RashyNullPlanet

That girl has dibs on grinding Paul Schene’s balls into powder.

Savages like Schene are a menace to everyone, every day they live.

Kill yourself, Paul Schene.

Ernest Griglen was beaten by police.

Today, Griglen is unconscious and clinging to life with the use of a ventilator after emergency brain surgery…

The theory of six degrees of separation holds that everyone reading this is separated from Ernest by six degrees on average.

The beating of Ernest strikes me close to home, because I’m only two degrees of separation from him.

I’m willing to bet that at this point in human history, my two degrees of separation from a victim of police brutality is about average.

The single stupid premise is creeping closer to us all.

Commenter Andrew at Radley’s place, notes, of cops:

They’ve pretty much dropped any pretense of being anything but bullies, thugs and an army of occupation.

Take a long look at that Denver PD commemorative t-shirt. That’s a mark of people who crave bullying, intimidation, control, and wielding arbitrary force. It’s telling that every cop involved in the DNC received one “free”, yet there is demand for 2000 more.

The pretense “to serve and protect” is long dead. The new premise of police conduct is this: their presumptive authority must be respected at all costs.

Some well-meaning but very stupid folks in Ypsilanti, MI catalyzed another unnecessary police escalation and derailment of a family’s lives:

While she returned to the car to get her cell phone so she could locate her friend, Emily Brumbaugh said, her husband approached the group.

“I heard, ‘Give me my kid,’ and ‘You’re not getting him,”’ she said.

At that point, that crowd was guilty of kidnapping.

The idiot cops who arrived on the scene didn’t help by sorting things out or dissipating tension:

Egeler said Lloyd Brumbaugh ran to the boy and picked him up, but Washtenaw County Sheriff’s deputies had arrived by then. He said he was told to put the boy down so they could talk. Brumbaugh complied, but when Deputy Katrina Bourdeau reached for the boy, Brumbaugh pushed her away and grabbed him, Egeler said.

There is no dispute that the Lloyd is the father of the boy, so when the deputy attempted to take Brumbaugh’s son, she became guilty of attempted kidnapping. Getting between a parent and his child is like getting between a grizzly and her cubs: you’re just asking for serious? trouble. Surely even a cop knows that, and should be able act accordingly without escalating the situation.

Emily Brumbaugh said she was placed in a patrol car until she calmed down and Brumbaugh was taken to a hospital, and didn’t learn where her husband was until he called her from jail at 7 p.m. that night.

And at that point the police made themselves guilty of kidnapping both Emily and Lloyd.

Unfortunately for everyone, cops everywhere are increasingly shooting first and asking questions later, if they bother to ask questions at all. As far as I can tell, they operate on only one premise: their authority must be respected at all costs.

Why is there ever any question that those employed “to serve and protect” everyone are not subject to evaluation by everyone?

Radley Balko points out a case of an Oregan man who “is trying to force the Portland Police Bureau to take a formal position on whether it’s OK for civilians to videotape cops — with sound — in public places.”

Of course it’s okay. Unless they have something to hide. And what cop doesn’t have something to hide?

If I had my way, on-duty cops would all have forehead cameras and GPS toup?es streaming real-time sound, video, and coordinates for all to see.

If you claim to serve and protect me, without my consent, at least have the courtesy to leave absolutely no doubt about your actions.

Charley Hardman recently had another close encounter with the thin blue spine, and that encounter revealed that cops no longer need any evidence at all to derail your life:

the modern cop definition of suspicion ? of criminal activity ? is what he doesn’t know. have lost count of the times i’ve sat in my car listening to all the woes that will befall the world because i refuse the “papers please” dance of bullshit. why?

he doesn’t know if i’m a terrorist.
he doesn’t know if i’m a burglar.
he doesn’t know if i’m a stalker.
he doesn’t know if i’m a serial murderer.

some can keep at that for about 7 items. things he does not know! that’s what these decrepit assholes now consider RAS (reasonable articulable suspicion). without my ID they don’t know if i’m “wanted”. without my ID they don’t know all sorts of shit, jack. and that is fucking “suspicious”.

There is no limit to what anyone doesn’t know. That means cops no longer need any reason at all to stop you and wreck your life, based on the fact that they don’t a know damn thing about you.

Sean Bell’s murderers were acquitted this afternoon:

Three detectives were acquitted of all charges Friday in the 50-shot killing of an unarmed groom-to-be on his wedding day

Officers Michael Oliver, 36, and Gescard Isnora, 29, stood trial for manslaughter while Officer Marc Cooper, 40, was charged with reckless endangerment. Two other shooters weren’t charged.

Cooperman indicated that the police officers’ version of events was more credible than the victims’ version. “The people have not proved beyond a reasonable doubt that each defendant was not justified” in firing, he said.

With tires screeching, glass breaking and bullets flying, the officers claimed that they believed they were the ones under fire.

The emphasis is mine. It should be obvious what happened: one cop fired a shot, the others heard it, panicked, assumed they were being fired upon, and joined the summary execution that killed Sean.

This is disgustingly predictable:

[Judge] Cooperman indicated that the police officers’ version of events was more credible than the victims’ version.

Deference to police, despite the evidence, has become a prerequisite to being a judge.

In the end, this is all we need to know:

There was no weapon inside Bell’s blood-splattered car.

Those cops fucked up huge. Cooperman lacks the spine to say so, and let the murderers walk away.

Sean Bell’s murder is one more reason that cops should be required to wear forehead cameras streaming live video and broadcasting GPS coordinates.

Email out, just now, after a lot of thinking about what to do about the Dearborn Heights cop who stopped me, and the less than satisfactory response I received:

Dear Chief Gust, Captain Gavin, Lieutenant yyyyy, and Mayor Paletko,

I appreciate your timely response to my complaint about officer xxxxx.

There are a few items in the response that conscience compels me to address.

First, regarding the conclusion that I exercised poor judgment: surely the city attorney has informed the police department that anyone who is in a public place, including law enforcement officers, may be photographed without their consent. There is no legal requirement to request permission to photograph people in public places. There is also no legal requirement to take photographs while stationary.

The response appeals to emotion by asking me to imagine a stranger taking pictures of my wife and children in front of my house. Consider that hypothetical scenario. I would have very limited recourse if that happened. I would certainly not be justified if I were to pursue and stop that person. If I requested assistance from my local police department, I would be informed that they could do nothing about such an incident, because anyone in a public place may photographed. Celebrities constantly being photographed by paparazzi live with this fact every day. Officer xxxxx had no justification to pursue and stop me because I photographed him or his patrol vehicle.

Second, the response implies that I drove away quickly after photographing officer xxxxx. That is not true. I drove through the parking lot at a safe and reasonable speed appropriate for a parking lot, and joined traffic on Pelham at a safe and legal speed. The implication that I drove quickly away is not true.

Third, it appears I wasn’t entirely clear in my first note: I absolutely dispute officer xxxxx’s claim that I was speeding. As law enforcement officers, you must surely be aware that vehicle speedometers are not entirely precise. Surely you are also aware that federal regulations mandate that vehicle speedometers must be accurate to plus or minus 5 mph at a speed of 50 mph. Officer xxxxx claims I was traveling at 3 mph over the speed limit. That is much less than the 5 mph tolerance mandated by federal law. I cannot be held responsible for the manufacturing tolerance of speedometers produced by car companies. If my speedometer reads 1.5 mph low, and officer xxxxx’s reads 1.5 mph high, it would appear that I was traveling 3 mph over the speed limit, when in fact, I was was not.

What this means is that officer xxxxx used speeding as a pretense to wrongfully stop me. If I was actually speeding, he would have issued me a citation.

I believe Officer xxxxx would not have stopped me if I had not taken his photograph. That means: he stopped me because I took his photograph. That is clearly inappropriate.

Fourth, officer xxxxx ordered me to show him the photograph stored in my cell phone. I believe he should have had a search warrant before ordering me to show him the photograph. I showed him the photo out of fear of being further wrongfully detained.

Fifth, the response does not address the fact that officer xxxxx (and others) have routinely, and for many years, squandered precious Dearborn Heights tax dollars by lounging around that 7-Eleven store, reading newspapers and magazines while they leave city vehicles burning expensive city gas in the parking lot.

Blame for this incident is being placed entirely on me. If there was poor judgment involved in this incident, it was certainly not entirely on my part. Officer xxxxx clearly exercised poor judgment by ignoring the fact that photography in public places is a legitimate activity, by using speeding as a pretense to stop me, and by wrongfully searching my cell phone. As I mentioned in my original note, such poor judgment demonstrates that he may be a potential liability for the Dearborn Heights Police Department, and the city.

Sincerely,
Matt xxxxx

 

 

 

I didn’t bother to include any requests in that note to the DHPD. Anything they’d send back would just blame me again.

It’s obvious to me, and should be to anyone with even a shred of objectivity, that the cop stopped me because I took his picture. His claim that I was speeding was a pathetic excuse to stop me, and his demand that I show him the photo was a blatant warrantless search.

Technology is working for us:

http://ratemycop.com/

Support it. Use it. Then, know FIJA.

I received a response from the Dearborn Heights Police Department after my complaint about one of their officers stopping me for taking a picture of him and his patrol car. They sent it to me via email on Friday, March 21st, though the letter is dated March 18th.

I’ve been thinking about whether or not to pursue this any more, and haven’t yet decided what to do. I doubt the DHPD is going to change its ways, even if I were to hire an attorney and sue them for some thing or other. At this point, I really don’t want to spend a lot of time or money on this, however, at a minimum, I do want to make sure it’s documented in detail so I have a record of it, and maybe it will help the next person who’s wrongfully stopped by the officer.

Here’s the text of the response I received. It places blame squarely on me:

March 18, 2008
Mr. xxxxx,

I have been assigned to investigate your compliant against Officer xxxxx for his actions on March 13, 2008. I have read your complaint and interviewed Officer xxxxx. Your letter, as well as Officer xxxxx?s version of the incident, are virtually the same. After considering the facts, I have come to the following conclusion:
I feel that you exercised poor judgment in the manner in which you took Officer xxxxx?s photograph. A simple courteous request prior to the photographing would have been proper. Without knowing your intent, you created anxiety, fear, and uncertainty in the officer?s mind. I ask that you put yourself in the officer?s shoes. I don?t know your family situation, but how would you feel if a stranger took a photo of your wife or children in front of your house and then quickly drove away. I am sure that would be upsetting to you and your family without knowing the intentions, good or bad, of the stranger.

Also, the speed limit on Pelham is 40 mph. Officer xxxxx stated that you were speeding. You don?t dispute that. The traffic stop was lawful. It was reasonable for Officer xxxxx to ask you about the nature of the photograph during the stop, and advising you to ask permission in the future.

In regards to your 10 enumerated requests. I will address them briefly.

1. Officer xxxxx will not be apologizing to you.
2. Officer xxxxx will not be disciplined in this matter
3. The Officer?s name has been addressed
4. Refer to number #2. Nor do we make it a policy to disclose discipline meted out to complainants.
5. The city attorney was consulted in this matter.
6. No such document exists.
7. The Dearborn Heights Police Department does not have a policy on the photographing of its Officers. Nor do we plan on implementing one.
8. This complaint is not sustained
9. A video tape may be available if you still wish to acquire it. A FOIA request is necessary. You may do that at DHPD Records Bureau.
10. I can assure you that Officer xxxxx will not retaliate against you because of this incident.

Sincerely,
Lt. yyyyy
Shift Commander

www.dearbornheightspd.com