In Alaska, and a growing number of other areas, it appears freedom of speech will get you arrested.  A man who attended the state fair was assaulted and caged for holding a sign with his political beliefs on it.  The officers seemed conflicted on whether or not to arrest the man in the video but choose to use force instead of allow the man proceed with his peaceful demonstration.

Though this video is a scary look into what we’re all facing if we don’t take action against the never ending growth of government.  It was encouraging to see all the people using cell phones to record the encounter as well as voicing their concerns for what most would say is an unlawful arrest.  What will you do when this happens in a city near you?

Defendant Garth Kloehn was on trial for tax evasion when he received the news from doctors that his son was dying and only had a few days to live.

Mr. Kloehn asked for a 2-day continuance of trial, and the judge denied it, stating that the trial had already been delayed for more than a month because of his ill son, and that he would not stop it again.  Mr. Kloehn finished his testimony and went immediately to see his son, who died an hour after he arrived (full story here).

The federal appeals court overturned the ruling and granted him a new trial, but Mr. Kloehn has obviously forever lost the last days he could have had with his son.

Most commenters on the San Francisco Chronicle article (linked above) were appalled by the trial court judge. Some less sensitive commenters said Mr. Kloehn deserved this because he was a criminal (ignoring the fact that forbidding him from seeing his dying son also unfairly punishes the innocent son) but the majority of commenters were reasonably infuriated or disturbed.

One commenter said, “That judge deserves to be sued or dis-barred. ”

Another even angrier commenter said, “The judge who refused to close shop so that a father could visit his dying son should be horse whipped. And not allowed to do more judging.”

These comments certainly demonstrate a sense of justice people feel about judges who abuse their power. Unfortunately, this sense of justice is not reflected by our justice system (ironically).

Judges have absolute civil immunity. They can’t be sued for anything they do in their capacity of a judge, in matters over which they have jurisdiction.

Meaning, if a judge ordered you to be secretly sterilized against your will and against your knowledge by colluding with your parents, you could not sue him years later when you found out you were sterile due to his overreaching decree over your reproductive system (real case, Stump v. Sparkman).

Meaning, a judge can explicitly order a cop to use excessive force to drag an attorney to the courtroom, and the judge will be immune from civil suit for battery (real case, Mireles v. Waco).

Martinez v. Winner held that a judge who plots strategy with a prosecutor during a trial is immune from civil suit.  Not only are judges immune, other ill-intentioned officials can “piggyback” off of their immunity as well.  Martin v. Hendren held that a cop who was ordered by a judge to use excessive force in removing a person from a court is effectively cloaked by the the judge’s absolute immunity.

Of course this all seems dreadfully unfair, but it’s really not surprising, given the way the justice system is set up. Is it really a shocker that the Supreme Court, composed of 9 judges, held that judges should get a lot of leeway in doing their job? Is it really a surprise that judges, who are the final word on these decisions, decide that they shouldn’t be sued?

No, of course not. The people who constitute the legal system are all terribly flawed human beings like the rest of us. It really is no shocker that they repeatedly uphold immunities for themselves.

The Court stated explicitly, in Stump v. Sparkman,

As early as 1872, the Court recognized that it was “a general principle of the highest importance to the proper administration of justice that a judicial officer, in exercising the authority vested in him, [should] be free to act upon his own convictions, without apprehension of personal consequences to himself.” Bradley v. Fisher, supra, at 347.

The language cannot be clearer, especially if you remove all the useless words and clauses in between employed to soften the blow of the words, and to confuse and muddle the truth. A judicial officer…should be free to act…without apprehension of personal consequence to himself. The system simply does not require that judges be held personally responsible, no matter how reprehensible the act.

The glaring implication is that the rest of us lowly peons are lesser human beings.  While we all certainly have to act with “apprehension of personal consequence,” these elites, who consistently interpret the law in their favor, are exempt from personal responsibility.

A Target employee will not only likely be fired, but will very likely be sued if he assaults a customer in the course of his employment. A bank employee who defrauds a customer will similarly be fired and sued for his fraud. A teacher who molests a student will go to jail and can be sued.

But judges who wrongly ordered police to assault and humiliate a defendant, and to covertly sterilize a young girl, face absolutely no personal recourse. This is the nature of government. It protects its own, while masquerading as a protector of the people. Judges shamelessly manipulate language of why immunities are important and are to the public’s benefit, declaring glibly that such immunities serve justice or are  ”based on the policy of protecting the judicial process” (Justice White, explaining in Imbler v. Pachtman, why absolute immunity of prosecutors is necessary).

Judges have also held that their buddies, the prosecutors, are absolutely immune from civil suit from using fabricated evidence.  So if you go to jail for life because a prosecutor intentionally used false evidence against you, tough luck.

No matter how the system tries to paint immunity as a service to the public, at the end of the day, it is difficult to see how the victims of forced sterilization, battery by police, and wrongful imprisonment, who are all members of the public, were better served by judicial or prosecutorial immunity.  In fact, it is quite clear that the only people who benefited were members of the sacred government, who were allowed to act as they pleased without punishment.

Of course, it’s not just judges, police and prosecutors. Public school administrators who force a 13 year old girl to strip down, almost naked, based on an unsupported accusation of harboring ibuprofen, are also immune from suit.

When you strip away the label of government, “for the public good” and unsupported claims of “protecting the judicial process,” what remains is unmistakable: a group of unaccountable people the system has decided does not need to take personal responsibility for their actions like everybody else.

John Russell and his buddies have been busy with their video cameras in Reno, NV.  They have submitted videos to Cop Block time and time again, even winning the first Video Contest.  It’s been encouraging to watch John and his friends expand their Cop Blocking skills.  They keep calm, engage police with logical arguments and of course possess a camera.

Keep up the great work guys!

Original post here:

With college freshman descending upon campus, the hunt for acceptance and friendship take center stage during the first week of school.  Many students seek clubs, dorm activities, and other forms of voluntary human interaction which may include parties right around the campus area to help find themselves and those similar to their interests.  Unfortunately, the public servants of UNR are also on a hunt: a hunt for students who may need “protection” from … well nobody.  To combat this, Nathan and I (and also Mareena) hit the streets on Saturday, August 22, 2010 around midnight to inform intoxicated freshman that they have inherent human rights to say no to strangers shoving things in their mouth at midnight.  They have a human right to remain silent to strangers making them uncomfortable.  They have a human right to dismiss themselves from a situation that they did not ask for.  Officer Diamond even recognized that tricking kids to “provide a sample” is a dirty tactic, yet he continues to do it or allows it to happen.  Near the end an officer thinks that by wearing a badge and shining a light into our eyes, his safety takes precedence over our safety.  Those poor kids thought they were being detained when in fact they were free to go.  Is this right?  These kids did not ask for their “help”.  They didn’t ask for any of this… and it’s really to bad.  Who likes being harassed by bums asking for favors or by intimidating thugs forcing you into doing things you don’t want to do?  I hope you enjoy this quick video, and I hope that you too can see the bully mentality certain strangers inflict upon otherwise peaceful people.

PS: Throughout this video you will hear me citing the Constitution as a form of protection, but those are really just words on paper stored in some glass container somewhere across the country.  We need to recognize that, with or without some document dusty politicians back in the day wrote, human beings across the world still retain certain fundamental rights that never go away.  It’s just more convenient to point to the Constitution than explaining the tenants of human liberty on the side of the street at midnight.  Enjoy!

I have previously written about how easy it is for bad cops to find  new jobs even after they have been fired for misconduct.  One of the cases I mentioned involved an officer in my hometown of Kansas City that was fired for refusing a woman medical attention during an arrest even though she stated that she was bleeding and pregnant.  The woman miscarried the next morning.  The officer, Kevin Schnell was fired, but was then hired by the Belton Police Department which is just outside of Kansas City.  I was very interested in finding out why a police department would hire such a liability, so I emailed the Chief of the Belton Police.

This is the email I sent.

It has recently come to my attention that Officer Kevin Schnell of your police department is the same Officer Kevin Schnell that was fired from the Kansas City Police Department for denying a bleeding pregnant women medical care during a arrest.  That woman eventually miscarried her baby and Kansas City paid out $750,000 to settle the lawsuit  I have some questions regarding your decision to hire an officer that showed a complete lack of common decency in the above stated situation.

1.  From my professional experience, past behavior is very predictive of future behavior.  Were you at all worried that Officer Schnell would be a financial liability for your department?

2.  Were you at all concerned that Officer Schnell’s obvious lack of compassion would put people in your community at risk?

3.  Do you agree that Officer Schnell should have been fired for his role in the woman’s miscarriage, or do you condone his behavior on that night?

4.  If you do think it was proper for him to be fired, why did you choose to hire him to work in your department?

5.  If you condone his behavior on that night, please explain to me why you think it was proper to deny a woman pleading for medical attention the help that she required?

6.  Officer Schnell defended his actions by arguing that he was not properly trained.  Has he completed training with your department that ensures he knows how to act as a decent human being?

I look forward to your response.

James R. Person, Chief of Police

I had to send the email twice before I got this generic answer from Chief Person.

Thank you for your e-mail.  Your interest and concern are acknowledged.  I am unable to discuss individual employee records with you.  I will, however, assure you that candidates for police officer go thru a competitive hiring procedure which includes a standardized written examination, Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI), Shipley IQ assessment, oral interview, physical, and a back-round investigation.  An objective hiring list is established, and candidates are called from that list.  We believe this process provides our department with well qualified employees, and is objective, fair, and legal.

I have also attached our General Order #26 which delineates our code of conduct.  All employees must sign that they ascribe to these rules, and are held to this standard.

Since I found Chief Person’s answer unsatisfactory I responded with more questions.

I do appreciate you taking the time to acknowledge my concern, although your response has given me little comfort. You stated that “an objective hiring list is established and the candidates are called from that list.” At what point in the hiring process is a subjective decision made about a candidate? Who makes that subjective decision? Does the person or the people making that decision take into account past work history or past complaints about an officer including judgments or settlements stemming from those complaints?

You also stated, referring to the code of conduct that “All employees must sign that they ascribe to these rules, and are held to this standard.” I hope that this is true, but how am I suppose to know if you cannot discuss an individual employee’s records with me? Can I request all complaints filed against a particular officer or department as a whole and then be privy to the actions that were taken to address that complaint?

At this time Chief Person has not responded to this email even though I have sent it three different times.  If you would also  like to hear the answers to these questions, please email Chief Person and let him know.  jperson@beltonpd.org

Or you can call and ask for Chief Person at 816-331-5522.  Be sure to ask him why he has not found it necessary to respond to my second set of  concerns.

The video above was taken by a surveillance camera maintained by police in Denver, Colorado last year.

Michael DeHerrera (Source: DenverPost.com)

The video shows Officer Devin Sparks brutally slamming a young man named Michael DeHerrera to the ground. After the take-down, the camera pans away, but the officer can still be seen repeatedly striking DeHerrera with an object that the Denver Post later identified as “a department-issued piece of metal wrapped in leather.” After the beating, the officer violently lifts a barely-conscious DeHerrera up then lets him fall back to the ground. He then picks him up again and drags him to his police cruiser. After forcing Dehererra into the back seat, the officer appears to slam the car door on him several times.

In his police report, Officer Sparks justified his brutal attack on DeHerrera by claiming that he “spun to his left attempting to strike me with a closed right fist,” however, the video proves that this was an outright fabrication.

Deherrera received cuts, bruises, and broke several of his teeth during the beating. He was taken to a hospital where he was given several stitches. He also claimed that he blacked out during the beating.

Officer Sparks should have been fired and criminally charged for attacking DeHerrera and lying on the police report. Instead, he was only given a three day suspension without pay. DeHerrera’s family was awarded $17,500 and were excused from paying the ambulance bill, but this money was taken from taxpayers instead of the thug who attacked him.

Click here for a shortened version of this video.

This incident occurred earlier this year, but it was also filmed by a police surveillance camera in Denver. It shows two cops slamming Mark Ashford into a metal fence, repeatedly striking him in the face, then throwing him to the ground. Later, one of the officers forces Ashford’s head into the sidewalk with his knee. Ashford was charged with “interference” and “resisting arrest.”

After the beating, Ashford was taken to St. Anthony Central Hospital where he was treated for a cut on his right eye and a concussion.

According to Ashford’s lawyer, this incident occurred after Ashford witnessed the police ticket a man for failing to stop at a stop sign. Ashford told the motorist that he had seen him stop and was willing to testify in court. This prompted the officers to detain him and ask for his ID which he provided. At some point, Ashford tried to photograph the officers with his cell phone and they began to attack him.

It’s difficult to interpret the video without audio, but the footage still seems to make it clear that this arrest was prompted by photography and not any actual crime. The officers did not seem interested in arresting Ashford until he started photographing them. They had no problem standing around leisurely while Ashford pulled out his phone, but when he pointed it at one of the cops, they instantly became extremely aggressive. One of the officers can be seen raising a closed fist at Ashford which I interpret as a threat to strike him in the face.

In any case, all the charges against Ashford were dropped. According to Ashford’s lawyer, the prosecutor acknowledged that the police never even had a right to detain Ashford, let alone arrest him or brutalize him.

Nothing new

While I hate to say it, this reprehensible behavior shouldn’t really come as a shock to anyone.

If you followed the coverage of the 2008 Democratic National Convention which was hosted in Denver, then you’re probably already aware that police turned the city into a miniature police state. They attacked peaceful demonstrators, journalists, and even random bystanders in a violent effort to stop people from exercising their most basic freedoms. According to a report from Democracy Now!, police boxed in large crowds of people (including random bystanders) then shot pepper spray into them. They also rounded up huge crowds of people and conducted mass arrests. Furthermore, they failed to wear appropriate forms of identification and refused to identify themselves when asked.

One video taken at a demonstration shows a raging Officer Scott Stewart knocking a woman to the ground with his baton while screaming that she is a “bitch.” The district attorney refused to press any charges against the officer.

ABC reporter Asa Eslocker was attacked and subsequently arrested by police for “trespassing,” “interference,” and “failure to follow a lawful order” for taking pictures on a public sidewalk. Video of the incident shows a uniformed thug forcing Eslocker off the sidewalk, shoving him in front of oncoming traffic, then accusing him of “impeding traffic.” Interestingly enough, Eslocker was doing research for a story about corporate lobbyists and wealthy individuals who donated money to the convention and the arrest was apparently prompted by a complaint from inside the Brown Palace Hotel, a gathering spot for Democratic officials.

After the convention, the Denver Police Protective Association, a union that represents most of Denver’s police officers, started selling this shirt.

According to Detective Nick Rogers, the officer who produced the shirt, every Denver police officer received one. Furthermore, he reported that officers from other police departments like the Lakewood Police Department and the Jefferson County Sheriffs Department were delighted by the shirt and bought dozens of them.

So, when the police in Denver perpetrate acts of brutal violence against people for no reason whatsoever, their crimes are not ignored by their fellow officers. On the contrary, their peers actively encourage them to commit more acts of brutality.

Not just Denver

This sort of brutality is not limited solely to Denver. In fact, the violence perpetrated by the police during the DNC in Denver was modeled after the actions of the police (the so-called “Miami Model”) during a “free trade” summit in Miami back in 2003. During the summit, protesters took to the streets to voice various grievances. Among them was Attorney Elizabeth Ritter who attended not to protest the summit, but the heavy-handed and often illegal tactics used by the police. Ritter peacefully marched through Miami with other demonstrators while displaying a homemade sign reading “Fear Totalitarianism.”

So, naturally, a police officer shot her from behind with a rubber bullet.

After being shot, Ritter turned around and asked the advancing army of domestic soldiers, “Did you shoot me? A lady in a suit? Who has been walking peaceably in front of you for half an hour and you shot me when my back was turned?”

Shortly after this incident, the police opened fire on the crowd with more rubber bullets. Ritter was hit three more times. One of the bullets hit her in the face while she was cowering behind her sign. Ritter later said that she “felt there had been angels sitting on [her] shoulders because [she] had not been blinded by that shot.”

A commanding officer, Sgt. Michael Kallman, thought this assault was so hilarious that he joked about it the next day while addressing dozens of officers, emphasizing in particular the fact that the defenseless woman had been shot in the face. “The good news about watching you guys live on TV was the lady in the red dress. I don’t know who got her, but it went through the sign and hit her smack dab in the head,” he said to applause, cheers, and laughter.

When I read about police misconduct stories, I frequently hear people use what I like to refer to as the “bad apple” theory. According to this theory, police misconduct is rare. In fact, instances of police misconduct are almost always “isolated incidents” perpetrated by “a few bad apples.” While this theory is probably applicable to some cases of police brutality, stories like the ones above make it clear that police brutality is often more than incidental–indeed, it’s an integral part of a cynical, authoritarian culture that glorifies violence.

Update:

Another police brutality settlement in Denver:

In another recent video from Liberty On Tour, Adam and Pete visit Philadelphia to distribute flyers with a fellow activist to promote the idea of liberty. They also find several police cruisers parked illegally and use them to demonstrate that police and other government officials are often held to a different standard than those they claim to work for.

Hitting the Streets in the City of Brotherly Love

by Pete Eyre on 20. Aug, 2010 in Activism

INDIANAPOLIS, IN – Last Saturday our bud Mandrik (of George’s Famous Baklava fame) joined us to do some outreach on Philly’s busy South Street. While he distributed flyers that had Liberty Radio Network on one side and FreeKeene.com on the other side Adam and I handed-out The World’s Smallest Political Quiz from the Advocates for Self-Government.

We had a lot of great conversations and overall people – with the exception of some of those wearing badges – were really receptive.

As Mandrik points-out near the end of the video, most folks have a natural affinity for the ideas liberty, so while engaging others on the street may not be part of your normal routine, it can have a very profound impact. And it gets easier the more often you do it. So grab a couple of friends and make it happen!

Big controversy is brewing in my hometown in East Central Indiana. Something I never knew went on happened for the 17th annual time back in early May in Albany, IN.

A program called Drags Not Drugs, where my hometown police officer sends out an off duty officer with a taxpayer funded police car and spends taxpayers hard earned, stolen money to drag race against local teens at the local drag strip in order to keep kids off drugs.

I posted about this on my facebook page and a big debate brewed, not surprisingly most people were in favor of it.

Here is the press release announcing last years Drags Not Drugs event, so you know what it’s all about.

Evo Street Racers has been proudly working with Mr. Denny Reed since 2006. Mr. Reed has proved the old adage that good things come with hard work as seen in his 16 years of running the Drag Not Drugs program in Indiana. Not only does he feature one of the largest high school drags program in the country but he does so with the support of Lincoln Tech providing over $20,000 in scholarships to the winners each year.

To further add variety and excitement to his race program Mr. Reed integrates the High School Drag program with Beat The Heat inc. Not only will spectators and participants have an opportunity to watch exhibition runs of some of the fastest cop cars in the country but for those who are racing will also have a chance to compete against them for bragging rites! Mr. Reed’s event addresses many societal concerns ranging from drug abuse to illegal street racing through education on the dangers of each while providing fun and viable alternatives. Ensuring many of these youth have a promising future he has given over $130,000.00 in Lincoln Tech scholarship dollars over the last 6 years.

Scholarship or not, nothing says responsible teenage driving like drag racing at speeds likely greater than 100mph.

My post made it to the attention of the Chief Deputy of the police force and prompted a post from him on the departments facebook page. I’d share it but it is not showing up in any searches. I’ve either been blocked from the page I’ve never liked, or the page has been deleted.

Here is the original story about the controversy in my hometown newspaper. Instead of being out on the streets serving and protecting by looking for robbers, arsons, murderers and thieves, they’re out drag racing teenagers, teaching them things that would get them arrested if they do it any other time and day.

Police car at dragway under fire

By Danny K Careins
NT Managing Editor

Published:

Friday, August 13, 2010 6:03 AM CDT

Although authorization was given by a superior for a Hartford City Police Department patrol vehicle to be at the Muncie Dragway for an event in May there is now an investigation being conducted into the matter by Mayor Dennis Whitesell and city council president Scott Confer.

Sometime in May Hartford City Police Department officer Mark McKissack participated in an event at the Muncie Dragway, 7901 E. State Road 67/28, Albany, where cops in patrol vehicles drag race against high school-age students.

“I authorized it,” said Greg Bonewit, chief deputy of the Hartford City Police Department. He described the drag racing event as “once-a-year” with teenagers being allowed to bring their vehicles to drag race against patrol vehicles from various police departments.

See the rest of the story in the Friday, Aug. 13 print edition of the News Times

Over at Liberty On Tour, Adam and Pete participated in another round of FIJA activism by helping to pass out jury nullification information in Philadelphia. During the outreach, Adam took some time to talk to a few police officers who appeared to be with DHS.

Successful Outreach in Philadelphia

by Adam Mueller on 18. Aug, 2010 in Activism

ST. LOUIS, MO –  Last week while Liberty On Tour was in Philadelphia we covered more FIJA activism.  Which is becoming a popular form of outreach for those taking an active roll in educating folks about their rights.

While the outreach was a success the group was watched closely by up to 5 agents, presumably, from a few government agencies.  I thought engaging Kennedy and Russell would help protect those distributing fliers and possibly help them realize the harms they cause while ‘just doing their jobs.’

The video below is a perfect example of the double standard those with badges hold and a scary look at how agents of the state perceive their daily tasks.