Cop Block

This post was sent to us via CopBlock.org’s Submit Tab.

After reading about the atrocities committed by police on this blog, one has happened in my backyard. And just like many of those examples, police, again, get away with murder. Literally.

It began (click here for more) early in the morning of November 6th, 2010 in Mount Joy Borough, PA.. Robert Neill, age 61, called police like a dutiful citizen to report being harassed by neighbors. Somehow he ended up dead.

The government report, which of course is only one side of the tale since the other can’t tell his, reports that he became “combative and aggressive,” and was enraged when they tried to calm him down. Instead of doing the appropriate thing and leaving, they of course try to “do something”.  That something lead to his death. He was shot by Tasers, at least twice, as well as being pepper sprayed. The official cause of death was from an abnormal heartbeat (maybe because his heart was shocked with electricity).

I can imagine the scene like this: Mr. Neill calls the cops to complain about noisy neighbors. The cops arrive, find nothing, and try to talk to him. Its the middle of night, he’s already angry about the harassment, and now they don’t get what he is talking about. Understandable that he may have been angry at the whole situation. He walks toward them upset about why they can’t understand his complaint.

A normal person in this situation would try to talk, and barring that,  just leave and get out of there. Instead, the cops attack him because they feel “threatened” (AWWWWWW). They get more cops to attack him. Now, does anybody in their right mind expect an angry person who is being tased and attacked to get less angry? Only the protected class of government agents would think this is a good idea. So, he ends up dead because of their actions.

If this happened to anybody but government agents, they would be thrown in jail and charged with manslaughter. But predictably, since they aren’t lowly citizens, they are cleared of all wrong doing by the state Attorney General. (click here for more) There is nothing else released about the incident; no officer names and no justification except “the cops did nothing wrong.”

That is unacceptable in a just society. The cops should be in jail for their actions. Instead, their superiors and cohorts cover for them and the state justice system lets them get away scott free for killing a man, for a reason nobody knows.

I’m disgusted, and I’m going to go protest in front of the police station. Even if there is no official justice, at least I will make this murder uncomfortable for those responsible.

Matthew Butch

As regular readers of this blog are well aware, the May 5th shooting of former Marine Jose Guereña in Tucson, Arizona was both tragic and controversial. Sheriff’s Deputies and Police Officers forming the regional Pima County SWAT team entered his home to serve a search warrant, after what they claim was an extensive 20-month investigation that focused on several homes. Bizarrely, the warrant did not specify Guereña, nor anything specific in his home, as required by the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Despite overlooking this critical “technicality,” cops entered in typical paramilitary style, wielding overwhelming force, which can be seen in the subsequently released helmet-cam video taken by one the attackers. Mere seconds elapsed from their arrival, to their “dynamic entry” of breaching the front door and sending bullets flying. Over 70, to be exact. Jose was struck over 20 times, and the rest of the rounds, many from AR-15 rifles, flew through the house, some exiting out the back and coming to rest in the walls of neighboring homes.

Fortunately, no one else was hurt, but Mr. Guereña lay dying on the floor for over an hour as SWAT officials drove a robot around his home looking for other dangers, yet failing even to locate his terrified wife and 4-year-old child, who were cowering in the bedroom closet. Eventually, they emerged after 10 minutes of hiding and begged for the paramedics on scene to render aid. They had been there from almost the very beginning of the situation. In fact, the LifeFlight helicopter was on standby, though presumably for the benefit of police, not their victims. Mr. Guereña’s wife and son pleaded in vain. When the paramedics were finally allowed into the home, it was only to pronounce the man dead.

All this is now a matter of record. So too are the internal PCSO and Pima County Attorney’s investigations which ultimately cleared (no surprise there) all the officers involved of any wrongdoing, despite the fact that they felt compelled to retain the services of Michael Storie, a local criminal defense attorney, less than 6 days after the raid occurred. Perhaps they lacked confidence in Sheriff Dupnik’s whitewashing operation. If so, that fear was misplaced. Apparently, mindlessly opening fire because of an over-eager deputy’s accidental discharge is totally acceptable, so long as the unsuspecting victim is legally armed in defense of his home against a huge group of unknown invaders. After all, they did simultaneously run their siren, knock on his door and shout “police!” for all of 7 or 8 seconds upon approaching his home, before smashing in the door, guns blazing (and the raid commenced at a time they should have known from their “20 month investigation” that Guereña was likely to be asleep, and thus disoriented or unable to respond to them). By the way, that was *NOT* a “no-knock” warrant, but a standard “knock-and-announce” operation. Really, why bother making the distinction? Operationally, there’s absolutely no difference. No one can either answer the door or destroy evidence in 7 or 8 seconds.

So, taking all these sorry facts into account, what rational person would not react with horror and indignation at the actions of those supposedly given a public trust like that of the police? Especially in one’s own community! Certainly not Brian Miller, chairman of the Pima County Republican Party‘s executive committee. Brian was reasonably disgusted by what happened to a fellow veteran in his own city (Miller is an Air Force A-10 Warthog instructor pilot), where he lives, works and raises a family. He went so far as to publicly express his discontent with the situation via an official e-mail distributed to the membership of the Pima County GOP, stating “we are all Jose Guereña now,” and adding that “it is my hope that this tragic event will lead to a renewed discussion of the policies that routinely lead to heavily armed and militarized local police invading private homes and a renewed interest in the civil liberties codified in our Bill of Rights.”

To most people, this is an appropriate reaction to an obviously egregious episode of excessive police violence (and the kind of speech protected by the 1st Amendment), but given the rank and file Republican’s penchant for groveling at the feet of “law enforcement,” the statement was unfortunately bound to stir up anger and resentment among its recipients.  The “law-and-order” types predictably mistake patriotism for obedience to and religious veneration of the state and its institutions of official force. For them, this was sacrilege, and Brian Miller had to be called on the carpet for it. The other members of the executive committee called an emergency meeting to do just that. But what’s interesting is just who was invited to upbraid Mr. Miller for his impudence – a high ranking representative of the local police union, the Tucson Police Officers Association.

It turns out, not a day went by after Miller sent that e-mail than the TPOA had contacted every elected Republican official they could get a hold of to demand they shut him up. The cop shop’s rep told Miller, “I never want to hear anything like that coming out of your mouth again,” to which he responded that he’d steadfastly adhere to the principle of civilian oversight of the police, just as he does for the military in which he serves. That elicited an angry response from the TPOA man, who retorted, “you have no right to criticize law enforcement, you’ve never been in law enforcement.” Apparently, that was too much even for some of the assembled Republicans, and Miller said the comment ”really lit up the room.” Nevertheless, the established party leaders ”ben[t] over and grab[bed] their ankles when ordered to by the `public safety’ unions,” and ultimately produced an ultimatum, demanding Brian turn over his keys, and step down as chairman of the county party apparatus.

Since then, the Pima County Republican Party has moved to silence him, remove him from power, and distance themselves from the statements made in the controversial e-mail. But Miller has been defiant, and refuses to quit. Reaction among the voting public and registered Republicans in Pima County has been split. The battle lines have been drawn around the typical factions, with the libertarian leaning “Ron Paul” types on one side, and the authoritarian, military and police worshiping establishment neo-con types on the other. Even the usually even-handed (for a right-wing radio talk show host, anyway) local media personality Jon Justice took Miller to task on his show for passing judgment on the situation “before all the facts were in,” echoing the TPOA representative’s absurd assertion that only law enforcement agents are capable of criticizing law enforcement’s actions. Apparently, one has to be a police officer to know whether sending 70 bullets into an presumptively innocent family’s home is morally wrong. This self-serving proposition is both absurd and idiotic. Following that logic, only a politician may criticize other politicians’ actions, and one must be a murderer to condemn an act of murder, etc.

Brian Miller’s supporters, including the local Republican Liberty Caucus, Oathkepers and Tea Party groups, have been very vocal in defense of their chairman. They’ve set up a Facebook page in support of Miller, as well as a petition page where folks can pledge donations to be delivered if and when he’s ultimately retained in his position. But despite their vociferous defense, the final battle will happen tonight, Friday, July 15. The other members of the Pima County GOP Executive Committee have called a meeting to vote on a change of the by-laws of the organization that would allow them to remove him from his duly elected position on the basis of a single vote, without any kind of due process or investigation. They’ve alleged that he’s misused party funds and resources by sending the e-mail and asking members to attend an Oathkeepers rally in support of Guereña’s family that was scheduled after Jose’s funeral, but Brian Miller is well prepared to answer their “latest round of calumny.” This is a fight for the soul of this organization, and it will determine the future of the county GOP, whether it will strive forward under the banner of liberty, small government and accountability for police, or continue in irrelevance as an also ran of statism and impunity for law enforcement.

Yesterday, Egypt’s Interior Minister Mansour el-Issawi announced the dismissal of more than 600 high-ranking police officials who were employed during the mass protests that occurred earlier this year. Many of the officers who were fired have been accused of involvement in the killing of hundreds of people during the protests.

The firing of the officers was done in part to placate Egypt’s protest movement which gained strength last Friday when a new wave of protests swept through the country.

Al Jazeera has the story:

That question, even without an answer, makes most “law-abiding taxpayers” go into knee-jerk conniptions. The indoctrinated masses all race to see who can be first, and loudest, to proclaim that it is NEVER okay to forcibly resist “law enforcement.” In doing so, they also inadvertently demonstrate why so much of human history has been plagued by tyranny and oppression.

In an ideal world, cops would do nothing except protect people from thieves and attackers, in which case shooting a cop would never be justified. In the real world, however, far more injustice, violence, torture, theft, and outright murder has been committed IN THE NAME of “law enforcement,” than has been committed in spite of it. To get a little perspective, try watching a documentary or two about some of the atrocities committed by the regimes of Stalin, or Lenin, or Chairman Mao, or Hitler, or Pol Pot, or any number of other tyrants in history. Pause the film when the jackboots are about to herd innocent people into cattle cars, or gun them down as they stand on the edge of a ditch, and THEN ask yourself the question, “When should you shoot a cop?” Keep in mind, the evils of those regimes were committed in the name of “law enforcement.” And as much as the statement may make people cringe, the history of the human race would have been a lot LESS gruesome if there had been a lot MORE “cop-killers” around to deal with the state mercenaries of those regimes.

People don’t mind when you point out the tyranny that has happened in other countries, but most have a hard time viewing their OWN “country,” their OWN “government,” and their OWN “law enforcers,” in any sort of objective way. Having been trained to feel a blind loyalty to the ruling class of the particular piece of dirt they live on (a.k.a. “patriotism”), and having been trained to believe that obedience is a virtue, the idea of forcibly resisting “law enforcement” is simply unthinkable to many. Literally, they can’t even THINK about it. And humanity has suffered horribly because of it. It is a testament to the effectiveness of authoritarian indoctrination that literally billions of people throughout history have begged and screamed and cried in the face of authoritarian injustice and oppression, but only a tiny fraction have ever lifted a finger to actually try to STOP it.

Even when people can recognize tyranny and oppression, they still usually talk about “working within the system”–the same system that is responsible for the tyranny and oppression. People want to believe that ”the system” will, sooner or later, provide justice. The last thing they want to consider is that they should “illegally” resist–that if they want to achieve justice, they must become “criminals” and “terrorists,” which is what anyone who resists “legal” injustice is automatically labelled. But history shows all too well that those who fight for freedom and justice almost always do so “illegally”–i.e., without the permission of the ruling class.

If politicians think that they have the right to impose any “law” they want, and cops have the attitude that, as long as it’s called “law,” they will enforce it, what is there to prevent complete tyranny? Not the consciences of the “law-makers” or their hired thugs, obviously. And not any election or petition to the politicians. When tyrants define what counts as “law,” then by definition it is up to the “law-breakers” to combat tyranny.

Pick any example of abuse of power, whether it is the fascist “war on drugs,” the police thuggery that has become so common, the random stops and searches now routinely carried out in the name of “security” (e.g., at airports, “border checkpoints” that aren’t even at the border, “sobriety checkpoints,” and so on), or anything else. Now ask yourself the uncomfortable question: If it’s wrong for cops to do these things, doesn’t that imply that the people have a right to RESIST such actions? Of course, state mercenaries don’t take kindly to being resisted, even non-violently. If you question their right to detain you, interrogate you, search you, invade your home, and so on, you are very likely to be tasered, physically assaulted, kidnapped, put in a cage, or shot. If a cop decides to treat you like livestock, whether he does it “legally” or not, you will usually have only two options: submit, or kill the cop. You can’t resist a cop ”just a little” and get away with it. He will always call in more of his fellow gang members, until you are subdued or dead.

Basic logic dictates that you either have an obligation to LET “law enforcers” have their way with you, or you have the right to STOP them from doing so, which will almost always require killing them. (Politely asking fascists to not be fascists has a very poor track record.) Consider the recent Indiana Supreme Court ruling, which declared that if a cop tries to ILLEGALLY enter your home, it’s against the law for you to do anything to stop him. Aside from the patent absurdity of it, since it amounts to giving thugs with badges PERMISSION to “break the law,” and makes it a CRIME for you to defend yourself against a CRIMINAL (if he has a badge), consider the logical ramifications of that attitude.

There were once some words written on a piece of parchment (with those words now known as the Fourth Amendment), that said that you have the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures at the hands of ”government” agents. In Indiana today, what could that possibly mean? The message from the ruling class is quite clear, and utterly insane. It amounts to this: “We don’t have the right to invade your home without probable cause … but if we DO, you have no right to stop us, and we have the right to arrest you if you try.”

Why not apply that to the rest of the Bill of Rights, while we’re at it? ”You have the right to say what you want, but if we use violence to shut you up, you have to let us.” (I can personally attest to the fact that that is the attitude of the U.S. “Department of Justice.”) “You have the right to have guns, but if we try to forcibly and illegally disarm you, and you resist, we have the right to kill you.” (Ask Randy Weaver and the Branch Davidians about that one.) “You have the right to not testify against yourself, but when we coerce you into confessing (and call it a ’plea agreement’), you can’t do a thing about it.” What good is a ”right”–what does the term “right” even mean–if you have an obligation to allow jackboots to violate your so-called “rights”? It makes the term absolutely meaningless.

To be blunt, if you have the right to do “A,” it means that if someone tries to STOP you from doing “A”–even if he has a badge and a politician’s scribble (“law”) on his side–you have the right to use whatever amount of force is necessary to resist that person. That’s what it means to have an unalienable right. If you have the unalienable right to speak your mind (a la the First Amendment), then you have the right to KILL “government” agents who try to shut you up. If you have the unalienable right to be armed, then you have the right to KILL ”government” agents who try to disarm you. If you have the right to not be subjected to unreasonable searches and seizures, then you have the right to KILL “government” agents who try to inflict those on you.

Those who are proud to be “law-abiding” don’t like to hear this, and don’t like to think about this, but what’s the alternative? If you do NOT have the right to forcibly resist injustice–even if the injustice is called ”law”–that logically implies that you have an obligation to allow ”government” agents to do absolutely anything they want to you, your home, your family, and so on. Really, there are only two choices: you are a slave, the property of the politicians, without any rights at all, or you have the right to violently resist “government” attempts to oppress you. There can be no other option.

Of course, on a practical level, openly resisting the gang called ”government” is usually very hazardous to one’s health. But there is a big difference between obeying for the sake of self-preservation, which is often necessary and rational, and feeling a moral obligation to go along with whatever the ruling class wants to do to you, which is pathetic and insane. Most of the incomprehensible atrocities that have occurred throughout history were due in large part to the fact that most people answer “never” to the question of “When should you shoot a cop?” The correct answer is: When evil is “legal,” become a criminal. When oppression is enacted as “law,” become a “law-breaker.” When those violently victimizing the innocent have badges, become a cop-killer.

The next time you hear of a police officer being killed “in the line of duty,” take a moment to consider the very real possibility that maybe in that case, the “law enforcer” was the bad guy and the “cop killer” was the good guy. As it happens, that has been the case more often than not throughout human history.

Below are links to the stories in episode 32 of the Police Accountability Report:

• Cleveland cops beating up innocent people
• Domestic violence with a badge
• DC cop kills his wife
• Cops smash videographer’s phone, videographer hides memory card in his mouth

If you would like to submit a story or record a segment for the Police Accountability Report (on lack of accountability for police in your area) please email podcast[at]copblock[dot]org. We also welcome feedback.

You can also hear the podcast and other great liberty minded programs on LRN.FM.

Recently, a whole lot of lead has been flying in the otherwise sleepy desert berg of Tucson, Arizona. A few days ago, a Pima County Sheriff’s Office SWAT team descended upon a former Marine’s house at 9 in the morning to serve a search warrant pursuant to a drug investigation. Within 7 seconds of their arrival, 72 shots were fired and the homeowner, Jose Guereña lay dying on his kitchen floor. Despite former Surgeon General and co-founder of the PCSO SWAT team Richard Carmona’s assurances the unit’s members included highly trained medics capable of first-rate battlefield medicine, and such “care is not [rendered] according to good guy or bad guy or suspect. Whoever needs the care, gets the care as quickly and safely as possible,” Guereña lay struggling for his life for well over an hour before medics were allowed in. Despite arriving within 2 minutes of his wife’s desperate 911 call, they were told to wait. And wait they did, until they were finally given a “code 900,” meaning the suspect was dead and their life-saving services were no longer needed. Guereña’s wife and child fled past him after the barrage of rifle fire was over and deputies rousted them from their hiding place in a bedroom closet. Vanessa Guereña begged officials to render aid to her husband the whole time, but to no avail.

The Pima County Sheriff’s Office has not released any details about the warrant, what they were looking for or what they got, besides a cryptic notice that they “found information pertinent to the investigation.” What is clear is that there was no arrest warrant, nor were any drugs, illegal guns or cash found at the residence of Jose Guereña. So far, the details have been very slow to come out. At first, Sheriff’s Deputies insisted that Guereña had fired his AR-15 rifle at them, forcing them to open fire, but now they admit that they fired first, and he died holding that gun with the safety still on. According to Michael O’Connor, as quoted by the Arizona Daily Star, “a deputy’s bullet struck the side of the doorway, causing chips of wood to fall on his shield, that prompted some members of the team to think the deputy had been shot.”

Some may be inclined to ask, “who cares if some drug dealer got killed pointing his rifle at the cops?” However, there is no evidence Mr. Guereña was a drug dealer, nor is it clear he had any idea that the armed men barging into his home were cops. That same spokes-bureaucrat, Mr. O’Connor insisted, “Tucson is notorious for home invasions and we didn’t want it to look like that,” ignoring the obvious fact that, aside from official government sanction and some chincy costume jewelry, that’s exactly what it was. Deputies say they clearly identified themselves, but witnesses, including Vanessa Guereña disagree. Jose had returned from the night shift at the Asarco mine only a few hours before the raid. His wife woke him up when she heard noises outside her window and saw a man with a gun. Jose told her to hide in the closet with their son, and he grabbed a rifle and went to the door to investigate.

Surely, his Marine training, honed by two tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan came into play, because he crouched in a ready position and awaited the invaders. Days later, the PCSO would say that he told them he had “something for them,” as they kicked his door in, as if such a statement incriminated him. Normally, everyone would agree that a man has every right to defend his home and family against armed aggression, even if he spouts pithy catchphrases in the face of certain death, but when members of the state’s high caste of official violence are involved, the slightest hint of resistance is deemed a criminal act, even if the victim has no idea why or by whom he’s being attacked.

Jose was just 26 years old, and he leaves an even younger widow. His 4-year-old son saw his father dying in his own home. If the PCSO has any damning evidence suggesting he was a real criminal, they’re certainly being tight lipped about it, but neither Jose nor Vanessa has any criminal record of any kind. Given the gravity of the situation, if Guereña was a real threat to society, I think it would have come out by now.

The bottom line is, SWAT teams were created for handling dangerous hostage situations, not serving routine search warrants. Even if Guereña was guilty of some kind of drug crime, summary execution is obviously not an appropriate punishment. Reasonable people must ask, in what universe is it appropriate to fire 72 rounds into a residence in order to subdue ONE MAN? Obviously, this highly militarized SWAT team was just itching for action, and furthermore, their dubious training of emptying magazines at the slightest provocation led to this terrible outcome. They were not reacting to a genuine hostile fire situation, but rather to the negligent discharge of one of their own men, a guy apparently amped up on adrenaline and woefully unaware of the basic “no booger hook on the bang switch” gun safety rule.

This brings me to the next case of negligent firearm discharge by police here in the Old Pueblo. Back in March, Tucson police confronted a man suspected of a carjacking and an armed convenience store robbery at the apartment complex where they had tracked him down. After a police officer took his accomplice, Roger Wells, into custody, the driver of the car, Nicholas Johnson, threw his vehicle into reverse in an effort to escape, and in the process, caught the officer up in the rear driver-side door, which was ajar. After the officer was dragged a few feet, he was able to roll free, and Johnson put the car in drive and tried to get away, but the cop was still in front of the car. This prompted all 7 of the police officers present, including the officer on the ground, to open fire on the car, despite there being an innocent female passenger inside. A total of 53 round were fired, but only 7 hit the suspect (including one shotgun blast), and a bullet grazed an innocent female passenger in the car. Fortunately, no one else was hurt, but Nicholas was killed on the spot, though not before being chewed on by a police dog for good measure. No one in the car ever fired a shot, or was found to be in possession of a firearm.

This “magazine dumping” policy of what amounts to summary execution (Guereña was hit over 60 times, the PCSO SWAT team being apparently better marksmen than their TPD colleagues) demonstrates a depraved indifference to human life and the property of others. Police officers have every right to defend themselves against aggression from real criminal suspects high on drugs, but trigger happy adrenaline junkies who shoot first, and keep on shooting until there’s nothing left in the magazine (then reload and do it again), are a danger to everyone, even each other. Even more so, now that the Supreme Court has ruled that police have every right to kick in your door, without obtaining a search warrant, if they “hear noises” they believe to be the result of the destruction of evidence. Worse yet, at least for the residents of Indiana, their Supreme Court’s two most recent decisions have essentially repudiated the Magna Carta and the 4th Amendment, officially codifying what we have long known to be true here at Cop Block – there exists no legal right to resist violent assault by the state’s armed enforcers, even when they are obviously in violation of the law (which is now technically not possible, since whatever they do is now presumed to be legitimate; they finally ARE the law). You must always submit, citizen. These godawful rulings were predicated on the assumption that modern courts provide defendants with a wide range of options for legal redress, and are the appropriate venue for adjudicating any dispute over the validity of an arrest, search or other police action. Yeah, right. Tell that to Jose Guereña. Oh, wait…

UPDATE: Fellow Southern Arizonan Ghost32 asks some very important questions about this shooting. (HT: Reason’s Hit & Run blog)

The following post was written by the victim’s sister, Tanya DeCant, who worked up the courage to write about a police officer who wrongly took her brothers life.

by Tanya DeCant

Well, I know what most people equate to the term “420″, and my little brother, Donny, was no different. He had a core group of loyal friends who liked to get together and “party” yet really caused no trouble. They may have stayed up a bit late and made a little bit of noise now and then, but basically just kids (Donny was 19) who were trying to figure out what to do with their lives.

Well, one of Donny’s friends was about to become a dad. He knew when the baby was coming as a c-section had been scheduled. So, on April 19th he wanted to have a diaper party. This is like a shower, but for the guys. Donny was apprehensive about having the party at his house as he was just starting to look at his future and maybe try to get his shit together, and maybe cut back on the partying a bit. However, Donny’s house, which he shared with our father, was the perfect place as it was where they had congregated so many times before. He reluctantly agreed.

Now, my dad had a drinking habit. He still got up and went to work everyday, but after work he would usually drink until he passed out. He felt comfortable with Donny’s friends and had no objection to the diaper party. He drank a lot that night and went to his room and fell asleep – he was out cold.

Meanwhile, as more people were arriving, a guest came upon a gun in the drawer of an old cash register they had at the house. My dad collected guns and they were all over the house. Donny noticed this and immediately took the gun to avoid any problems, and placed it in his pants. He had pretty much forgotten about it as the night winded down and he was chilling in his bedroom with three other people upstairs.

Downstairs there were maybe 10 people still hanging out. So, when the police showed up at about 1:00 a.m. to answer a call about loud noise any of those people can tell you that the an officer walked right in the back door uninvited. At this point there are conflicting stories.

The police account: The police say they spoke to Donny just inside the backdoor in the kitchen where they asked him for I.D. Donny stated he didn’t have any and he would go upstairs to get it at which point they told him not to, but he ran away upstairs. One officer, Taylor, pursued him up the stairs with his gun drawn. Donny had retreated behind his closed bedroom door. Officer Taylor kicked in the door to see Donny pointing a gun at him, so he was forced to shoot. He hit him once in the chest.

The three people in the bedroom had this account in their separately obtained statements: Donny never was downstairs. In hearing people downstairs saying the police were there, Donny walked down the hallway to the top of the stairs where he heard there were in fact police in the house. Remembering the gun in his pants he immediately returned to his room to stash it. He was intoxicated and stoned. He was moving slowly. He went to the side wall where his bed was in the corner and bent down with his back to the bedroom door. He lifted the mattress with one hand and took the gun out of his pants to place it under the mattress when the bedroom door was kicked in. It was a very loud noise which caused Donny to turn and look over his shoulder when he was instantly shot in his heart with a hollow-point bullet.

The other people in the room were in complete shock. They were taken down with the other guests and all were taken to the police department to give statements. My dad was yanked out of bed and dragged downstairs where he was placed on the couch in the living room. He was very confused and groggy and kept asking “What the hell happened?” He was ignored. At that point they brought Donny’s body down on a cart and wheeled him past my dad who asked “Is he dead?” They didn’t respond.

My dad was also taken to the police department where he was asked questions and unable to go to the hospital. Donny was pronounced dead pretty soon after his arrival. A friend of mine who is a nurse, not involved with this case, explained that they have to try everything to revive someone before they are pronounced dead, so he probably was dead very soon after being shot. The police held the ambulance up as they had the road blocked with all the cars to take the witnesses away. There was nothing that could be done for Donny.

My dad called my other brother, Nick. Since it was the middle of the night he got his answering machine. Nick called me soon after. I woke up and answered the phone. Nick said, “I don’t know what’s going on but I got a message from Dad saying that Donny was shot and killed.” It took me a second to realize what he said. Killed. Killed. I just fell back to the wall and slid down to my bottom crying and saying “No. No. No. No. No. No.” My husband took the phone from me and I don’t remember much more of the next week or so.

We flew to Toledo for the funeral. I barely remember it. I started smoking again. I cried a lot. I had a constant headache. I was numb.

When I first heard that Donny was shot by a policeman because he had a gun, I originally felt bad for the cop. I thought how horrible it must be to have to shoot a kid. I wondered why Donny had the gun and what had gone down. I knew he wasn’t violent, so I was looking for answers. I didn’t read them myself but was told by others that the statements given to police all matched. The party guests all said one thing and the 2 cops both said another. So, there would be an investigation.

It didn’t take long for the Firearms Review Board to clear the officer who shot Donny of any wrongdoing. The shooting was officially justified. He had a gun, after all.

Only later, did we discover from the coroner that the bullet had entered Donny’s body in such a way that made it apparent he had had his back to the officer with both of his arms down at his sides. He was slightly turned so the bullet went in his chest at an angle. But, no question he was not facing the officer with the gun pointed at him as the officer had stated.

Another problem with the officer’s account was why he was in the house to begin with. A neighbor said he was in the driveway outside talking to the shooter’s partner when they heard the gunshot and the partner ran inside. But, the officer states they were both in the house. When Taylor explained why he was in the house he claimed that his partner was already in there so he assumed permission. And the Ohio State Supreme Court has no problem with that explanation. I guess if one enters a residence illegally, then all are welcome to follow.

Moving on to the fact that you cannot sue a law enforcement officer in Ohio if the alleged wrong occurred while he was conducting official duty. Qualified immunity. We cannot have police afraid to act, or think too long before they act, because they are afraid they may be sued – so let’s just remove the possibility of them being sued. Makes sense.

So, in my biased summary, a cop (at least in Ohio) can walk into your house uninvited – which then opens the door for any other cops who wish to enter to come on in – and he can kick in your bedroom door and murder you because you are holding a gun – a legal gun – in your hand in your own bedroom in your own private residence.

I do not any longer feel that Officer Taylor had to shoot my brother. From what other people in the room stated, he may not have even seen Donny’s gun until after he shot him. I believe he busted in like that in an attempt to catch him with something (drugs, alcohol, etc.) and when he saw 4 people in there and Donny hunched over possibly stashing or retrieving something he fired out of panic. He had no idea what was happening and he should not have gone in there like that. He stated he wasn’t even aware of other people in the room. He broke his own department policies. But, bonus – kid had a gun so he’s off the hook.

Why is my brother dead? Well, many people will tell you he brought it on himself. He smoked pot, drank alcohol, and had parties and if he didn’t the cops would not have even been there. I say it’s a mixture of reasons:

1. Loud noise complaint called in by a neighbor who disliked my brother when there was no actual noise according to neighbors on both sides of the house who were awake.

2. Police illegally entering the residence

3. Officer Taylor having his gun drawn at a loud noise complaint

4. Officer Taylor kicking in a door not knowing what was on the other side against his department policies

5. The use of hollow-point bullets by police that were actually created to do more damage and save soldiers ammo

6. A mentality by society that says my brother was some type of criminal lowlife that deserved what happened to him

After the funeral we donated money in lieu of flowers to the October 22nd Coalition To Stop Police Brutality, Repression, and the Criminalization of a Generation.

My dad committed suicide.

My mom died of breast cancer.

Every time my brother, my sister, or I see a police officer we get a little nervous and remember all that was stolen from us.

So, yeah it’s 4/20. It takes me back to April 20th, 2002, when my youngest brother, Donald Joseph Sargent, was murdered by Toledo Police and nobody seemed to care. I hope you will remember him today, too.

Do you have a police story you want to share with CB.org readers? If so, contact us here.

Over the past few decades, police in the United States have become increasingly militarized. It’s becoming more and more common to see police carrying military-grade weapons and wearing combat armor. Police departments across the county — even those in small towns — are forming paramilitary police units, typically known as SWAT (Special Weapons and Tactics) or SRT (Special Response Team). According to a recent USA Today interview with Peter Kraska, a criminologist whose work focuses on police militarization, SWAT teams were deployed only about 2,000 to 3,000 times per year in the early to mid 80′s. That number has shot up to about 70,000 and 80,000 per year in the present. The main reason for this dramatic increase is the use of SWAT teams for serving routine search or arrest warrants especially for drug suspects. SWAT teams have even been used to investigate suspected underage drinking and unlicensed barber shops.

One of the most frightening aspects of police militarization is the use of so-called “no-knock” searches by SWAT teams. The purpose of a no-knock search is to surprise the occupants of a building and subdue them with an overwhelming show of force before they have an opportunity to react. Police converge on a building — usually in the middle of the night — then smash the door in with a battering ram or explosives. They either announce their presence only a few seconds before breaking the door down or do not announce it at all (hence the “no-knock” title). After breaking in the door, police will sometimes throw deadly explosive devices called flashbang grenades into the home with the ostensible purpose of confusing and disorienting the occupants. They then storm the building and force everyone to the ground at gunpoint, handcuff them, and search the premises.

Continue reading…

Join the forum discussion on this post