Cop Block

This story takes place when I was still a teenager. At the time I worked at the local Pizza Hut. I had just left work, literally having just turned out of the parking lot, when the lights and sirens of a police car appear behind me. I diligently pulled over and waited for the officer to approach. He gets to my window and asks for my DL. As soon as I hand it to him he pulls out his gun and puts the barrel right between my eyes.

As a seventeen year old in the suburbs of Indiana I wasn’t exactly used to guns in my face, and after a long day of school and work (I was still in my uniform even) I wasn’t exactly expecting one. I followed his instructions to get out of my car, slowly. He then told me to walk slowly towards the back of my car, all the while his guns is trained on my head. When I get to the back of my car I’m told to stand spread eagle and to stay quiet. I still have no idea whats going on or why my life is being threatened.

The officer roughly searches me, even going so far as to slide his hand up and down my butt crack. After an invasive search of my person he starts rifling through my car. After a few moments in the back seat he pulls out a super-soaker and begins looking it over. He looks at me and asks, no joke, “What do you know about this?” As if he had just found a nuclear warhead in my back seat.

At this point I start to figure out what’s going on and calmly reply, “That’s a squirt gun, sir. One of my friends must have left it back there.” As the brightly colored plastic toy was obviously of no danger to him, he set it down on the road and continued rifling through my car asking me over and over if I had any weapons or other illegal things in the vehicle. The only thing illegal in my car was the nosy cop who had no right to be in there.

After realizing as much he put the water-toy back in my car and began lecturing me about having my lights on at night (his reason for pulling me over even though the sun had only just begun to set and headlights were far from necessary to see) and told me to remove the squirt-gun from my car if i wanted to avoid this situation in the future.

Now, I’m a pretty empathic person and can sympathize with and understand a great range of mistakes, but this? How can you mistake a brightly colored and wild shaped super-soaker for a legitimate weapon? Did he think I was smuggling an alien death ray? Because of that officer’s stupidity not only was a good portion of my day wasted, but I was subjugated to an invasive and humiliating search.

If I look on the bright side I guess I can say that at least this indecent was the one traffic stop. Usually no less than two more patrol cars will show up.

- Jacob

If you'd like a CopBlock.org Power Post - as seen above - contact us.

By Ian Freeman, blogger at FreeKeene.com:

Back in 2010, on a visit to the NH Attorney Genital’s office, we met “investigator” Dick Tracy. More recently, Copblock’s Ademo and I were in the area so we dropped in again with some more questions, this time meeting “investigator” James Brown. Neither man was interested in speaking on the record and Brown attempted to intimidate us into not recording. We did not stop. Here’s what happened:

Remember, it is supposed to be your right to record government bureaucrats in public places. Though, we know they don’t care about what your rights are, so there’s always a chance you could be aggressed against and caged. Sometimes it can be scary when they threaten you, but if you have backup also willing to not back down, your odds of walking away without being caged increase.

Just say NO – to demands you quit recording them.

There are countless laws. Literally.

Maybe not in the mathematical sense – it is technically possible to count the laws in existence, but based on a colloquial and general use of the term “countless” it is not really feasible for someone to count every law. Just this year, 40,000 laws were passed and are set to go into effect. On the other hand, we rarely hear news about laws being repealed.

At this rate, if it is a monumental task to even count the laws, certainly, one can never know all the laws. And then – even if one knows generally of many laws, it is further impossible to understand the laws with requisite detail so as to ensure compliance.

Yet, people are told over and over by police, prosecutors, and the justice system that “ignorance of the law is no excuse.”

To all the police, prosecutors, asshole judges, and other groveling subjects who insist on the “rule of law” –  actually, yes, ignorance is an excuse. Perhaps one would be viewed as disingenuous when claiming he or she did not know murder, theft, or rape was against the law. However, when 40,000 laws are passed each year, each with possibly hundreds of pages of details, it is a perfectly legitimate excuse to claim one is ignorant of said laws.

This is especially the case because most laws do not prevent murder, theft, or rape, which of course are the most obvious and justified prohibitions. Personal violations and property violations – that’s 2 laws. Total. It’s reasonable to throw in a few more for different degrees of personal violations (e.g. 2nd degree murder, voluntary and/or involuntary manslaughter, assault and battery), and different types of theft or property violations (e.g. fraud, embezzlement, petty theft, larceny, robbery, trespassing). That might get us to 15, and for the most part, that’s the bulk of the law that is reasonable or necessary. So where did the other 40,000 per year come from?

They are almost all useless or repetitive. They come from lobbyists, power-hungry politicians who want to appear to be “doing something” and from idiots who do not understand the meaning of statistical significance. One freak tragedy happens, and suddenly the relatives of the victim are lobbying, protesting, and demanding their local sleazeball politician to “do something” about any act, behavior, or substance remotely related to the tragedy, despite the fact that those acts, behaviors or substances are completely safe and hurt no one 99.99 percent of the time. I can almost guarantee you that if someone happened to run out of their house, slip on a banana peel, smash their face into a fence and die, that a committee of concerned citizens and responsive politicians will form to demand the death penalty upon people who litter banana peels, or to throw people in jail for running out of their houses.

If you visit this fun website by a couple of lawbreakers blogging their criminal activity, you will learn that it is illegal to peel an orange in a hotel in Los Angeles. It is illegal to fish while wearing pajamas in Chicago, IL. Playing an instrument with the intention of luring someone into a store is illegal in Indian Wells, CA. It is illegal in Globe, AZ to play cards with an Indian. Drinking a beer from a bucket is illegal in St. Louis, MO. Sleeping on a refrigerator is illegal in Pittsburgh.

I haven not personally verified the existence of these laws, but I can tell you with fair certainty about a multitude of other absurd laws that do exist. For instance, Alabama only legalized interracial marriage in 2000. Altruistic war veteran Antonio Buehler learned recently that spitting on a police officer is a third degree felony in Texas. When he observed an officer abusing a woman, he stopped to take pictures, and was attacked by police and arrested. Videos taken do not show him spitting police, but nevertheless, police accused him of doing so and charged him with harassment of a public official, a third degree felony (as a side note, spitting on a regular person would not nearly rise to a felony, because regular people aren’t gods, like the police are).

In yet another display of legal absurdity, a marine biologist faces 20 years in prison for violating an obscure federal environmental law. Nancy Black was in her research boat when killer whales attacked and killed a gray whale calf. Blubber floated to the surface, and the killer whales were getting ready to feed. Ms. Black threaded ropes through some blubber and lowered a camera under water. She has been indicted by a federal grand jury for violating the 1972 Marine Mammal Protection Act (more here).

In many cities, it is de facto illegal to feed the homeless. And of course, in most states in America, due to the rise of the “Resisting Arrest” charge, people literally can be arrested for doing absolutely nothing.

Above all, the most important element to note is that “ignorance of the law is no excuse” only applies to the peons of America. It does not apply to prosecutors, judges, police, or other powerful people.  Police have qualified immunity for various actions they take on the job. Prosecutors have even greater immunity. The Supreme Court held in Imbler v. Pachtman that absolute immunity of public prosecutors is “based on the policy of protecting the judicial process.” Thus, prosecutors face no recourse for even the most malicious of actions – knowingly using falsified evidence.

The Supreme Court is currently considering the issue of whether there is a Constitutional right to “not be framed.” (Yes, the system is that evil – they actually have to debate whether there is a “right not to be framed”). Judges also have absolute civil immunity, so if the Supreme Court decides there is no Constitutional right “not to be framed” they will not be held accountable, and all anyone can do about it is cry. (Read more about all these immunities here).

Next time you hear anyone talk about “the rule of law” or “ignorance of the law is no excuse” it’s worth pondering what exactly that means. In the context of America, it inevitably means oppression and arbitrary results from a system that operates off an extensive, random mire of nonsensical dictates decreed by tyrants.

Recently I was found guilty in my Chalking 8 trial, while highlighting those bogus charges we (Pete and I) met Frank and Mike, who took this video of Manchester Police Officer Murphy. The video went viral and received attention from several news outlets. Instead of taking a serious look at the actions caught on tape the city went into defense mode.

The Police, school and local government officials sought to criminalize Frank, Mike and myself. They expelled Frank from school, charged Mike as an adult (over a teenage fight) and charged me with three counts of wiretapping. Crimes the state says justifies caging me, at your expense, for 21 years.

Donate to Ademo's Wiretap Fund

I’ve been through this before in Greenfield, MA and am confident I can present my case, logically. The problem I face in Manchester that I didn’t have in Greenfield is the personal vendetta those in Manchester seem to have for me. After all, I was given the max sentence (with 10 months of it stayed for 2 years good behavior) for ‘resisting’ my arrest.

With that in mind I’ve thought long and hard about how I’d like to tackle this case. I’ve done all the homework, reading up on New Hampshire’s wiretapping law, talking with lawyers, brainstorming ideas with fellow activist and more and it’s come down to one thing, funding. Which is why I made this video asking for your help.

As stated in the video, I think a lawyer would be beneficial to ensure I have fair pre-trial hearings and ‘proper’ (in their eyes) procedure during trial. Considering this will be an expectation of privacy trial – and that public officials have none – it will be more difficult that my Greenfield trial. Yet, a win here could do wonders for activists in the “Shire” attempting to change coercive government actions.

That being said, I also know, and appreciate, the offensive tactic as well and when done properly, is mightier than the current justice system. In terms of risk, I end up taking more with this tactic, as these actions will be done outside the court room. The best part of this strategy is that the actions the government is trying to distract you from – excessive force, deletion of evidence and criminalization of those who question government – will be front and center. As this issue goes further back than just one phone call, the Manchester police have gotten away with murder (literally) for a while now.

Regardless of how this fund raiser goes, I’ll be in court, speaking the truth and defending my position on filming, recording and monitoring public officials. I would greatly appreciate you donating to either cause as it would help me (and other activists) further the message of police accountability. You can also buy CopBlock.org swag, which help funds our CopBlock activities, or contact me for video intro/outro’s and power post. For those unable to donate, sharing CopBlock.org content and social networks is just as good as FRN’s and I need/appreciate your support as well.

Thanks in advance.

—–

Ademo’s First Hearing (video) – CopBlock.org
CopBlock Founder faces 20 years – Photography Is NOT a Crime
Ademo Responds to Charges by CopBlock
Manchester’s Chalking 8 by Cop Block
High School Student Catches Excessive Force on Video by Cop Block
Video shows West High student’s arrest by Mark Hayward in the Union Leader
West High student arrest video goes viral by Kathryn Marchocki in the Union Leader
Teen on school arrest: ‘I was goofing around’ by Mark Hayward in the Union Leader
Manchester students say videotape of arrest was not planned by Shawne Wickham in the Union

Adam Kokesh of Adam vs. The Man and I went to the Hudson, NH Police Department to file a criminal complaint against former House Speaker and presidental candidate Newt Gingrich’s security agent who assaulted Adam earlier the previous day. When we were there, Adam was filming, and was threatened with arrest.

I told the shift commander that he was absolutely incorrect about New Hampshire law due to a 1st Circuit Court of Appeals decision that denied qualified immunity to Boston, MA Police for making a similar arrest.

It is okay to be wrong… every human is wrong about stuff all the time. It does take, however, a big man to admit that he was wrong, and Lieuteant Dyac of the Hudson, NH Police proved to be a big man. Of course, it would have been preferred that he knew the law ahead of time, but we all know that ignorance of the law isn’t an excuse for US, but IS for state agents.

I am going to write a letter to Hudson, NH Police Chief Jason Lavoie praising his commander for his willingness to admit a mistake. I’d respectfully ask you all either do the same or call to quickly ask that the Chief be told that his Lieutenant is a step above many law enforcers we’ve encountered being wrong about the law. By taking the time to research the issue before taking action, Lieuteant Dyac saved his department from civil liability. He clearly is an asset to that agency.

Photography Is Not A Crime‘s Carlos Miller has done an excellent piece on this story, and his commenters seem to agree with my praise of the Lieuteant:

Joshua

Bravo to Lt. Dyac, he is the epitome of a good LEO. If only more cops could be more like him.

Interestingly, the Boston Police Department has finally come out and admitted that their officers were wrong to arrest the man who created this case law which I cited to the Lieutenant which kept Adam from being arrested.  Getting the government to apologize seems to only take five years and a federal lawsuit.

I believe positive encouragement for police accountability is as important as negative.  If you agree with me and want to praise Lt. Dyac for taking the time to research what I was saying and ultimately admitting he was wrong, Chief Lavoie of the Hudson Police can be reached here:

Chief Jason Lavoie
1 Constitution Drive – Hudson, New Hampshire 03051
Business line: 603-886-6011

Some people out there, even our regular readers, get squeamish when we liken police to gang members. I’ll stand by that analogy, which I elaborated upon in another article -

Mostly, this comparison is based on the fact that police, like gangs claim ultimate dominion over a particular territory. They stake out these particular territories, and demand “protection money” for reasons mostly out of the control of local residents. If their demands are not met, they resort to violence.

They swear an oath of  loyalty to each other, and will cover up for each other’s gruesome crimes at the expense of good sense and morality. Officers have purposely failed to take reports, covered up evidence, and even turned a blind eye to sexual battery and torture by their fellow gang-members (see here). Those who do not abide by the code of loyalty are ostracized or otherwise punished (see examples here and here). They even have a gang color – blue.

See the full article here. As long as government police exist in their current form, I will never retract my sentiment in this regard. However, for the sake of argument, let us assume police are ordinary human beings like the rest of us. Fair enough? (More than fair, in my opinion).

When was the last time the public got their panties in a bunch when 5 armed men in dark clothing were shot because they were mistaken for intruders after they busted into someone’s house?

Probably never.

How about if the homeowner at issue was suspected of growing marijuana plants, and the armed men, dressed in dark clothing were allegedly there to “protect” the public from a dangerous weed smoker? If you still think it was an evil tragedy the armed men were shot, then it’s because you’re still thinking about police. Think harder.

Imagine your friend Joe has been growing a little pot in his living room. Imagine a bunch of your neighbors, against all scientific evidence, believe that because Joe smokes weed occasionally, he is a dangerous individual. Instead of knocking on Joe’s door, talking to Joe about his “problem” or asking him politely to refrain from smoking, or engaging in about a million other peaceful and civil ways of addressing the issue, at least twelve of them decide to dress in all black, arm themselves, and kick down Joe’s door to “solve” this frightening problem of weed propagation. They declare to you they have a piece of paper that gives them such authority and will present it to Joe as proof they have a right to seize his little plant. They kick down Joe’s door at night. As a result, Joe mistakes them for burglars and opens fire, killing and injuring several of them, while also receiving injuries himself.

What would you think about these neighbors? You would think they are insane. You would think they are fucking stupid. You would wonder why it takes twelve (or more) grown, armed men to give your friend Joe a piece of fucking paper. You would think they are juvenile, violent, self-righteous assholes who mirror something out of Lord of the Flies, who think reckless use of violence and guns is some sort of game (you’d half expect to find Piggy with his smashed eyeglasses lying amid the bloodshed). If you are a bit of a judgmental prick, you might wonder why Joe keeps such offensive plants if the consequences can be so severe, but even so, if you are a reasonable person, you would not blame Joe for opening fire in terror upon seeing twelve or more armed men in his house after having his door broken down.

On the other hand, because the juvenile, violent, self-righteous assholes who don’t know how to mind their own damn business are police, the public is horrified, and the media is soliciting donations for the fallen and injured police officers gang members (see full story here). This is a travesty. The media literally is soliciting funds and sympathy for a bunch of aggro psychopaths whose careless indiscretions created the entire situation to begin with. Meanwhile, the victim of all this is being changed with crimes, and will likely suffer draconian legal penalties.

No one forced these officers to enforce bad laws. No one put a gun to the heads of these upstanding members of society and said they had to arm themselves, put on dark clothing, and kick down someone’s door to “serve a warrant” because the suspect had a certain plant in his living room. They did it anyway, and as a result, 6 of them were shot and 1 died.

This is not to say that any of them deserved to die, or that death is an appropriate punishment for burglary, but really – what is there to be so sorry about? If they were ordinary people, Americans would be flabbergasted at why these idiots believed rounding up a gang of armed people to solve a non-violent situation was necessary. Americans would rightly question the intelligence of those who claim drawing guns and breaking into houses at night in furtherance of eradicating a plant somehow makes society safer.

Anyone who feels truly terrible for these wounded/killed officers, without acknowledging the officers’ own stupidity, recklessness, and unwarranted aggression that brought on these consequences has unfortunately bought into the police state mentality – that police can do whatever they want because different – or perhaps no moral and legal standards apply to them.

In the past couple of years, CopBlock has covered a wide range of stories involving police murder.  John Williams, a half-deaf, disabled, hobbling Native American man was basically executed in the streets of Seattle by on-duty officer Ian Birk. Birk was never criminally charged. Westpoint and Duke graduate Erik Scott was executed at Costco for no legitimate reasons when police were called to the scene. His killer of course was found to have been “justified” in the murder.

Trevon Cole, an unarmed father-to-be was shot and killed in his bathroom during a mistaken drug raid. Grandfather of 12, Eurie Stamps was similarly unarmed and killed during a botched drug raid. Former Marine Jose Guerena was shot multiple times by police during an alleged drug warrant entry by police. He lay dying for over an hour until he bled to death because police refused medical care. Allen Kephart was tasered to death for honking his car horn at police. Douglas Zerby was shot and killed for holding a garden hose spigot which police purportedly mistook for a gun.

The list goes on and on, but a girl can only maintain so many murder victims’ names in her head before going insane. At any rate, without exception, police involved in these murders were found to have acted reasonably or were determined to have been justified in their murder. Even before they were found to have behaved in a “justified manner,” they were not immediately arrested or charged (or ever arrested or charged).

On the other hand, in recent news, one Officer Dayle Long had the misfortune of murdering someone and actually not getting away with it. Long was drunk at a bar when a bystander ribbed him for not being good at playing darts. Long responded, “That’s why I’m a cop, I can do whatever I want to do.” Things got heated, and Long ended up shooting and killing a third man, Sam Vanettes, who was attempting to break up the fight. Surprisingly, Long was actually arrested and held on $1 million bail. This is a good thing. Barely, though (yay! A cop was actually treated like a normal person, for once!)

Long had one part right. Police pretty much can do what they please. They get away with murder with much more success than ordinary people. They certainly get away with more innocuous violations they engage in almost daily, such as driving while talking on cell phones (illegal in California, apparently except for the police), parking in red zones, parking in handicapped zones, speeding, jaywalking, etc.

The part Long failed to take into consideration is that the key to this distinction is the badge and the uniform. People don’t care about murder when it is committed by police in uniform. The response is usually, “well then [the victim] shouldn’t have disobeyed/talked back/drank alcohol/[insert petty violation here].” People most definitely don’t care when police in uniform break traffic laws, because of course police are just “doing their jobs” and “keeping people safe” by speeding, parking in fire lanes, and talking on their cell phones while driving. But when the uniform comes off, to a certain extent, they are viewed once again as regular old losers like the rest of us.

Regular old losers can’t jay walk, speed, or murder with impunity. You have to have a uniform and a badge to do that. Long’s mistake wasn’t murder; his mistake was committing murder out of uniform. And as a side note to all you regular old losers out there, regardless of uniform, never honk your car horn at a cop or challenge his dart skills – someone could end up dead.

This came out in the paper today and has been the talk of the town of these two cops who obviously don’t respect people’s rights.

A suit was filed in federal court Wednesday against the City of Batesville, BPD officer Greg Jones and Sgt. Shawn Dalton by parents of a minor who was apprehended Halloween night after curfew hours and in possession of toilet paper.
Plaintiffs Sally and Stacy Simmerman are seeking a jury trial, that a Halloween curfew be declared unconstitutional and unenforceable, compensatory damages for their minor son and reasonable attorney fees and expenses.

Ron Lewis of Oxford is the attorney for the Simmermans.
Court documents state that the Simmermans’ son, his girlfriend and her mother as well as another group were at Walgreen’s purchasing toilet paper “. . . in preparation for a Halloween prank on one of (the group’s) cousins.”

When two members of the group returned to the cars with toilet paper an officer approached the Simmerman minor asking if he was “deaf” for not responding to the policeman.
The minor was handcuffed and taken into custody according to the document which noted that the juvenile was being apprehended for not coming when the officer summoned him.

Although the parent of his friend would later ask to take the minor home, the policemen refused, the court document states.
The Simmerman minor was then taken to the police station according to the document which claims Dalton did not put a seat belt around him and then drove erratically to the police department.

The suit also claims that the minor’s cellphone contents were searched while at the police station before his parents arrived.
The document claims that the curfew was not properly created therefore void and questions why, when there were seven children in the parking lot, only one was apprehended. The suit cites erroneous procedures when the curfew law was adopted.

The suit also claims physical damage and continued suffering by the minor.
Additonal claims include that the city as well as officer Jones are liable for wrongful arrest and detention, and Dalton is liable for use of “ . . . unnecesary, unjustified excessive force, false imprisonment and unlawful warrantless search of the contents of his cell phone.”

The complaint filed in federal court in Oxford reflects only one side of the incident and attorney Colmon Mitchell who represents the City of Batesville said last week the matter had been turned over to the city’s insurance company who would handle the claim.

- Anonymous