And other individuals within the Kaufman County injustice system who have kept the veiled threats hanging over the head of Robert Scott McCollom due to hubris and the need to perpetuate perceived legitimacy.
The level of impunity granted to police employees by those within the injustice system pertains not only to physical brutality, tasing, or shooting, but to injuries or deaths caused by their actions, or inactions, behind the wheel.
Of course, that should come as no surprise to anyone who understands how the system is rigged.
At its core, every police outfit, district attorneys office, and courtroom, and everyone within those outfits who subsist via the political means, operate according to the bad idea that they have the legal right to do things wrong for you to do.
The perception of authority is everything – without it, the people who pretend to “protect and serve” (yet conversely say that they have no duty to protect) are seen for what they are – individuals, who, like yourself, are responsible for their actions. Clearly, the involvement of a coercive monopoly is not conducive to justice.
Darren Ilardi / New York Police Outfit: 646-610-5000 / Queens County DA: (718) 286-6000
John Swearingen / Kern County Sheriff’s Outfit (661) 391-7500 / Kern County DA: (661) 868-2340
Frederick Schimp / Pennsylvania State Police Outfit (717) 783-5599 / Erie County DA: (814) 451-6349
Joseph Quiles / Milwaukee County Sheriff’s Outfit: 414.226.7000 / Milwaukee County DA: (414) 278-4646
Andrew Francis Wood / Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Outfit: (323) 267-4800 / Los Angeles County DA: (213) 974-3512
Earlier this month, Rynearson presented his situation in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Related video and documents are below, as is background text originally shared by Rynearson via VeteransAgainstPoliceAbuse.com.
Recently, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas in Del Rio dismissed a civil lawsuit, prior to discovery, against two Border Patrol agents on the ground that the plaintiff did not demonstrate a violation of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and therefore the agents had qualified immunity against discovery or civil suit. The suit has been appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, the court heard oral argument, and we wait for their ruling. The pleadings before the Fifth Circuit can be viewed here.
The plaintiff, Richard Rynearson, argued that a thirty-four minute detention for a suspicionless immigration inspection sixty-seven miles from the Mexican border violated the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable seizures. Rynearson provided video of the encounter that shows he offered a driver’s license, a military ID, an official passport, and a personal passport and answered all eighteen question the agents asked him, with the exception of a single question concerning the identity of his supervisor at his place of employment (a question the agent told Rynearson he did not have to answer).
Still, the district court ruled that a thirty-four minute immigration detention was reasonable, and gave two separate arguments for its decision.
The first argument the court made in its ruling, was that Rynearson’s “own actions” caused the delay, and therefore this was a reasonable length for an immigration inspection. Specifically the court ruled that Rynearson caused the well above average detention by 1) refusing to roll his window down during part of the detention, 2) refusing to physically hand his identification to an agent, despite the agent not asking for the identification to be physically handed over and despite the agent’s claim that the identification was irrelevant to immigration status, and 3) Rynearson’s “arguing” with the agent concerning the standard of suspicion required for further detetention, and Rynearson’s challenging the agent’s claim that he could not hear him. The court did not hold the agents responsible for their failure to ask a single immigration question until eleven minutes into the detention. The court did not explain why a citizen suspected of no crime must legally roll a window down beyond what is necessary to verbally communicate (if at all), or why he must physically hand over identification without a clear request (if at all), or why protected speech to disagree with an agent removes the need for government agents to act diligently during a detention that is legally required to be brief (couple of minutes).
The second argument the court made in its ruling, was that the agents had reasonable suspicion for “some criminal activity,” and the court mentioned possible drug smuggling or “another possibility” that Rynearson was acting as a decoy for unidentified vehicle(s) behind him that might have been smuggling contraband. The court lists the following to support its lonesome claim of reasonable suspicion for “some criminal activity:” 1) Rynearson not rolling the window down for part of the detention, 2) disagreeing with the agents about the applicability of mere suspicion when not on the border, and disagreeing with the claim agents could not hear him, 3) making a phone call to his lawyer, his wife, the FBI, and the Border Patrol headquarters in Washington DC, 4) declining the request to exit the vehicle (a request and not an order according to the agent’s affadavit), and 5) not handing over his identification physically to the agent, despite the agent not requesting it be handed over and despite the agent claiming the identification was irrelevant to immigration status. The court’s ruling makes no mention of the fact that the government itself did not claim the defendants had reasonable suspicion in its motion to dismiss, nor does the court mention that the primary agent declared in a signed affadavit that “Mr. Rynearson’s detention was solely for the purpose of conducting an immigration inspection.” The court does not relate that the primary agent said multiple times during the incident that he did not need reasonable suspicion, or that the agent only told Rynearson that he had “mere suspicion;” a standard less than reasonable suspicion, that is only applicable for checkpoints on the actual border. The court makes no mention of the fact that Rynearson’s window was partially rolled down in the primary inspection area and yet the drug dog did not alert for drugs. The court also did not explain how a motorist who had installed five video cameras to record his actions in and around his vehicle, could be reasonably suspected of engaging in “some criminal activity.”
If the district court’s ruling is allowed to stand, the legal reality in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi will be that American motorists who are simply driving from one American town to another American town, who have committed no crimes and who are suspected of no wrongdoing at all, may be detained by the federal government for thirty-four minutes regardless of the abundance of (legally unrequired) immigration status proof they provide or their (legally unrequired) cooperation with questioning. In short, if this ruling is allowed to stand, it will remove the protections of previous Fifth Circuit and Supreme Court case law, which requires that these suspicionless checkpoint stops be brief, be limited to the purpose of inquring into immigration status, and that they present only a “minimal intrusion” to motorists who are not suspected of any crime. Put another way, if this ruling is allowed to stand, not even cooperation with the programmatic purpose of a checkpoint will be enough to shield innocent Americans from unreasonable seizures that are far from minimally intrusive. In addition, this ruling if unchecked, will encourage federal activist judges to invent “reasonable suspicion” out of thin air, using only guesses and hunches to list various possibilities of “some criminal activity,” even when federal government law enforcement makes no such claim itself.
Rynearson has appealed this ruling to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in the hope of reminding the Border Patrol and the district court that its ruling in Machuca-Barerra still stands, and that suspicionless checkpoint stops are an exception to the standing rule of the Fourth Amendment, must be brief, must present a minimal intrusion, and must not be operated in a fashion that treats motorists as though they are all suspected of “some criminal activity.”
The content below was captured and shared by Brandon Vreeland, founder of Jackson (MI) Cop Block. As he concludes in the video, “Try doing something selfless. Help someone that may need it. Love each other. Because why not?”
I started filming a traffic stop and ended up giving a ride home to the victim’s of a road pirate (sheriff). The cop towed their car and left them on the side of the road with all the tools from the job they were trying to get to before the pirate stole their booty (car) , and left them for broke. So I approached them and asked if I could render aid in the form of a ride home.
I had my truck so I was in a position to help. I feel that if we are in a position to help we have no choice but to do as so. The police should follow suit, but I don’t have time for miracles.
The sheriff employe (Sukovich #5125) took offense to my assistance and ordered me away from his scene. I responded with the fact that I only wish to render aid to the citizens. Later he comes over to question me and I respond with, ” I don’t answer questions.” I asked for his badge number and name. Then he said sorry you don’t want to talk to me and I said I don’t talk to cops.
I gave the two young men a ride home with all their tools and such. I also talked to them about their right’s and that I would provide them with my footage if they needed it.
The police state gained steam in the 1980′s through the drug war, and unwinnable war against the American people, which was then accelerated by Bush and Clinton in the 90′s.
Then came 911 and as we slowly see drug laws loosening, anti-terrorist laws and force are blanketing the landscape making the anti-drug war look like a gentle massage to Bush and Obama’s terrorist approach of bending over uncle sam and raping him while recording it for syndication on your favorite fearporn outlet.
Post 911 brought a new world and quickly militarized the police force to look like your favorite GI Joe characters.
Events like Occupy Wall Street saw the rise of some mainstream media outrage as the good cops of the good ol’ days were hard to find, replaced by the bully hopped up on steroids and assault rifles.
The Boston Bombings resulted in police swarming the streets with militarization and while it disturbed some, on the mainstream scale it was hailed as a victory, where ‘Murica defeated the terrorists.
Then other incidents popped up like with Christopher Dorner, where it was shoot at whoever we damn well please and ask questions later. Or more fitting, “don’t ask questions at all mother fucker.”
Now finally, finally after the protests in Ferguson, Missouri, the national media at large has asked, “what and the holy fuck!?”
The focus by many has been on race but for anyone paying attention, it is all about state vs. citizen. The government vs. the individual.
I’m happy to announce the release of the beautiful Cop Block Quarter – the result of a partnership with our friends at Suns of Liberty Mint!
The Cop Block Quarter is a .25 Troy oz. piece of guaranteed .999+ fine silver that, on the front, has the Cop Block logo, URL and thought-provoking text “Who Owns You?”, and on the back, a repeating design with “Suns of Liberty Mint .999 Fine Silver.”
Get one ounce of Cop Block Quarters (four pieces) for just 3.25-FRNs over spot. That means, if silver is 20-FRNs per ounce, you’d pay 23.25-FRNs for four Cop Block Quarters.
And, as a portion of sales from the Cop Block Quarter will be kicked back to CopBlock.org, you can get useable, sound money, while helping to advance the fact that badges don’t grant extra rights!
The Cop Block Quarter is the latest in a great collaboration between CopBlock.org and SunsOfLibertyMint.com.
In 2013, SunsOfLibertyMint.com sponsored the Police Accountability Tour, which helped myself, Jacob Crawford, and Garret Ean travel to nine cities to connect with those active, capture content, and share ideas.
Incorporating the reddit functionality at CopBlock.org is sought to maximize decentralization (as links, posts, and other content can be easily shared, and identification of content thought best or most in need of follow-up can be crowdsourced) and to reallocate scarce resources (instead of trying to keep up with messages, or vetting, editing and scheduling posts, individuals can work to grow the network or create other content).
CopBlock.org is WordPress-based
The Reddit OAuth that is used on FreeTalkLive.com are open source, and visible at:
A friend in law enforcement told me that because of this book’s content, I should not let it be published under my own name. Violent events happen in this story, and our country’s current situation is such that these events could indeed come to pass. My friend’s fear was that this book might precipitate such violence. He told me to expect to have drugs planted in my car during routine traffic stops, or have other similar miseries befall me and my family.
He advised that if I did have this work published, I should use a pseudonym, employ an intermediary for all publisher contact, and in general prevent myself from being linked to the finished work, to avoid reprisals.
I didn’t do that, not only because of free speech considerations, but because I disagree with my friend’s hypothesis. I believe that if the instigators glimpse what may lie ahead, they will alter their behavior before wholesale violence becomes unavoidable. It is my hope that this book will reduce the likelihood of armed conflict in this country…
From pages 337-338:
“And so, Hobbes said that our lives are ‘nasty, brutish, and short’, and he used that as justification for the dictatorial powers of the monarch. Only by granting the State total power will we ever overcome our natural condition, which is to be perpetually at war with one another.” The Political Science course the professor was teaching was listed in the course catalog with a dry-sounding title that no one remembered. Throughout the Amherst campus it was referred to as ‘Right and Wrong’. Henry Bowman liked the class, mainly because the professor who taught it had a very sharp mind.
“Hobbes is just talking about our old friend, the…” and with this, the lecturer gestured with his arm t o show the class he wanted someone to finish the sentence for him.
“Benevolent dictatorship,” a Senior in the second row said quickly.
“Exactly, Mr. Hagner. Hobbes’ Leviathian is just one more scholarly justification for forfeiting your rights and allowing yourself to be subjected by the State. Learned, reasoned, articulate, and wrong. Thomas Hobbes has merely – Mr. Bowman,” the professor said suddenly, “you are shaking your head. That usually means you disagree with something that’s been said. What is it?”
“Professor Arkes, I don’t disagree with the basic principle, but it’s not enough just to say, ‘Totalitarian regimes are wrong, so don’t let the State enslave you’. That’s like saying, ‘Don’t get sick’. The important question is, when do you know it’s going to become enslavement? When is the proper time to resist with force?”
“Please elaborate, Mr. Bowman.” Henry took a deep breath.
“The end result, which we want to avoid, is the concentration camp. The gulag. The gas chamber. The Spanish Inquisition. All of those things. I you are in a death camp, no one would fault you for resisting. But when you’re being herded towards the gas champer, naked and seventy pounds below your healthy weight, it’s too late. You have no chance. On the other hand, no one would support you if you started an armed rebellion because the government posts speed limits on open roads and arrests people for speeding. So when was it not too late, but also not too early?”
“Tell us, Mr. Bowman.”
“Professor Arkes, I teach a Personal Protection class off campus, where most of the students who sign up are women. I’m seeing some strong parallels here, so please indulge me in an analogy.”
“A woman’s confronted by a big, strong, stranger. She doesn’t know what he’s planning, and she’s cautious. Getting away from him’s not possible. They’re in a room and he’s standing in front of the only way out, or she’s in a wheelchair – whatever. Leaving the area’s not an option.
“So now he starts to do things she doesn’t like. He asks her for money. She can try to talk him out of it, just like we argue for lower taxes, and maybe it will work. If it doesn’t and she gets outvoted, she’ll probably choose to give it to him instead of getting into a fight to the death over ten dollars. You would probably choose to pay your taxes rather than have police arrive to throw you in jail.
“Maybe this big man demands some other things, other minor assaults on this woman’s dignity. When should she claw at his eyes or shove her ballpoint pen in his throat? When he tries to force her to kiss him? Tries to force her to let him touch her? Tries to force her to have sex with him?” Henry took a deep breath and shrugged.
“Those are questions that each woman has to answer for herself. There is one situation, though, where I tell the women to fight to the death. That’s when the man pulls out a pair of handcuffs and says, ‘Come on, I promise I won’t hurt you, this is just so you won’t flail around and hurt either of us by accident. Come on, I just want to talk, get in the van and let me handcuff you to this eyebolt here, and I promise I won’t touch you. I’m not asking you to put on a gag or anything, and since you can still scream for help, you know you’ll be safe. Come on, I got a full bar in here, and color TV, and air conditioning, great stereo, come on, just put on the cuffs.’
“I tell women that if that every happens, maybe the man is telling the truth, and maybe after talking to her for a while he’ll let her go and she will have had a good time drinking champagne and listening to music. But if she gets in the van and puts her wrists in the handcuffs, she has just given up her future ability to fight, and now it is too late.” Henry realized he had been making eye contact with all the other people in the lecture hall, just as he did when he taught a course. Now he looked directly at the professor.
“How do you spot the precise point where a society is standing at the back of the van and the State has the handcuffs out?”
Cop Block just surpassed one million “Likes” on Facebook – that’s great, but it is bittersweet. Even better would be for the need for the decentralized project to be nonexistent. How do we get there? One mind at a time.