Cop Block

Jury nullification occurs in a trial when a jury reaches a verdict contrary to the weight of the evidence and contrary to the letter of the law. For more information visit Fija.org

It looks like the jury in one New York City gun case may have decided to vote according to what they feel is right, as opposed to what the judge, DA, and prosecutors say is illegal.

The jury took only thirty minutes to come to a not guilty verdict, acquitting Jonathan Ryan of any crime for having his legally purchased and registered Florida handgun inside New York City limits.

The 29-year-old had been indicted for criminal weapons possession and he admittedly motored into Manhattan on Feb. 21, 2010, with a 9mm pistol stored in his truck’s glove compartment.

The suspect could have faced 3½ years in prison had jurors convicted him for his ill-fated journey into Gotham.

I personally feel this should have never gone to trial, as the 2nd Amendment guarantees us the “right to keep and bear arms,” free from any government infringement. Unfortunately, the police state of NY feels differently (apparently unbound by the supposed “Supreme Law of the Land”). Here is what the District Attorney, who thinks law abiding citizens should not be able to defend themselves with guns, had to say:

DA Cy Vance was unapologetic about his office’s failed prosecution.

“We respect the jury’s verdict in this case, of course, and thank them for their service. But we will continue to protect our community from those who illegally possess loaded guns in Manhattan. Any possession of a loaded firearm in this metropolitan area has the potential for deadly consequences, to our residents and visitors alike.”

“Guns brought illegally into New York City – for any reason – violate well-established state law and are a threat to our public safety,’’ he said

Well he might be right, let’s take a look at Mr. anti-2nd amendment himself, NYC Mayor Bloomberg. Mr. Bloomberg, who is the real criminal, you or me? I cannot carry my legal firearm in NYC, but you and your staff can. And recently, one of your employees’ guns, “officially” permitted in order to protect you, was just used in the attempted murder of an innocent, and unarmed (because of NYC’s strict guns laws) person.

“NYPD officer Leopold McLean, who had long worked on security detail for Mayor Bloomberg, has been charged with attempted murder after allegedly shooting his girlfriend’s ex-lover and then trying to cover it up … Other charges against McLean include assault, criminal use of a firearm and reckless endangerment …”

Ouch! That doesn’t look good does it? Hiring murders to protect yourself, while telling us we can’t protect ourselves. I just hope more juries vote like this one did, and push to nullify the oppressive laws that politicians like Bloomberg support. Great work citizens of NY!

The Austin police (APD) pride themselves on their “Groceries for Guns” campaign. They claim that removing guns (most of which are dysfunctional) from “the streets” will lower crime. Unfortunately, that is just not true, and John Bush with Texans For Accountable Government (TAG), was there with fellow activists to Cop Block the APD. They sat outside the police campaign and bought guns for $110 cash, which was $10 over what the police were offering. Doesn’t matter to me that the police ‘collected’ more guns, this video is a textbook ‘Cop Block’ and the best I’ve seen in a while. My hat’s off to the Austin Crew for such a powerful video. Watch them put a major Cop Block, Austin Style, on the police in the video below.

Continue reading…

Nick Foley, who found CopBlock.org because of Pete’s arrest for wearing a hat in court, contacted us to share his encounter with New York City Police. I’d like to thank Nick for taking the time to share his story with us and for having the courage to stand up to cops like this. If you have a police story that you want to write about, go for it (personal experience, quick hit on article/topic or a video )! Just click our contact tab above and we’ll help you with the rest.

By Nick Foley

Self-defense laws are contradictory. Our supposed “leaders” love to bellow loudly about respecting Individual Rights and the Constitution of the United States of America while quietly taking away those rights described within it. Like a third-rate magician performing a cheap trick, the modern politician will turn up the music and wave one hand in the air, while the other hand is under the table reaching for the fixed deck of cards.

In the realm of self-defense, the Constitution, which the politician will claim to value, states that “…the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” This is widely accepted to mean that the restrictions regarding the ownership and carrying of firearms are unlawful. True freedom-loving people do and should consider laws discouraging firearms ownership offensive. Today, carrying a gun without government permission is, in most places, a jail-able offense, regardless of whether or not an actual offense has been committed. While this may be unjust, the politicians don’t stop there. In some cities, you may be put in handcuffs and thrown in a cage for carrying an item far, far less dangerous and deadly than a gun…you will be incarcerated for carrying an item that most would never give a second thought about bringing with them during their day’s activities…an item that has many practical uses beyond self-defense. What is this item? A pocketknife.

I know, because I was arrested last spring in New York City for carrying a small folding blade in my pocket. What was my supposed “offense?” Exiting a subway train between work sites, and walking peacefully past a uniformed officer of the NYPD. In the absence of any real threat, the officer only knew I possessed a pocketknife because of the clip of my knife on the outside of my jean’s pocket. When the officer ripped the knife out of my pocket without my permission, I pulled out my phone and began to videotape the interaction (the officer later claimed that he would not have arrested me if I had not recorded our interaction). You can see the interaction here:

Let’s get something straight: I knew and understood the specific New York City laws concerning knives before I carried one, and followed the law under the expectation that I would be protected by the law. I now know better; that all laws are subject to the personal interpretation of the Police and the Courts. The specific portion of the law under which the officer arrested me for criminal possession of a weapon refers to gravity knives. The law states:

“Gravity knife means any knife that has a blade which is released from the handle or sheath thereof by the force of gravity or the application of centrifugal force which, when released, is locked in place by means of a button, spring, lever, or other device.”

The knife I was carrying was not a gravity knife by definition, since the blade was tightened to the point where one could not simply “flick” it open, rather one must use the opposing hand to open the blade. While one may argue all day about the specifics of what a gravity knife is, and if my knife was or was not a gravity knife under New York law, it really detracts from understanding the fundamental violation here: that a peaceful, non-violent, non-threatening individual can be thrown in jail for simple possession, not offensive use of, a common pocketknife.

Under this interpretation of New York City law, it is legal to carry a menacing 4-inch fixed blade, but illegal to carry a 1-inch folding blade. It is legal to carry a 3-foot long baseball bat, but illegal to carry a 1-foot long defense baton. It is legal to possess a .50 caliber muzzle-loading rifle without a permit, but it is illegal to possess a .22 caliber rifle without a permit. See the contradictions?

Fortunately, my personal story of arrest ends anticlimactically; I was jailed for 4 hours, fingerprinted, and released. At my court hearing, I was not even called to the stand: I was simply handed a slip of paper informing me that the “The D.A. has decided not to prosecute” my case. Unfortunately for many others, this kind of story does not end as well. Thousands of non-violent people are incarcerated in the United States each day, for non-crimes ranging from carrying a defense weapon to carrying a certain plant.

The anger and frustration that I felt reminds me of the opening scenes of the original “Rambo” movie, where Rambo is stopped by local police for wearing a buck-knife, is taken to jail for no real reason, then proceeds to fight his way out of the jail. While I am not about about to go “Rambo” on anyone, I do want to stress that wrongful imprisonment, even for just a few hours, is a horrible crime for a government to commit against a citizen.

Self-defense is a universal, moral right which the government must take away if is to maintain its power. An un-armed, vulnerable population is easily controlled. Laws that prohibit an individual’s right to carry weapons of defense only give government the excuse to expand its weapons of offense.

In conclusion, I would like to make a statement that may shock some people: Laws don’t matter. Even if the law is perfect, it is enforced by imperfect beings. In my opinion, the greatest mistake of our generation is to think that freedom can be achieved by elections. The thinking goes: if we could only get Politician X into office, things will change for the better. But to elect better people into government office is to snap a twig off the tree of evil without ever striking the root. As long as there is a monopoly on the use of violence, violence will always be widespread. As long as we hand over all the guns to the state; to political rulers and brutal police, we will always be ruled and utterly, tragically, brutalized.

Visit me at http://www.youtube.com/BookofNick

As I write this, a week has passed since one Jared Lee Loughner attacked a “Congress On Your Corner” event hosted by Arizona District 8 Congressional Representative Gabrielle “Gabby” Giffords with a Glock 19 semi-automatic handgun, equipped with an extended 33 round magazine. Loughner critically injured Giffords, who was presumed to be his main target, and killed a sitting federal judge, a 9-year-old girl, and 4 others, while wounding at least 4 more victims before he was wrestled to the ground as he attempted to reload (though, by all accounts, he had not fired all the bullets in his magazine). Unfortunately, these kinds of mass-killings are not all that uncommon in America, though I cannot recall one that has so thoroughly exorcised the ruling classes and their media apologists as this one, presumably because the target was a politician. In fact, the bodies of the victims had not even been removed from the Safeway parking lot before people were rushing to blame the violence on Sarah Palin and the “climate of hate” her political rhetoric supposedly created, despite a total lack of any evidence connecting the madman to Alaska’s former governor.

Not surprisingly, in this era where politicians “never let a good crisis go to waste,” a whole host of knee-jerk legislation has been proposed by Representatives and Senators, including everything from a roving 1000 foot “gun-free zone” around all federal officials, no matter where they go (which begs the question, how are we supposed to know? Are they going to roll out a smart phone app with a GPS enabled federal employee beacon? Wouldn’t that create a whole lot MORE security issues than it solves?), to arming every Congresscritter on Capitol Hill, to reinstating the Clinton era assault weapons ban or enacting additional gun control measures that go even further, and finally, going so far as to encase the entire floor of Congress in bullet-proof Plexiglas! All of these measures reveal the extent to which legislators are desperately afraid of the constituents they ostensibly serve, and just how limited their imaginations are beyond measures of command and control as a means to assuage their fears.

While it should be clear to any reasonable person that laws restricting the ownership or carrying of firearms are of no consequence to those hell-bent on causing carnage (after all, there is no legal means to engage in mass-murder, what difference does it make if there’s a waiting period for a handgun, or a limit on magazine capacity? A vehicle or home-made pipe-bomb would have been just as deadly in the hands of someone with nefarious intent), lawmakers have to appear as if they are “doing something” in response to the tragedy. It is likely that these initiatives will fail to pass, and I hope they do, but the presumption remains that the only recourse available to society is to pass more laws, as if the thousands and thousands already on the books are insufficient.

The sad truth is, in this situation there were actually dozens of opportunities to intervene, and in nearly every case, the buck was passed, and individuals directly involved with the shooter assumed that someone else, presumably the state, would handle the problem, yet even when the authorities got involved, in typical bureaucratic fashion, they allowed a deranged, deeply disturbed individual to simply fall through the cracks. There are even allegations, which cannot as yet be independently verified, that charges stemming from multiple death threats made by Loughner against Pima Community College staff were swept under the rug as a favor to his aunt, who is a Pima County employee in another department. 10,000 more laws could be passed in the wake of this horrific massacre, but they’ll never amount to anything more than further restriction on our liberty, unless people begin to take personal responsibility for addressing issues like this in their community head on, and seeing it through to the point that people like Jared Lee Loughner ultimately get the mental health services they need, long before they act out violently.

I live and work in Tucson, and I’ve been here for most of my life. One of my co-workers is friends with people who live on the Loughner’s street. I realize this is just hearsay, but from what I understand, this kid had been a major problem in the neighborhood for years, ever since his brain was damaged in an alcohol poisoning incident in 2007, when he was a high school student. Apparently, he would get on his bicycle and ride up and down the block screaming at the top of his lungs at all hours of the night. His parents were quoted in the media, asking “where did we fail?” but it seems clear to me that there was ample basis for neighbors, not to mention friends, school officials and even authorities to take it up with the family, and in fact, they did on several occasions, though with insufficient follow through (typically the very minimum the law required, and nothing more), so they had to know their son was extremely mentally unstable, a danger to himself and others.

It seems to me that a lack of community involvement, the isolation so common to suburban enclaves where families insulate themselves from those around them with distractions like television, video games and the internet, combined with the well ingrained propensity for people to defer to state authority (taught in public school and continually reinforced in the media) to handle any and every discomfiting situation they may encounter, is what made it possible for this family to ignore or discount their son’s increasingly bizarre behavior, as if he were somebody else’s problem. If those of us who advocate private, voluntary alternatives to coercive state authority are going to be successful in changing anything, we’re going to have to get involved in our communities, establishing mutual aide networks and resources for cooperative solutions. If the Loughner family were involved with the people their neighborhood, and they had a sense of responsibility and accountability to their community, as well as an understanding that support and assistance was available to them, they likely would not have been able to persist in their willful ignorance of Jared Lee’s dangerous insanity.

I believe the moral of this tragic story is that no amount of legislation will prevent the next mass-murder spree. Once their mental illness progresses to that point, there is virtually nothing that can deter the criminally insane from carrying out their murderous schemes. But if we engage our neighbors, and interact with others in our community, and take the responsibility to address any issues we have with them directly, and in a timely fashion, rather than assuming it is none of our business or that the authorities will handle it (because most of the time, they wont), we just might have a chance to avert disaster before it happens.

Gun rights activist and science fiction/fantasy author, Joel Rosenberg has been arrested and charged with a felony that carries a maximum of 5 years in prison. His alleged crime was carrying a gun into a “courthouse.”

It is a felony to carry a firearm into a courthouse in Minnesota except for “persons who carry pistols according to the terms of a permit issued under section 624.714 and who so notify the sheriff or the commissioner of public safety, as appropriate.”

Rosenberg does not deny carrying a gun when he went to a meeting with Sgt. William Palmer at the Minneapolis Police Department (he even recorded himself doing so). Rosenberg says that he notified the sheriff of his intentions to carry when entering the courthouse on several occasions and received permission to do just that. Also, the police department is not a courthouse so even if he had not notified the sheriff he would still not be guilty of violating the law.

When Rosenberg arrived at the meeting Sgt. Palmer immediately disarmed him and told him that he could not carry his gun in the building due to a court order issued by a judge declaring the building a “courthouse” and forbidding private citizens from carrying guns in the building. (Rosenberg was also charged with a misdemeanor contempt of court for violating this court order.)

This is the video of that encounter with Sgt. Palmer (all the action is in the first couple minutes, the rest is boring):

Rosenberg eventually relented and took his gun to his car even though he knew the law was on his side. Minnesota law forbids any government agent including judges from “limiting the exercise of a permit to carry.” A judge cannot just declare a building off limits for carry permit holders. The court order attempting to do so was unlawful.

You can listen to more details about the case here at Armed American Radio. The discussion of Rosenberg’s case starts at about 35 minutes in.

Rosenberg and his supporters contend that Rosenberg was not arrested for exercising his right to carry, but instead they believe that he was arrested for contempt of cop. Shortly after the incident at the police station where Rosenberg was disarmed by Sgt. Palmer he posted the video seen below and this open letter to Sgt. Palmer. In both the video and the letter he mocks Sgt. Palmer and the Minneapolis Police Department. The fact that Rosenberg was not arrested until a month after the incident lends credibility to the contention that his arrest was retaliation for his internet postings. The fact that charges against his wife that had been previously dropped have now been reinstated also lends credibility to the charge of retaliation.

To follow Rosenberg’s story as it unfolds visit Free Joel Rosenberg.

With each regulation or law against drugs, gangs trafficking in drugs become just a little wealthier, and acquire a little more business. Full criminalization of recreational drugs is every gang’s dream – most, if not all of them operate, thrive and even flourish on illegal drug money.

With each regulation or law against sex work or prostitution, women who do choose to engage in such work become more susceptible to rape, murder and other violence because they are afraid to report crimes. With complete criminalization of sex work and prostitution, sex traffickers and child smugglers are much harder to find and prosecute because the entire industry has been forced underground and lacks transparency. Yet another consequence is the rampant spread of sexually transmitted diseases, whereas legalized prostitution would encourage regular testing and adherence to safety standards (more here).

Similarly, banning alcohol in the 1920s only led to the rise of organized crime, political corruption and an increase in alcohol-related problems. It was such a colossal failure that the 18th Amendment was repealed. With the failure of each prohibition, the lesson is clear (or at least it should be): bans do not eliminate the substance or behavior, but merely force it underground, remove transparency, increase violence and waste resources squandered in enforcement, while creating tremendous incentives for corruption and abuse of authority.

Guns are no different. The more restrictions, regulations and laws there are hindering gun ownership, the more likely violent people with ill intent will be armed, while good people who fear arrest will not risk doing so. The more gun control the government enacts, the more criminal activity society will face. Although I do not believe liberties should depend upon the interpretation of a document, the United States Constitution and its history are instructive here. The Second Amendment provides, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

This declaration, although short, could be seen as a legal scholar’s nightmare. What does “well-regulated” mean? What constitutes a “militia”? Is the second clause, “the right of people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed” an absolute, or does that right depend on the necessity of a well-regulated militia? These considerations are precisely why I dislike the idea of having civil liberties depend on governmental interpretation of a document purporting to restrict the very government doing the interpreting.

Even so, several of the founding fathers saw an armed populace as a deterrent against government tyranny. Noah Webster pointed out that

Before a standing army can rule the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.

George Mason said of England’s efforts to disarm the people “that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them . . . by totally disusing and neglecting the militia.”  Indeed, the Revolutionary War itself is evidence the founding fathers supported people taking up arms against tyrannical government.

As much as I dislike guns, this makes perfect sense. How can a government control or oppress a fully-armed populace? For the people who like to deviate from the text and argue the Constitution should be interpreted based on changes in society and more current considerations, I’d like to know – at what point in American history did the US government transform from the potential source of tyranny the founders feared into a perfect government incapable of abuse and oppression? Are today’s politicians suddenly so much more intelligent and enlightened that we need not have any fear of government control and abuse? If so, when precisely did this miraculous change occur?

While the founding fathers believed an armed populace was essential to liberty, the current sentiment is that people who choose to bear arms are a threat to everyone. The law, and people’s general attitudes, do not reflect the idea that an individual has a right to protect him or herself and preserve freedom; the general attitude is that a person must justify his or her desire to own or carry a firearm.

Arguably, the founding fathers could never have contemplated that despite the Second Amendment, an American could one day be arrested and have his gun taken away merely because he disrespected police. John Solomon, who was legally carrying a concealed weapon, refused to disperse from a bus station when police asked him to. “If he’s that defiant, should this guy have a gun?” said Sgt. Ray Evers, a police spokesman. “The most uncommon human trait is common sense. He’s not using good, adult judgment.” For being defiant, he was arrested and had his gun confiscated (more here).

Indeed, in this scenario the police were the ones who lacked common sense by preventing someone from waiting at a bus stop and arresting a person for acting “defiant.” If common sense is to be the gauge as to whether someone can have a gun, these officers should not be entitled to own one, much less carry one. But, of course, the right of police to carry and use guns is never questioned.

In New York City, restrictions on gun ownership may be increasing. Proposed revisions to the licensing scheme will deny licenses to people who have been arrested or convicted of almost any violation in any state, including the grave offense of demonstrating a “poor driving history”; having been fired for “circumstances that demonstrate lack of good judgment”; having “failed to pay legally required debts”; allegedly lacking “good moral character”; or if there is any “other good cause for the denial of the permit” (more here).

Yet police who shoot people under questionable circumstances not only continue to have guns, they continue to serve as police officers and sometimes even go on to shoot more innocent people. One Officer Bryan Yant shot and killed Trevon Cole for making a “furtive movement” after a drug bust that involved lies by police and mistaken identity. It was Yant’s third shooting.

Officers Lilly and Coutts of Phoenix shot an innocent homeowner. Tony Arambula’s wife reported a burglar invasion and specifically informed police upon their arrival that her husband was inside the house, and had cornered the intruder. Lilly and Coutts not only shot Mr. Arambula 6 times, including in the back, but dragged him outside by his leg and transported him on the hood of their car after discovering their mistake. Aside from the standard 3-day suspension for investigative purposes, neither officers were disciplined (full story here).

Several years ago, Officers Willard and Bergin of Sandy, Oregon came upon a mentally unstable man, who was suffering from burns he received in a car crash.  They tasered him multiple times and shot him seven times until he died because he would not lie down on the ground (more here). Both Willard and Bergin continued to work as police officers, although Bergin later resigned for unrelated reasons.

This is likely the exact scenario the founding fathers feared. The government is well-armed, with no questions asked. The government finds all kinds of reasons (bad driving, bad employment record, etc.) to stop ordinary people from owning a gun before they can even use it, but police are allowed to have guns, commit atrocities with their guns, and continue to serve as police officers.

Not only is the government well-armed, it has enacted special laws for itself so that people who choose to fight back against corrupt police officers or other government agents abusing their authority face extremely harsh punishment. Assault, battery or homicide on a police officer or other armed agent of the state carries much heavier penalties in many states, which suggests those in government believe their lives are worth more than those of the people they ostensibly serve. People who defend themselves against unwarranted police violence thus risk being prosecuted not only for assault or homicide, but the much graver offense of committing these acts against an agent of the state. For instance, Cory Maye defended himself and his infant daughter against a wrongful home invasion committed in the middle of the night by an anti-drug SWAT team, whom he reasonably believed to be armed robbers, and was given the death penalty after he fired his gun and fatally struck the deputy who kicked in his bedroom door.

The laws are such that people are disincentivized from defending themselves, and police are encouraged to kill people. History further paints those who defend themselves as “violent,” while police who kill people merely are guilty of “accidents.” Years of public school education have taught us the Black Panthers were a terrible, racist and violent group. Yet a brief read on Wikipedia paints a very different picture. They may be rightfully criticized for being communists, but their organization was founded on the principle of self-defense against racist police. The whole reason the Black Panthers came into existence was to retaliate and engage in self-defense against abusive police. The Panthers openly carried guns to protest and protect themselves from the police who had so often wrongly turned their guns against them. Certainly, there are other dark moments and problems in Black Panther history warranting criticism, but ultimately, history unfairly paints them as violent and militant merely for advocating self-defense.

Malcolm X presents yet another example of historical distortion. After viewing many Malcolm X speeches on YouTube, I have yet to find a single speech in which he actually advocated the initiation of violence. His speech, The Ballot or the Bullet, often criticized for having violent themes, merely said this of bearing arms:

The only thing that I’ve ever said is that in areas where the government has proven itself either unwilling or unable to defend the lives and the property of Negroes, it’s time for Negroes to defend themselves. Article number two of the constitutional amendments provides you and me the right to own a rifle or a shotgun. It is constitutionally legal to own a shotgun or a rifle.

He then goes on to say, “If he’s not going to do his job in running the government and providing you and me with the protection that our taxes are supposed to be for, since he spends all those billions for his defense budget, he certainly can’t begrudge you and me spending $12 or $15 for a single-shot, or double-action.”

I may disagree with Malcolm X’s characterizations of the “White Man” or “the Chinaman” or his proposed solutions to government corruption in this speech, but his underlying message is ultimately the right of self-defense. To characterize self-defense as militancy is absurd; yet this is exactly what the government, historians and many textbooks have done.

The distortion of history further contributes to this phenomenon by juxtaposing the successes of peaceful protesters who effected change in laws with the alleged militancy of people who dared to engage in self-defense. While civil disobedience is commendable, and arguably much more effective than violence, a person has a moral right to shoot back at police who are wrongfully shooting at him or her.  When you see the KKK/police (often indistinguishable back in those days) lynching your family member, you certainly can hold a peaceful protest, and hope the local police would arrest their own, the courts would try their own, and that an all-white jury would vote to convict the killer, who finally goes to jail. But in my opinion, you would absolutely be within your moral rights to load your shotgun and just kill the attacker.

Aside from moral considerations, practicality dictates that when one is facing an immediate attack, police often cannot and will not be there in a timely fashion. Experience further indicates that not only may police be too late, they may show up and cause more harm than good, as was the case with Mr. and Mrs. Arambula, and the case in which an Officer Chrisman shot a young man and his dog, for essentially being non-compliant (full story here). The idea that police must be armed but citizens must be restricted rests on the assumption that police are better people, never make mistakes and are never corrupt. This simply is not the case. Police cannot stop a rape or a murder if they are 15 minutes away.  Further, there absolutely are situations in which citizens need to, and have a right to defend themselves against police with deadly force.

Over and over, official history and the government depict self-defense against government as unwarranted violence and governmental initiation of violence against people as minor indiscretions. The government uses violence against its populace on a daily basis, but expects those citizens to refrain from self-defense, and instead lobby, organize, take beatings, get arrested, and essentially beg for changes in the system.

If this continues, the people’s right of defense against government tyranny will eventually be completely erased and a police state firmly established.

Erik Scott

On July 10, Erik Scott, a West Point and Duke graduate, went shopping at Costco in Summerlin, Nevada.  He was carrying a concealed firearm, as permitted by Nevada state law.  Witness and officer reports differ on what happened next.  Allegedly, Scott began acting bizarrely, and would not leave the store.  Some accounts indicate Xanax and pain killers were in his system after subsequent testing.

It is not disputed that police were called to Costco, and upon seeing Scott, demanded that he drop his weapon (this was recorded on the 911 call, as well as confirmed by a witness).  As Mr. Scott reached for his holstered gun (which never left the holster) to drop his weapon, police shot him 2 times in the chest, 5 times in the back, killing him (more here).

The officers involved in the shooting were subsequently found to be “justified,” and of course were not charged with anything.  No doubt this case raises many issues; the first one is that of the right to concealed carry.  If you can be shot for “acting bizarrely” while posing no threat to anyone, then effectively, there really is no right to concealed carry.  The right does not in fact exist if you have the “right to carry” but can be shot arbitrarily.

Of course, there are always the typical apologists who justify police violence with the fact that the victim was non-compliant and thus deserved to be forced into submission. One would think these apologists have nothing to say here; Mr. Scott was shot precisely because he was obeying commands to “drop the firearm.” How can one drop a firearm without touching it?  A lot of police justifications center around the fact that several witnesses saw Mr. Scott reaching for a weapon.  There is no doubt the 911 recording reflects officer commands for Scott to drop the weapon; in essence, he was shot precisely for obeying police commands.  But what are facts to zombie-like police apologists, rushing rabidly to defend tyrants?  Lynn S (who is either totally uninformed or an idiot) had this to say in response to a news article on the matter:

If only Mr. Scott would of obeyed the policemans commands this would not be a issue. I hold a ccw card and that is the 1st thing they teach you OBEY a cop if confronted.Maybe a few too many pain pills ??? Sorry to the family , but quit trying to place the blame on the police and take a good look at your son.            –Lynn S

Victim-blaming. Tell the dead guy with 7 bulletholes and a heartbroken family and fiancee that it’s their fault.  Classic.  And classy, I might add (sarcasm). I used to think people were nuts for demanding blind obedience to cops.  Now I see it’s not just blind obedience to cops; it’s just a very general, obsequious love -fest for cops.  This unfounded deference borders on the obscene; even when you do obey them, when they shoot you it’s still your fault, not theirs.

The story continues to get sketchier from there.  Costco, a major wholesaler operating on the international scale, claims its surveillance camera was broken for days leading up to this incident. As such, no footage was available.

Shai Lierley, a Costco security guard now alleges he knew at the time the video was not working, and had arranged for repairs. Yet, initial news articles did not mention any alleged malfunction. It seems strange for Costco to turn (blank) security tapes over to police without mentioning any malfunction if they knew the camera was broken. This article indicates Costco and police refused to comment on the video initially.  It is again odd Costco wouldn’t just say such footage didn’t exist if they were aware the surveillance system was broken.

Further, it appears police sent the hard drive to a forensic analyst, allegedly to recover footage. Since when can you recover footage that doesn’t exist? If you knew your camera was broken and failed to record something, it doesn’t make sense to send it to a forensic analyst for retrieval.  You can’t retrieve something that never existed in the first place.

Admittedly, this is all speculative. However, even assuming there was no foul play with the convenient lack of surveillance, it is unquestionably ridiculous that a man can be shot for reaching for his gun when armed officers specifically commanded him to drop his gun.

When the story first broke in July, witness accounts differed from the police accounts. With a few minor discrepancies, 4 witnesses interviewed immediately afterward did not know why Scott was shot.  None of them saw Scott brandish a weapon.  One witness said, “There wasn’t even time for someone to react…The guy didn’t pull a gun. There was no gun in his hand, there was no gun on the ground.” Another witness similarly did not see Mr. Scott threaten anyone.  A July 28 update indicated there were floods of witnesses calling the station offering to give accounts.

Another eyewitness referenced in this article who was right next to Scott claims he didn’t have a gun in his hand or appear to be hostile in any way. The witness further said that once Scott was down and clearly not a threat, police treated his lifeless body “like a sack of potatoes.”

Metro Police Officer William Mosher testifying at the coroner's inquest

More recently, witnesses at the coroner’s inquest have largely backed police accounts of Scott brandishing a weapon, holding a gun, reaching for a gun, or something to that effect. In the eyes of the jury involved in the coroner’s inquest, this appears to have justified the murder.  It is unclear why this is the case. Even assuming the witnesses claiming Scott made no threatening move were all lying, witnesses supporting the police’s account of events actually make this murder even more ridiculous.  If Scott was reaching for a weapon, he was doing so under police orders.

The level of incompetence required for a team of allegedly trained police to scream for a suspect to drop his weapon, but then to shoot him when he attempts to do so is almost incomprehensible.

Well, police have succeeded at their job.  No one was made safer.  A man is dead because of their incompetence and shameless use of violence, but their approval ratings are doing just fine.

• The US Justice Department is investigating the city of Bell, CA to determine whether or not they violated the civil rights of Hispanic motorists by deliberately targeting them for car towing in order to raise revenue. The city is already under investigation for misusing funds and voter fraud.
• Maj. Everett Clendenin, a high-ranking North Carolina state trooper, is in a bit of hot water after being caught using his state-owned cell phone to send text messages to his “little sugar bowl,” Pamela Maynard. Maynard, who worked as Clandenin’s secretary, is married to another NC state trooper.
• Unfortunately, drug war hysteria affects more than just the criminal justice system. School officials for the Byron Nelson High School in Fortworth, Texas suspended a student and told him that he would have to transfer to an alternative education program because he had bloodshot eyes (they believed him to be under the influence of cannabis). In fact, Kyler Robertson’s eyes were bloodshot because he had been crying due to the death of his father.
• Speaking of hysteria, a new law in Queensland, Australia requires that anything that “looks like a gun” must be registered with the state. This law would, for instance, probably require that toy guns be registered. “We just want to know where they are,” claims an anonymous government source.
• And speaking of schools in Texas, a student on a school bus in Houston “was so badly beaten [by a police officer] that his face will never be the same.” The officer allegedly beat the student for refusing to answer his questions. The incident was caught on video, but police are refusing to release it.
• Lastly, here’s a video of Howard Zinn offering his perspective on civil disobedience. I don’t really agree with Zinn’s politics, but I thought it was an interesting video. Another video (which I like better) of Zinn talking about civil disobedience here.