Tag: Law and Disorder

Did Somebody Say Corruption

I have a love hate relationship going with Texas. On one hand the state is one of the few that is willing to stand up to the federal government, until they fold at least, but on the other hand they enact many authoritarian rules. Take for instance the latest executive order issued by Texas governor Rick Perry which will require all girls entering to sixth grade to get the Gardasil vaccination.

This is a major problem for three reasons; first the governor used his executive order powers to enact this and bypassed the legislation, second this occurred shortly after a doubling of lobbying efforts, and third Gardasil has been linked to paralysis. Let’s first talk about the lobbying effort that preceded this executive order:

Perry has ties to Merck and Women in Government. One of the drug company’s three lobbyists in Texas is Mike Toomey, Perry’s former chief of staff. His current chief of staff’s mother-in-law, Texas Republican state Rep. Dianne White Delisi, is a state director for Women in Government.

The governor also received $6,000 from Merck’s political action committee during his re-election campaign.

The order is effective until Perry or a successor changes it, and the Legislature has no authority to repeal it, said Perry spokeswoman Krista Moody. Moody said the Texas Constitution permits the governor, as head of the executive branch, to order other members of the executive branch to adopt rules like this one.

So it seems governor Perry received a fair bit of money from Merck which causes this entire situation to reek of corruption. Fuck the whole idea of parents having a right to chose what is put into their childrens’ bodies and fuck the possibility that this drug could cause paralysis. If I lived in Texas I’d honestly consider this action an abuse of power and look into what is needed to perform a recall on the governor. The story claims the only means of overturning this executive order is if he successor removes it thus is seems pertinent to remove the current governor as soon as humanly possible. Of course if you can make a religious or philosophical reason against jacking your kids with this shit you could get an opt-out:

Texas allows parents to opt out of inoculations by filing an affidavit objecting to the vaccine on religious or philosophical reasons. Even with such provisions, however, conservative groups say such requirements interfere with parents’ rights to make medical decisions for their children.

I wonder if parents can opt-out because the drug is potentially dangerous? That’s not a religious or philosophical reason but just common-fucking-sense. Just remember that the nanny state knows what’s best for you and your children so shut up and take the damned vaccine. If the vaccine causes your child to be unable to move afterward well that’s your problem not the state’s.

Dancing at the Jefferson Memorial Will Get You Beaten by the Police

Let us pretend for a second that some overzealous asshole in a robe (who calls himself a judge) rules that you don’t have the freedom to express yourself at national monuments… wait we don’t need to pretend, that actually happened. Well a group of people thought this ruling was stupid and they were right. So what did they do? Did they burn down the memorial? No clearly not. Did they attack the judge who made the ruling? Thankfully no. Did they silently dance at the Jefferson Memorial as a form of protest? Why yes they did. And what resulted from this completely non-violent and silent protest? The police physically assaulted the demonstrators:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jUU3yCy3uI]

I’m sorry but I fail to see where the police were justified in using physical force against the protesters. If you or I used physical violence against a non-violent person we would be brought up on charges of assault so quickly that our heads would spin. For some reason though our society finds this type of behavior acceptable when people in government approved uniforms do it.

Thankfully civil disobedience isn’t easily swayed and there is going to be another demonstration at the Jefferson Memorial on Saturday June 4th, 2011.

Oath Keepers March Against SWAT Team Murder of Former Marine

I’m still pissed about the the SWAT team fiasco that happened last month and cost Jose Guerena his life for doing nothing at all wrong. It seems I’m not the only person pissed off about this as a group of Oath Keepers in the area marched to honor Mr. Guerena:

The Oath Keepers came to Tucson on Memorial Day to honor Jose Guerena, 26, who was shot and killed May 5 while the Pima Co. SWAT team attempted to serve a search warrant at his home. The group marched to the Guerena home Monday and held a vigil to remember the father and former Marine. The Oath Keepers believe SWAT teams are being overused in the wrong types of situations, and that local law enforcement agencies should scale back their use.

The family of Jose Guerena still has many questions about the shooting that took his life. They walked side by side with the Oath Keepers, a group dedicated to protect the Constitution and the rights it gives. Founder Stewart Rhodes told 9 On Your Side the May 5 SWAT incident crossed the line.

“All you know is you got yelling men entering your home with guns in their hands, how are you going to react? it puts them in a no-win situation,” Rhodes said.

I think that last quote sums up the entire situation perfectly. When you have a group of armed men busting down your door there generally isn’t time to think “oh, I’m sure it’s only the neighborhood police.” Of course Mr. Guerena never fired a shot but was pummeled with at least 60 bullets let loose by the trigger happy SWAT team.

I think it would be appropriate to bring all the SWAT team members involved in the shooting up on charges of murder and let a jury determine whether or not their actions were warranted. Of course as members of “the only ones” that is unlikely to happen. The worst that will likely happen to those who shot Mr. Guerena is receiving a paid vacation for a few days before returning to duty.

FBI Loses in Illegal St. Paul Raid Case

Those of you who lived in St. Paul during the Republican National Convention (RNC) are unlikely to forget how half of the city was turned into a police state within a police state. Heavily armed thugs in riot gear were marching around like they owned the place and they were supposedly the good guys. Before the actual convention the FBI and St. Paul police performed a series of raids on the houses of people suspected of planning demonstrations against the RNC (thankfully they left those of us at Ron Paul’s Campaign for Liberty kickoff alone). The police stormed into several houses and rounded up the people there like cattle because it seemed like a good idea at the time. Well it wasn’t a good idea and the case filed against them ended poorly for them:

Three activists and their attorneys won a $50,000 settlement today in a lawsuit that challenged an August 30, 2008 police raid on a St. Paul home in advance of that year’s Republican National Convention (RNC). The plaintiffs in the case — Sarah Coffey, Erin Stalnaker and Kris Hermes — are giving most of the award to the Committee to Stop FBI Repression, the Institute for Anarchist Studies, and the formation of a national legal defense fund for political activists. The St. Paul house raid was one of several police actions taken against protesters days before the RNC began, including the search and seizure of a central political meeting space, which is also the subject of pending litigation.

Obviously I don’t see this as an amazing victory because the government basically said “Yeah we screwed up so here’s some of your tax money back.” This is always the bittersweet side of winning cases against the government, they’re not really the ones footing the bill, you and I are. Either way as a man who loves irony I really do love the fact that some of the money won by the plaintiffs is being donated to an anarchist organization. Seriously that moves just drips with delicious irony.

The big question is what will this victory symbolize? Not a damned thing. Having to pay three people $50,000 isn’t going to even make a blip on the radar of finances for the government so no lesson is likely to be learned from this. The only possible outcome could be new legislation that legalizes raids like the one performed by the FBI and St. Paul Police Department so the state doesn’t have to worry about getting sued again in the future. At least I’m happy to say the Democratic National Convention (DNC) didn’t end up here this year because we would have had all of this shit happen all over again.

If You’ve Done Nothing Wrong You Have Nothing to Fear

Many police officers like to say if you’ve done nothing wrong you have nothing to hide. Another mutation of this phrase is if you’ve done nothing wrong you have nothing to fear. That isn’t really the case because there are numerous cases where people who’ve done nothing wrong end up being killed by the police. Sadly Jose Guerena was a victim of wrongfully aimed police aggression:

One of those homes belonged to 26-year-old Jose Guerena and his wife, Vanessa Guerena. The couple’s 4-year-old son was also in the house at the time. Their 6-year-old son was at school.

As the SWAT team forced its way into his home, Guerena, a former Marine who served two tours of duty in Iraq, armed himself with his AR-15 rifle and told his wife and son to hide in a closet. As the officers entered, Guerena confronted them from the far end of a long, dark hallway. The police opened fire, releasing more than 70 rounds in about 7 seconds, at least 60 of which struck Guerena. He was pronounced dead a little over an hour later.

Many people who’ve mentioned this article to me are more than happy to point out that Mr. Guerena was at fault because he armed himself. The same people who claim that also fail to realize that this event was one of those no-knock entries where the police come busting in unannounced. Likewise it appears as though Mr. Guerena never got a shot off yet was hit with 60 bullets. I’d say that’s a bit more force than necessary when dealing with a person who probably believes his house is being stormed by a local drug gang (because most people expect police officers to announced their entry with a warrant in hand).

So what is the department involved with the raid doing to compensate the family of the innocent man they murdered? They’re trying to make excuses to avoid having to compensate the family and have the officers involved arrested and tried for murder:

The Pima County Sheriff’s Office has now changed its story several times over the last few weeks. They have issued a press release (PDF) scolding the media and critics for questioning the legality of the raid, the department’s account of what happened, and the department’s ability to fairly investigate its own officers. They have obtained a court order sealing the search warrants and police affidavits that led to the raids, and they’re now refusing any further comment on the case at all. When I contacted Public Information Officer Jason Ogan with some questions, he replied via email that the department won’t be releasing any more information. On Saturday, Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik told Arizona Daily Star columnist Josh Brodesky that he may never release the search warrants and police affidavits. Dupnik rose to national prominence earlier this year after claiming combative political rhetoric contributed to Jared Loughner killing six people and wounding 19 others, including Rep. Gabielle Giffords, last January.

The department’s excuses for keeping all of this information under wraps make little sense. In his May 18 press release (PDF), for example, Ogan wrote, “The investigation that lead to the service of the search warrants on May 5 is a complicated one involving multiple people suspected of very serious crimes. Sometimes, law enforcement agencies must choose between the desire of the public to quickly know details, and the very real threat to innocent lives if those details are released prematurely.” Dupnik used the same line of reasoning with Brodesky. “Those are the real sensitive parts of why we are having difficulty with trying to put information out publicly–because we don’t want somebody getting killed,” Dupnik said.

Let’s take a look at this whole War on Drugs situation for a second. Several decades ago the government decided that a list of substances were verboten for production, sale, and use in the United States. They did this earlier when they prohibited alcohol from being legally produced, sold, and used in the United States but apparently didn’t learn their lesson. Much like prohibition the War on Drugs has causes a massive increase in violent crime. The rate of violent crime is far in excess of what it was before the War on Drugs so it’s safe to say the use of these verboten drugs weren’t causing violent crime at any noticeable level.

What has this War on Drugs gotten us? A large increase in violent crime, numerous instances of police officers murdering innocent people, and yet another prohibition against free individuals making decisions about what they want to put into their bodies. Yet the War on Drugs continues to be parroted by our “representatives” as a needed intervention while their propaganda machine ensures a large majority of the populace approves of it.

SAF Suing California Over “Assault Weapon” Ban

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) is bring out a new lawsuit in the first for gun rights. This time SAF is suing California over their “assault weapon” ban:

The Second Amendment Foundation and Calguns Foundation have filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in California, seeking to have the state’s definition of so-called “assault weapons” declared unconstitutionally vague.

Joining SAF and Calguns in the lawsuit is Brendan John Richards, an Iraq combat veteran who served as a U.S. Marine, and whose arrest and six-day incarceration in the Sonoma County jail – and subsequent dismissal of all charges – was the catalyst for this legal action. Named as defendants are California Attorney General Kamala Harris, the California Department of Justice, the City of Rohnert Park and police officer Dean Becker.

Richards was jailed in May 2010 after Officer Becker, investigating a disturbance at a motel where Richards was staying, learned that Richards had two pistols and a rifle, all unloaded, in the trunk of his car. Becker, arrested Richards for unlawful possession of an assault weapon. However, in September of last year, the charges were dismissed by the Sonoma County District Attorney’s office, based on a report from the state Department of Justice that showed none of the guns met the state’s definition of an assault weapon.

The lawsuit rightfully claims that California’s definition is “assault weapon” is vague at best. There is no reason a person should be subjected to state aggression because they possess a rifle that looks scary to some people.

Government Officials Covering Up for Other Government Officials

Uncle post up a story that demonstrates once again the conflict of interest that exists when law enforcement and those who determine the justification of law enforcement action are controlled by the same entity.

In this case Pittsburgh police officers beat a man, Jordan Miles, because they’re authoritarian assholes who get off on power trips they claimed to believe Mr. Miles was holding a gun:

The officers say Miles resisted in January 2010 when they claim he was acting suspiciously and thought he had a gun, which the officers claim turned out to be a soda bottle.

So what happened? Simple, the Department of Justice has determined that no charges will be filed against the police:

Under the applicable federal criminal civil rights laws, prosecutors must establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that a law enforcement officer willfully deprived an individual of a constitutional right. Proving “willfulness” is a heavy burden, and means that it must be proven that the officer acted with the deliberate and specific intent to do something the law forbids. To act “willfully,” for purposes of the federal statute, means to act with a bad purpose to disobey or disregard the law. Neither negligence, accident, mistake, fear nor bad judgment is sufficient to establish such a criminal violation.

Did you get that? In order for our “justice system” to move against a police officer it has to be determined that the officer “willfully” disobeyed the law. Of course making a mistake or having bad judgement isn’t grounds for such charges. Had you or I been in a similar situation (let’s say you ended up shooting somebody thinking they had a firearm and were going to shoot you) we’d be up on charges so far our heads would spin. I guess the police are just like you and me only better.

Police Block Off North Side Minneapolis

For those of you unaware tornados touched down in the northern region of Minneapolis and caused some pretty major damage. The local police have basically blocked the region off and sent those living there packing:

Minneapolis police established an “exclusion zone” Monday for a section of the city’s tornado-stricken North Side, where only residents will be allowed entry once officials deem the areas safe.

The impact of Sunday’s tornado is also closing schools, rerouting traffic and sending hundreds of people to seek shelter from their damaged homes.

Basically the affected areas are basically under martial law with curfew in place and everything:

Although rumors of looting were largely unfounded, the 9 p.m. to 6 a.m. curfew that was first instituted Sunday night will remain for the next “couple of days,” Rybak said. The curfew is not only to deter potential crime but to keep people safe.

Remember citizen if you’re found outside of your home after curfew you will be shot or arrested depending on how the officer who find you feels at the time. I’m sorry but I despise government enforced curfews. They have no right to tell anybody when they can and can’t be in their home. If somebody wishes to walk around a dangerous area in the middle of the night that is their business and their business alone. Frankly I find it absolutely disgusting that government agents can keep your imprisoned in your home for whatever hours they deem fit regardless of any situation.

Those of you living in the areas affected by the tornadoes have my sympathies. You also have my sympathies for being subjected to government mandated removal of your rights.

They’re Not Even Trying to Hide the Police State Anymore

Thor in fucking Valhalla… the government isn’t even attempting to hide the fact that this entire country has turned into a damned police state. First an Indiana court ruled that peasents have no right to resist unlawful police entry and now the Supreme Court has ruled that police may use any noise inside a home as probably cause that evidence is being destroy:

The justices in an 8-1 decision said officers who loudly knock on a door and then hear sounds suggesting evidence is being destroyed may break down the door and enter without a search warrant.

Residents who “attempt to destroy evidence have only themselves to blame” when police burst in, said Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.

So what kinds of sounds could suggest evidence is being destroy? Well if an officer can articulate his reasoning why the sound of that vacuum cleaner made him believe evidence was being destroyed a door breaking they may go. At least there was one dissenter in the Supreme Court:

In a lone dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said she feared the ruling in a Kentucky case will give police an easy way to ignore the 4th Amendment. “Police officers may not knock, listen and then break the door down,” she said, without violating the 4th Amendment.

I’m not sure if you’ve been alerted to this face Justice Ginsburg but the 4th Amendment is dead and buried. The police no longer need a warrant to enter your home, they simply need to hear noises that may possibly mean evidence of some sort is being destroyed. Basically this ruling is the government giving a huge middle finger and telling you to bend over and get ready for a collapsible baton up the ass.

Welcome to the United Police State of America. Feel free to do whatever you want since everything is illegal. Seriously though fuck the state.

Resistance is Futile

I’ve mentioned several times on this blog that I believe a conflict of interest exist in our legal system. Namely the government controls the courts and the police thus the courts generally have a bias towards believing police officers. How far does that bias go though? In Indiana it goes pretty fucking far:

Citizens have “no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry [to their homes] by police officers,” Indiana’s Supreme Court declared May 12 in a controversial 3-2 decision, Richard L. Barnes v. Indiana.

Justice Steven David wrote for the court in the decision that “this Court is faced for the first time with the question of whether Indiana should recognize the common-law right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers. We conclude that public policy disfavors any such right.”

There you have it ladies and gentlemen, if the police are acting outside of their government granted authority you have no right to protect yourself against their actions. Just think about that for a minute and let it sink in. If a police officer unlawfully enters your home and attempts to cause physical harm to you it is illegal for you to fight back in Indiana. I just shook my head when I read this bucket of statis bullshit:

Justice David concluded: “We believe however that a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. Nowadays, an aggrieved arrestee has means unavailable at common law for redress against unlawful police action.” Specifically, Justice David found not that anyone had amended the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution or that the legislature had passed any new laws, but rather that Americans are the beneficiaries of “modern developments” that include: “(1) bail, (2) prompt arraignment and determination of probable cause, (3) the exclusionary rule, (4) police department internal review and disciplinary procedure, and (5) civil remedies.”

Wow… just wow. Basically this guy has said you must submit to unlawful police actions because you have options available to you that apparently didn’t exist back when the Bill of Rights was ratified. Options including (1) pay the state to allow you to leave jail knowing you’ll never be reimbursed that bail money should you be found innocent, (2) hope that the courts will decide to side with you instead of the police in regards to determining if the arrest was lawful, (3) hope that the courts will find evidence unusable, (4) hope a conflict of interest doesn’t exist when the police department tries to determine the lawful nature of one of their officer’s actions, and (5) hope the government courts will allow you to sue the government for their wrongful actions.

Those options are not valid reasons to force people to submit to the will of a police officer executing a wrongful entry into a home. The article also points out the fact that the file options listed by David have been violated by the government before (not surprising at all).

So the state ruled that you can’t resist the state when the state is performing unlawful actions against your person. Yeah that doesn’t simply reek of conflict of interest or anything.