[The Final Dakar]

Man, iphone autocorrect makes me look like I'm having a stroke with some of these sentences.

[The Final Dakar]

Man arrested after saying he wanted to join Oregon militia to kill federal agents | US news | The Guardian

The video shows Stetson, from Woodburn, Oregon, refusing to hand over his gun and claiming that the smell of alcohol on his breath was from medicine. Once the officer started arresting him – after he reminded him that police were recording the conversation – Stetson began threatening to murder law enforcement officials.

“I will kill all of you. You don’t believe me?” the man said on the footage. “If I go to jail, when I come out, I will kill you. … You friggin’ coward sons of bitches! … Are you a real state trooper?” He later screamed: “I’m the last hope! … Let me go, dammit!”

Officials said Stetson also kicked and damaged the police vehicle door.

The cops didn't fear for their lives here?

[Captain Obvious]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Man arrested after saying he wanted to join Oregon militia to kill federal agents | US news | The Guardian

The cops didn't fear for their lives here?

He did not threaten them until he was in handcuffs. He was oddly respectful before that given his inebriation. So no, I don't think they were in fear for their lives.

He never brandished the gun and he did not reach for it. His actions when reaching around on his rear right side, which is not the easiest location to draw a gun from when you're wearing a parka, were cautious and deliberate and even made sure the officer knew he was searching for other items when he did move his arms. Furthermore the officer was always cognisant of the location of the man's hands and corrected him if he got too close to his weapon.

Legally he did not have to give up his gun if had a concealed carry permit. I did not see the officer ask him for proof of one so the issue is moot if he was in violation of that. When he refused to give consent to an alcohol test there was grounds to arrest him since he was obviously just driving his car.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Man arrested after saying he wanted to join Oregon militia to kill federal agents | US news | The Guardian

The cops didn't fear for their lives here?

He was driving under the influence, pretty apparent by his slurred speech, he had a pellet gun (the trooper would have easily been able to verify that at 2 feet), and he didn't get belligerent until they had him in cuffs. He seemed nice enough until then, but can't have him driving in that condition. Why would they be in fear for their lives?

[OAW]

Even more shenanigans. So much for this simplistic notion of "just get your elected officials to change the laws" being the solution to this problem. Here we have a clear example of a law being changed that was met with rampant resistance by "Officer Friendly".

The microphone equipment for the dashboard camera in the cruiser in which Chicago police officer Jason Van Dyke was riding on the night he fatally shot 17-year-old Laquan McDonald had been “intentionally destroyed”, according to maintenance documents first acquired by DNAinfo.

The records, which include service requests on hundreds of Chicago police vehicles, show that officers have routinely been involved in the intentional destruction and sabotage of body-worn microphones that sync with dashboard camera video.

After the video of the Laquan McDonald shooting was released in November, it was discovered that as much as 80% of the department’s dashcam footage was missing audio. This was determined to be due to technical failure, human error or in some cases, according to police spokesman Anthony Guglielmi, “intentional destruction”.

William Calloway, a Chicago activist who was instrumental in obtaining the release of the Laquan McDonald footage, said the logs proved a premeditated effort by officers to avoid transparency.

“They are intentionally sabotaging this audio equipment because in their mind, they’re going to do something wrong or reckless when they’re outside on the beat,” Calloway said.

He added that he was “absolutely not shocked or surprised about it at all”.

The records show that the dashcam in Van Dyke’s vehicle, 6412, was repaired on 17 June 2014, about three months after it was reported broken. The next day, the system was reported broken again. What technicians called “intentional damage” was not repaired until 8 October 2014, DNAinfo reported.

On 20 October, the dashcam (and one in another car) recorded Van Dyke’s fatal shooting of McDonald. The next month, technicians noted the missing audio in the car’s footage and suggested “it is apparent from the uploaded videos that personnel have failed to sync the mics”.

In November 2015, after the video emerged, Van Dyke was charged with homicide.

At least six other vehicle records show technicians noting that officers had not synced their microphones. Thirty service records show cases where either mics were not synced correctly or had been “intentionally defeated”.

More than 100 records show systems missing microphones, or having damaged systems with missing components such as batteries and antennas.

Before the files were released, in December, Fraternal Order of Police president Dean Angelo scoffed at the idea that officers were intentionally disabling units.

“If they’re claiming officers are purposely breaking things, then where is the history of that? Are [officers] being written up? Does the department have documentation to back those claims up? I’d like to see it,” Angelo told DNAinfo.

In December, the Chicago Sun-Times reported that before the McDonald video was released, some officers threw their microphones on to a station roof, apparently in protest about having to be recorded. A sergeant who saw the incident reported it to the Independent Police Review Authority.

The Chicago police department owns a long legacy of misconduct that includes torture scandals concerning Commander John Burge and Detective Richard Zuley, and the operation of the Homan Square “black site”.

The most recent scandal, over an apparent attempt to cover up the Laquan McDonald shooting, has resulted in a US Department of Justice investigation.

Laquan McDonald shooting: officer's dashcam mic 'intentionally destroyed' | US news | The Guardian

OAW

[The Final Dakar]

I hear cops love paperwork, so now I guess we gotta have them verify their equipment works at the beginning and end of each shift. Of course, lying on these records should amount to falsifying police records.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

He was driving under the influence, pretty apparent by his slurred speech

Drunk people can't be deadly?

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

he had a pellet gun (the trooper would have easily been able to verify that at 2 feet)

Pellet guns can't be dangerous?

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

and he didn't get belligerent until they had him in cuffs.

"I'll kill all of you," Stetson can be heard saying on the video.

When the remarkably restrained state trooper advises him that "I don't think you want to do that," Stetson replies, "If I come out of jail I'm going to kill you."

Eventually, it took multiple officers to wrestle Stetson — who's listed in police records as 6 feet tall and weighing 235 pounds — into a police vehicle.

Authorities said he kicked the vehicle so violently during the struggle that one of its doors was significantly damaged.

He threatened them before he was restrained and he kicked like a god damn mule.

No, they don't have to fear for their life, but minorities sure get shot for a lot less.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Drunk people can't be deadly?

He was arrested for public intoxication and DUI, but generally speaking, as long as they aren't driving, drunk people are less deadly than sober people.

Pellet guns can't be dangerous?

No, not really.

He threatened them before he was restrained and he kicked like a god damn mule.

No, they don't have to fear for their life, but minorities sure get shot for a lot less.

He used bad language and talked shit while being cuffed? OH LAWD! I seriously doubt these rural troopers deal with this very often.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Even more shenanigans. So much for this simplistic notion of "just get your elected officials to change the laws" being the solution to this problem. Here we have a clear example of a law being changed that was met with rampant resistance by "Officer Friendly".

Talk about "simplistic", if that's all you gleaned from what I was saying before. I refuse to go back and attempt to spoon-feed the meat of what I was saying earlier, talking with you has ever been a complete waste of time.

[The Final Dakar]

Leaked police files contain guarantees disciplinary records will be kept secret | US news | The Guardian

A Guardian analysis of dozens of contracts obtained from the servers of the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) found that more than a third featured clauses allowing – and often mandating – the destruction of records of civilian complaints, departmental investigations, or disciplinary actions after a negotiated period of time.

The review also found that 30% of the 67 leaked police contracts, which were struck between cities and police unions, included provisions barring public access to records of past civilian complaints, departmental investigations, and disciplinary actions.

The documents date back almost two decades and include agreements from unions such as the Policemen’s Benevolent Association and the International Brotherhood of Police Officers. Many contain numerous recurring clauses that slow down misconduct investigations, prevent public access to complaints and disciplinary records, and enable the destruction of complaints and disciplinary records after a negotiated period of time.

At least as recently as 2007, if an officer in Independence, Missouri, was “involved in a shooting incident”, that officer could not be interrogated for at least 12 hours nor be “treated a suspect” unless local authorities thought there was reasonable suspicion or probable cause that a crime had been committed. This protocol was mandated in the local police union’s contract in a clause specifically designed for “officer-involved shooting investigations”.

Speaking to the rationale for sealing off investigatory and complaint records, Canterbury, the FOP president, said: “It’s mostly the false or unsustained complaints that officers feel unduly hurt their careers. Nobody expunges guilty adjudicated use-of-forces, so if these acts are found unsustained in the first place, why should they continue to have any bearing on officers?”

The Thin Blue Line.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

He was arrested for public intoxication and DUI, but generally speaking, as long as they aren't driving, drunk people are less deadly than sober people.

Interesting analysis. Because it overlooks drunk people being more likely to make some very poor decisions.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

He used bad language and talked shit while being cuffed? OH LAWD! I seriously doubt these rural troopers deal with this very often.

The point you seem to hand-waving away is certain… um, people, often to get the benefit of the doubt for similar actions.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Interesting analysis. Because it overlooks drunk people being more likely to make some very poor decisions.

The point you seem to hand-waving away is certain… um, people, often to get the benefit of the doubt for similar actions.

Drunk people are slow and clumsy, so while they make poorer decisions, you can see their reactions coming a mile away.

You have to consider the setting, if the guy had pulled that in Chicago he much more likely would have ended up severely beaten or dead.

[OAW]

You know because the life of the heavily armed police "officer" was so endangered by the naked, unarmed teenager coming towards him ....

An unarmed nude teenager was shot and killed by an officer in an altercation partly captured by patrol car video, according to Austin police.
Officer Geoffrey Freeman fatally shot 17-year-old David Joseph on Monday when the teen allegedly ignored orders to stop and charged at the officer, Police Chief of Staff Brian Manley said.

Freeman initially responded to a report of one male chasing another through an Austin apartment complex. He resumed his patrol, then came upon the naked Joseph, according to Manley. Police haven't released the patrol car video.

Joseph's family released a statement Wednesday saying they are "devastated" by the high school senior's death.

"We are shocked and saddened that he was taken from us in an unexpected and violent way, and are struggling to understand how our child was stolen from us by the police," the family said in a statement.

According to Joseph's family, the teen played football and soccer and was preparing to attend college in the fall. Joseph is survived by his parents and two older brothers, ages 23 and 19.

"We want a full and fair investigation into what led Officer Freeman to kill David. David had no weapon. We do not know what led to his meeting with Officer Freeman, but we know that our David should not have been taken away from us," the family said. "No family should have to suffer like we are today."

Freeman has been an Austin police officer for 10 years. He's been put on administrative duty.

An autopsy was ordered.

Joseph was black, as is the officer.

Austin Police Say Unarmed Nude Teen Fatally Shot By Officer | NBC 5 Dallas-Fort Worth

OAW

[The Final Dakar]

So, that asian officer who shot a guy in a stairwell got convicted. That was kind of unexpected... if not weird.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

So, that asian officer who shot a guy in a stairwell got convicted. That was kind of unexpected... if not weird.

Yeah I saw that story. Dude really had no defense though. The guy he killed was literally just standing there.

OAW

[The Final Dakar]

This take aligns with my perception.
Scots Police Teach US Cops How To Avoid Gun Use

They also saw examples of how in Scotland officers use language and negotiation in a different way to their American colleagues.

Sergeant Jim Young trains hundreds of Scottish police recruits every year.

"The American style of policing, it's very authoritative," he said.

"There's a difference of going in, straight up at this level, whereby you're ordering people, you're shouting at them. You can't go anywhere after that.

"But if you start down low you can adjust your communications to suit."

[The Final Dakar]

Black Lives Matter Movement Notches Major Win In Chicago Race

[OAW]

^^^

I saw that story earlier. That prosecutor deserved to get tossed out of office.

OAW

[OAW]

Looks like the prosecutor in the Tamir Rice case got tossed out of office as well.

The prosecutors in the Tamir Rice and Laquan McDonald cases lose their primary races.

OAW

[The Final Dakar]

The 5 sheriffs that ignored the dude who sucker punched the protester at the Trump rally have been disciplined. Being caught on tape strikes again.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Black Lives Matter Movement Notches Major Win In Chicago Race

Sadly, I get the impression her replacement isn't particularly good, but merely capitalized on the rage against Alvarez.

[OAW]

Another example of a black undercover officer killed by a fellow white cop ....

A suburban Washington, D.C., police officer who died in an unprovoked shootout Sunday was deliberately shot by another officer who did not know him and perceived him to be a threat, police said Wednesday.

Prince George's County Police Officer Jacai Colson was in plain clothes during the shootout at the county police District III station in Landover, Md.

Police Chief Hank Stawinski was careful not to speculate about the state of mind of the unidentified officer who shot at Colson, but he said the officer feared for his life.

"I do not believe for a second that a police officer intentionally fired at another police officer," said Stawinski on Wednesday.

The shootout happened when Michael Ford, 22, randomly opened fire at police and passing cars outside Prince George's County police headquarters Sunday.

On Monday, Stawinski said Colson was killed by "friendly fire."

Undercover Md. officer viewed as threat, 'deliberately' shot | USAToday.com

Mistakes can happen for sure. But before one just casually dismisses this incident it should be noted that it is virtually unheard of for black uniformed officers to shoot and kill undercover white officers. Which is the main point here.

OAW

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Plain-clothed cop goes into a hostile situation and engages, without informing anyone else on the scene that he's a police officer. Gee, I can't see how that could go badly. That's dumb. Where was he during off-duty protocol training? Because I remember that vividly.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Plain-clothed cop goes into a hostile situation and engages, without informing anyone else on the scene that he's a police officer. Gee, I can't see how that could go badly. That's dumb. Where was he during off-duty protocol training? Because I remember that vividly.

[subego]

@Paco

Could you please take that down?

I put up a thread where people can put up personal photos of themselves. It's an unveiled attempt to bring the people in this community closer. It's ultimately asking people to take off shield of anonymity and be vulnerable.

You can use any other thread you want for ammo, but I ask you not to violate the intent of that one thread.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by subego 

@Paco

Could you please take that down?

I put up a thread where people can put up personal photos of themselves. It's an unveiled attempt to bring the people in this community closer. It's ultimately asking people to take off shield of anonymity and be vulnerable.

You can use any other thread you want for ammo, but I ask you not to violate the intent of that one thread.

I edited it out of respect for you. The user is question has not afforded me and a good number of others on this community anything near this level of decency. I had to think very hard about changing it. In real life you cannot be a raging, anti-social ass without consequences. This forum, being not real life, he gets away with it. That's a shame.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

I edited it out of respect for you. The user is question has not afforded me and a good number of others on this community anything near this level of decency. I had to think very hard about changing it. In real life you cannot be a raging, anti-social ass without consequences. This forum, being not real life, he gets away with it. That's a shame.

As if you have the courage to post a photo of yourself, you coward. Do you remember that you actually started the "anti-social" behavior between us? You're only receiving what you've given, you deranged, cork-headed muppet.

[OAW]

At this stage in the game is anyone even remotely surprised by this?

The war on drugs: Is it a genuine public health crusade or an attempt to carry out what author Michelle Alexander characterizes as "the New Jim Crow"?

A new report by Dan Baum for Harper's Magazine suggests the latter. Specifically, Baum refers to a quote from John Ehrlichman, who served as domestic policy chief for President Richard Nixon when the administration declared its war on drugs in 1971. According to Baum, Ehrlichman said in 1994 that the drug war was a ploy to undermine Nixon's political opposition — meaning, black people and critics of the Vietnam War:

At the time, I was writing a book about the politics of drug prohibition. I started to ask Ehrlichman a series of earnest, wonky questions that he impatiently waved away. "You want to know what this was really all about?" he asked with the bluntness of a man who, after public disgrace and a stretch in federal prison, had little left to protect. "The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."

This is an incredibly blunt, shocking response — one with troubling implications for the 45-year-old war on drugs.

It's possible Ehrlichman wasn't being honest, given that he reportedly felt bitter and betrayed by Nixon after he spent time in prison over the Watergate scandal. Nixon also very much despised drugs, which likely played a role in his policies beyond political goals. And his drug czar, Jerome Jaffe, strongly pushed for treating drugs as a health issue, not solely a criminal matter as Ehrlichman suggested.

But the claim of racial prejudice is not implausible. Although black Americans aren't more likely to use or sell drugs, they're much more likely to be arrested for them. And when black people are convicted of drug charges, they generally face longer prison sentences for the same crimes, according to a 2012 report from the US Sentencing Commission.



Ehrlichman claimed this was a goal of the drug war, not an unintended consequence. And Baum cites this as one of many reasons to end the drug war once and for all.

Nixon official: real reason for the drug war was to criminalize black people and hippies - Vox

When certain communities are targeted for drug prohibition enforcement then you see such disparate arrest/conviction/sentencing rates. And subsequently those disparate arrest/conviction/sentencing rates are then used to "justify" said targeting. It's a vicious cycle.

OAW

[The Final Dakar]

Delivering Mail While Black

But seriously, so much of this thread must be about the NYPD and LA. Big city cops power trippin'.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

"Drugs"? Which ones? Smoking a little pot isn't the same as crack. Oh, it's Vox again.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

"Drugs"? Which ones? Smoking a little pot isn't the same as crack. Oh, it's Vox again.

That wasn't even the point. And you know it. If for no other reason than the "crack" epidemic didn't hit until the 1980s. Long after the Nixon Administration.

That being said, even the disparity between the arrest/conviction/sentencing rates for marijuana between blacks and whites is ridiculous. Despite virtually identical usage rates. And let's not even talk about the 100-1 sentencing disparity between powder and crack cocaine even though they are the same drug with the same addiction rates. Which was just reduced to a 10-1 disparity rate since Obama took office. But never mind. You've made it abundantly clear you don't do data. So it's certainly not surprising that you continue to refuse to acknowledge the obvious.

OAW

[Cap'n Tightpants]

It is the point, you simply refuse to see it. And yes, sentencing is typically higher for blacks, because their rate of repeat offense is 3-4x higher, they get busted much more often for harder substances, and for much larger quantities. While you may believe all this happened in a vacuum, it didn't. Prosecutors and judges pay attention to that sort of thing. If this is "systemic racism", why are black judges sentencing black offenders just as harshly as white judges? Are black judges and prosecutors racist towards blacks? Are black police commissioners racist towards blacks? How about black mayors? It's much easier to push it all towards a racist conspiracy, rather than admit that the family unit is virtually dead within black communities.

[OAW]

Jeez you are deliberately obtuse. The article I cited QUOTED a top level Nixon Administration official admitting that the genesis of the so-called "War on Drugs" was NOT about public safety or health. Instead it was designed to marginalize and criminalize Nixon's political adversaries. A point which you failed to even acknowledge was made let alone address. Instead you make some nonsensical comparison between marijuana and heroin. Which is utterly besides the point as well because the data reflects a glaring disparity between arrest/conviction/sentencing rates between whites and minorities even for the exact same illegal substance ... despite nearly identical rates of usage. If two groups of people use a given illegal substance at a similar rate then one would expect a similar arrest/conviction/sentencing rate for that offense in those communities respectively. Assuming the law is being enforced equitably.

But your denial runs so deep on such issues that you would break your own d*ck in half before even considering the simple truth that we do NOT see this because of selective enforcement. Let alone acknowledging it. And quite frankly I just don't have the patience for such remedial nonsense tonight.

OAW X

[Captain Obvious]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Instead you make some nonsensical comparison between marijuana and heroin. Which is utterly besides the point as well because the data reflects a glaring disparity between arrest/conviction/sentencing rates between whites and minorities even for the exact same illegal substance ... despite nearly identical rates of usage. If two groups of people use a given illegal substance at a similar rate then one would expect a similar arrest/conviction/sentencing rate for that offense in those communities respectively. Assuming the law is being enforced equitably.

And if you had confined the narrative to the early 70s your point would be valid. However the real spike in incarcerations happened along side the increased use of more potent drugs that had greater addictive qualities in the 80s and 90s which led users to more serious crimes to fund their habit. Arresting addicts for drug charges caught in high crime areas was a legitimate tactic in reducing other crimes as there was a correlation between the two.
That people in poorer communities suffered greater consequences was both in part to their inability to afford private legal counsel and the more frequent necessity for criminality to fund their addiction.

Also i don't find it odd that post 1960 Nixon was hell bent on destroying his opposition.
I really doubt most people can comprehend how mentally unsound the blatant theft of the Kennedy election made him. There is nothing in the modern era in this country that comes close to the open use of election fraud as what happened in that year. It caused a cascade of mental neurosis in Nixon that ultimately led to this resignation. In fact I would not attribute these targeted drug arrests on racism as much as it was that groups like the black panthers and their followers were in open and defiant opposition to the White House were targeted by any means he was afforded. To glance over that "hippies" were included in this decree is to ignore the real motivation in the policy. I know OaW would like a simplistic cause like racism to be the fault since that subject taints every single element in his world but it does not take into account the mentality of Nixon in context of how he behaved towards anyone who was in active opposition to him.


Anyway, just your average thursday in Englewood

[Cap'n Tightpants]

When did I mention heroin? That's a drug for white emo suburbanites.

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious 

And if you had confined the narrative to the early 70s your point would be valid. However the real spike in incarcerations happened along side the increased use of more potent drugs that had greater addictive qualities in the 80s and 90s which led users to more serious crimes to fund their habit. Arresting addicts for drug charges caught in high crime areas was a legitimate tactic in reducing other crimes as there was a correlation between the two.
That people in poorer communities suffered greater consequences was both in part to their inability to afford private legal counsel and the more frequent necessity for criminality to fund their addiction.

I really don't think he cares how it's evolved since, he just wants someone else to blame. Again, I go back to the evidence of the collapse of the family unit and the lure of easy money. You didn't need to be educated to make huge amounts of money and eventually gang members outnumbered cops 20:1.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Delivering Mail While Black

But seriously, so much of this thread must be about the NYPD and LA. Big city cops power trippin'.

Yikes.

The four plainclothes cops got out of the car, slapped him in handcuffs, frisked him and carted him off to the 71st Precinct stationhouse where he was charged with resisting arrest.

He also put part of the blame on Grays.

“No one ever has the right to resist arrest,” Lynch continued. “Compliance is not optional.”

Yes, but what was the charge for which he was being arrested? If you're resisting arrest, you have to already be under arrest. If he's already under arrest, there has to be another charge?

Hahaha just kidding we all know that "resisting arrest" is a bullshit charge cops use to punish anyone that dare defy them.

[The Final Dakar]

I get that resisting arrest can be a problem, but cops have abused the charge so much I think they should lose the right to use it for a while.

[andi*pandi]

If the police arrested everyone who yelled at a bad driver... yeesh. They were plain clothes, no way anyone would know they were cops, so any charge of "insulting cops" is silly.

It's a federal crime to interfere with a mailman doing his rounds, isn't it? Poor guy in the video is all "what about my package!" that got picked up by the cops. And the mailtruck left parked in the street.

Colossal jerks.

[subego]

I still feel there's a fundamental problem with asking people to play along with being manhandled. There's a lot of evolution which has gone into making resistance instinctual.

[The Final Dakar]

The problem with the resist arrest charge is it seems like an asshole tax that morphed into a catch-all crime. If someone actually injures an officer I imagine that's it's own charge.

As for the mail truck, I'd be curious if the mail man would get anything more than fired if he had done that out of his own volition.

[The Final Dakar]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...mepage%2Fstory

Yeah, I'll add to this post later...

[OAW]

Sort of like "disorderly conduct" back in the day. The BS charge they use an an excuse to take you to jail simply because they feel like it.

OAW

[OAW]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Video shows white cops performing roadside cavity search of black man | WashingtonPost.com

Yeah, I'll add to this post later...

This one simply can NOT be left as a mere link ...

For the past few weeks, I’ve been working on an investigative series about police abuse in South Carolina. I’ve found a dizzying number of cases, including illegal arrests, botched raids, fatal shootings and serious questions about how all those incidents are investigated. Many of these cases were previously unreported, or if they were reported, the initial reports were a far cry from what actually happened. The series will run at some point in the next week. But in the meantime, I want to share one particularly horrifying incident that I came across this week while researching the series.

According to a federal lawsuit filed by attorney Robert Phillips, what you see in the video below occurred in the town of Aiken, S.C., starting at about 12:20 p.m. on Oct. 2, 2014. The two occupants of the car are black. All the police officers are white.

Here’s what happened: Lakeya Hicks and Elijah Pontoon were in Hicks’s car just a couple of blocks from downtown Aiken when they were pulled over by Officer Chris Medlin of the Aiken Department of Public Safety. Hicks was driving. She had recently purchased the car, so it still had temporary tags.

In the video, Medlin asks Hicks to get out, then tells her that he stopped her because of the “paper tag” on her car. This already is a problem. There’s no law against temporary tags in South Carolina, so long as they haven’t expired.

Medlin then asks Pontoon for identification. Since he was in the passenger seat, Pontoon wouldn’t have been required to provide ID even if the stop had been legitimate. Still, he provides his driver’s license to Medlin. A couple of minutes later, Medlin tells Hicks that her license and tags check out. (You can see the time stamp in the lower left corner of the video.) This should be the end of the stop — which, again, should never have happened in the first place.

Instead, Medlin orders Pontoon out of the vehicle and handcuffs him. He also orders Hicks out of the car. Pontoon then asks Medlin what’s happening. Medlin ignores him. Pontoon asks again. Medlin responds that he’ll “explain it all in a minute.” Several minutes later, a female officers appears. Medlin then tells Pontoon, “Because of your history, I’ve got a dog coming in here. Gonna walk a dog around the car.” About 30 seconds later, he adds, “You gonna pay for this one, boy.” OAW: Need I explain the significance of a white man calling an adult black male "boy"? Especially in South Carolina?

Moments later, a K9 officer named Clark Smith arrives. He walks around the car with his dog. A fourth police officer then shows up. The four officers then spend the next 15 minutes conducting a thorough search of the car. Early into the search, Medlin exclaims, “Uh-huh!” as if he has found something incriminating. But nothing comes of it.

After the search of the car comes up empty, Medlin tells the female officer to “search her real good,” referring to Hicks. The personal search of Hicks is conducted off camera, but according to the complaint filed by Phillips, it allegedly involved exposing Hicks’s breasts on the side of the road in a populated area. The complaint also alleges that this was all done in direct view of the three male officers. That search, too, produced no contraband.

The officers then turn their attention to Pontoon. Medlin asks Pontoon to get out of the car. He cuffs him and begins to pat him down. Toward the end of the first video, at about the 12:46:30 mark, he tells Pontoon: “You’ve got something here right between your legs. There’s something hard right there between your legs.” Medlin says that he’s going to “put some gloves on.”

The anal probe happens out of direct view of the camera, but the audio leaves little doubt about what’s happening. Pontoon at one point says that one of the officers is grabbing his hemorrhoids. Medlin appears to reply, “I’ve had hemorrhoids, and they ain’t that hard.” At about 12:47:15 in the video, the audio actually suggests that two officers may have inserted fingers into Pontoon’s rectum, as one asks, “What are you talking about, right here?” The other replies, “Right straight up in there.”

Pontoon then again tells the officers that they’re pushing on a hemorrhoid. One officer responds, “If that’s a hemorrhoid, that’s a hemorrhoid, all right? But that don’t feel like no hemorrhoid to me.”

The officers apparently continue to search Pontoon’s rectum for another three minutes. They found no contraband. At 12:50:25, Medlin tells Pontoon to turn around and explains that he suspects him because he recognized him from when he worked narcotics. “Now I know you from before, from when I worked dope. I seen you. That’s why I put a dog on the car.”

That was Medlin’s “reasonable suspicion” to call for a drug dog — he thought he recognized Pontoon from a drug case. Medlin could well have been correct about recognizing Pontoon. He has a lengthy criminal history that includes drug charges, although his record appears to be clean since 2006, save for one arrest for “failure to comply.” Of course, even if Medlin did recognize Pontoon, that in itself isn’t cause to even stop him, much less search his car, or to subject him to a roadside cavity search.

With no contraband and no traffic violation to justify the stop in the first place, Medlin concluded the stop by giving Hicks a “courtesy warning,” although according to the complaint, there’s no indication of what the warning was actually for. Perhaps it was to warn to steer clear of police officers in Aiken.

Every single officer involved in this illegal activity should be fired. But if I had to bet my next three paychecks on it I'm sure they are still all on the streets.

OAW

[OAW]

A slap on the wrist is better than nothing I suppose.

An Ohio judge has found that there is probable cause to prosecute the 911 caller who claimed that John Crawford III was pointing a gun at people inside a Wal-Mart store in August 2014.

Ronald Ritchie “created the incident that resulted in the death of not only John Crawford but another shopper by the name of Angela Williams,” Bomani Moyenda, one of 10 people who filed affidavits March 25, told reporters, according to WCPO.

On Aug. 5, 2014, Ritchie called police claiming that the 22-year-old Crawford was aiming a gun at people, including children, as he walked the aisles of a Beavercreek, Ohio, Wal-Mart. Police stormed the store, and within moments, Crawford was shot dead. Later, police would learn that Crawford was carrying an air pistol that he had picked up inside the store, and video from the store showed him carrying the gun on his shoulder but didn't show him aiming the gun at anyone, the Dayton Daily News reports.

While Fairborn Municipal Court Judge Beth Root found there was probable cause to prosecute Ritchie for making false reports, she ruled that there was not probable cause to prosecute Ritchie for inciting violence, inducing panic, involuntary manslaughter or reckless homicide. It is unclear what legal steps may follow, but the judge, in her decision, wrote that the case should be referred to a prosecutor.

According to the Daily News, another shopper in the Wal-Mart at the time of the police shooting, 37-year-old Angela Williams, ran from the store with her daughter after gunshots were fired, suffered a medical issue and also died that night.

If tried, Ritchie would face a first-degree misdemeanor charge punishable by a maximum of six months in jail and a $1,000 fine, the Daily News reports.

Judge: Probable Cause to Charge 911 Caller in John Crawford III’s Death - The Root

If you recall John Crawford was shot and killed on sight inside a Walmart while he was talking on a cellphone with his fiancee because this asshole lied about what he was really doing.

OAW

[The Final Dakar]

Good.

[OAW]

It would appear that not even a slap on the wrist is in the cards ...

A special prosecutor declined to prosecute the 911 caller who reported a man waving a gun in a Beavercreek Wal-Mart before police fatally shot the shopper, who'd picked up an air rifle from a shelf.

Special Prosecutor Mark Piepmeier released the decision on Monday.

In his decision, Piepmeier stated that a Green County grand jury heard all of the evidence of the shooting on Aug. 5, 2014, including the actions of the caller, and had the authority to indict anyone they believed had criminal culpability in the shooting, including the caller. However, the grand jury did not bring charges.

Piepmeier also said, "The original call was basically, 'I'm at the Beavercreek Walmart and there is a man walking about with a gun in the store.'" The remainder of his conversations was mostly answers in response to questions from a dispatcher."

Piepmeier's findings state that the charge of making false alarms requires that the defendant knew the information he was transmitting was false, but Piepmeier did not find any evidence that the caller knew any of the information was false. OAW: The security footage makes it abundantly clear what the 911 caller was saying was false. But who are you going to believe? Me or your lying eyes?

Piepmeier is the same prosecutor who presented the case to a grand jury, which concluded the shooting of 22-year-old John Crawford III was justified.

Crawford, who was black, was shot by a white officer responding to the Beavercreek store, near Dayton, on Aug. 5, 2014.

The U.S. Department of Justice is reviewing the case.

A group of people who took interest in the shooting used an obscure law to push for prosecution of 911 caller Ronald Ritchie, who told investigators he thought the firearm was real.

The law allows private citizens to make complaints and have them reviewed by a judge who can refer them to a prosecutor for further review.

A Fairborn Municipal Court judge recently ruled there was sufficient evidence to prosecute him only for the misdemeanor of making a false alarm and referred the case to the Fairborn city solicitor.

Ritchie was the only person to call 911 before shots were fired at the store. He reported a man walking around waving an apparent rifle and "pointing it at people." The next day, the Riverside man told authorities the man actually didn't point the firearm but swung it around and flashed the muzzle at children.

Prosecutor: No charges for 911 caller in Beavercreek Wal-Mart shooting | Local News - WLWT Home

OAW

[OAW]

Trigger happy cop shoots and kills a unarmed black male who was committing not crime and in his own residential building? Makes no effort whatsoever to render aid? Meh ... just give him community service.

Former New York City police Officer Peter Liang will not serve jail time in the 2014 shooting death of Akai Gurley in a New York housing project.

Liang was sentenced to 800 hours of community service and five years' probation Tuesday after Judge Danny Chun reduced his manslaughter conviction to criminally negligent homicide in the shooting death of Gurley, 28, who was not armed.

Liang, 28, was found guilty of manslaughter and official misconduct in February for shooting Gurley in the stairwell of a Brooklyn housing project.

Liang was immediately fired after his conviction.

Brooklyn District Attorney Ken Thompson had written the sentencing judge with a recommendation of five years of probation, including six months of home confinement with electronic monitoring and 500 hours of community service. Liang faced up to 15 years in prison.

"Mr. Liang has no prior criminal history and poses no future threat to public safety," Thompson said in a statement last month. "Because his incarceration is not necessary to protect the public, and due to the unique circumstances of this case, a prison sentence is not warranted."
Liang, with 18 months on the job, was on patrol in the dark stairwell of a Brooklyn housing project in November 2014 when he fired his gun. The bullet ricocheted off a wall and struck Gurley in the chest. Gurley died at a hospital.

Defense lawyers called the shooting a tragedy, not a crime. Prosecutors argued that Liang was reckless and was more concerned about his story than helping Gurley.

"There is no evidence ... that he intended to kill or injure Akai Gurley," Thompson said in the statement. "When Mr. Liang went into that building that night, he did so as part of his job and to keep the people of Brooklyn and our city safe."

Liang had a brief meeting last month with Gurley's domestic partner, Kim Ballinger, at Thompson's Brooklyn offices, according to attorneys for Liang and Ballinger, who were present

Ex-NYPD officer gets no jail time in shooting death - CNN.com

OAW

[Laminar]

"Because his incarceration is not necessary to protect the public, and due to the unique circumstances of this case, a prison sentence is not warranted."

Wait...prison is only for people who pose a direct danger to the public?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Wait...prison is only for people who pose a direct danger to the public?

Yeah, like pot smokers.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Wait...prison is only for people who pose a direct danger to the public?

Exactly!

My point here is that if it were a regular everyday civilian who fired a gun and killed someone accidentally ... chances are they wouldn't be hit with only community service and probation.

OAW