Cop Block

It’s a shame that in this day and age citizens are being forced to depend on the police for protection instead of using their natural born right to defend themselves using any means necessary. This is the case of Jeffrey Muller.

Last January while working in his store J&G Pet Foods a couple of thugs came in and kidnapped him. They demanded $500,000 that deadbeat Jeffrey Muller apparently owed their boss for a failed golf course development deal in Utah. The only problem is that they kidnapped the wrong Jeffrey Muller. The person they were actually looking for was Jeffrey Muller a millionaire New York money broker.

Jeffrey was able to escape his captors after their car broke down in Missouri although he was left shaken and scared.  What he did next is what any rational person would do who was in fear for their life and applied for his concealed carry license so he could obtain a firearm to protect his family and himself. Unfortunately an illiterate Judge or one that has just never read the 2nd Amendment denied his permit.

Superior Court Judge David Ironson denied his appeal for a firearms permit saying now that his captors have been caught “there is no longer a threat of serious bodily harm.” Muller doesn’t agree, thinking that the family’s of the five kidnappers might try to seek revenge and come after him.

After the hearing Jensen, Muller’s attorney said he will continue to pursue a federal lawsuit but hasn’t decided if he will take the case to the New Jersey appeals court.

Why is this even an issue? Jeffrey has shown that his life is in danger but the state refuse to allow him to defend himself. Should he be forced to depend on the police to protect him even though the Supreme Court ruled that the police do not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm?

Jeffrey, if you read this we welcome you down here in Florida where officials understand the need for and allow persons to carry a firearm. You should not be forced to depend on people with a badge who have no obligation to protect you. There’s an old saying “why do I carry a gun? Because a cop is too heavy.”

In this great interview with Reason TV, Steve Silverman of Flex Your Rights explains how to and why you should exercise your legal rights during encounters with police officers.

Make sure you check out FYR’s films Busted: The Citizens Guide to Surviving Police Encounters and 10 Rules for Dealing with Police for more in-depth information on how to handle encounters with the police. Also check out this interview that Ademo conducted with Steve Silverman and Scott Morgan back in 2009.

Click here for more information and resources associated with this video.

If you think freedom of speech is a relatively undisputed right in this country, think again. State troopers in Pennsylvania issued more than 700 disorderly conduct citations – for swearing – over the course of one year (more here).

As a part of a recent settlement agreement with the ACLU, the Pennsylvania State Police have agreed to stop ticketing people for swearing.

That this was a debated issue until the ACLU stepped in is utterly absurd. What is even more absurd is how the officers issuing the 700 tickets could have possibly believed it was legally or morally appropriate to ticket people for uttering 4-letter words. Even ignoring the complete lack of ethical justification, the First Amendment is pretty clear:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

While some parts of the Constitution are arguably ambiguous or open to different interpretation, the First Amendment is pretty clear – “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech…”

Similarly, the Pennsylvania Constitution provides that

The free communication of thoughts and opinions is one of the invaluable rights of man, and every citizen may freely speak, write and print on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty.

This construction is slightly more perplexing as it is unclear what “being responsible for the abuse of that liberty” means. However, if it meant that one was “free” to speak but would be criminally punished by the state for vague “abuse[s] of that liberty,” it would render the entire sentence meaningless. Thus, such an interpretation would not be reasonable.

Even under the most liberal, most generous interpretations of the free speech portions of the United States and Pennsylvania constitutions, it does not appear either would allow for criminalization of cursing.

At any rate, shouldn’t this be something police are knowledgeable about? “Innocent until proven guilty” is a worthless mantra repeated over and over in civic classes, social studies, and government classes. We can laud such a principle all we want, but it appears this principle is rarely put into practice in our justice system.

When one is arrested, they are by default locked up and detained, until they can post bail. If they cannot afford bail, they must await trial. Certainly at trial, the burden of proof is technically on the prosecutor to prove guilt, but the fact of the matter remains – the defendant is physically or forcibly restrained by the state until the prosecutor fails to make the case. Every step along the way, the system functions in a manner that assumes the state has the right to detain and restrict an individual until that individual is able to demonstrate such incarceration is unjustified. This is hardly an example of “innocent until proven guilty,” except maybe only in name.

Similarly here, 700 people received citations for swearing, and it was only until the ACLU made a stink that the police agreed to stop behaving so reprehensibly. Once again, “innocent until proven guilty” proves only to be a philosophical illusion.

And of course, since police are guaranteed funding with taxes, and rarely are fired or disciplined for such transgressions, this will not by any means be an isolated example of police absurdity in constitutional construction. They may refrain from issuing tickets for swearing after this agreement with the ACLU, but next time it could be ticketing for talking too loudly or making mean remarks.

On Monday I received a letter in the mail from a gang that calls themselves the IRS claiming I owe them money from a contract in 2008 I signed under duress.

Now I am under no obligation to pay this money because this contract was not signed voluntarily like most contractual obligations. But that doesn’t matter to this criminal gang whose supposed colors are red, white and blue.

One problem with this contract is that without going through the courts the police can come and steal my stuff to take care of this debt disregarding a little something the constitution calls due process.

22 year old college student Anthony Smelley found this out in Putnam County, Indiana last year. Reason Magazine has the story.

Around 3 in the morning on January 7, 2009, a 22-year-old college student named Anthony Smelley was pulled over on Interstate 70 in Putnam County, Indiana. He and two friends were en route from Detroit to visit Smelley’s aunt in St. Louis. Smelley, who had recently received a $50,000 settlement from a car accident, was carrying around $17,500 in cash, according to later court documents. He claims he was bringing the money to buy a new car for his aunt.

The officer who pulled him over, Lt. Dwight Simmons of the Putnam County Sheriff’s Department, said that Smelley had made an unsafe lane change and was driving with an obscured license plate. When Simmons asked for a driver’s license, Smelley told him he had lost it after the accident. Simmons called in Smelley’s name and discovered that his license had actually expired. The policeman asked Smelley to come out of the car, patted him down, and discovered a large roll of cash in his front pocket, in direct contradiction to Smelley’s alleged statement in initial questioning that he wasn’t, in fact, carrying much money.

A record check indicated that Smelley had previously been arrested (though not charged) for drug possession as a teenager, so the officer called in a K-9 unit to sniff the car for drugs. According to the police report, the dog gave two indications that narcotics might be present. So Smelley and his passengers were detained and the police seized Smelley’s $17,500 cash under Indiana’s asset forfeiture law.

But a subsequent hand search of the car turned up nothing except an empty glass pipe containing no drug residue in the purse of Smelley’s girlfriend. Lacking any other evidence, police never charged anybody in the car with a drug-related crime. Yet not only did Putnam County continue to hold onto Smelley’s money, but the authorities initiated legal proceedings to confiscate it permanently.

A couple years ago, probably in 2007 or 2008, I received a letter from a local gang called “Sheriffs Office,” whose members wear brown shirts and pants and drive cars with “Sheriff” written on the side. The letter said I owed some gang called “The State of Indiana” money and said that if I did not take care of this debt they would use asset forfeiture to take my stuff to satisfy this debt.

No court date, no due process, they would just straight up steal my stuff and I’d never see it again. This is usually used on suspected criminals but I have never been convicted of a crime, I just dare refuse to give these thugs money.

All this leads to corruption within government and police. It’s legalized theft and turns cops into robbers as they can come right into your house and take whatever they want without a court date and a conviction and even a warrant saying they can do it.

They will take your property for whatever reason they want, and guess what they do with it. A Downsize DC dispatch from Monday, the same day I received the bill has some stories.

In Texas, a district attorney has been indicted for using $200,000 of forfeiture funds to line his own pockets and pay for trips to casinos http://www.examiner.com/headlines-in-san-antonio/former-texas-county-district-attorney-indicted-for-misusing-200-000-for-extra-pay-and-casino-trips* In Indiana, where the law requires forfeiture loot to be spent on public education, only one county is complying with the law. In the other counties, law enforcement departments are keeping almost all the money, and the Attorney General doesn’t seem to care! http://reason.com/blog/2010/08/18/indianas-attorney-general-on-a

Are you surprised by this corruption? You shouldn’t be.

If confiscating property is an institutional mission, one must worry about the people such a group will employ to carry out that mission. If a government tells its employees that they must steal to meet their budgets – that is, engage in asset forfeiture – then some will rationalize that stealing is okay.

And they’ll steal from their employer, too.

The Institute for Justice has a tantalizing list of how some local posses have spent the loot. http://www.ij.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3117&Itemid=165

Here are some things the Institute for Justice article showed the forfeiture money being spent on.

• in Camden County, Ga., a $90,000 Dodge Viper for the county’s DARE program;

• in Colorado, bomber jackets for the Colorado State Patrol;

• in Austin, Texas, running gear for the police department;

• in Fulton County, Ga., football tickets for the district attorney’s office,

• in Webb County, Texas, $20,000 for TV commercials for the district attorney’s re-election campaign;

• in Kimble County, Texas, $14,000 for a “training seminar” in Hawaii for the staff of the district attorney’s office;

• in Albany, N.Y., over $16,000 for food, gifts and entertainment for the police department.

A sheriff in Georgia has even been the subject of a grand jury investigation for alleged misuse of forfeited assets (see also “Extravagance with Forfeiture Funds in Camden County, Ga.” on p. 19).  In this particular county,

$3,000,000 was used to build a sheriff’s substation;
vehicles were purchased not only for the department but also for other county departments and neighboring law enforcement agencies;
$250,000 was donated to the sheriff’s alma mater for a scholarship.

Despite claims to the contrary, cops accuse people of crimes or that they “owe” tax money and come in and legally steal your property and use it on their own adventures and budget needs.

One study of 770 police managers found that 40% agree or strongly agree civil forfeiture is “necessary” for budget supplement.

You don’t own anything, the government owns all your possessions and civil forfeiture proves just that. They can steal your house any time they want, they can steal your car any time they want, they can steal your TV or expensive collections or even your children any time they want, for whatever reason they want, and they don’t even have to prove it. A little something they call “reasonable doubt.”

That’s all it takes, the police just simply have to accuse you of something, with no facts, steal your property and possessions and you never see them again and the police meet their budgets.

All they have to to is trump up the bogus charges and scare you into a plea deal, which you should never take, and your ass is in jail and you never see your property ever again. Good luck getting it back.

So why should I give this criminal gang my hard earned money? What obligation do I have to them?  Who’s going to hold these legalized robbers accountable?

It’s time you stand up to this. Imagine if we had private protection agencies that we voluntarily agreed to fund and were held accountable. You think this would happen?

If they will not honor the 14th amendment then it is time we will.

Brad Jardis gives his response to “GreenfieldPD” who’s been spending a lot of time commenting on CopBlock.org lately. I hope he’s learning something and takes it back to share with the other LEOs.  It’s interesting to see this current cop and former cop discuss the meaning of policing as their views of the same job are rather different.

GreenfieldPD is block quoted where Brad J is not.

“Ok, Looks like I may have upset some people. Sorry it took so long to respond but I was on vacation with the family for the 4th.”

Thank you for being willing to continue the dialog here.

“Absolutely, police are held accountable. I know I can not do a lot of the same stuff you are allowed to do. If I were to get caught doing many of the things many people do I would be repremanded at work.”

This statement is a bunch of bull. A detective I used to work with got into a fight down on Hampton Beach in Hampton, NH…. and my former Lieutenant covered it up. The detective bragged about it. The assault was witnessed by a former CI that the detective burned (went around and told everyone he was a snitch) and the CI reported it to the cops. The cops contacted my former department to investigate. Poof…. nothing happened.

“What would you suggets someone do if they catch someone breaking into their house?”

Use whatever force they deem appropriate to protect themselves and their property… and call their private protection agency to take the person into custody for violating their property rights.

“A jail is not a public space. It is a secure facility that allows you to go there to bail your friends out. Even if its not a law, it may just be a facility rule. One that due to security breaches, must be followed. How would you feel if your tape gave someone the insight into how they could breach security and someone broke out and harmed someone. Would that be your responsibility?”

Your argument here is irrelevant. NOWHERE in the US Constitution does it say that rights can be attenuated. The 1st Amendment says that NO law shall be made to interfere with the freedom of the press. Adam and Pete are members of the press, specifically CopBlock.org. (The 14th Amendment incorporates the 1st Amendment to the states, by the way.)

If a law enforcement officer was really going to honor their oath, they would have to respect that people have the freedom to do what Adam and Pete did. Since we both know that most cops don’t even know (or give a flying fuck about) what the Constitution says, rights are violated every day.

“Basically the police messed up with the RV. No they do not have the right. People are humans, they make mistakes. Although they should be held accountable for their mistakes just like anyone, they do make mistakes. Not that the rv thing was a mistake. It was your a pain in my ass so I am going to be one in yours. Would I have handled it that way? No! but I understand why they did.”

This statement makes me believe you are NOT a Greenfield police officer. There is no way an active member of that force would make a statement here on a public forum where we all know the Greenfield PD is reading.

If Adam and Pete file a civil suit, which I hope they do, finding out who you are would be fairly easy with subpoenas. Your statement that the police were acting illegally/improperly would shoot their claim of “Qualified Immunity” right out of the water. I disbelieve you are who you say you are.

“I think I do my job very well. I am also very understanding. But when I am trying to do my job and someone starts demanding I give them their rights, it just gets annoying. I know your rights, I am not beating you, I am not torturing you, Im doing my job and I am proud to do it.”

You obviously DO NOT know what individuals’ rights are as you have proven yourself to not understand the very 1st Amendment of the document you allege you are sworn to defend. Your alleged oath is to uphold the United States and Massachusetts Constitutions…. and the federal one says that NO LAW can be passed which infringes on the right of the press.

“Im doing my job and I am proud to do it. I love it when someone is having a problem and I can help them. It makes me feel goot that I was able to help someone.”

The police do FAR MORE to hurt people than to help. If you claim otherwise, you’re full of bull. I was a cop for eleven years.

“I get to say, I feel good because I was able to help that person or take that druggie off the street so he does not break into anyone elses house to steal to buy more drugs.”

Your logic is tragically flawed. If you REALLY wanted to make communities safer you would support ending the “War on Drugs.” Do you? The “War on Drugs” is precisely why “druggies” are breaking into people’s homes to steal to buy more drugs… they are not doing it because they are high on drugs, they’re doing it because they are addicted to a prohibited product.

You are making the community far less safe if you support and enforce the “War on Drugs.” Again, another reason why I had to quit my former job.

“You are free to put whatever you want into your body. Weed, coke, heroin, model glue, i could care less. “

No, people are not… and you are full of crap. How many people have you arrested for possessing these innocuous plants and substances? How many people will you continue to arrest for it?

Unless you declare right now unequivocally that you will never again arrest someone for possession of an “illegal” drug, you are full of crap.

“But when you drive, sell it to my kids or their friends, break in to someones house to get more, Ill be waiting.”

Driving dangerously and endangering/harming someone because of impairment on drugs is a real crime with a real victim. So is breaking into someone’s house to get money to buy more.

Selling drugs to someone is a victimless crime… and since you’ll be “waiting” – you clearly DO care about what someone puts in their body, as you’re willing to put someone in a cage for providing said substances to the person who wants them.

“As for use of force, if its me or you, getting hurt, it wont be me. Im going home so I can help another day.”

You are willing to use deadly force to enforce the most victimless laws… this you need to understand. Every single law, no matter how victimless or silly, is backed up by the fact that the government will kill you if you do not comply with it. Another reason why I had to quit my job.

“That is the principle that this country was founded on, not being able to carry a fuc*in gun.”

You’re once again proving you have no understanding of the Constitution or history. This country was INDEED founded on the principle of carrying a “fuc*in” gun. The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with target practice or hunting. It was put in place by the Founding Fathers so that a tyrannical government could not enact tyranny on the people.

Being from Massachusetts I completely expect you to be indoctrinated to think otherwise… so I am not surprised. Whenever you enforce (again, I question whether or not you actually are a law enforcement officer) one of Massachusetts draconian gun laws… you are violating your oath to the United States Constitution. Why should you care though, right? You get paid.

“I completely disagree with the armed society being a safe society. Think of how many senseless killings there would be if more people had guns. People over react to a lot. Many would get shot out of fear of being shot. It would be crazy. Completely unrealistic. I have come across many people that have no business having a gun.”

Most of the people who have “no business having a gun” are the people who work in government. The amount of people who DO NOT work in government who absolutely would never use a firearm in an aggressive manner are completely dwarfed in comparison by the amount of people who work for the government who would use their guns (and do…) to hurt people.

YOU are the violent one here, not Adam and Pete. YOU are the one who is willing to use your firearm to ensure compliance with various words on paper that ban completely harmless activities. Adam and Pete are non-violent people… who would never do that to you. You need to look in the mirror and lose the cognitive dissidence.

You really need to watch the movie Equilibrium.

“No not all cops are trust worthy. Not all bankers and scientists and firemen and priests and teachers and prostitutes are trustworthy either. I do not get your point.”

You wouldn’t get it, would you?

Here it is: Bankers, scientists, and firemen are NOT AUTHORIZED AND WILLING TO USE VIOLENCE AGAINST PEACEFUL PEOPLE SIMPLY BECAUSE SOME WORDS ON PAPER SAY IT IS OKAY. IF A BANKER, SCIENTIST, OR FIREMAN USED VIOLENCE AGAINST A PEACEFUL PERSON… SAID PEACEFUL PERSON COULD DEFEND THEMSELVES. YOU CANNOT DEFEND YOURSELF AGAINST A POLICE OFFICER– THEY ARE “AUTHORIZED” TO USE ANY LEVEL OF VIOLENCE TO OBTAIN COMPLIANCE.

Words on paper said it was okay at one time to use violence against a black person who was drinking out of a white water fountain… was THAT okay?

“You have no idea what my mindset is. Please do not be bumb enough to try and guess either. I am a very patient tolerant man.”

No, you’re not. If you really ARE a law enforcement officer, you are a person who believes that initiating violence to solve a non-violent problem is a virtiuous act. Your mindset is that it is okay to use violence against peaceful people… so long as a bunch of people write down words on paper that say it is okay.

I had the same mindset as you once. Once decent non-violent people like Adam and Pete showed me that I was a violent thug, I had no choice but to quit my job. You are a violent thug who, like me at one time, doesn’t realize it.

“If you get in my face telling me you have the right to do this and that and you are bothering others and disturbing their peace and quiet, I will ask you politely to stop. Probably a few times. Then you will get locked up for it.”

Locking someone up for asserting and exercising their Constitutional rights is a blantant violation of your (alleged) oath to defend the Constitution. You clearly don’t give a flip about that, though.

Everyone should know the oath to defend said document is a load of crap anyways. It is a feel-good PR trick, just like the “Law Enforcement Officer’s Code of Ethics.” Care to debate me on that one?

“No big deal. I will sleep fine knowing that the family taking a walk that specific day can do so without listening to your rants.”

Of course you would sleep fine. I used to sleep fine after using violence against peaceful people to lock them up for doing completely harmless acts. Then I realized how much of a violent thug I really was. Now I’m unemployed.

You may be making money… but I’m not hurting people.

“I hope I get the chance to pull you over some day and give you a pass on a ticket, or get to come to your house for an emergency and change your mind without you knowing who I am or me knowing who you are.”

Showing decency does not relieve you of your responsibility for your other aggressive actions.

Simply putting on a costume with a piece of metal on it does not mean you are no longer an individual human being with moral responsibilities to your fellow man.

“As for why I will not tell you who I am. You have not earned my respect enough. I am a private person and like to keep it that way. I do my jib and go home to my family knowing I made a difference.”

I’m sure police who arrested black people for drinking out of white water fountains, or the Nazis, or the US Marshals who enforced the Fugitive Slave Act went home thinking they made a difference…. when in reality all they were doing was using violence to hurt people.

“I have never stolen, beat, or wrongly went after someone.”

Every time you get paid you are stealing from people… with the threat of violence.

“I wear my uniform with pride.”

Your uniform does not make your violence against peaceful people a virtuous act. It makes it worse… as it uses public perception to justify actions that are absolutely immoral.

“Just because you disagree does not mean im wrong.”

Just because words are written down on paper authorizing you to be violent to peaceful people does NOT make YOU right. Or moral. Or a good person.

I deeply regret all the people I hurt… simply because words on paper and a majority of people thought it was okay. Might does NOT make right.

“It means you are in the United States and have that freedom. Try your antics just about anywhere else and see what happens. You will gladly come back here and say sorry and maybe a little thank you would be nice.”

Ah yes… The tyranny is less here, so kiss the ground and thank god for what you have.

There is no freedom in the United States. It is sad that you think there is.

“Again, keep up the good work, no one hates a dirty cop more than I do. DO it the right way and I will stand with you.”

You are a dirty cop, you know. There is no such thing as a “clean cop” when *all* cops initiate violence against peaceful people simply because words on paper say it is okay. Might does NOT make right.

I know my response to your response has been harsh… but I hope you will take it to heart. Think for yourself about what it is that you do. If you truly are a good person, a non-violent person, you’ll have no chance but to quit.

There are lots of police officers who are good people who simply do not understand that what they are doing is immoral. I didn’t. I learned… and I corrected my life. It has not been easy, but my soul feels much better.

Find a police officer out in public and ask them what the 17th Amendment to the US Constitution is.  After that, ask them about the 6th.  Just for kicks, ask them how many rights the 1st Amendment restricts the government from infringing on.

I guarantee you that ninety percent (plus) of the police officers you ask won’t know the answers.  Why?  Well, the police academy does not teach the entirety of the US Constitution or the NH Constitution.  Doesn’t this seem like an important thing to teach the people who are the “boots on the ground” portion of the government?

I’ve attended both the New Hampshire full-time and part-time police academies and neither taught anything more about the US or NH constitutions other than the basics about searching and seizing.  Were I able to re-attend the police academy I’d love to ask the instructors from the Attorney General’s office what my responsibility is to Part I, Article 10 of the New Hampshire Constitution.  Clearly, these words on paper combined with my required oath to defend them mean something, don’t they?

Question:  How can someone take an oath to uphold and defend something that they know almost nothing about?

(The oath to uphold it is almost as much of a joke as the law enforcement officer’s code of ethics is …  nothing more than a PR trick.)