This post comes to us from CarolinasCopBlock.org. It combines a news article from Teddy Kulmala of the Aiken Standard with some commentary interjected.
Authorities did nothing wrong when they detained a man for disorderly conduct while investigating a report of a loud party on Saturday, a spokesman for the North Augusta Department of Public Safety said. Social media postings by the man indicate he has a different story.
[First off the use of "authorities" denotes to me that Kulmala, the author of this piece, is in no way objective but has - possibly unthinkingly - bought into the extra rights claimed by some folks.]
Tyner Jerome Holmes, 21, of Central Avenue in Augusta, was charged with disorderly conduct and released on bond.According to Public Safety’s Lt. Tim Thornton, officers were dispatched to a loud party at a home on the corner of East Summit Avenue and East Avenue around 1 a.m. Saturday. One officer went to the front door while Officer Larry Turner entered a chain-link fence into the back yard “where he heard the most noise.”
[Turner "entered a chain-link fence" and no questions are raised by Kulmala? That's pretty shoddy reporting. I wonder if Kulmala would overlook such an action if it were his property that was unjustly entered...]
Thornton said Turner identified himself as law enforcement and that they were investigating a noise complaint when he was approached by Holmes.
[Why the hell does Turner - the person whose actions are in question - have someone else answering for him? Why does his colleague Thornton have to answer for him? Why isn't Turner responsible to try to justify his misdeeds?]
Thornton said Holmes got in the officer’s way “and said he’s trespassing. He’s not allowed to be there, and he needs to leave.”
[Seems reasonable to me. Good on Holmes for making this clear.]
Turner was within his rights to investigate criminal activity and told Holmes he needed to speak with the homeowner, Thornton said.
“(Holmes) is standing up in front of his friends, being disruptive and obstructing what the officer is trying to do,” Thornton said. “He was never loud, never used profanity but was persistently in the immediate space of the officer trying to investigate the situation and continued to repeat, ‘You don’t have any right to be here. You’re trespassing.’”
[So pointing-out the wrongs done by someone employed as a police employee is justification enough to overlook trespassing? If anything, someone who actually cares about "protecting the community" would give thanks to someone calling-out those acting in the wrong, no matter their place of employment.]
According to the report, Holmes told Turner that “he knew the law because he was a criminal justice major.”
[This statement underscores why the Statist Quo - which says one group of people have the "right" to create and interpret law - isn't ideal. Also, the failure to see that man-made dictates are simply that, whereas law is natural. One shouldn't have to go to school for years to know what's right and wrong. Anytime legislation conflicts with law those who think for themselves side with the latter, thus helping to set the stage for a better society.]
Thornton said Turner asked Holmes several more times to be quiet and step aside, and that as the officer approached the back door, Holmes again got in front of him.
“At that point, the officer said, ‘OK, come with me. You’re being detained while I figure out what’s going on here,’” Thornton said, adding that Holmes then turned on a “personal recording system” and recorded an exchange between Turner and him.
[Step-back and think about this - a stranger enters your property uninvited. You question them. They them claim the right to use force against you. Instead of rightly labeling such a person a "criminal" they purport that they acted in the right, and their crew backs them. That's policing today. That doesn't sound like a "service" I'd want to pay for.]
Holmes posted the 90-second YouTube clip, titled “Arrested.” on his Facebook page, along with the caption, “Don’t question authority in North Augusta, S.C., because they’ll break your arm.”
Thornton said the recording is authentic.
[Interesting that Kulmala made mention of the video but failed to include it on his post. It is included here to lessen the asymmetry of information. Listen for yourself. Just who is in the wrong?]
During the clip, Turner is heard saying to Holmes, “Put your hand behind your back or I’m going to break this one.” According to Thornton, Turner was trying to put the handcuffs on Holmes, who was resisting.
“Officer Turner is trying to explain to him; if you resist, you’re going to break your arm. I’ve got a hold of you, and if you continue to move, you’re going to break your arm,” Thornton said. “He’s making a point that if (Holmes) chooses to continue to resist, the restraint Officer Turner has on Mr. Holmes could injure Mr. Holmes. It’s a restraint move to help us to secure unwilling and resistant individuals.”
[Double-speak and distractions at its finest. Maybe that's why Thornton is answering instead of Turner.]
Thornton said Turner never entered the home.
[As if that somehow makes the actions he did take more acceptable? Why did Thornton claim it was ok for Turner to enter the property but then draw a distinction here?]
According to the report, while en route to Public Safety headquarters, Holmes “stated numerous times that he was wrong for his actions.” Thornton said that, during the incident, several of Holmes’ friends advised him to be quiet.
[Maybe Holmes was scared? He was being kidnapped by someone who already showed no respect for property rights nor his fellow man.]
Thornton said Holmes has not filed a complaint against the department.
[Holmes probably knows it'd be of no use since it'd just be "investigated" by colleagues of Turner. A better option would be for Holmes to submit an incident report at Cop-Reports.com/Submit - make it transparent.
A message left for Holmes by the Aiken Standard requesting comment was not returned. Several people commented on the video on Facebook and asked Holmes what happened.
“I was at a party, and the cop invited himself into the back yard without any consent and then entered the house without consent. I was the only one who piped up,” Holmes wrote. “i was asked to get the owner, which was an order i was trying to comply with, but first i wanted the officer to step out of the back yard [sic].”
“Because of the attention that this has drawn, we have looked into the conduct of Officer Turner, and we have found that Officer Turner did nothing wrong,” Thornton said. “He’s been a good officer, doing a good job for the city.”
[Sick. If you live in the area I hope you reach-out and let Turner and Thornton know what you think about their actions and the subsequent glossing-over of what's very likely something that often happens, it's just that this time, there's an objective recording.]
Thornton said the department gets noise complaint calls often.
“Virtually every time, we ask the source to turn the music down. They comply, we wish them a good night, thanks a lot and drive away, no problems,” he said. “That’s exactly the way this was going to be handled, but this guy persistently kept getting in the face of the officer and obstructing what he was trying to do.”
Let those involved know what you think:
Aiken Standard
http://www.aikenstandard.com/section/contact
(803) 648-2311
Teddy Kulmala – “reporter” who parrots the “official” line
North Augusta Department of Public Safety
http://www.northaugusta.net/Departments/PublicSafety/tabid/119/Default.aspx
803-279-2121
Larry Turner – aggressor
Tim Thornton – thin blue line collaborator
Tyner Jerome Holmes – threatened, kidnapped, and threats levied
I wonder what the judge is going to say about this.
The Fourth means less and less to LEOs, who constantly want to invent new phrases to call entering without permission. If the officer is there to talk to the owner about noise levels, fine. I’m all for laws forcing people to respect their neighbors. But the officer should wait outside as asked. Noise is a minor offense and doesn’t justify an officer ignoring property rights.
Know Your Local Fusion Spy Center, It Knows You
Federal and State Fusion Centers—perhaps by design have laid the groundwork for Government agencies to bypass U.S. Citizens’ Fourth Amendment Protections to invade the privacy of every American. Since 9/11 federal government has established across the nation approximately 77 Fusion Centers. The Fusion Centers were originally established to improve the sharing of anti-terrorism intelligence among different state, local and federal law enforcement agencies. But have since taken a different path with encouragement of the federal government to pursue all crimes and hazards. Fusion Centers now pursue for analysis not just criminal and terrorist information, but any information that can be derived from police, public records and private sector data about Americans. Fusion Centers increasingly involve components of the U.S. Military in addition to other government entities to spy on U.S. Citizens. Fusion centers heavily rely on local and neighborhood informants often not reliable for information that is shared with Local, State, and Federal Police Agencies.
More recently the Department of Homeland Security began sharing more classified Military information with local Fusion Centers, perhaps a mistake. Historically not all local police keep secrets—disclosing confidential police information to neighbors and friends; in cop bars, sometimes to anyone that will listen. Some Fusion Centers appear to operate more independently than others and take advantage of ambiguous lines of authority to manipulate differences in federal, state and local laws to maximize information collection.
Increasingly more (private security corporations and their operatives) are working with law enforcement and Fusion Centers—exchanging information about Americans. Some private sector security corporations appear merged with police. Because Fusion Centers and law enforcement exchange information with select U.S. private sector companies: that has enabled fusion centers to escape accountability and public oversight. That happened in Germany during the 1930’s when Hitler’s SS and private Gestapo worked with German corporations, local and State Police to target often-lawful German Citizens and others for arrest, extortion and asset forfeiture. Before Hitler’s Gestapo was consolidated with the German Government in 1934 his Gestapo arrested Citizens and confiscated their private property with no legal authority. In 1934 the Gestapo was placed under SS leader Heinrich Himmler Chief of German Police. In 1939 all German Police agencies were put under the control of the “Reich Main Security Office” the equivalent of U.S. Homeland Security.
While the press on occasion has discussed Fusion Centers invading privacy of Citizens, the media has missed Fusion Centers’ involvement in criminal and civil asset forfeitures. It was problematic law enforcement and quasi private government contractors would gain wider access to Fusion Center data to secure evidence to arrest Americans and civilly forfeit their homes, inheritances and businesses under Title 18USC, The USA Patriot Act and other laws to keep part of the assets. Considering there are more than 400 laws and violations many which corporations unknowingly break that can make their property/assets subject to Government Civil Asset Forfeiture, it is foreseeable merging private security corporations with government police operations like Nazi Germany could result in government and quasi private security corporations seizing ownership of several large corporations; blackmailing corporations to support the will of politicians’ or dictator should that be the case.
In Indiana you could shoot the unlawful intruder even if it is a cop. Cops have to respect private property. This guy should start filing complaints and then a lawsuit.
As described…everything this officer did was legal and proper. In my state, as with most, local ordinances are all misdemeanors. Upon the officers arrival, hearing thloud noise / music coming from the rear of the house is a ‘misdemeanor occurring in his presence’. That gives him the legal and ethical right to investigated that crime. Heck, for you Cop Blockers, there are even victims. The defendant has no legal standing in this case. First, it isn’t his property (no standing), and second his is clearly factually wrong (as demonstrated above). What he should have done was offer to go and get the homeowner, even asking the officer to wait while he did so. That would eliminate the officer from having to progress further towards the house. But this guy decided that his limited knowledge was better and he was wrong.
Pete, you missed on every aspect of this one.
Noise ordinances are my most favorite statutes to read. The noise ordinance in my community is the lengthiest statute of any. If the state has to prove all elements of a statute beyond a reasonable doubt, proving that the homeowner broke the noise ordinance is the toughest.
The leos are required to have a decibel meter and first go to the complainants home and stand on the property line to take a measurement or to the center of the apartment of the complainer to take a reading to prove that the noise level is over the statutory limit. Do any of the leos do this? Of course not, they just bully their way into the home on “exigent” circumstances, look for underage drinkers and pot paraphernalia. Rarely, do any of these charges hold up in court because of bad searches, but the leos do it anyway under the theory of the “Magic Call”. The “Magic Call” from a complainant for just about anything, the leos believe, entitle them to sidestep any constitutional or civil right of the “suspect”.
decibel meter – ha ha ha
Please, continue to make your mountain from a mole hill, he was arrested becuase he wanted to be. The police were right (again) and they were wrong. Regardless of what happens at court (burden levels) the arrest was proper and completely legal.
Fusion centers huh? what about the FEMA camps and black CIA helicopters…
I think you should up grade to name brand tinfoil, not generic
SteveH: Most places aren’t tied to that exact standard. In my area, all of the local and county ordinances only require 2 complaints, and I came be one of them. Clearly from your comment and others in the past you seem to be siding with the homeowner in this case…totally disregarding the rights of others. Keep in mind that your right to do something doesn’t necessarily out way my right to not have it done to me. As some on this site advocate, a voluntary society, this is where that concept fails. If this homeowner had been reasonable from the start and responsible for the activities taking place on his property, non of this would have occurred.
I am the web editor for the Aiken Standard. I greatly appreciate your blog on these type of things; however, I take issue with your attack on our reporter, Teddy Kulmala. The story was written in an objective manner with attributions throughout.
The police will only give you the info they are willing to, and that’s what he used. He also tried to tell Holmes side of the story, if Holmes had been willing to talk to us about it. He certainly talked to other media about it – he was willing to talk about it on a local radio news talk show. There is only so much you can do as a reporter with the information you can get. Teddy was quite fair and objective in his attempt to do this story under those circumstances.
I assume you understand that bloggers often make accusations and assumptions all day long – trained reporters that work for a reliable newspaper of record have to rely on the facts they can get and stick to that – and that’s what our reporter did.
Noise ordinances generally take a beating when appealed to higher courts for vagueness and being a constitutional issue against the first amendment. That is why generally noise ordinances have to be pretty objective in their language and application. We just had a county wide noise from autos ordinance declared unconstitutional because of vagueness.
Statutes have to be objective and understandable to the average citizen, something leos don’t necessary agree with, leos would rather society leave the interpretation of laws up to leos.
No. We would rather people be reasonable and then we wouldn’t have to deal with it at at. But that’s not what happens and it certainly isn’t what happened in this case. Your “rights” don’t outweigh the “rights” of others. Why do you think your first amendment right to free speech means that I have to listen? It doesn’t. There is the problem. Reasonableness. I get called all the time about loud “noise”. It runs about 50-50. Lots of time callers are told that the noise isn’t unreasonably loud…just because they don’t want to hear anything doesn’t mean that the noise, from whatever source, is to loud, they are just to picky. Other times, as soon as I get close you can clearly tell the noise is way to much. Reasonableness. Officers would rather not have to get involved in those peoples lives. But their own actions get us involved.