Showing posts with label police. Show all posts
Showing posts with label police. Show all posts

Sunday, August 17, 2014

Cops Beat Man Bloody Then Arrest Him For Bleeding On Them





U.S. News

08.15.14

The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie

The officers got the wrong man, but charged him anyway—with getting his blood on their uniforms. How the Ferguson PD ran the town where Michael Brown was gunned down.
Police in Ferguson, Missouri, once charged a man with destruction of property for bleeding on their uniforms while four of them allegedly beat him.
“On and/or about the 20th day of Sept. 20, 2009 at or near 222 S. Florissant within the corporate limits of Ferguson, Missouri, the above named defendant did then and there unlawfully commit the offense of ‘property damage’ to wit did transfer blood to the uniform,” reads the charge sheet.
The address is the headquarters of the Ferguson Police Department, where a 52-year-old welder named Henry Davis was taken in the predawn hours on that date. He had been arrested for an outstanding warrant that proved to actually be for another man of the same surname, but a different middle name and Social Security number.
“I said, ‘I told you guys it wasn’t me,’” Davis later testified.
He recalled the booking officer saying, “We have a problem.”
The booking officer had no other reason to hold Davis, who ended up in Ferguson only because he missed the exit for St. Charles and then pulled off the highway because the rain was so heavy he could not see to drive. The cop who had pulled up behind him must have run his license plate and assumed he was that other Henry Davis. Davis said the cop approached his vehicle, grabbed his cellphone from his hand, cuffed him and placed him in the back seat of the patrol car, without a word of explanation.
But the booking officer was not ready just to let Davis go, and proceeded to escort him to a one-man cell that already had a man in it asleep on the lone bunk. Davis says that he asked the officer if he could at least have one of the sleeping mats that were stacked nearby.
”He said I wasn’t getting one,” Davis said.
Davis balked at being a second man in a one-man cell.
“Because it’s 3 in the morning,” he later testified. “Who going to sleep on a cement floor?”
The booking officer summoned a number of fellow cops. One opened the cell door while another suddenly charged, propelling Davis inside and slamming him against the back wall.
“I told the police officers there that I didn’t do nothing, ‘Why is you guys doing this to me?’” Davis testified. “They said, ‘OK, just lay on the ground and put your hands behind your back.’”
Davis said he complied and that a female officer straddled and then handcuffed him. Two other officers crowded into the cell.
“They started hitting me,” he testified. “I was getting hit and I just covered up.”
The other two stepped out and the female officer allegedly lifted Davis’ head as the cop who had initially pushed him into the cell reappeared.
“He ran in and kicked me in the head,” Davis recalled. “I almost passed out at that point… Paramedics came… They said it was too much blood, I had to go to the hospital.”
A patrol car took the bleeding Davis to a nearby emergency room. He refused treatment, demanding somebody first take his picture.
“I wanted a witness and proof of what they done to me,” Davis said.
He was driven back to the jail, where he was held for several days before he posted $1,500 bond on four counts of “property damage.” Police Officer John Beaird had signed complaints swearing on pain of perjury that Davis had bled on his uniform and those of three fellow officers.
The remarkable turned inexplicable when Beaird was deposed in a civil case that Davis subsequently brought seeking redress and recompense.
Schottel figures the courts might take the problems of the Ferguson Police Department as more than de minimis as a result of the protests sparked when an officer shot and killed an unarmed 18-year-old named Michael Brown.
“After Mr. Davis was detained, did you have any blood on you?” asked Davis’ lawyer, James Schottel.
“No, sir,” Beaird replied.
Schottel showed Beaird a copy of the “property damage” complaint.
“Is that your signature as complainant?” the lawyer asked.
“It is, sir,” the cop said.
“And what do you allege that Mr. Davis did unlawfully in this one?” the lawyer asked.
“Transferred blood to my uniform while Davis was resisting,” the cop said.
“And didn’t I ask you earlier in this deposition if Mr. Davis got blood on your uniform?”
“You did, sir.”
“And didn’t you respond no?”
“Correct. I did.”
Beaird seemed to be either admitting perjury or committing it. The depositions of other officers suggested that the “property damage” charges were not just bizarre, but trumped up.
“There was no blood on my uniform,” said Police Officer Christopher Pillarick.
And then there was Officer Michael White, the one accused of kicking Davis in the head, an allegation he denies, as his fellow officers deny striking Davis. White had reported suffering a bloody nose in the mayhem.
“Did you see Mr. Davis bleeding at all?”  the lawyer, Schottel, asked.
“I did not,” White replied.
“Did Mr. Davis get any blood on you while you were in the cell?” Schottel asked.
“No,” White said.
The contradictions between the complaint and the depositions apparently are what prompted the prosecutor to drop the “property damage” allegation. The prosecutor also dropped a felony charge of assault on an officer that had been lodged more than a year after the incident and shortly after Davis filed his civil suit.
Davis suggested in his testimony that if the police really thought he had assaulted an officer he would have been charged back when he was jailed.
“They would have filed those charges right then and there, because that’s a major felony,” he noted.
Indisputable evidence of what transpired in the cell might have been provided by a surveillance camera, but it turned out that the VHS video was recorded at 32 times normal speed.
“It was like a blur,” Schottel told The Daily Beast on Wednesday. “You couldn’t see anything.”
The blur proved to be from 12 hours after the incident anyway. The cops had saved the wrong footage after Schottel asked them to preserve it.
Schottel got another unpleasant surprise when he sought the use-of-force history of the officers involved. He learned that before a new chief took over in 2010 the department had a surprising protocol for non-fatal use-of-force reports.
“The officer himself could complete it and give it to the supervisor for his approval,” the prior chief, Thomas Moonier, testified in a deposition. “I would read it. It would be placed in my out basket, and my secretary would probably take it and put it with the case file.”
No copy was made for the officer’s personnel file.
“Everything involved in an incident would generally be with the police report,” Moonier said. “I don’t know what they maintain in personnel files.”
“Who was in charge of personnel files, of maintaining them?” Schottel asked.
“I have no idea,” Moonier said. “I believe City Hall, but I don’t know.”
Schottel focused on the date of the incident.
“On September 20th, 2009, was there any way to identify any officers that were subject of one or more citizens’ complaints?” he asked.
“Not to my knowledge,” Moonier said.
“Was there any way to identify any officers who had completed several use-of-force reports?”
“I don’t recall.”
But however lax the department’s system and however contradictory the officers’ testimony, a federal magistrate ruled that the apparent perjury about the “property damage” charges was too minor to constitute a violation of due process and that Davis’ injuries were de minimis—too minor to warrant a finding of excessive force. Never mind that a CAT scan taken after the incident confirmed that he had suffered a concussion.
Schottel has appealed and expects to argue the case in December. He will contend that perjury is perjury however minor the charge and note that both the NFL and Major League Baseball have learned to consider a concussion a serious injury.
Schottel figures the courts might take the problems of the Ferguson Police Department as more than de minimis as a result of the protests sparked when an officer shot and killed an unarmed 18-year-old named Michael Brown on the afternoon of Aug. 9.
“Your chances on appeal are going up,” a fellow lawyer told him.
At least one witness has said that Brown was shot in the back and then in the chest and head as he turned toward the officer with his hands raised.
“I said, ‘Well, that doesn’t surprise me,’” Schottel told The Daily Beast on Wednesday. “I said I already know about Ferguson, nothing new can faze me about Ferguson.”
Schottel has also deposed the new chief, Thomas Jackson, who took over in 2010. Jackson testified that he has instituted a centralized system whereby all complaints lodged against cops by citizens or supervisors go through him and are assigned a number in an internal affairs log. Schottel views Jackson as “not a bad guy,” someone who has been trying to make positive change.
“He wants to do right, but it was such a mess,” Schottel said Wednesday.
Jackson has seemed less than progressive as he delayed identifying the officer involved in the shooting for fear it would place him and his family in danger. Jackson would only say the officer is white and has been on the job for six years. This means that for his first two and most formative years the officer might have been writing his own force reports and that none of them went into his file.
“It’s hard to get people to clean things up, especially if they’re used to doing things a certain way,” Schottel said.

On Friday, police finally identified the officer as Darren Wilson, who is said to have no disciplinary record, as such records are kept in Ferguson. We already know that he started out at a time when it was accepted for a Ferguson cop to charge somebody with property damage for bleeding on his uniform and later saying there was no blood on him at all.

Read original article at -  http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/08/15/the-day-ferguson-cops-were-caught-in-a-bloody-lie.html.


Sunday, August 4, 2013

America's Scariest Police Chief Given Timeout, Throws Tantrum






YouTube Image
Gilberton Police Chief Mark Kessler was suspended for 30 days without pay for his use of borough weapons without permission in videos he filmed and posted on YouTube.
  • 1
GILBERTON, Pa. -- Gilberton police Chief Mark Kessler was suspended for 30 days without pay Wednesday night for his use of borough weapons without permission in videos he filmed and posted on YouTube.
The 5-1 vote came during Wednesday's borough council meeting at Borough Hall, which was filled to capacity with members of the media and borough residents.
The 7 p.m. meeting was preceded by a 55-minute executive session to discuss what action would be taken, if any, against Kessler. When the executive session began at 6 p.m., Kessler, who was dressed in a suit and not in his police uniform, was also inside with the council and his attorney, Joseph Nahas, for about 20 minutes, came outside for a time, and then was called in again.
There were more than 100 people outside borough hall, many arriving before 5 p.m. Many were supporters of Kessler and wearing "Constitutional Security Force" and other patriotic shirts, some with the Greek phrase "Molon Labe," which means "come and take," an expression of defiance. Some of Kessler's supporters also carried semi-automatic rifles, shotguns and pistols.
During the meeting, after a short explanation about the executive session by borough solicitor Karen Domalakes, council President Daniel Malloy requested a motion.
"After review of the circumstances, it is my recommendation that a motion be made to discipline Chief Kessler for the use of borough property for non-borough purposes without prior borough permission, incurring no expense to the borough," Malloy said. "This action would be 30 days (suspension) with no pay."
The motion was made by Councilwoman Susan Schmerfield and seconded by Vice President Eric Boxer. Voting in favor were Malloy, Schmerfield, Boxer, Robert Wagner and Michael VanAllen. Lloyd George voted against the motion and William Hannon was absent.
The Controversy
The uproar over the police chief began when Kessler posted a homemade video July 15 on YouTube that criticized U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry for pledging to sign a United Nations treaty that requires ratifying countries to begin controlling the international arms trade. Kessler's position is that the treaty will eventually lead to restrictions on gun ownership in violation of the Second Amendment.
Watch Videos
In the video, Kessler used profanity and also fired a fully automatic rifle. Due to criticism from some viewers about his use of profane language, Kessler posted another video the same day responding to the critical comments made against him. The second video also included profanity and the firing of two fully automatic rifles and an automatic pistol.
As of Wednesday, 284,562 people had viewed the second video, up from 3,280 on July 22.
As public opinion grew against Kessler's videos, Gilberton Mayor Mary Lou Hannon stood by the police chief in a statement to the press, explaining that what Kessler says and does during his personal time is his right under the First Amendment and he would not be censured for his political views.
The following day, a statement was released by the North Schuylkill school board -- of which Kessler is a member -- that its members "do not condone or agree with his actions or communications as produced in his online videos."
With an increasing number of irate telephone calls to Borough Hall last week, the borough council canceled its July 25 meeting and rescheduled it for Wednesday.
Lawyer Makes Case
After the vote, Nahas was allowed to make a statement, with Kessler standing by his side.
"Mr. Kessler is a very big activist when it comes to our Constitution, the First Amendment, the Second Amendment -- the entire Constitution," Nahas said. "Mr. Kessler shot a video. He used some profane language and shot a weapon during that video. There is a very big difference in what Mr. Kessler did on YouTube as to what a person would do in society at this board meeting."
Nahas said that those people who searched out the videos on the Internet had a very good idea what they would see and hear.
"Was profanity used? Absolutely. Was a gun used, which you (Malloy) described as borough property? Absolutely," Nahas said. "But they were used for shock value to call people's attention to our country and to constraints that our government may -- may -- be putting on the citizens of the United States. The bottom line is that Mr. Kessler did not do that in his capacity as a police officer. He did not do that in his capacity as a school board member. He did it in his capacity as an individual who is fighting for your constitutional rights. If you don't like the video, don't watch it. Don't click on it. There is nothing more to it than that."
As for the council's decision, Nahas said he and Kessler would discuss it in private today but that the decision will be followed.
"We'll follow the council's recommendation. He has to, since you are his supervisor," Nahas said. "We'll decide if we're going to take any further action."
The public speaks
Domalakes then asked for public comments, limiting the time to one minute. The first speaker was Peter Kostingo, a Gilberton native who lives in Frackville.
"I do support the Constitution, the First and Second Amendments, but the only problem with what Chief Kessler did and what his attorney fluffed it up and said it was only about profanity, but if you look at those videos, he (Kessler) threatens Nancy Pelosi, he's wearing a Gilberton chief of police badge and he should be fired, not a 30-day suspension," Kostingo said. "The attorney put a good spin on it but he used and abused his position, saying he's the chief."
Gilberton resident Mark Keirsey told the council that there could be liability issues involving Kessler.
"I ask the mayor and this council to consider calling on an outside agency, such as Schuylkill County's district attorney's office or the state police, to investigate Mr. Kessler's actions," Keirsey said. "There is his conduct as a police officer and his ability to perform his duties as a law enforcement official with regards to his contractual obligations, not to mention the fact that he poses a major liability to this borough and its residents. God forbid that an unfortunate incident should occur, the borough could be sued and it would be a major liability issue."
Other comments were made, both in favor and against Kessler's actions, during the public portion, which concluded the meeting.
Gene Stilp, Marysville, presented the council with eight pages of the standard Right-To-Know request form asking for copies of the borough code of conduct requirements, written policies for dismissal and other information. Before the meeting, Michael Morrill, executive director of Keystone Progress, submitted a petition of more than 20,000 names demanding that Kessler be fired. The names were received through the Internet from Pennsylvania and other areas of the country.
Kessler went outside after the meeting and was surrounded by his supporters.
"The support has been overwhelming, not only from here in Gilberton borough but from all over the country and internationally," Kessler said. "I respect council's decision and will follow it. It's shameful that they chose to bend because of political pressure but it is what it is and I'll deal with it."
Copyright 2013 - Republican & Herald, Pottsville, Pa.
McClatchy-Tribune News Service

Friday, October 26, 2012

49 Headless Bodies - War On Drugs In Mexico Is A Failure



Whenever you label government action as a, "war", expect bodies. Unfortunately this type of war has no easily identifiable enemies so are we essentially fighting ourselves?

Over 2K Wrongful Convictions Since '89



This is not surprising  but should we be!? And the question that needs to be asked is when are we as a nation going to do something about it?

Deadly Officer-Involved Shootings Spark Anaheim Police Protests

911 Caller Outs NYPD Spying In NJ

Baltimore police delete personal videos at Preakness

Preakness 2010 excessive force

ACLU Releases "Police Tape" Android App

Homeless Former Crip Saves Officer in Fight (Video) - YouTube

Homeless Former Crip Saves Officer in Fight (Video) - YouTube



Pretty interesting video! Check it out!

Friday, August 3, 2012

Handcuffed Man Shot, Killed Himself In Cop Car?


This story is shocking and I don't have the words to describe the injustice that I feel is being perpertrated on this poor family. Based on the little evidence we do know about what happened that day, it seems that something does not quite add up with the polices recolection of the incident. I do not see how a man handcuffed behind his back, manages to shoot himself near the front of his head. Not only does that defy physic, it defies common sense. Not all the facts are evident yet, but so far it seems like this police department has not even bothered to make up a credible story in defense of their actions. The spokesperson was so nonchalant about how his  police department routinely miss contraband during pat-downs. To begin, that is nothing to be proud of and as a police department, I would hope those in charge would realize that it is not an excuse but a liability.   If does turn out that the officer did miss a firearm during a so called routine pat down, and it turns out that the police were correct in their recollection of that day's event they are still somewhat culpable due to their failure to do an insential and now in hindsight life saving aspect of their duties as Police Officers!

Monday, May 7, 2012

Trayvon Martin Smear Campaign - YouTube

The Trayvon Martin Smear Campaign/ Victim Misinformation! 



Here is the link to the original YouTube discussion. Please feel free to leave any comments!
Trayvon Martin Smear Campaign - YouTube

Wednesday, April 4, 2012

Black Policeman Shot 28 Times by 4 Chicago Cops and Lived


s much of the country follows the Trayvon Martin case, activists in Chicago are hoping to bring some of that attention to Howard Morgan, a former Chicago police officer who was shot 28 times by white officers -- and lived to tell his side of the story.
Morgan was off-duty as a detective for the Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad when he was pulled over for driving the wrong way on a one-way street on Feb 21, 2005, the Chicago Sun-Times reports. While both police and Morgan agree on that much, what happened next is a mystery.
According to police, Morgan opened fire with his service weapon when officers tried to arrest him, which caused them to shoot him 28 times. His family, however, very much doubts those claims.
“Four white officers and one black Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad police man with his weapon on him — around the corner from our home — and he just decided to go crazy? No. That’s ludicrous,” Morgan's wife, Rosalind Morgan, told the Sun-Times.
She was not the only person to doubt CPD's side of the story. A Change.org petitionsigned by more than 2,600 people called for all charges against Morgan to be dropped, and now Occupy Chicago is getting involved.
"After being left for dead, he survived and was then charged with attempted murder of the four white officers who brutalized him," Occupy wrote on their website, adding that Morgan was found not guilty on three counts, including discharging his weapon. The same jury that cleared him of opening fire on the officers, however, deadlocked on a charge of attempted murder -- and another jury found him guilty in January.
That jury was not allowed to hear that Morgan had been acquitted of the other 

Friday, March 23, 2012

How To Handle the Police! Know Your Rights so they don't violate em!


How to Handle a Police Stop

A large part of a police officer’s job is to develop evidence that will lead to a conviction. At every stage of your encounter with the officer, you must assume that they are seeking evidence from you or your surroundings that could land you in jail.
If you believe that you may be stopped by the police in the near future, or if you believe that you may be a suspect, you should enlist my aid as soon as possible by calling (301) 556-8709. I can give you specific advice relevant to your particular situation, and I may sometimes even be able to stop a prosecution before charges are filed.

Be Polite, Remain Silent, and Assert Your Legal Rights

An initial “Hello, Officer” without more is polite and will not hurt you – but after those two words, there are only two categories of responses to an officer that are useful:
  1. Silence, and
  2. An assertion of your legal rights that you have memorized beforehand, or carry with you.
    • “I do not consent to any search.”
    • “I am not comfortable answering any questions without an attorney present.”
    • “Am I free to leave?”
The officer has a plan for his interaction with you. You also need to have a plan if you want to be successful.
You playing a game against a much more experienced adversary with your freedom at stake. The Officer will likely be more levelheaded than you and will remain capable of following a complex plan, because your interaction with him is relatively ordinary. He knows that there is no possibility that he will go to jail if he loses. You will be acutely aware that your freedom is on the line, and will be, at best, somewhat anxious. If your interaction with the officer becomes complex, the officer’s superior experience and other advantages will result in near certain victory. Therefore, you must follow simple rules that will minimize your interactions with the officer.
You must resist with your silence, and your forceful but polite memorized assertions of your rights. If the officer orders you out of the car, or arrests you, or orders you to get out of the way, cooperate with them physically while saying, “I do not consent to any search.”
Do not physically resist or unnecessarily antagonize the officer – it will only make things worse. To you, the officer is a threat to your freedom that you must politely resist. To a police officer, your encounter is just part of the job. Try not to take the encounter personally – the officer likely has no personal feelings toward you whatsoever.
Officers will often use their own expressions of annoyance with you in order to encourage you to speak, to consent to a search, or to remain present when you are free to leave. They may make it seem if you do not “cooperate” with them, you will go to jail, when the exact opposite is true. Remember that the officer is asking you to “cooperate” in your own conviction. If you are effectively handling the situation by remaining silent and asserting your rights, the officer may become frustrated by that alone, as the vast majority of people are not disciplined enough to remain silent when actually confronted by a police officer. In these situations, the officer’s annoyance may be genuine, but it means that you are performing well, not badly.
Remember that the officer has been professionally trained to manipulate and lie to suspects in order to induce them to incriminate themselves. The officer also has had the opportunity to practice on a daily basis for years. If a police officer speaks to you, irrespective of what he may say to the contrary, you must assume that he is doing so because you are a suspect.

Your Normal Social Reflexes Will Not Help You

You have been culturally conditioned to behave in certain ways when interacting with other human beings. Police officers know this, and will use social and cultural norms against you in your encounters with them. You will have to engage every ounce of will to resist your day to day tendencies in interacting with others.

Social Reflexes:

  1. Walking away is either rude or cowardly.
  2. Stone faced silence is a bizarre or cowardly response.
  3. When someone asks you a question, or talks to you, you are expected to talk back.
  4. If you are disgusted by a comment or question, you are frequently expected to express that disgust.

Effective Interaction With A Police Officer:

  1. If you can walk away, or leave, do so as soon as possible. It is safe to say “I’m sorry, but I’m very busy right now”. Do not elaborate or say anything else, particularly about what you might be busy doing. You do not owe the officer any justification.
  2. If you can’t leave, the only good response is silence, intersped with the nonresponsive answer of “I’m sorry officer, but I’m not comfortable answering any questions without an attorney present. I do not consent to any search.” And that is all. All other responses, no matter how helpful they may seem to you at the time, are not helpful. Feel free to repeat either of those sentences, especially the second one if the officer appears to be conducting some sort of search or test on you.
  3. If you are not sure whether or not you can leave, ask, “Officer, am I free to leave?” Repeat the question if necessary, insist on an unambiguous answer. If you can’t get an unambiguous answer, say that you wish to leave, and that you will leave unless ordered to stay. Then leave.
There are a some cases where you are required by law to do something, or may be punished if you do not. Some examples are below.

When You May Be Punished for Noncompliance:

  1. You may have to sign a ticket. It must say something to the effect that your signature is not an admission of guilt, which is usually in fine print near where you sign it. You are signing the ticket to indicate that you received the ticket, and that you will appear in court as required. If you do not sign, the officer may arrest you.
  2. If you are driving, produce your valid license, registration, and/or insurance information when asked.
  3. If you are cited for a crime, produce valid identification.
  4. In Maryland, where there is no federal jurisdiction, you are allowed to refuse a breath test or blood test, but you will face severe administrative penalties for doing so. It is sometimes advantageous to refuse the test. You can and should ask to consult an attorney before making this decision. The police are required to allow you to do so, as long as it will not unreasonably delay the test.
  5. Within Federal Jurisdiction, you are required to consent to a breath or blood test.

You Are Not Required to Perform Field Sobriety Tests in Maryland

An officer may ask you to perform one or more field sobriety tests in order to collect evidence necessary for an arrest, and eventually a conviction. The Walk and Turn, One-Leg Stand, and Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus tests are standardized field sobriety tests (SFSTs) that you may have heard of, but there are also a variety of other field sobriety tests that the officers sometimes use, including math problems, counting, or finger exercises. The officer may also ask you to submit to a portable breath test using a small hand-held device. You do not have to perform any field sobriety tests. They are not required by Maryland law, and you should generally refuse to participate in any of them. Please note, however, that while declining to perform a field sobriety test will help prevent the officer from acquiring evidence necessary to lawfully arrest and convict you, the officer will often arrest you anyway.
You can do a great job handling the situation and still get arrested. The officer may have decided that he was going to arrest you before you even saw him. It isn’t over. At every step, you need to avoid giving the authorities anything that can be used against you in court.