Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

Cops are thugs, and need to be disarmed

In their pursuit of a fugitive ex-cop, at least seven officers opened fire on what turned out to be a mother and daughter delivering newspapers on a quiet residential street, law enforcement sources told The Times.

It was "a tragic misinterpretation" by officers working under "incredible tension," LAPD Chief Charlie Beck said Friday in an interview with The Times.

Margie Carranza, 47, and her mother, Emma Hernandez, 71, were the victims.[...] around 5 a.m. Thursday in Torrance, police from nearby El Segundo saw a pickup truck exit a freeway and head in the general direction of the Redbeam Avenue residence of a high-ranking Los Angeles police official, which was being guarded by a group of LAPD officers.

A radio call indicated that the truck matched the description of Dorner's gray Nissan Titan.

As the vehicle approached the house, officers opened fire, unloading a barrage of bullets into the back of the truck. When the shooting stopped, they quickly realized their mistake. The truck was not a Nissan Titan, but a Toyota Tacoma. The color wasn't gray, but aqua blue. And it wasn't Dorner inside the truck, but Carranza and her mother delivering copies of the Los Angeles Times.[...]

"How do you mistake two Hispanic women, one who is 71, for a large, black male?" said Richard Goo, 62, who counted five bullet holes in the entryway to his house.

Glen T. Jonas, the attorney representing the women, said the police officers gave "no commands, no instructions and no opportunity to surrender" before opening fire. He described a terrifying encounter in which the pair were in the early part of their delivery route through several South Bay communities. Hernandez was in the back seat handing papers to her daughter, who was driving. Carranza would briefly slow the truck to throw papers on driveways and front walks.

As bullets tore through the cabin, the two women "covered their faces and huddled down," Jonas said. "They felt like it was going on forever."

Hernandez was shot twice in her back and is expected to recover. Her daughter escaped with only minor wounds from broken glass.

by Anonymousreply 7512/09/2014

The cops are rushing around, trying to make nice, but we know if the same thing happened tomorrow, they would open fire in the exact same way.

by Anonymousreply 102/10/2013

The chief talked someone into donating a truck and visited the women to "present" it to them and apologize for the fact that the completely lawful bullets hit them.

by Anonymousreply 202/10/2013

Even if the vehicle had had the person they were chasing, it is not the job of police to act as judge, jury and executioner.

How is any of this lawful? They made no attempt to ascertain who was in the vehicle or whether it was possible to apprehend the person.

by Anonymousreply 302/10/2013

Cops are just government enforcers, worse than mobsters.

by Anonymousreply 402/10/2013

Wow They probably won't have to deliver papers any more. They should get a nice quiet settlement and then go to some nice cheap South American place.

by Anonymousreply 502/10/2013

Ugh, this is HORRIBLE

by Anonymousreply 602/10/2013

It takes is just one nervous cop to fire the first bullet and the rest do it reflexively

by Anonymousreply 702/10/2013

True.

by Anonymousreply 802/10/2013

Clearly, the 47% is responsible for their own misfortune. No other way to misrepresent the cuntiness of the fraidicat cunt officers who are willing to lay down the lives of their neighbors for their own good. Especially when they were shooting out neighbors front doors, windows and car radiators.

Their cunts will not be forgotten.

by Anonymousreply 902/10/2013

Huh, R9?

by Anonymousreply 1002/11/2013

And in a perfect Libertarian society, people would police themselves, and crime would magically disappear.

(rolls eyes)

Please, do continue with your circle jerk.

by Anonymousreply 1102/11/2013

R11, your ignorance is exceeded only by your arrogance. Typical of people like you.

If you understood liberty, your head would explode.

by Anonymousreply 1202/11/2013

[quote]If you understood liberty, your head would explode.

That explains quite a bit about your pathetic attempts to explain the bizarre alternate Libertarian universe.

by Anonymousreply 1302/11/2013

R13-

Please elaborate.

by Anonymousreply 1402/11/2013

Here's to hoping they get an enormous settlement out of this. The coverage on this ex-cop has been nonstop here in LA but the story of these two women was on the air for about 15 seconds.

Gee.. wonder why...

by Anonymousreply 1502/11/2013

Can't even begin to tell you how many cops tried to hook up with my goldigging self. I've had to call the cops on the cops. Most are crazy but nothing exposes them like a gorgeous female from the higher classes.

by Anonymousreply 1602/11/2013

R13-

I hope you never end up on the other end of a legal battle with the cops. They will lie, cheat and harass.

Actually, for someone like you, I hope the cops do arrest you and persecute you.

by Anonymousreply 1703/10/2013

THE COPS LIED, AND NEED TO BE SENT TO JAIL!

Michael Premo was found not guilty of assaulting an officer after video evidence contradicted police testimony.

In the first jury trial stemming from an Occupy Wall Street protest, Michael Premo was found innocent of all charges yesterday after his lawyers presented video evidence directly contradicting the version of events offered by police and prosecutors.

Premo, an activist and community organizer who has in recent months been a central figure in the efforts of Occupy Sandy, was one of many hundred people who took part in a demonstration in Lower Manhattan on December 17 of 2011, when some protesters broke into a vacant lot in Duarte Square in an attempt to start a new occupation.

After police broke up the action in Duarte Square, hundreds of protesters marched north, playing a game of cat and mouse with police on foot and on scooters, who tried to slow and divide the column of marchers. At 29th Street near Seventh Avenue, police finally managed to trap a large number of marchers, kettling them from both sides of the block with bright orange plastic netting. After holding the crowd in the nets for some time, a few people managed to escape, and police rushed in to the crowd with their hands up. In the commotion, Premo fell to the ground and attempted to crawl out of the scrum. (Covering the march, I was also kettled on this block for a time, though I only witnessed Premo's arrest from a distance.

In the police version of events, Premo charged the police like a linebacker, taking out a lieutenant and resisting arrest so forcefully that he fractured an officer's bone. That's the story prosecutors told in Premo's trial, and it's the general story his arresting officer testified to under oath as well.

But Premo, facing felony charges of assaulting an officer, maintained his innocence. His lawyers, Meghan Maurus and Rebecca Heinegg, set out to find video evidence to contradict it. Prosecutors told them that police TARU units, who filmed virtually every moment of Occupy street protests, didn't have any footage of the entire incident. But Maurus knew from video evidence she had received while representing another defendant arrested that day that there was at least one TARU officer with relevant footage. Reviewing video shot by a citizen-journalist livestreamer during Premo's arrest, she learned that a Democracy Now cameraman was right in the middle of the fray, and when she tracked him down, he showed her a video that so perfectly suited her needs it brought a tear to her eye.

For one thing, the video prominently shows a TARU cop named Bosco, holding up his camera, which is on, and pointing at the action around the kettle. When Premo's lawyers subpoenaed Bosco, they were told he was on a secret mission at "an undisclosed location," and couldn't respond to the subpoena. Judge Robert Mandelbaum didn't accept that, and Bosco ultimately had to testify [Correction: Bosco didn't take the stand; he had to appear at the District Attorney's office for a meeting with Maurus and prosecutors. Judge Mandelbaum accepted that Bosco would likely say on the stand what he said in the meeting, and didn't require him to testify.] Bosco claimed, straining credibility, that though the camera is clearly on and he can be seen in the video pointing it as though to frame a shot, he didn't actually shoot any video that evening.

Even more importantly, the Democracy Now video also flipped the police version of events on its head. Far from showing Premo tackling a police officer, it shows cops tackling him as he attempted to get back on his feet.

After watching the video, the jury deliberated for several hours before returning a verdict o

by Anonymousreply 1803/10/2013

Funny how the Libertarian Idiot Troll(TM)'s kneejerk hatred of cops is only exceeded by his kneejerk hatred of Paul Krugman.

by Anonymousreply 1903/10/2013

R19

Non-sequitur.

by Anonymousreply 2003/11/2013

BTW-

If libertarians are so wrong about Paul Krugman, why does every thread critical of him get deleted?

by Anonymousreply 2103/11/2013

And why was the thread about the DHS buying 1.6 billion rounds of ammo deleted?

by Anonymousreply 2203/11/2013

R21: because obsessively posting the same repeatedly-disproven bullshit over & over & over & over & over again a. doesn't make it true; b. is annoying? Just a hunch.

by Anonymousreply 2303/11/2013

[quote]THE COPS LIED

This isn't unusual. If they tell the truth, that should make the headlines.

by Anonymousreply 2403/13/2013

Try being an attractive woman. Thug cops will pull you over or target you in public just to get to meet you. If they view you as the type of woman who would reject them in social situations you might just be getting arrested. Anyone know what I'm talking about?

by Anonymousreply 2503/14/2013

"It was my gun that shot and killed a 7-year-old girl," insists Detroit resident Joseph Weekley, who took part in a fatal home invasion on May 17, 2010. This apparent admission is actually an evasion, in that it assigns blame to an inanimate instrument, rather than the individual who wielded it. Weekley also insists that he didn’t intend to pull the trigger, and has no knowledge of doing so, and that he didn’t realize the child was dead until he heard a "high-pitched moan" coming from beneath a pile of clothes.

The only other eyewitness to the killing of Aiyana Stanley-Jones is Mertila Jones, the slain child’s grandmother. Weekley has claimed that Jones was to blame for the killing of her granddaughter, because the woman supposedly tried to swipe the MP-5 sub-machine gun from the hands of the assailant who had just burst into her home at midnight. That claim was contradicted by fellow home invader Shawn Stallard, who was right behind Weekley when the shooting took place and didn’t see a struggle between Weekley and Jones.

Weekley has also said that he initially thought that the shot had been fired by one of his comrades. Oh, sure, he grudgingly admits, it may have been his finger that pulled the trigger – but someone or something else is at fault. In any case, he insists that he’s not to blame – that despite the fact that Aiyana was left to die in a pool of blood, that he, the shooter, is the real victim.

"I just feel devastated and just depressed," Weekley sobbed from the witness stand during his involuntary manslaughter trial. "Every day this replays in my head. There’s nothing else I could have done differently."

If it weren’t for the fact that Weekley’s home invasion crew bore the insignia of the criminal syndicate claiming a monopoly on the legitimate use of force within Detroit, he would have quickly been found guilty. In fact, he most likely would have faced a charge of aggravated murder, rather than involuntary manslaughter.

by Anonymousreply 2606/29/2013

If it weren’t for the fact that Weekley’s home invasion crew bore the insignia of the criminal syndicate claiming a monopoly on the legitimate use of force within Detroit, he would have quickly been found guilty. In fact, he most likely would have faced a charge of aggravated murder, rather than involuntary manslaughter.

The trial ended in a hung jury – not because the facts were in serious dispute, but because Weekley belongs to that sanctified caste that exercises the state-conferred power of discretionary killing. He was, and remains, a member of the Detroit Police Department’s Special Reaction Team (SRT), which staged – I’m using the word in its theatrical sense – a midnight raid on the home where Aiyana was sleeping.

The police were searching for a man named Chauncey Owens who was a suspect in a murder two days prior to the raid. They knew where the suspect could be found and had the advantage of time and superior numbers. If they had been peace officers, they would have staked out the home and waited for the suspect to emerge, then taken him into custody in a relatively low-key conventional arrest. But this wouldn’t have done anything to boost the Department’s "Q" rating.

Although the midnight raid served no legitimate law enforcement purpose, it would have made for exceptional "reality" television. Embedded with Weekley and his comrades on that evening was a camera crew from a cable TV program called "The First 48" – which meant that PR, rather than public safety, was the defining priority of the mission.

This fact simply cannot be over-emphasized: The point of his mission was not to arrest a murder suspect; it was to turn that arrest into a propaganda film. Weekley, a veteran of more than one hundred previous raids, was already a featured performer in the agitprop series "Detroit SWAT," which might explain why he was given the lead role in the May 17, 2010 production. That description is not an exercise in snarkiness: The A&E Network's guide to that program lists Weekley as an "actor" and a "cast member."

Neighbors who saw the Berserkers assemble outside the home warned that there were children inside. The presence of toys scattered in the front yard should have made that fact obvious enough that a cop could understand it, especially in light of the fact that several testified that they had scoped out the house repeatedly in the hours prior to the operation.

Even if the yard had been barren of evidence that children lived inside the home, rational people would have understood that a full-force raid was both unnecessary and needlessly dangerous to anyone who resided therein. But anything less than a Fallujah-style "dynamic entry" would have meant missing an agitprop opportunity, and left the jacked-up adolescents in paramilitary gear with an unbearable case of blue balls. So Weekly and his fellow sociopaths attacked the living room where Aiyana was sleeping by flinging a flash-bang grenade through a closed window, kicking down the door, and storming in with guns drawn.

A few months after Weekley killed Aiyana, the officer’s taxpayer-funded defense team sketched out a legal strategy in which the girl’s family was to blame for her death. Weekley’s attorney filed a "Notice of Non-Party Fault" claiming, without providing evidence, that family members were involved in "drug dealing, vehicle theft and illegal utility hook-ups," and that Aiyana’s grandmother was at fault for the child’s death because she "interfered in the execution of the search by unlawfully touching the defendant and causing his weapon to accidentally discharge."

The same strategy was followed during the trial: More attention was focused on perceived contradictions in Jones’s account, and on her supposedly irresponsible statement that the police "came to kill" the night of the raid.

We are invited to believe that the anguished reaction of a traumatized grandmother to the needless death of her seven-year-old granddaughter is a more significant outrage than the act of carrying a paramilitary midnight raid on a residence for the benefit of television cameras.

The Detroit Police Department’s institutional reaction to the killing of Aiyana brings to mind the behavior of U.S. helicopter pilots involved in the massacre documented in the notorious "Collateral Murder" video. After two helicopter gunship crews annihilated more than a dozen unarmed Iraqis, troops on the ground reported that two children had been injured in the attack.

"Well, it’s their fault for bring their kids into a battle," sneered one of the assailants.

For those who belong to the state-privileged criminal fraternity that includes Weekly, "officer safety" is at all times and in all places the highest and most important consideration. The same limitless self-preoccupation that typifies the state’s enforcement caste is also manifest in an acute sense of self-pity on the part of police officers who murder innocent people.

During his testimony, Weekly invited the public to pity him.

"I’ll never be the same," blubbered Aiyana’s killer, who recalled playing at the park with his daughters before being called to play a part in the paramilitary assault that led to the state-sanctioned murder of someone else’s 7-year-old child.

The human type Weekly represents was described very well by Hannah Arendt in her book Eichmann in Jerusalem. Referring to members of the Nazi regime’s "special action squads" – which they called Einsatzgruppen, and we call SWAT teams, or SRTs – Arendt noted that the problem they faced was "how to overcome not so much their conscience as the animal pity by which all normal men are affected in the presence of physical suffering. The trick used by Himmler – who apparently was rather strongly afflicted by these instinctive reactions himself – was very simple and probably very effective; it consisted in turning these instincts around, as it were, in directing them toward the self. So that instead of saying: What horrible things I did to people!, the murderers would be able to say: What horrible things I had to watch in the pursuance of my duties, how heavily the task weighed upon my shoulders!"

Weekley is a museum-quality specimen of the self-pitying Stormtrooper – and the jurors who were willing to let him escape mortal accountability for his crime would likely have done the same for Weekley’s German antecedents in the 1930s.

June 21, 2013

William Norman Grigg [send him mail] publishes the Pro Libertate blog and hosts the Pro Libertate radio program.

by Anonymousreply 2706/29/2013

Test

by Anonymousreply 2807/08/2013

spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam Idiot spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam Libertarian spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam

by Anonymousreply 2907/08/2013

Cops are not only thugs and need to be disarmed, but many of them are cute in their snugly fitting uniforms and desperately need to be spanked and fucked, I think that would go a long way toward solving their urgent problem. I understand most cops are enthusiastic swallowers, not spitters.

by Anonymousreply 3007/08/2013

Let there be no doubt that many a cute male cop in a tight uniform needs to have his butt fixed good and proper, not to mention the basket out front.

by Anonymousreply 3107/08/2013

R31-

Please videotape the encounter and then send it to his buddies.

They will love seeing it.

by Anonymousreply 3207/09/2013

Cops suck. They are just government enforcers.

by Anonymousreply 3307/27/2013

Anyone who defends the murder of people via the government thugs(aka cops) please trolldar them and see how they defend the NSA, PATRIOT Act, Federal Reserve and any government destruction of our civil liberties.

Our government is evil.

by Anonymousreply 3407/27/2013

R34? Maybe they just think you're an obsessive-compulsive, brain-damaged idiot.

by Anonymousreply 3507/28/2013

[quote]Maybe they just think you're an obsessive-compulsive, brain-damaged idiot.

Bingo, R35. It always seems to escape this guy that it's possible to, e.g., oppose the Patriot Act and yet still think he's a paranoid, ignorant, and genuinely moronic loon.

by Anonymousreply 3607/28/2013

As a patrol officer in Minneapolis, Michael Griffin is paid at least $60,000 a year, but he is much more expensive to the city’s tax victims than his salary alone would suggest. Two lawsuits filed against Griffin for crimes committed off-duty will cost more than $400,000.

Last month, the city council approved a $140,000 payout for attorney fees in the case of Ibrahim Regai, who was punched and kicked by Griffin following an incident in a bar. Griffin, who was off-duty, took offense at something Regai said, followed him to another club, beat him to the ground, called another cop, and charged the victim with assaulting an officer. The charge was dropped after video evidence demonstrated that Griffin lied about the incident.

In a second episode, Griffin got into an argument at a bar with three men. After they left, Griffin called another officer to the scene to detain them. Griffin assaulted two of the men, knocking one of them unconscious then picking him up and kicking him in the face. The victim, Jeremy Axel, suffered a concussion and had to have several teeth replaced.

Despite losing the subsequent lawsuit, Griffin is still on the force, and hasn’t faced criminal charges. This is typical of Minneapolis, which has made nearly 100 payouts totaling $14 million for police misconduct since 2006.

As is the case nearly everywhere else, police in Minneapolis have a tendency toward “privileged” criminal violence while off-duty. Former Minneapolis Police Sgt. David Clifford was recently sent to prison after being convicted of first-degree assault in an unprovoked attack on a 40-year-old man.

by Anonymousreply 3703/11/2014

“I don’t know why there would be [one],” replied Idaho Falls Police Chief Mark McBride when asked if his department would apologize to Victor and Delosanto Madrigal and their family. “Just because a person is found not guilty doesn’t mean the officers were wrong.”

Actually, Chief McBride, that is precisely what this acquittal means, given that the charges in question were contrived by your officers to justify their own criminal behavior – and the only “evidence” supporting them was police testimony that the jury correctly determined to be entirely implausible, if not outright perjury.

The Madrigal family, which suffered greatly as a result of the privileged criminality of the IFPD, has filed notice of a $279,500 lawsuit against McBride’s department.

The Madrigal brothers, along with their elderly mother, Maria; a pregnant mother named Letty Hernandez, and a next-door neighbor, were criminally assaulted by members of McBride’s department during a full-fledged police riot last August 31. The police invaded the Madrigal home following a noise complaint called in by a distant neighbor who had a long history of hostility toward the family. This occurred at the end of a child’s birthday party that was held on a Saturday evening during the Labor Day weekend.

None of the immediate neighbors complained about the noise. Chantal Meek, whose home abuts the Madrigals’ house, later told the local newspaper that she wasn’t at all disturbed by the birthday party. She was severely perturbed, however, after two Idaho Falls Police Officers thrust their way into her home with guns drawn. The officers, who had been summoned by a call for “backup,” went to the wrong address. That home invasion was part of a general mobilization in which at least a dozen police vehicles were dispatched to shut down the entire block.

... and what we really do. All of this happened, once again, because of a noise complaint phoned in by someone who lived a block and a half away.

Rather than knocking on the Madrigals’ front door and politely requesting that the family hold it down – which is how civilized people behave – McBride’s minions invaded their back yard and needlessly escalated the encounter.

As a cellphone video of the incident documented, after being informed that he would receive a citation for “disturbing the peace,” Victor complained about his treatment by the local police. Officer Clark Lund, dispensing with any pretense of professionalism, sneered: “If you don’t like it, you know how to leave.”

Victor and his brother Delosanto (also called Dindo) are natives of the Dominican Republic. They are naturalized, and gainfully employed, citizens of the United States. Lund’s taunt had unmistakable undercurrents of ethnic animosity – an attitude that would become overt once the brothers had been taken to jail.

by Anonymousreply 3803/11/2014

After flinging that insult at Victor, Lund announced he was leaving – then called for backup and grabbed his Taser. He turned back and demanded that Victor provide identification. That demand was unlawful; it was a deliberate provocation. Yet Victor moved to the house to obtain his driver’s license. A few seconds later, Lund bellowed, “You’re under arrest” and barged into the home, flinging aside a pregnant woman and tasering Dindo in the back before he and two other officers threw an unresisting Victor to the ground.

While Victor and Dindo were handcuffed, one of the officers shoved their elderly mother. As Victor instinctively rose to protect her, his head brushed against the arm of Eric Rose, one of the officers restraining him. That act was described as “assault on an officer,” a charge that entailed a potential five-year prison term. Victor was also charged with “resisting and obstructing” and disturbing the peace.

Victor (l.) with his son and daughters.

Earlier this month, a jury quickly acquitted Victor on all counts. Shortly thereafter, Idaho Falls City Attorney Randy Fife dropped all charges against Dindo.

The tort claim filed on behalf of the Madrigal family – hopefully the first of several that will be generated by the IFPD’s rampage – describes how the officers who kidnapped Victor and Dindo collaborated with the Feds to torment them once they were in jail.

“After the incarceration, Officer Rose … [contacted] federal officials asserting that Mr. Madrigal was possibly an undocumented alien and should be considered for deportation,” recounts the tort claim. This subjected Victor to “unfounded suspicion” and an unwarranted “investigation by the federal government.”

More importantly, it was an act of conscious malice rooted in deliberate dishonesty: Victor Madrigal, as the IFPD knew, has an Idaho driver’s license. Lying in official reports appears to be standard operating procedure at Chief McBride’s department.

Officer Rose lied in his report by claiming that Victor had “head-butted” and “grabbed” him. Under oath, all of the witnesses for the prosecution – that is, the officers who collaborated in the assault and abduction – admitted that Victor was handcuffed and couldn’t have assaulted Rose.

Maria Madrigal. Officer Lund, the instigator of this episode, “testified at trial that Mr. Madrigal had the right to not provide [his] identification and that such [a] choice by Victor did not constitute obstructing or resisting,” continues the claim. He also admitted that Victor “entered his home and sat on his sofa awaiting the resolution of the events” and “did nothing to stop the officers from completing the investigations.”

Those admissions against interest demonstrate that on the night of August 31, Clark Lund became a serial offender.

Under Idaho statutes (18-703), Lund committed an “illegal arrest,” a misdemeanor. Every subsequent act of violence Lund committed constituted an “unnecessary assault by an officer” (18-706), an offense punishable by a $5,000 fine and a one-year term behind bars.

By barging into the home without invitation or cause, Lund committed criminal trespass (18-7008). In the melee Lund precipitated, serious damage was done to the family’s furniture; this was “malicious injury to property” (18-7001).

by Anonymousreply 3903/11/2014

The tort claim specifies that $2,000 in property damage was inflicted on the Madrigal home; this means that Lund’s actions were a felony punishable by a term of one to five years, and a $1,000 fine. Since Lund’s objective was an unlawful “taking” – that is, the abduction of Victor Madrigal – his forcible entry was an act of burglary (18-1401), which has a prescribed penalty of one to ten years in prison.

Under Idaho law, Lund’s act of shoving a pregnant woman constitutes aggravated battery (18-907), an act for which he could face a term of up to 15 years in prison. (He might also be liable to prosecution under the “Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.”) The act of shooting Dindo with a Taser was an assault with a deadly weapon (18-910), another felony with a 15-year prison term attached to it.

Lund, Rose, and their comrades conspired to commit kidnapping, defined in Idaho law (18-4501) as seizing or confining a person “without authority of law, to be secretly confined or imprisoned within this state”; and false imprisonment (18-2901), “the unlawful violation of the personal liberty of another.” In the course of that conspiracy, Lund and Rose committed perjury (18-5401), for which they should confront a prison term of one to fourteen years.

The whole affair was a “riot” (18-6401), as defined in the Idaho Code: “[An] action, use of force or violence, or threat thereof, disturbing the public peace … if accompanied by immediate power of execution, by two (2) or more persons acting together, and without authority of law, which results in (a) physical injury to any person; or (b) damage or destruction to public or private property; or (s) a disturbance of the public peace….” According to Chief McBride, the conduct of his underlings on that evening was the very distillate of sober professionalism.

After the Idaho Falls Post-Register published a story in which some of the Madrigal family’s neighbors criticized the actions of the IFPD, Chief McBride was given space on the op-ed page to retail anonymous gossip depicting the family as a menace to the “community.”

That sophomoric little essay recapitulated the conscious lies composed by McBride’s subordinates, adding, as theatrical filigree, the claim that the anonymous accuser “never reported any of [the Madrigals’] parties because of fear of retaliation.”

Because of the assault on their home, and the resulting negative publicity, the Madrigals were nearly evicted by their landlord. This means that they suffered “public hatred, contempt, [and] ridicule” as a result – in part – of McBride’s dishonest published account of the incident. This comports with the definition of “Criminal Libel” in the Idaho State Code (18-4801), an offense that carries a $5,000 fine and a six-month jail sentence.

by Anonymousreply 4003/11/2014

If McBride were a conscientious administrator, he would fire Lund, Rose, and probably several other officers, and file charges against them. If he were any part of a man, he would apologize to the Madrigal family and formally retract the defamatory remarks he published about them. Given the opportunity to do so, he retreated into sullen, adolescent petulance, defiantly owning his libel and the legal responsibility for the crimes committed against that family.

Mark McBride’s formal title is “chief,” but his actions reveal him to be the capo of a criminal syndicate – one whose actions are going to inflict considerable damage on the tax victim population in Idaho Falls. It would be entirely reasonable for other victims – such as Mrs. Hernandez (who was berated and threatened with arrest when she called the IFPD to protest the abuse she suffered) and Chantal Meeks – to file tort claims of their own. Allowing McBride to remain in his position could prove cost-prohibitive for Idaho Falls.

Since McBride clearly lacks the dangling anatomy to do what is necessary, the onus is on City Attorney Randy Fife to file charges and prosecute the chief and his fellow perpetrators. In a letter to a local resident, Fife – perhaps unwittingly – acknowledged that there are abundant legal grounds for such a prosecution.

Invoking the pernicious doctrine of “qualified immunity,” Fife informed the resident that “Peace officers do have certain privileges and exemptions directly related to lawful execution of their jobs that other citizens do not have (such as being able to utilize force, carry weapons and other equipment not generally available to the public, being able to view or process information not generally available to the public, etc.) Where they step beyond those activities, they are subject to civil and/or criminal liabilities, prosecutions, and punishments.” (Emphasis added.)

That “privilege,” note carefully, depends on “lawful execution” of a peace officer’s duties. As Clark Lund admitted on the witness stand, he had no lawful cause to enter the Madrigals’ home, let alone assault and abduct Victor and Dindo. Ergo, that invasion and everything done by Lund and his comrades as a result was criminal. As Fife admitted, “There is no particular immunity or special privilege granted to a peace officer in Idaho if he or she were to commit a crime.”

Attention, Mr. Fife: The foregoing paragraphs offer a template for the necessary indictments. You’re welcome.

by Anonymousreply 4103/11/2014

Link

by Anonymousreply 4203/11/2014

The arrest of a woman who police say jaywalked near the University of Texas campus Thursday drew criticism after a student posted video and photos of the incident online, drawing thousands of views and leading Austin’s police chief to defend the officers’ actions.

Police on Thursday arrested Amanda Jo Stephen, 24, and charged her with failure to identify after police said she refused to cooperate when an officer attempted to stop her after she was seen disregarding a traffic control device while jogging near the university.

Acevedo said he reviewed all reports and audio recordings of the arrest and concluded that officers acted appropriately in Stephen’s arrest. He said the woman had a direct line of sight to an officer in front of her trying to stop her. An officer ran beside her and grabbed her after yelling at her to stop several times, he said.

Stephen used profanity when speaking with officers, leading them to handcuff her, according to the chief. At that point, she sat down of her own accord, went limp and refused to provide officers with her name. Only after being placed in the back of a police car did she provide her name, Acevedo said.

“Quite frankly, she wasn’t charged with resisting and she’s lucky I wasn’t the arresting officer because I wouldn’t have been as generous,” he said. Officers assigned to neighborhoods west and north of UT had fielded complaints about people not following pedestrian laws near the campus.

Officers patrolled the area Thursday, issuing seven citations and 28 warnings. Acevedo said those assignments are designed to change behavior and “not necessarily” to issue citations or take people to jail.

He noted that 96 pedestrians have been killed and 1,757 injured in collisions with cars since 2009, not including a woman struck by a bus Friday on campus. The pedestrian is often at fault, Acevedo said.

UT junior Christopher Lee Quintero had been at a Starbucks across the street taking photos when he saw an officer grab Stephen and began videotaping her arrest. Quintero posted the video to a blog Thursday afternoon that drew thousands of page views. It shows Stephen sitting down handcuffed and eventually being led to a police car, where she began screaming.

“I was doing nothing wrong. I was crossing the street,” she says in the video. Since its posting, the blog drew more than 50,000 views and was linked in various social media platforms.

Quintero said Friday that Stephen’s arrest seemed more dramatic when he witnessed it than it appeared on the video. He found fault with both Austin police and Stephen in the incident.

“I think (officers were) a little excessive,” Quintero said. “But (Stephen) started yelling and making commotion. I think she handled it poorly.” “Thank you, Lord, that it is a controversy in Austin, Texas,” Acevedo said Friday. “That we actually have the audacity to touch somebody by the arm and tell them, ‘Oh, my goodness, Austin police, we’re trying to get your attention.’ ”

by Anonymousreply 4303/11/2014

Like countless other people, Los Angeles resident Sergio Arreola was the victim of criminal violence by the police, and forced to defend himself in court because his assailants were encouraged to lie and allowed to do so without punishment.

The Pomona, California police officers who beat Arreola in front of his wife told the terrified woman that they would make sure that the victim lost his job. That sadistic prediction was fulfilled within a day, after which Arreola discovered that his arrest had made him practically unemployable, and his family confronted the prospect of losing their home.

Soon after Arreola posted bail, three of his family members were arrested on contrived charges and threatened with deportation. The LA County DA’s office dropped a charge of assaulting an officer, but insisted on pressing the charges of resisting arrest and obstruction. Six months after the assault, Arreola was acquitted by a jury that – unlike a similar panel convened more recently in nearby Orange County – was honest enough to act upon the abundant evidence that the cops who attacked Arreola had done so without justification, and lied about their actions.

Arreola’s occupation may provide a partial explanation for that jury’s willingness to acquit him: At the time he was beaten and abducted by two police officers in Pomona, Arreola was a rookie officer with the LAPD.

After completing his shift on April 11, 2012, Arreola received a call from his wife asking him to help out her brother, whose car had suffered two flat tires. When he reached the scene, his wife was there, along with a tow truck operator. His wife was speaking with Eric Hamilton, an officer with the Pomona Police Department.

Arreola, who had changed out of his government-issued ensemble, parked his car and walked over to join his wife. When he got close enough to overhear the conversation, Hamilton pivoted and addressed him in what was later described as a “rude, demeaning tone.”

“Who do you work for?” barked Hamilton. “Let me see your badge.”

Arreola deferentially replied that he worked for the LAPD, and offered to retrieve his official jewelry, which was pinned to a jacket in the trunk of his car.

“I didn’t f**king ask where it was – I said `Show me your badge,’” sneered Hamilton.

Arreola complied, grabbing his jacket and showing it to Hamilton. That prompted Hamilton to berate Arreola for opening his trunk “without being ordered to do so.” Pointing to a spot near the scene of his brother-in-law’s breakdown, Hamilton commanded Arreola to move his car to the parking place under threat of arrest.

by Anonymousreply 4403/11/2014

By the time Arreola had re-parked his car, a second Pomona Officer bearing the ironic name Chris Tucker had arrived “Code 3” – that is, with lights and siren running. After Tucker conferred briefly with Hamilton, he ordered Arreola to turn around and place his hands on his head.

“Why are you doing this?” Arreola plaintively inquired, after telling Tucker about a “back-up” weapon in the pocket of his pants. “I did not do anything wrong.”

Like thousands of other people in similar predicaments, Arreola turned to fellow citizens for protection against the police. He urged several bystanders to record the incident on their cellphones. This prompted immediate retaliation from Tucker, who jerked Arreola backwards, then began punching him in the ribs. Hamilton quickly joined in. The attackers threw the victim to the ground – one of them savagely torqueing his left arm while the other applied a choke-hold. All of this was set to the accompaniment of the familiar chorus chanted by rapists and police: “Stop resisting! Stop resisting!”

As they dragged Arreola away, the assailants threatened to arrest his brother-in-law for recording the assault. In keeping with unofficial but routine police procedure, they stole his cellphone and deleted the recoding.

Audio recordings made by the officers’ body microphones captured them gloating about the injuries they had inflicted on Arreola.

“Yeah, I just about broke his left arm,” one of them – not knowing if it was Hamilton or Tucker, I’ll call him “Officer Beavis” -- snickered. “Just, I wanted to break his, break his arm.”

“I had my arm around him, chokin’ his ass out,” replied Officer Butt-head. Given that a chokehold is a lethal force technique, the second officer unwittingly confessed to an act of attempted criminal homicide.

Under even the most emancipated definition of “reasonable force,” all of this was unjustified – and none of it was mentioned in the official reports filed by Hamilton and Tucker. Engaging in what trained liars in uniform describe as “creative writing,” the officers claimed that Arreola was angry and put up a fight when they attempted to arrest him, which supposedly justified a violent response.

Treatment of this kind is not uncommon as a form of “street justice” inflicted as summary punishment for “contempt of cop.” But Arreola was anything but contemptuous. Furthermore, he was a member – albeit on a probationary basis – of the Exalted Brotherhood of Official Coercion. Members of that caste generally receive “professional courtesy,” rather than an unprovoked beat-down. What, if anything, did he do to precipitate such abuse?

by Anonymousreply 4503/11/2014

One obvious possibility is that the officers acted out of ethnic bigotry. Arreola, who is of Mexican descent, received his citizenship following a five-year stint in the Marines, including combat in Iraq.

Pomona’s population is roughly two-thirds Latino, and there have been previous incidents of as-yet unexplained police violence against Latino males by city police, who are part of a department that is deeply imbrued with corruption of every kind. That theory is undermined somewhat by the fact that the rank-and-file of the Pomona PD includes many Latino officers, some of whom have been implicated in episodes of abuse.

Another potential explanation is that the officers who assaulted Arreola did so out of what his subsequent lawsuit described as “professional jealousy”: His job with the LAPD was better-compensated, and regarded as more glamorous, than their posting in down-scale Pomona.

Resentment of that nature would explain the vindictive pleasure Hamilton and Tucker displayed as they taunted Arreola’s terrorized wife.

“Your husband just lost his job,” Hamilton smugly told her after she had seen him beaten and handcuffed. “I’m going to make sure your husband is never a police officer in the State of California again.”

Within a day, Arreola had been terminated from the LAPD and told to turn in his personal effects kit, to which has been given the disturbingly appropriate nickname “War Bag.” Since his arrest and termination made him ineligible to work with any other law enforcement agency in California (pending his acquittal), Arreola applied to re-enlist in the Marines – only to be turned down for the same reason.

The DA’s office was unwilling to drop the resisting arrest charge, demanding that Arreola accept a guilty plea in exchange for probation.

“They’ve ruined my life, they’ve ruined my name,” Arreola told his attorney as he rejected that offer. “What’s the worst they can do – send me to jail?”

Following his acquittal in December 2012, Arreola filed a federal lawsuit against Hamilton and Tucker, as well as the City of Pomona.

In their reply to the lawsuit, the defendants predictably invoked the evil doctrine of “qualified immunity.” The reply also retailed the now-disproved claim that Arreola “refused to follow the reasonable instructions and directions and commands of the police officers, and attempted to assault, batter and use deadly force on the police officers, [and also] presented a threat to others in the vicinity….”

Interestingly, the reply also asserted that the officers were not liable for Arreola’s injuries, because the victim “voluntarily assumed the risks involved in his conduct and appreciated the foreseeability of being injured” by them.

Granted, that claim was wedded to the perjured description of the incident offered by the officers: On that construction, Arreola got what he deserved because he defied the police. The incontrovertible truth is that he meekly submitted to every demand they made – and was beaten and kidnapped by them anyway.

The irresistible conclusion to be drawn from this is that by allowing police officers to ply their violent trade among us, we all are voluntarily assuming “the risks involved” and should appreciate “the foreseeability of being injured” by them without cause or justification. After all, if there is no honor even among government-licensed thugs, what hope is there for innocent and harmless people who come to their attention?

by Anonymousreply 4603/11/2014

R44-

When the NSA comes to your house and drags you off to the gulags, remember how you supported the NSA.

by Anonymousreply 4703/11/2014

Waitress: Morning!

Man: Well, what've you got?

Waitress: Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam; spam bacon sausage and spam; spam egg spam spam bacon and spam; spam sausage spam spam bacon spam tomato and spam;

Vikings: Spam spam spam spam...

Waitress: ...spam spam spam egg and spam; spam spam spam spam spam spam baked beans spam spam spam...

Vikings: Spam! Lovely spam! Lovely spam!

Waitress: ...or Lobster Thermidor a Crevette with a mornay sauce served in a Provencale manner with shallots and aubergines garnished with truffle pate, brandy and with a fried egg on top and spam.

Wife: Have you got anything without spam?

Waitress: Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.

Wife: I don't want ANY spam!

Man: Why can't she have egg bacon spam and sausage?

Wife: THAT'S got spam in it!

Man: Hasn't got as much spam in it as spam egg sausage and spam, has it?

Vikings: Spam spam spam spam... (Crescendo through next few lines...)

Wife: Could you do the egg bacon spam and sausage without the spam then?

Waitress: Urgghh!

Wife: What do you mean 'Urgghh'? I don't like spam!

Vikings: Lovely spam! Wonderful spam!

Waitress: Shut up!

Vikings: Lovely spam! Wonderful spam!

Waitress: Shut up! (Vikings stop) Bloody Vikings! You can't have egg bacon spam and sausage without the spam.

Wife: I don't like spam!

Man: Sshh, dear, don't cause a fuss. I'll have your spam. I love it. I'm having spam spam spam spam spam spam spam beaked beans spam spam spam and spam!

Vikings: Spam spam spam spam. Lovely spam! Wonderful spam!

Waitress: Shut up!! Baked beans are off.

Man: Well could I have her spam instead of the baked beans then?

Waitress: You mean spam spam spam spam spam spam... (but it is too late and the Vikings drown her words)

Vikings: (Singing elaborately...) Spam spam spam spam. Lovely spam! Wonderful spam! Spam spa-a-a-a-a-am spam spa-a-a-a-a-am spam. Lovely spam! Lovely spam! Lovely spam! Lovely spam! Lovely spam! Spam spam spam spam!

by Anonymousreply 4803/18/2014

Dear R49: I'm beyond touched and honored that you'd continue this fine tradition. Spam away!

by Anonymousreply 4903/18/2014

Dear R49, too long, didn't read.

by Anonymousreply 5003/18/2014

R49-

Please seek professional psychological help. Please.

by Anonymousreply 5103/18/2014

[bold]One more time for Lew Rockwell![/bold]

Waitress: Morning!

Man: Well, what've you got?

Waitress: Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and fascism; egg bacon and fascism; egg bacon sausage and fascism; fascism bacon sausage and fascism; fascism egg fascism fascism bacon and fascism; fascism sausage fascism fascism bacon fascism tomato and fascism;

Vikings: Fascism fascism fascism fascism...

Waitress: ...fascism fascism fascism egg and fascism; fascism fascism fascism fascism fascism fascism baked beans fascism fascism fascism...

Vikings: Fascism! Lovely fascism! Lovely fascism!

Waitress: ...or Lobster Thermidor a Crevette with a mornay sauce served in a Provencale manner with shallots and aubergines garnished with truffle pate, brandy and with a fried egg on top and fascism.

Wife: Have you got anything without fascism?

Waitress: Well, there's fascism egg sausage and fascism, that's not got much fascism in it.

Wife: I don't want ANY fascism!

Man: Why can't she have egg bacon fascism and sausage?

Wife: THAT'S got fascism in it!

Man: Hasn't got as much fascism in it as fascism egg sausage and fascism, has it?

Vikings: Fascism fascism fascism fascism... (Crescendo through next few lines...)

Wife: Could you do the egg bacon fascism and sausage without the fascism then?

Waitress: Urgghh!

Wife: What do you mean 'Urgghh'? I don't like fascism!

Vikings: Lovely fascism! Wonderful fascism!

Waitress: Shut up!

Vikings: Lovely fascism! Wonderful fascism!

Waitress: Shut up! (Vikings stop) Bloody Vikings! You can't have egg bacon fascism and sausage without the fascism.

Wife: I don't like fascism!

Man: Sshh, dear, don't cause a fuss. I'll have your fascism. I love it. I'm having fascism fascism fascism fascism fascism fascism fascism beaked beans fascism fascism fascism and fascism!

Vikings: Fascism fascism fascism fascism. Lovely fascism! Wonderful fascism!

Waitress: Shut up!! Baked beans are off.

Man: Well could I have her fascism instead of the baked beans then?

Waitress: You mean fascism fascism fascism fascism fascism fascism... (but it is too late and the Vikings drown her words)

Vikings: (Singing elaborately...) Fascism fascism fascism fascism. Lovely fascism! Wonderful fascism! Fascism spa-a-a-a-a-am fascism spa-a-a-a-a-am fascism. Lovely fascism! Lovely fascism! Lovely fascism! Lovely fascism! Lovely fascism! Fascism fascism fascism fascism!

by Anonymousreply 5203/18/2014

R53-

Are you in a mental institution?

You sound deranged!

by Anonymousreply 5303/19/2014

David and Connie Johnson were asleep when they heard a noise Connie later described as the “walls caving in.” Seconds later their front door was forced open and two armored strangers burst into the two-room apartment the middle-aged couple share with their adult son, Aaron.

Several other assailants were clustered behind the two who had forced open the door. One of them was a female holding a leash that barely restrained a large, snarling dog. One of the intruders pointed as assault rifle at David’s head and threatened to shoot him. Another invader, a female, bellowed, “Put your hands up! This dog will bite you!”

David was seized and shackled. Connie and Aaron were also dragged from their home. Neighbors who were drawn by the commotion poked their heads out and were ordered to go back into their rooms.

At no point in this encounter did the intruders identify themselves as police officers.

Two minutes later, the SWAT team that had terrorized the Johnsons arrested the Johnsons’ neighbor, Bill Gerst, who had been accused by a woman of threatening her. Gerst was forced to crawl on his belly toward the officers in order to be handcuffed.

“What’s going on?” Gerst repeatedly asked, plaintively explaining that there was nobody else in his apartment.

Gerst persisted in trying to find out why the cops had laid siege to his home.

“You shut your mouth!” one of the raiders snapped.

The police later told the Johnsons that they were dealing with a “homicide in progress.” No firearm, and no evidence of any criminal activity, was found during the February 21, 2013 raid.

by Anonymousreply 5403/27/2014

CONT

According to a lawsuit filed by the Johnson family, “The information used to justify the no-warrant raid on Mr. Gerst’s apartment was shaky and legally suspect.” Specifically, it was a hearsay allegation made by someone who knew a woman named Hilda Valle, who is described in the suit as “a petty criminal who had reported to police that she had argued with Mr. Gerst and that he had threatened her with violence.”

At the request of the neighboring Nampa Police Department, which received the tip, a tactical team from the Caldwell Police Department conducted what they call a “welfare check” that was actually a guns-drawn, no-knock, SWAT-style raid. The Caldwell PD claimed knowledge of “the presence of guns at the premises” – which, according to the standard “threat matrix,” supposedly justifies a paramilitary assault.

Although the officers claim they were dealing with a “homicide in progress,” Police audio of the incident documents that the officers didn’t know the specific apartment number – which means that the door-kick on the Johnsons’ home – which could easily have resulted in a homicide — was the product of a whimsical guess.

Gerst is a young black man. The police had his description, but they didn’t have his address. David Johnson is a middle-aged white man. This distinction was so obvious that it wouldn’t have been missed even by the typical police officer within a few seconds of the door breach.

If the police had knocked on the door and announced their presence – as they are required to do, by law, unless there is evidence of imminent danger to an innocent person – they wouldn’t have terrorized an innocent family in a near-midnight raid, nor would they have inflicted significant and expensive damage to the property of an economically marginal household.

Furthermore, if the warrantless, no-knock raid was supposedly justified for “tactical” reasons, by hitting the wrong apartment door the cops surrendered the element of surprise.

In the legal response filed on behalf of its local enforcement caste, the City of Caldwell denies that the unlawful attack on the Johnsons’ home inflicted “damages” to their property, or violated their rights in any way. Because this near-midnight raid was carried out according to established “policies and procedures,” the City insists, the assailants are swaddled in the impenetrable cloak of “qualified immunity.”

by Anonymousreply 5503/27/2014

A police officer who kicks in an innocent person’s door unannounced is a home invader. The victim has the moral and legal right to use lethal force to protect his home against such criminal aggression – something explicitly recognized in an enlightened measure recently enacted by the State of Indiana.

“Not acceptable,” an emotional David Johnson told the Boise NBC affiliate. “Being put in handcuffs. Kicking our door in. What’s that all about. No. Not acceptable. Not acceptable.”

The Caldwell and Nampa police departments, rather than apologizing to the victims of this atrocity, are impudently insisting that there is no need to alter their policies. They want the local population to believe that it is entirely fitting and proper that police can kick in doors at midnight and terrorize entirely innocent people on the basis of hearsay, as long as they can claim the suspected presence of a firearm nearby.

After all, that’s the reason why the Nampa PD recently acquired an MRAP.

by Anonymousreply 5603/27/2014

American Fork, Utah –

When Mark Byrge had a minor traffic accident on a street in American Fork, Utah, he did the “responsible” thing by reporting the incident to the police. He has never stopped paying for that mistake.

Within a few minutes of receiving Mark’s call, a pair of American Fork cops arrived to document the damage to Byrge’s delivery truck from a collision with a tree branch that protruded into the street. Mark was cooperative – and he put up no resistance when the lead officer, Andres Gianfelice, placed him under arrest for an outstanding traffic ticket (as well as citing him for not providing proof of insurance).

Byrge submitted without complaint to his officially sanctioned abduction, including the demeaning injury of being shackled. He politely made a single request of his captors: Owing to several back surgeries and the implantation of a $50,000 Spinal Cord Stimulator (SCS), Mark asked that the officers cuff him in front.

While explaining his condition, Mark very slowly and carefully lifted his shirt in order to display an iPod-sized rectangular lump in his lower right back.

Neither Mark’s cooperation nor his explanation made an impression on Gianfelice.

“Don’t tell me how to do my job – put your hands behind your back!” barked Gianfelice, instructing his trainee officer, Jennifer Nakai, to apply the cuffs. Before being shackled, Mark called his wife Tina to tell her he was being arrested.

He didn’t disconnect the call – which means that Tina was able to hear everything that would happen over the next several minutes.

Despite the fact that he was obviously in pain, Mark placed his hands behind his back. Local resident Bob Cardon, on whose property the untrimmed tree was located, expressed concern over Mark’s treatment.

by Anonymousreply 5703/27/2014

CONT

“Do you really have to handcuff him that way?” the elderly man asked the officers.

“Shut up, or you’ll be put in the car next to him,” snarled Gianfelice.

After Mark was stuffed into the back seat of Gianfelice’s cruiser, he leaned away from the cuffs, attempting to prevent any damage to the expensive medical appliance embedded in his back.

Ignoring Mark’s protests, Gianfelice shoved him against the seat to buckle his seat belt. As that happened, Mark later recalled, “I could actually feel it [the stimulator] breaking.”

“You stupid son of a bitch,” Mark gasped, “you just wrecked my back.” He didn’t know at the time that Tina was listening to this exchange over an open phone line.

Tardily realizing that he had made a terrible mistake, Gianfelice relented and used a “belly chain” to cuff Mark in the front. This allowed the officer to claim in his official report that he had “accommodated” Mark – but by that time irreparable damage had already been done.

The SCS was designed to send electrical impulses along Mark’s spine in order to neutralize pain receptors. This allowed him to ramp down his dosages of narcotic prescription pain medications. This, in turn, is what made it possible for him to run his courier delivery business, which required both the physical capacity to load and unload cargo, and the mental acuity to drive his truck and fill out paperwork. Without the stimulator, Mark would either be too crippled to lift, or too doped-up to focus.

Subsequent medical scans of his stimulator documented that it went inactive on April 18, 2012 – the day that Officer Gianfelice, after arrogantly dismissing Mark’s entirely reasonable request to be cuffed in the front, shoved him against the rear seat of his police cruiser.

As Gianfelice pulled away from the scene of the accident, Mark informed the officer that he needed to be taken to a hospital, and he eventually convinced the officer that the jail wouldn’t admit him without hospital clearance. When they arrived at the hospital, Gianfelice parked about fifty yards away – significantly, in one of the few spots concealed from security cameras.

by Anonymousreply 5803/27/2014

CONT

By this time, Mark’s right leg was already convulsing – a tell-tale indication that the SCS had malfunctioned. Gianfelice dragged Mark out of the cruiser by his right arm and began walking him toward the hospital entrance. Mark’s right leg had seized up and was refusing to cooperate with his own wishes, let alone the demands of his captor. In his subsequent report, the officer claimed that Mark began “pulling” and “jerking” away from him.

The officer didn’t explain why a handcuffed man who was in obvious pain and who had asked to be taken to the hospital would “resist” being escorted to the emergency room. Nonetheless, in short order, Mark found himself face-down in the dirt of a nearby flower bed with Gianfelice on top of him, shouting the shared refrain of police and rapists: “Stop resisting! Stop resisting!”

“I’m not resisting – get off my back!” pleaded Mark. Indeed, given his physical condition, Mark didn’t have the ability to resist.

Gianfelice claims that the crippled, handcuffed man somehow managed to drag the two of them down to the ground. Mark reports that the officer threw him down and to the right. However they wound up on the ground, the officer – knowing that Mark had a back injury – drove his knee into Mark’s lower back, placing his entire body weight on the fragile and expensive piece of hardware embedded under Mark’s skin.

This incident was witnessed over the open phone line by Mark’s wife, Tina.

Officers Gianfelice and Nakai pulled Mark to his feet and escorted him into the emergency room. Once inside, Mark gasped out a complaint to the first nurse he saw:

“This officer just assaulted me. Please call for a third party officer to investigate.”

The nurse, who was legally obligated to report on an assault against a“vulnerable adult,” ignored Mark’s request. The officer responded by “check-punching” the handcuffed victim in the chest.

“What the hell are you doing?” Mark exclaimed, his patience long since exhausted. “Let me f****ng go!”

“Don’t use that kind of language!” snapped the nurse, suddenly alert to matters of decorum after being torpidly indifferent to the violence inflicted on Mark.

Gianfelice cited Mark for “disorderly conduct,” listing the offended nurse as a witness. Predictably, his report didn’t mention his act of criminal battery against the handcuffed victim. That crime, however, was documented by the emergency room’s security camera. Significantly, Gianfelice did not charge Mark with “resisting arrest.”

This was the only video record made of the encounter between Mark Byrge and the American Fork PD – despite the fact that the department takes extravagant pride in the fact that all 33 of its patrol officers are “wired” with VidCam units.

by Anonymousreply 5903/27/2014

CONT

“The American Fork Police Department claims to be the first law enforcement agency in the country to outfit all of its officers with video cameras and microphones pinned to their uniform,” reported the Salt Lake Tribune in November 2007.

“We’ve been waiting. We’ve been looking for something like this to document the good work that police officers do,” explained Lt. Sam Liddiard.

Last October, Lt. Liddiard told KSL news that “any time an officer deals with someone, they’re required to be recording.” He offered unqualified praise for the video recording technology, insisting that the record usually cleared officers accused of abuse.

There were three wired officers involved in the encounter with Mark Byrge – Gianfelice and his trainee, Nakai, and their supervisor, Sgt. James Bevard. The officers either suffered an inexplicable simultaneous failure of their VidCam units, or they didn’t bother to activate them. Nor was a dashcam recording made by either of the police vehicles on the scene.

Shortly before Mark was assaulted by Gianfelice, he had visited a local clinic to have his SCS calibrated. He went back to the clinic following the assault and was told that the leads connecting the device to his spine had shifted, rendering it useless. The device had stopped functioning on the morning of April 18 – while he was in the custody of the American Fork Police.

Since that incident, “the patient’s pain as gotten worse and his right leg is now showing signs of possible Complex Regional Pain Syndrome,” observed Gary Child of the Utah Pain Relief Center in April 2013. CRPS is a serious degenerative condition that has left Mark unable to work – and is rapidly depriving him of the ability to walk.

Mark is a 43-year-old former football player and wrestler with a compact, muscular build and low center of gravity. He walks with the assistance of a cane as his right leg atrophies. Dark striations are inscribed in his right foot, ankle, and shin. His toes are splayed at wild angles owing to involuntary muscle contractions and spasms that convulse his right leg without warning or relief.

His body slowing cutting off circulation to his lower extremity “as if it is trying to break off my foot,” Mark explained to me. CRP Syndrome can lead to other severe complications, including major organ failure.

“There’s a good chance that this could be what kills me,” Mark predicts.

It should be recalled that Mark was entirely cooperative in his dealings with the American Fork Police Department. As Gianfelice admitted in his report, he had the option of cuffing Mark in the front, rather than wrenching his arms behind his back. Why was he so intransigent?

Mark points out that Gianfelice was accompanied by a trainee officer, which “always creates a temptation to show off, be a hard case, and put the citizen in his place.” An officer will be especially prone to strut and show off when the trainee is an attractive blonde female, like Officer Nakai.

Prior to the arrest, Mark and Gianfelice did exchange words. While the officer was taking photos of the accident, Mark suggested that he get a few of the protruding tree branch, which should have been clipped by a city maintenance crew.

“You sound like someone who doesn’t want to accept responsibility,” hectored the officer.

“Well, you sound like a city employee who’s worried about financial liability,” Mark replied.

The officer responded by ordering Mark into the cab of his truck – before ordering him out to arrest him.

As Mark attempted, unsuccessfully, to recover from the trauma inflicted on him by Officer Gianfelice, he filed complaints with the American Fork Police Department. He collected witness statements from several people who had been on the scene, as well as his wife and brother, who had overheard the incident over the open cell phone connection. He assembled statements from health care professionals about the damage done to him by Gianfelice’s assault. When the AFPD didn’t respond, Mark took his evidence to the Utah County Sheriff’s Office.

by Anonymousreply 6003/27/2014

CONT

Mark’s persistence didn’t endear him to AFPD Chief Lance Call.

“You’ve run to every agency on the Wasatch Front,” groused Call when Mark contacted him to demand that action be takenr against Gianfelice. “I already investigated it – and I cleared the officer.”

“You didn’t talk to any of the witnesses or review any of my evidence,” Mark plaintively replied. “How can you `clear’ him just by reviewing his side of the story?”

“I told you `no’!” Call responded, hanging up.

“After this happened, I called the mayor’s office, even though it was after five o’clock,” Mark recounted to me. “I left him a message describing what Call said, and why I needed him to support an honest investigation.”

Unexpectedly, Mark received a reply the first thing the following morning.

“The mayor called at about 8:00 and left a message on my answering machine, telling me that he was going to have the Utah County Attorney’s Office conduct an investigation,” Mark relates. “The fact that this literally happened the first thing the morning after my call indicates that the mayor and other officials had been discussing what to do about my case.”

Before the county attorney’s office began its inquiry, Mark received another official visit from the AFPD.

“An American Fork officer showed up at our door – a really big guy I hadn’t seen before,” Mark attests.

“I’m here to tell you that if you pursue this it will not go well for you,” the officer growled at Mark, taking care to cover his badge with one hand.

“What’s your name?” Mark asked. “Are you threatening me?”

“You should just know that this isn’t going to go well for you,” the officer said, ignoring Mark’s question and turning to leave.

The official inquiry, which was conducted by Sgt. Scott R. Finch of the Utah County Sheriff’s Office, was the typical preordained exercise in validation. In his interview with Finch, Gianfelice repeatedly claimed that he “could not recall,” “could not remember,” or “could not recall from memory” several critical details of the incident.

Among the matters that eluded the memory of this trained observer was whether “he was shown anything that would indicate Mr. Byrge had a back injury”; whether “he or someone else did the handcuffing of Mr. Byrge”; whether “he handcuffed Mr. Byrge in front initially or if he was cuffed behind his back at first”; or if “any other citizens [were] present or approached them at the scene of the accident.” He offered the unqualified statement that Mark “did not complain of injury when they were on the scene.”

Two witnesses one the scene – Bob Cardon and Jason Wilde – testified that Mark complained of his back injury. This was confirmed by two witnesses who overheard the encounter via cell phone.

In his initial statement to Sgt. Finch, Gianfelice claimed that “he will evaluate or estimate a person’s flexibility and size and help them out by handcuffing them in front” and that he told Mark “he had a belly chain and he would allow Mr. Byrge to be cuffed in front.”

by Anonymousreply 6103/27/2014

Cont

After Finch provided Gianfelice with a copy of his report “to refresh his memory,” the officer changed his original story, admitting that he did initially cuff Mark behind his back before transferring the cuffs to the front. This is the crux of the issue: Gianfelice ignored Mark’s pleas to cuff him in front until after the damage had been done, then he lied about doing so during the subsequent investigation. He did this despite clear and detailed warnings about what this would do to the victim.

In the original reports from Gianfelice and Nakai, Mark was described as “not combative.” In their revised versions, he was described as “out of control, angry, loud, and yelling.” Significantly, in her initial account of the “scuffle” at the hospital, in which Gianfelice wound up with his knee in Mark’s back, Nakai said she “was not sure what caused Mr. Byrge to fall” because “she was on the other side of the car” – yet despite the fact that she didn’t see what happened she insisted that this was caused by “Mr Berge jerking his arms away and he lost his balance.” She conceded that Gianfelice might have used a “touch-push” to deal with a supposedly uncooperative detainee.

Despite these abundant and crucial self-contradictions, Finch pronounced the expected benediction on his fellow officers, concluding that “After conducting this investigation I believe the officers’ actions were legal and responsible.”

Charged with “disorderly conduct,” Mark – who was forced to represent himself — attempted to obtain sworn statements from officers Gianfelice and Nakai.

“Sgt. Finch said that this wouldn’t be necessary, because they were sworn officers already under oath,” Mark informed me. “But all of my witnesses were required to make sworn statements under penalty of perjury. And then when I attempted to enter the officers’ statements as evidence in my trial, I was told that they weren’t admissible, because they hadn’t been made under oath. So I was deprived of any opportunity to demonstrate that the officers had contradicted themselves – which meant that I had no defense.”

Fully disabled and unable to make a living, Mark is pursuing a civil rights case against the AFPD. He is also a candidate for the Utah State Legislature.

“My campaign is going to focus entirely on abuse of power by public officials, especially the police,” Mark told me. “I’m in constant pain, and my body is literally devouring itself. I want to do anything I can to prevent this from happening to somebody else.”

Meanwhile, the assailant who left Mark an invalid, Andres Gianfelice, is receiving a salary of $83,682 a year as part of a 33-officer force patrolling a city of 21,000 people with a negligible violent crime rate. Officer Nakai, one year after finishing her probationary term, is drawing an annual salary of $63,932 – a pretty decent rate of compensation for a job open to anybody with a GED and a capacity for casual sadism.

by Anonymousreply 6203/27/2014

Projection is such an ugly trait, R54.

Waitress: Morning!

Man: Well, what've you got?

Waitress: Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and fascism; egg bacon and fascism; egg bacon sausage and fascism; fascism bacon sausage and fascism; fascism egg fascism fascism bacon and fascism; fascism sausage fascism fascism bacon fascism tomato and fascism;

Vikings: Fascism fascism fascism fascism...

Waitress: ...fascism fascism fascism egg and fascism; fascism fascism fascism fascism fascism fascism baked beans fascism fascism fascism...

Vikings: Fascism! Lovely fascism! Lovely fascism!

Waitress: ...or Lobster Thermidor a Crevette with a mornay sauce served in a Provencale manner with shallots and aubergines garnished with truffle pate, brandy and with a fried egg on top and fascism.

Wife: Have you got anything without fascism?

Waitress: Well, there's fascism egg sausage and fascism, that's not got much fascism in it.

Wife: I don't want ANY fascism!

Man: Why can't she have egg bacon fascism and sausage?

Wife: THAT'S got fascism in it!

Man: Hasn't got as much fascism in it as fascism egg sausage and fascism, has it?

Vikings: Fascism fascism fascism fascism... (Crescendo through next few lines...)

Wife: Could you do the egg bacon fascism and sausage without the fascism then?

Waitress: Urgghh!

Wife: What do you mean 'Urgghh'? I don't like fascism!

Vikings: Lovely fascism! Wonderful fascism!

Waitress: Shut up!

Vikings: Lovely fascism! Wonderful fascism!

Waitress: Shut up! (Vikings stop) Bloody Vikings! You can't have egg bacon fascism and sausage without the fascism.

Wife: I don't like fascism!

Man: Sshh, dear, don't cause a fuss. I'll have your fascism. I love it. I'm having fascism fascism fascism fascism fascism fascism fascism beaked beans fascism fascism fascism and fascism!

Vikings: Fascism fascism fascism fascism. Lovely fascism! Wonderful fascism!

Waitress: Shut up!! Baked beans are off.

Man: Well could I have her fascism instead of the baked beans then?

Waitress: You mean fascism fascism fascism fascism fascism fascism... (but it is too late and the Vikings drown her words)

Vikings: (Singing elaborately...) Fascism fascism fascism fascism. Lovely fascism! Wonderful fascism! Fascism spa-a-a-a-a-am fascism spa-a-a-a-a-am fascism. Lovely fascism! Lovely fascism! Lovely fascism! Lovely fascism! Lovely fascism! Fascism fascism fascism fascism!

by Anonymousreply 6303/28/2014

R64-

Since you can't refute the police aggression you post nonsense. Classy!

by Anonymousreply 6403/29/2014

I was on the phone with my cousin as she was driving home and she told there was a wreck ahead- a few dozen cars were stopped, but kept inching along.

As she got closer (at 430pm) it turns out they were checking to see if people had seat belts and headlights and working brake lights.

Cops are thugs.

by Anonymousreply 6504/25/2014

Cops=thugs.

by Anonymousreply 6604/25/2014

“When they put the handcuffs on I thought, `Wait a minute, this has got to be a joke,’” recalled Latoya Harris, describing the arrest of her 9-year-old daughter last May. “The look on my daughter’s face went from humiliation and fear, to a look of sheer panic.”

At the time, the girl was wearing a bathing suit and a towel, still damp from running through a neighborhood sprinkler. She was taken away in handcuffs by officers David McCarthy and Matthew Huspek, fingerprinted, photographed, but never charged with a crime. She was held at police headquarters for an hour before her frantic mother — who didn’t have a car — could retrieve the girl from her captors.

The stated purpose of the visit was to investigate a playground fight that had taken place a few days earlier. The actual purpose of the arrest was probably to serve some depraved impulse on the part of the officers to assert their supposed authority over an intimidated but uncooperative child.

According to the Oregonian newspaper, Officer McCarthy — who, like others in his disreputable profession, fancies himself a mentalist of sorts — believed that the child wasn’t telling the truth in her account of the scuffle. His report characterized her statements as “vague,” and recalled that he observed her “breathing speed up,” an entirely appropriate response to the unwelcome presence of an armed and bellicose stranger.

“They repeatedly asked her, `Why don’t you tell me what really happened?” recalls the mother. The officers hauled her away on suspicion of fourth-degree assault. They refused to allow the mother to accompany the daughter in the back of the police car.

“In my opinion, they were trying to scare and humiliate her,” Harris said in testimony before the independent Citizens Review Committee. “All they had to do was give her a talking to. We’re talking about two grown men in uniform with guns.”

This act of gratuitous official sadism was — let’s recite it together — done in accordance with policy, according to department spokesman Sgt. Pete Simpson. Handcuffing a nine-year-old is “justified” as a “safeguard,” Simpson asserted.

The Portland PD, which is under scrutiny by the Justice Department (for whatever good that would do), is notable for the tender solicitude its officers display toward vulnerable children. During a presidential visit by George W. Bush in 2002, police assigned to keep protesters caged in “free speech zones” unleashed a pepper spray fusillade against demonstrators who wandered beyond their pens. Among the victims was Don Joughin, who had brought his wife and three children to the event.

After the Jackboots had subjected the protesters to a caustic shower, Joughin turned to a Portland PD officer obstructing an exit and asked how he and his family could leave.

“He pointed and said to exit to the [northeast], into the spraying police opposite him,” Joughin recalled. Trapped between a panicked crowd and pepper spray-wielding assailants, Joughin pleaded with the officer to allow his family to pass.

“He looked at me, and drew out his can from his hip and sprayed directly at me,” testifies Joughin. His three-year-old son caught most of the blast. The Berserker then turned on Joughin’s wife and newborn son “and doused both of their heads entirely from a distance of less than three feet,” he recounts.

Reeling from the fumes and frantic to get help for his screaming child, Joughin tried to leave — only to find his family’s escape blocked at every turn by armored bullies who closed ranks and cut them off. The victims weren’t allowed to leave until someone in “authority” issued an order.

As Joughin and his family fled, one of the cops hurled a “Collateral Murder”-style taunt at their back: “That’s why you shouldn’t bring kids to protests.”

Actually, that episode, like the vicious abduction of Latoya Harris’s daughter, demonstrates why parents should cultivate within their children an incurable distrust of the state’s Punitive Priesthood — and must never, under any circumstances, allow such people to have access to their children.

12:16 pm on May 7, 2014 Email William Norman Grigg

by Anonymousreply 6705/08/2014

VIDEO: Citizen pulls cop over for "driving an illegal vehicle"

A man filmed himself flagging over a police officer for driving an unmarked vehicle in Grant County, Washington. While the officer takes a defensive attitude when being asked for his ID, the citizen continues to assert his civil authority until the officer complies. The video has stirred up some controversy, and amassed over 1.1 million views in the past few days. Take a look below.

by Anonymousreply 6810/21/2014

Awesome, R68

by Anonymousreply 6910/21/2014

R68-

When you see a pig harassing a mundane, take video.

Cops HATE the fact that the Supreme Court ruled videotape of cops on duty was legal, and encouraged.

Fuck cops. They are evil, sick thugs.

by Anonymousreply 7010/21/2014

The people that love and defend the cops need to STFU.

by Anonymousreply 7112/09/2014

Cops need to be arrested for murders they commit. They need to be arrested for assaults. They need to be punished, just like anyone else.

by Anonymousreply 7212/09/2014

R72-

Read Ron Paul. And Rothbard.

Seek out William Norman Grigg.

Then you will understand why the government goes after the "little guys" and protects the big corps.

Or just stay ignorant.

by Anonymousreply 7312/09/2014

Bump!

Maybe some people will see the connection between libertarianism and police homicide!!!

Our government is evil and corrupt.

by Anonymousreply 7412/09/2014
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.
×

Follow theDL catch up on what you missed


recent threads by topic delivered to your email

follow popular threads on twitter

follow us on facebook

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!