SSCC #167-#170 – Clermont Police

 

A Clermont police officer was fired this week after an internal investigation revealed that he falsely arrested a teenager on a drug charge and lied on the arrest report.

 

From reading the article it appears that the main reason this individual was fired may not be because of his actions in this particular case. Instead it is because of political wrangling between him and the chief. Never the less, the evidence of this officers unlawful actions stand on their own.

Given the gravity of the charges and potential damage to the defendant and the fact these were sworn statements it is disturbing that there would be any tolerance for perjury. If he wasn’t sure exactly where they came from he should have reviewed his evidence instead of making it up. Then he continued to believe his own lie after other officers pointed out the inconsistency.

The actions of that officer are most definitely worthy of jail time. The other officers that were aware of the inconsistency contributed to the wrongful arrest. They had a duty to protect the wrongfully accused from their fellow officer who was intent on continuing his wrongful arrest.

State Sponsored Criminal Count: #167 – Officer Cecil Garrett is most guilty

These officers did not shield the wrongfully accused after discovering the mistake.

#168 – Mark Edwards

#169 – Marc Thompson

#170 – Dennis Hall

Update, the Chief was framing them.

Because lying on the police report and ignoring physical evidence that is less fallible than a human is perfectly fine when you’re a cop.  You’re a cop and thus you are an infallible god right?


Accountabilibuddyable – Oakland (11/7/2011)

Given how depressing my State Sponsored Criminal Count is, I do try from time to time showing those who aren’t sponsored.  Sadly these stories roll through my inbox much less frequently.  However tonight I got one that is perfect to kick of the Accountabilibuddyable sister series to the State Sponsored Criminal Count.

I say accountabilibuddyable because the public has a responsibility to ensure that officers who misbehave are held accountable for their actions.

The rules are simple, a police officer has to do something wrong, either by breaking the law, or violating someones rights, and then be held accountable for their actions.  The more accountable, the better, this first one is down right awesome.

A former Oakland police officer must pay $40,000 out of his own pocket to two men who were illegally strip-searched in public and have already been awarded at least $100,000 apiece in damages.

(Emphasis mine)  Given how often and how easily qualified immunity is thrown around it’s rare you see an officer being held accountable for something he did.  Honestly I think he should have to repay back the funds to the city as well but I’m more than pleased to see at least this much of a result.

Officer Ingo Mayer has been held accountable for his actions.  More like this please!

SSCC #166 – Vermont State Police

In keeping with my previous post regarding the state monopoly on alcohol and the PSH involved I found the following quite fitting.

A Vermont State Police officer has pleaded guilty to driving under the influence, according to the state attorney general.

He did resign from his job, but he only got a $500 fine.  No time in jail, nothing.  We’re coming up on the holidays and I always remember seeing numerous ads from police agencies about drinking and driving.

The fact of the matter is drinking and driving is bad and he sure as hell knew better.  I have absolutely no sympathy and while he’s no longer employed the lack of a stiff sentence given his position is wrong.

State Sponsored Criminal Count 166: Joshua P. Lemieux

Because drinking and driving is only bad when the person who does it isn’t in law enforcement.

PSH of Another Kind, Election Edition

So on the 2011 ballot for Washington is I-1183 which will allow stores to sell hard liquor.  As a red blooded libertarian I’m all for this.  Anything that removes a government monopoly on something makes me all warm and fuzzy inside.

A little history:

A year ago there was a similar measure, I-1100 on the Washington state ballot.  It died with 53% of the voters voting against it.  That’s right 53% of the state of Washington was fine with the state monopoly on liquor.  46% of the state thankfully has a brain and was able to look at the facts instead of the FUD being spread.

Much of the FUD was quite similar to concealed carry with claims that drunk driving would go through the roof.  That underage drinking would increase, and it would increase the rate of alcoholism all around.

Same Crap Different Year:

Fast forward 365 days and we find ourselves in exactly the same position.  We have one side that is arguing with fact and logic.  Then we have the other side arguing with emotion, feelings, and general FUD.  My personal favorite is the fact they discuss Costco has spent 22 million dollars in support of the measure.

Costco has only donated 21 million dollars, and of the total amount raise they have only spent about half. While the total amount raised is 22 million, not all of that belongs to Costco.  Damn close but when people feel it necessary to fudge numbers when they don’t have to it’s a bit disconcerting.

The group pushing the negative ballot has only been able to raise 7.5 million dollars.  Their biggest contributor is “Wine & Spirits Wholesalers of America Inc.”.  All of the donors in fact all are in the business of wholesaling liquor.  The reason being is the state monopoly allows higher prices and price gouging of consumers.

Their big negative donors are not supporting the initiative because of the children or some want to aid in public safety.  Their campaign against it exists purely to insure their bottom line.  The funding against the bill shows the true colors of those opposed to the bill as being against free enterprise and for a government monopoly of the sale and distribution of products.

Dissecting Their BS:

reject1183

The first “Fact”:

Section 103 of the initiative allows for sales in mini marts- where teens and problem drinkers are 400% more likely to purchase liquor according to independent law enforcement studies.

This jewel is provided from the WA Liquor Control Board.  No citation of statistics or facts from states who have removed the government monopoly on liquor.  Just says some independent survey says that this FUD is real.  I am aware of no change coming to the state drinking age, so the line about teens is BS.  If they’re going to break the law for alcohol they’re going to do it with or without this change.

Secondly those who have problems drinking can stay out of the areas that sell liquor just as they stay out of the state liquor store.  400% more likely compared to what!?  400% more likely to buy alcohol than someone who doesn’t have a drinking problem?  My assumption is they are saying someone is more likely to slip off the wagon if it’s sold in a mini-mart.  You know they sell junk food in mini-marts, I like junk food, I can walk my ass in and out without buying more junk food.  If the act of walking into a mini-mart causes someone to slip off the wagon, they’d fall off visiting friends who don’t have a problem.  This also ignores the fact they have a 10,000 square foot requirement to sell liquor.  That would take the mini out of mini-mart.

The argument that there is no extra provision for enforcement also fails in that the state will no longer be funding the operation of store fronts to sell liquor.  There is no change in the eligibility requirements to purchase liquor, do you want the police carding everyone instead of the store.  A store must obtain a license still under 1183 to sell liquor, and that license can be revoked.

Second “Fact”:

The social costs of expanding liquor access and sales are staggering: The Centers for Disease Control estimate $224 billion in annual costs nationwide, with the majority of it falling to local law enforcement, domestic violence and health care related costs.

They then top this off with the icing that law enforcement and human service agencies are struggling.  Currently the State of Washington is in debt.  Our fearless leaders always have a habit of cutting vital services first to create a panic that will aid in passing tax increases.  Currently schools and many other areas are suffering in the funding department.

The state budget offices report an increase in state revenue by over $400 million.  That’s $400 million towards the deficit.  That’s $400 million that doesn’t have to be obtained by blanket tax raises.

Fact, we are in debt, we do not have the money to pay all our bills, and we are running a monopoly on liquor that is costing us money.  In the world of finances, this is a very stupid decision.  The argument against correcting this issue is to play on the heart strings and emotions of others.  There are arguments about the increase in costs due to those who are drinking.  That relies on their assumptions of blood in the streets to be correct.  Further the increase in funding will help close the deficit and make sure departments get the funding they need.

Interestingly enough there are firefighters who agree with my statements above, but you won’t hear the 1183 nay-sayers talk about them.

Third “Fact”:

Alcohol kills more kids than all other drugs combined.  I-1183 would turn back the clock on successful efforts to keep liquor out of the hands of teens and problem drinkers.

Again, the drinking age isn’t changing folks, it will still be just as illegal to sell alcohol to minors.  Again this relies on their prediction of blood in the streets.  News flash to these dumb asses.  Prohibition doesn’t work.  Restraining availability doesn’t work.  All it does is inconvenience the law abiding and general public.

Fact, not everyone buys alcohol even when it’s available to them.  While some may be more likely to purchase now that wouldn’t otherwise is inconsequential.  Drunk driving is illegal and will still be illegal, drinking under age is and will continue to be illegal.  Just because something is available doesn’t mean that behavior patters are going to change by gross amounts.

The ability to buy liquor at the grocery store is not going to change the behavior of the law abiding or the public at large.  Those who do have issues with drinking will continue to have their issues.  Why should the state budget, the law abiding, and the public at large suffer for the actions of those who would violate the law anyway?

Closing:

If my crusade in gun rights has taught me anything, it’s when you see emotional arguments that side usually doesn’t have solid facts and logic to back it up.  Those screaming about how the passage of I-1183 is going to create an influx of drunk teens and alcoholics are doing nothing more than yelling about how the passage of concealed carry is going to result in blood in the streets.  What this will do is allow me and my wife to more readily be able to entertain friends and family without breaking the bank.  It will allow us to more easily obtain a wider variety of liquor at competitive prices.  Lastly when I discover I’m out of something I don’t have to schedule my shopping trip around the hours of the only liquor store in the area.  Instead I can get what I need at the same time as everything else.*

I do not want the government being my nanny and saying when and where I am allowed to buy alcohol and at what price.  The state should not be in the business of anything, much less in the business of selling liquor.  The main groups against 1183 are against it purely for profit.  The state monopoly has aided them in having profit margins well beyond what the free market would actually support.

*For all you environmentalists out there, you should support it.  Think about all those extra miles driven just to visit the liquor store and all that gas that could be saved.

SSCC #165 – Sacramento

The probe focuses on peace officers selling weapons that most civilians cannot legally buy and sell, Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department spokesman Deputy Jason Ramos said. He said he did not know the types of weapons involved.

Lets not forget about the similar incident in New York recently either.  It seems that in the wake of Fast and Furious the ATF is busy making itself appear useful by nailing those who didn’t get clearance for their own “Gun Walker” operations.

Given this is California the list of firearms that are not available for public consumption is long and distinguished.  It may have been they were selling things without NFA stamps, I find that unlikely but certainly not outside the realm of possibility.

State Sponsored Criminal Count 165: John Doe

Because firearms laws only apply to law abiding civilians, everyone else, cops and criminals alike, are exempt from the rules.

Random Thought of the Day (11/05/2011)

Why isn’t pole dancing an Olympic sport?

Talk about a great way to improve viewership and ratings.  Besides, the wife makes me watch figure skating.  I should be able to retaliate with pole dancing!

Another Awesome View

So I went up Moscow Mountain this morning to help with the Tri-State ARO repeater.  The antenna is having issues and is in need of replacement.  All was going well until we hit the last gate.  Someone had gotten stuck and left the entry way a mess.  Combine that with the fresh snow and ice on the ground the heavier rigs had problems since they’d slip in to the rut quite quickly and be headed for impalement by the gate.   When you backed back down it was all polished up too so you’d start sliding towards the side of the embankment to tumble down Moscow Mountain.

I tried to crawl up and scrub my way through the rut but it just didn’t help.  While I turned around the one rig that could make had the antenna so he took it up to drop it off and the tower climber went up as well to aid in some other trouble shooting.

It was about 3 minutes after they left I realized I had all the tower climber’s stuff in my rig and had my camera with me.  I was stuck waiting for them, and I was not going to get what I originally came for.  I then began the 2 mile hike to the radio tower.  It paid off.

Moscow Mountain Panoramic Thumbnail

Sorry, I forgot to take pictures of the tower after I took the panoramic.  As Alan would say these are just “cute little towers” since up here in the north west we actually have mountains and hills to put them on top of.  So we need a little elevation but nothing like what he needs in the flats of Texas.

We’re currently in the process of planning a return trip on either quads or snowmobiles.  If they do it on snowmobiles I’ll rent one for myself to tag along.

SSCC #164 – Atlanta PD

Wilson Carstaffin, 46, met his 12-year-old victim in November 2007 while working a side job as a resource officer at a middle school. According
to prosecutors, Carstaffin summoned the girl, who has a slight developmental disability, from class and instructed her to meet him after school at a nearby church.

Yet again a police officer placed within a school has ended up being a predator. Again I ask, why does a police officer all the sudden get a free pass when it comes to trust just because he is an agent of the government?

I understand why they put resource officers within schools, but I do wonder why departments don’t follow basic youth protection policy involving two deep interaction.  If you have kids remind them that as a minor if the officers wish to interact with them they have a right to have their guardian or legal council present.  As always, your children should know to exercise that right.

State Sponsored Criminal Count 164: Wilson Carstaffin

Because when you wear a badge you no longer have to work to be trusted, it is bestowed by government.