minutes video – http://www.cbsnews.com/news/chicago-the-false-confession-capital/5/
Innocentproject.org article – http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/Three_Men_from_Cook_County_Illinois_Exonerated_of_1991_Rape_and_Murder_Exonerations_of_Two_Others_to_Follow.php
Last Friday I got an email from Brandon Ross, my awesome pro-bono attorney, who informed me that Michael Valentine – who works as the District Attorney for Hillsborough County – has charged me with three felony wiretapping charges. Yes, these are the exact same charges as I was previously convicted of but were overturned by the Supreme Court earlier this month. Below is the document that was sent to Brandon, then me:
Some might call this double jeopardy, while (some) lawyers claim the system is working as it should and many think Michael (the DA) would be insane to go through with this second trial. Yet, having spent enough time with Michael I feel comfortable saying that he’s not a man of principle, has little to no interested in doing what’s right and probably has no say how far this case goes. Why? Because he’s just an errand boy.
Nevertheless, this won’t be the same trial it was the first time around. I’m done playing in the state’s playground with their lopsided rules and lack of common sense. Nope, I (and many others) have already shown that a court room is the last place you’ll find justice in this world. So even if Michael doesn’t snap out of his puppet controlled life and simply drop the charges, Brandon and I will work to end this case quickly.
And it should be very interesting, considering the state’s hand is exposed (they have to prove my state of mind per the Supreme Court Ruling) and one of the three witnesses is now a FORMER state employee. Yep, the principle (Mary Ellen McGorry) resigned after a secrete investigation. I’d also be willing to bet that she isn’t the same witness, willing to appease her former state employed colleagues, as she was when taking the stand against me in our first trial.
Depending how far this goes, I may put together a legal fundraiser but I’m going to wait and see if Michael does something right in his life first, as well as using my own personal funds to start the process. Yet, the state has more resources than I, so some assistance might be needed. Or feel free to give your local DA, Michael Valentine, a call. His details are below. Until my next update, remember, badges don’t grant extra rights.
Michael G. Valentine – (603) 627-5605
Hillsborough County Attorney’s Offices, 300 Chestnut Street, Manchester, NH 03101
I wholeheartedly believe that most – like 90% – of the issues facing policing today (like double standards and lack of accountability to name two) will continue because the only real solution is to change the way the institution of protection is funded. Currently, that’s via taxation and, sadly, people believe they have to pay their taxes, or do so out of fear of being jailed for not paying taxes.
Below is a story that highlights how I believe we can actually change the profession of ‘protecting and serving.’ I’ve long stated that nothing will change with police until you provide those who currently work within the system an alternative. It was one of the points I was trying to get across during my “Ask Me Anything” on Reddit this past weekend.
In the story below, former DEA agent Patrick Moen states he quit his job with the DEA to work with a marijuana investment firm. Hopefully this provides some of the LEO’s out there a little motivation to take their skills directly to those who need them. It seems Patrick is much happier helping people protect their property instead of being a part of an endless cycle that perpetuates endless violence.
Story from RT.com:
The chief of operations at the United States Drug Enforcement Agency said only last week that increased efforts as of late to legalize marijuana across the country is scaring his fellow officials at the DEA. Others, however, have a much different take.
Just last Wednesday, the DEA’s James L. Capra told members of the Senate that the emerging pro-pot trend is “reckless,” “irresponsible” and “scares us.”
Former DEA agent Patrick Moen isn’t in the same boat. After over a decade of working with the federal government to put away drug dealers, Moen recently abandoned his job at the DEA in order to pursue a career with Privateer Holdings, a Seattle, Washington-based investment firm that specializes in the budding marijuana industry.
Since 2010, Privateer has been putting money into the hands of start-ups that are looking to work their way up in the legal weed business. Moen just recently left the DEA after more than 10 years, and since November has been Privateer’s managing director of compliance and their senior counsel.
“I saw this as an amazing opportunity to be a part of the team that’s helping to create this industry,”Moen, 36, told Reuters. “I don’t really feel like it’s the other side.”
Maybe Moen’s right, but there’s no doubt it’s something at least a little different for the long-time cop. According to his LinkedIn profile, he spent five-and-a-half years working as a law enforcement officer around Buffalo, New York, and then signed on for what became a decade as a DEA under the Department of Justice starting in 2003. Before calling it quits, he had managed to hold high-positioned jobs in both Washington and Oregon supervising teams of drug enforcement agents.
“Over the course of years I realized that the targeting of marijuana was not an effective use of resources. There was no ‘aha’ moment. It was a steady evolution involving discussions with friends and colleagues,”he told the Seattle Times last month.
Then, Moen told the paper, “the general dysfunction of the federal government” helped him consider new career options.
Here’s another guy (video below) who’s taking orders from customers and not politicians. I think more LEO’s will come around as the government goes further into debt, continues to put officers in more dangerous situations and as people in general lose faith in the system.
Jacob and I are soon heading to NYC for the second stop of the Police Accountability Tour, this covering this issue isn’t just timely, but relevant to our own efforts.
If you’re in greater NYC connect & share ideas with others who think stop & frisk unjust on Wed., Aug 21, 2013 at Theatre 80, 80 St. Marks St., Manhattan. The event is free. http://www.theatre80.net/node/2896
NYPD employees have in total, done over 2,000,000 “stop & frisks” to inhabitants. On Monday, Aug. 12th a judge said the practice was unconstitutional and mandated that over 1,000 employees wear cameras. Will that change anything?
Learn about & start stacking Fine Silver Quarters by Suns of Liberty Mint
Sources used in video:
- The Hunted and the Hated – An Inside Look at NYPD’s Stop & Frisk
- NYPD Cop bodyslams Brooklyn teen in subway station
- Federal Judge orders NYPD cops to wear Cameras in Stop and Frisk Ruling!
- Headline: Judge rules NYPD stop-and-frisk policy unconstitutional
When Policing Becomes Harassment: Why the NYPD’s stop-and-frisk program is unconstitutional
by Jacob Sullum
Reason July, 2013
The first time David Floyd was stopped and frisked, on a Friday afternoon in April 2007, he was walking down Beach Avenue a few doors from his house in the Bronx. Two police officers confronted him, demanding to know who he was, where he was going, what he was doing, and whether he was carrying any weapons. Floyd, at the time a freelance film editor and now a medical student, presented his driver’s license and explained that he was walking home.
Unsatisfied, one of the officers searched Floyd, feeling under his shirt and inside his pants pockets. He found nothing illegal. Testifying last March in federal court, Floyd said the incident left him feeling “frustrated [and] humiliated, because it was on my block where I live, and I wasn’t doing anything.”
Floyd’s experience seems to be typical of the 5 million or so street stops recorded by the New York Police Department in the last decade. Police almost never discover guns, and nearly nine times out of 10 they do not make an arrest or even issue a summons. The class action lawsuit that bears Floyd’s name persuasively argues that such unjustified harassment of innocent people violates the Fourth Amendment’s ban on unreasonable searches and seizures.
The legal basis for the NYPD’s stop-and-frisk program is supposed to be a 1968 Supreme Court decision arising from a police encounter quite different from the ones described by Floyd and the many other New Yorkers, overwhelmingly black or Latino, who are hassled by cops for no apparent reason every year. The case, Terry v. Ohio, involved a Cleveland detective who saw two men take turns walking back and forth in front of a store, peering into the window, about a dozen times, conferring with each other between trips.
The detective surmised that the two men were casing the store, which they planned to rob along with a third man who joined them later. Confronted by the detective, who asked for their names, the three men “mumbled something,” whereupon the officer grabbed one of them and patted down his overcoat, finding a revolver in the breast pocket; one of the other men was also carrying a revolver in his overcoat. The Supreme Court said the detective’s actions were consistent with the Fourth Amendment because he reasonably suspected that the men were engaged in criminal activity and that they were armed.
The track record of the NYPD’s stop-and-frisk program suggests that its officers’ suspicions of criminal activity are frequently less than reasonable, since they turn out to be right only 12 percent of the time. That impression is reinforced by the forms that officers fill out after these encounters, which rely heavily on all-purpose excuses such as “furtive movements” and “high crime area” to justify stopping people.
When she certified Floyd v. City of New York as a class action last year, U.S. District Judge Shira Scheindlin noted that in 2009 “officers listed no coherent suspected crime” on more than a third of the forms. She also observed that “for every sixty-nine stops that police officers justified specifically on the basis of a suspicious bulge [from 2004 through 2009], they found one gun.”
As the number of stop-and-frisk encounters initiated by the NYPD grew from about 100,000 in Michael Bloomberg’s first year as mayor to almost 700,000 in 2011, the share of stops yielding guns fell from 0.38 percent to 0.033 percent. Bloomberg says that trend demonstrates that program is working, because “the whole idea…is not to catch people with guns; it’s to prevent people from carrying guns.”
If so, the policy is plainly inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s Fourth Amendment rulings, which do not allow random searches aimed at deterring crime. It is telling that Bloomberg, confronted by the argument that his beloved stop-and-frisk policy is unconstitutional, responds by insisting that it works. Rights are not contingent on the effectiveness of the police tactics that violate them.
Submitted by Kameron Kolding
The first video is from a few months ago I saw red and blues up at the front of my trailer park. I decided to get my camera and go filming. The officer approaches and tries to force me to leave – the video speaks for itself.
The second video was from a few weeks ago, and it was the same scenario -
Thanks for viewing.
Submitted by Jeremy McInnis
I live in Bridgewater, Nova Scotia, in Eastern Canada. I work 7 days a week and adhere to the laws to the best of my ability. On the weekends I get up at 6AM and travel into the city (Halifax) to operate a small booth at a weekend market. Among other things I sell swords and knives, all of which are shipped into the country legitimately. I pay all duties, brokerage, taxes, etc. Customs is able to check these items at will, and they usually do.
On April 13th, 2013 three police officers entered the weekend market and told me that my knives “looked to be prohibited.” They had no search warrant but removed me from the booth and proceeded to search from one end to the other. I was patted down and my SA pocket knife (legal) was taken. I told them I use it to open packages, boxes, and such. The knives in question, that got their manties in a bunch, were 23 folding knives with a spring assisted opening, 9 novelty pocket knives with a 2” blade in which the handle looks like a bullet, 2 Cane Swords, and 13 Kubotans.
In the end they left with 40 items, all of which they deemed weapons. I advised them the law indicates a knife or any other object is not a weapon unless it can be proven it is meant to be used as a weapon. I told them the knives were not prohibited weapons as they are listed in the CBSA (Canada Border Services Agency – basically out ATF and homeland Security wrapped up into one) Memorandum D19-13-2 as being EXEMPT from being prohibited.
They confiscated the 40 items and told me they would be in contact to let me know if or what the charges would be. They walked out the door with $1,600.00 worth of my products. That’s not just pocket money or mad money. That’s my mortgage payment, car payment, groceries, power bill, etc.
Over the next week I studied the Criminal Code of Canada, The CBSA (Federal Police Agency) Memorandum D19-13-2, and conducted research to ensure I had not broken the law. I spoke with 4 CBSA Agents, one of which is the Eastern Canada, weapons and prohibited weapons specialist. I also spoke with 2 criminal law attorneys. Both advised me that under these circumstances, there is no way I could be charged.
Relieved, I contacted the officer in charge and advised him of the law. I sent them copies of the Criminal Code with the related laws highlighted, a copy of the D19-13-2 with the related parts highlighted, and even a copy of a case file from Ontario where the exact same thing happened to a man and the Judge found that the man did not do anything illegal and that the knives were in fact not illegal.
I still had not been charged with anything at this point. People tell me to leave it alone, but I am unable to. We shouldn’t live in a police state. If I allowed this to happen, what’s to stop them from walking into our homes and taking whatever they want?
The next day, I received an e-mail from the officer advising me that I was being charged and should turn myself in. I went into the station and was put in a cell. I was printed and photographed and placed in an interrogation room. An officer advised me of the charges, gave me a court date, and told me that if I did not show up a warrant would be put out for my arrest.
The charges are as follows:
- Concealed Weapon 90(1) CC – refers to carrying a “weapon”, prohibited device, concealed. I concealed nothing on me or in my shop. The knives were on a shelf behind my counter.
- Possession of Prohibited Weapons 91(2) CC – refers to unlawful possession of prohibited weapons. None of the items are prohibited under the Canadians Criminal Code and are actually listed as exempt from being prohibited in the CBSA D19-13-2. That said a knife in of itself is not by definition a weapon unless it is proven that this is its intended use.
- Possession to Traffic 100(2) CC – This one scares me as it appears that if the court somehow finds that these knives are prohibited it states that the minimum punishment is 3 years in prison.
I’m a 41-year-old who stands to lose everything. If I end up with a criminal record because of a cop’s conscious disregard of the law, I will not be able to travel outside of the country for at least a decade after my probation, as these are indictable offenses. I could end up in prison for 3 to 10 years.
Honestly, I think this whole thing has happened because the cops are pissed off that I called him out on their bullshit. It has nothing to do with enforcement of the law for them. It has nothing to do with protecting the public.
Cops are corrupt, egotistical, megalomaniacs that for the most part border on sociopathic tendencies. They are corrupt and lie even when they know you haven’t done anything wrong. Cops are the real criminals. As far as I am concerned, 3 police officers committed armed robbery when they entered my store and stole my property. They simply used their uniforms and lies about the law as their cover.
I will now be aggressively promoting your organization and website. It’s terrible the things that people are subjected to in the name of “the law”. But it’s nice to know that I’m not alone in standing up to it.