Search Results for: node/SSCC children police

SSCC #431 & #432–New Jersey State Police

By | | ,
6 Comments

One November night two years ago, State Police found Daniel Fried slumped behind the wheel of his van along Route 72 in Burlington County. He stared forward, eyelids drooping. He was incoherent, slurred his words and seemed to be falling asleep.

He may have looked drunk or like he was on drugs, but doctors say these are classic symptoms of diabetic shock. Paramedics found Fried’s blood sugar was so low he could have suffered a coma, seized or died, according to State Police records.

These officers made an assumption about the condition of an individual.  They caused an adrenaline spike that made him coherent enough to be able to request assistance and they continued to ignore him.  Upon arrival of paramedics they promptly took him to the hospital because of a severe blood sugar deficiency.

As my father had diabetes this isn’t funny, this isn’t ok, this is down right negligent.  The police officers assume without any actual evidence that this individual is a criminal.  Except he is the exact opposite.  He felt his medical emergency coming on and pulled himself off the road.  Below is the officers thank you for his responsible actions.

[Sarcasm]Yup that right there is called positive reinforcement for good behavior.[/Sarcasm]

There is also a serious policy issue given the following:

In State Police reports and court depositions, Brown, who was first on scene, said he suspected Fried had diabetes but did not call paramedics because he could not rule out drugs or alcohol. He said he saw no evidence of drugs or alcohol and did not smell anything.

So policy dictates that in an incident where someone is obviously no longer of a sound mental state, so much so they may loose consciousness, medical aid shouldn’t be sought unless it can be confirmed beyond a reasonable doubt the cause is diabetes?  What if the individual dies from alcohol poisoning or a drug overdose? Since when have police officers started receiving medical training to the degree of EMTs, much less doctors and nurses.  Their job should be merely to asses the situation and say, “Does this person need attention to verify he is ok?”  Mental incoherence is a big, “Get Help Now Idiot!”.

No matter how you cut it though these officers were criminally negligent and exercised unnecessary force because well that’s how cops deal with problems.  Instead of using their brain, the just beat the thing until they get it to do what they want.

This isn’t the first instance I’ve heard of something like this happening either.  Yeah I hate drunk drivers, more than you can possibly believe, but the legal system exists for a reason.  Even more than that, I don’t want someone who has an actual medical emergency getting beat up because someone thinks they’re drunk.  There’s simple tests to determine the truth.  Cops are paid to protect the public, beating the hell out of a man who was in a medical emergency doesn’t fit the bill.

State Sponsored Criminal #431: Officer John Doe

#432: Officer John Doe

Because when you’re a cop, you’re Judge Dread and can determine someone’s guilt on the spot.  You don’t need a blood test, there’s no such thing as a medical emergency so they must be either high or drunk.

SSCC #134 – Pennsylvania State Police

By | |
Comments Off on SSCC #134 – Pennsylvania State Police

Second verse, same as the first.  This time a whole lot louder and a whole lot worse.

A Pennsylvania State Police corporal is accused of pepper-spraying and physically assaulting a Franklin County man who was handcuffed and seat belted in the back of a police car, according to the state Attorney General’s office.

It appears that rules and laws regarding the application and use of force have changed recently.  I can see no reason someone who is handcuffed in the back of a police cruiser needs to be maced and beaten.

One of the medical responders is heard commenting about Broadwater’s movements in the car and Fow was then seen opening the rear door and pepper-spraying Broadwater in the face, according to the complaint.

That explains the situation.  A criminal shouldn’t move at all.  Never mind the fact that being handcuffed alone is uncomfortable.  Not to mention being stuffed in the back of a police cruiser with hard seats and pressure applied by the back on the cuffs and shoulders from sitting.

Couple this with the fact that he was a patrol supervisor and this happened within the plain view of other officers and emergency personal signals this man is a loose cannon.

State Sponsored Criminal Count: 134 – Christian D. Fow

Because it’s standard procedure to beat on someone in cuffs in a police car.  The better to make sure the attacking officer isn’t injured.

SSCC #312 – TSA

By | | , , ,
2 Comments

Here’s another one.

And a recent incident in Wichita,
Kansas has reinforced that argument, as a four-year-old girl was
apparently subjected to a humiliating ordeal after she hugged her
grandmother while she was waiting in line.

The girl was accused of having a gun and declared a ‘high security threat’,
while agents threatened to shut down the whole airport if she could not
be calmed down.

Seriously, I know exactly why that little girl was abused and assaulted.  Don’t try and argue that wasn’t the case because there’s a couple things you’re forgetting if you think the TSA was right.

  1. The TSA is A Security Theater.
  2. Their batting average in stopping actual threats is 0.
  3. Their employees have a history of being sexual predators and criminals.

On that last point, it isn’t just a history of preying upon adults either.  Children are more often than not prey for these sexual deviants.  If the cost of freedom is a little risk, so be it.  Frankly I’d rather have the option of ventilating some asshat screaming “Allah Akbar” trying to kill us all at 30 thousand feet than have my wife and children violated by a sexual deviant.  They don’t stop actual terrorists, they abuse the law abiding, and now they want to expand to harass you on the way to works?

Fellow bloggers say “Disband the TSA Yesterday”.  I am of the firm opinion that is too good for these jack boots.  I say a good application of tar, feathers, and a rail are all necessary for anyone who works for the TSA.

Some would say I’m wrong in that assessment and that not all TSA agents are bad.  To them I say this:

Not a single other agent in that airport attempted to stop those agents from assaulting and violating that scared little girl.

Not a single official has stated how that incident was wrong and a violation of her rights.

Not a single person did anything to stop it and the agents were allowed to work with impunity by intimidating and scaring others into their will.

Think about that for a second, every last one of those agents in that airport share responsibility and blame for what happened.  Give me a break that a 4 year old clinging onto her grandmother because she’s scared of a tyrannical government, and obviously rightly so, is reason to abuse her.  Anyone who attempts to justify that is nothing more than a pedophile attempting to justify the actions of their buddies.

molest_kid_thumb

State Sponsored Criminal Count #312: Every last TSA Agent in Wichita Kansas

Because when a small young girl is terrified of her government, that means that means she must be trying to kill everyone while screaming “Allah Akbar” right?

via Uncle

SSCC HM–Monterey County Social Services

By | |
Comments Off on SSCC HM–Monterey County Social Services

A former social worker has pled no-contest to possession of child pornography and has been sentenced to 90 days in jail, of which 30 will be served, and probation.

But it get’s even better though folks.

His job while he was a social worker?  He worked in the child welfare unit with foster children.

How sweet, I guess he went to work with children so he could help them I supposed.  Makes me wonder what other shenanigans he was up to on the job.

Seriously, just because someone works for the government or is an elected official doesn’t provide them with some magical blanket that makes them special.  Well there is the magical blanket that keeps them from getting stiffer penalties than the rest of us.

Normally I’ve got some witty comment to go here.  This one though just makes me sick.

*The actual article is blacklisted.  So I got to rewrite the information and link to a third party.

 

Update on EPIC TSA Lawsuit

By | | , , ,
2 Comments

EPIC has submitted numerous Freedom of Information Act requests regarding the body scanners.  They have posted the information online for all to see.

These documents include:

Initially it was claimed that the TSA body scanners could not store or transmit images.  Then the US Marshal Service in August 2010 reported they had saved more than 35000 images.  The TSA responded by claiming that it has not done so and the machines do not have the ability.  Some still believe the TSA, the smart one’s have distrusted them from the start.

One WBI system,  identified by  the Government, shall (26) have the capability, which can be configurable at the superuser level. to record  images for training purposes. The superuser password shall(27) be managed by  the TSA. The capability to retain  images at the superuser level will be disabled on operational systems

Later in the same document(emphasis mine):

Incorporate a three  level user and password scheme allowing supervision and “superusers” access and override capabilities

While they claim for it to be possibly disabled the fact that the feature is there means that someone can re-enabled it.  Some would claim that no one would possibly want it.  However there have been rumors about a “new fetish”.  The thing is though, it’s already happened.  That could be your one of your loved ones.  We know the types of people the TSA employs.

While reading through the Operational Requirements, you can find the following:

image

Normally one would avoid conjecture, however what could be considered critical to national security regarding the privacy capability of the device?  NMAB-482-1 can be found here, the section we really care about is here.

It appears that the tactic being used for airport security is to rule this search as being administrative.

Airport security searches fit quite naturally into the administrative search exception to the Fourth Amendment. Administrative searches are justified on the basis that they serve a societal purpose other than standard criminal law enforcement (Vernonia School District 47J, 1995, citing Griffin, 1987). After all, the Fourth Amendment cannot be construed to prevent the government from fulfilling a variety of other necessary functions, such as maintaining school discipline, preventing drunk driving, detecting illegal aliens, or even ensuring air traffic safety (Vernonia, 1995; Michigan Dept. State Police, 1990; United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 1976).

Each of those examples though require some sort reasonable suspicion.  Randomly stopping cars for drunk drivers and testing everyone, until recently has never happened.  In the instance Florida’s new checkpoints, there will probably be a strong legal challenge.  When attempting to maintain school discipline they must be disruptive to begin with.  As for illegal aliens, detecting them is extremely difficult. If it is as they claim above, why isn’t Arizona’s law legal unquestionably?  Especially since it requires contact of a lawful nature, they can’t just walk around carding people.

With regard to the TSA though, they claim the right to do this to any person for any reason.  No reasonable suspicion is required of a crime having been committed.

Against the special need of the government, the court must consider the passenger’s expectation of privacy. This consideration involves the same analysis used in the threshold issue of whether a search has occurred, with one important difference. Deciding whether a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy for purposes of determining whether or not a search has taken place is a yes-or-no-question. Either one does or does not have a legitimate expectation of privacy in this context. On the other hand, expectation of privacy as a factor in the balancing test becomes a matter of degree. Thus, the court in Vernonia (1995) held that schoolchildren, because of the supervisory role schools have over them, have a decreased expectation of privacy at school. As discussed in the first section, airline passengers most probably have a legitimate expectation of privacy against being searched in an intrusive manner. Nevertheless, this expectation could decrease if passengers perceive the threat level to be high.

Emphasis mine.  Their method to get around this problem is to convince the public that a statistically rare event (you’re actually more likely to be struck by lightning) is actually more common than it is.  The comparison to school children also shows the view they have of the public in general of being children and the government has the supervisory role.  We’re the children in school and they’re the principal.

Further the NMAB states:

Thus, measures should be taken to minimize the appearance of nakedness, the number of people having access to and identifying the image with the traveler, the time the image endures or is preserved, the uses to be made of the data, etc., to the extent consistent with safety objectives. The next section deals with the concept of less versus more intrusive means.

The assumption though that is enough for some people regarding their privacy is false.  If it wasn’t why would these have popped up overnight?  Also the ability to store the images as I talked about earlier has been proven to be false.  While they may claim it is not “normally” enabled.  The machines do have the capability and there is no way for the public to verify that it does not store the image.  We must take the governments word, which at this point should be worthless to everyone. If you opt out of the scanner the TSA humiliates anyone who refuses to go through the body scanner.  They are doing a procedure that is highly intimate and detrimental to victims of sexual abuse.  This scanner can also reveal however private medical information that may not want to be shared because it’s no one’s business but yours and your doctors.  This also ignores the health concerns regarding the radiation exposure.  What is disturbing is this is the only time I’ve ever heard of people working around equipment that uses radiation that do NOT wear dosimeters. 

These documents display a crafted, thought out, and planned destruction of our 4th Amendment rights.  Their justification to violate the 4th Amendment centers around creating the illusion of necessity.  A Security Theaters has yet to stop any terrorists.  Yet they claim that their infringements are necessary and merely administrative to stop this “common” threat.  They need to be rendered impotent to stop the spread of their idiocy and evil.

(Sorry about going all Kevin Baker(it’s a complement Kevin) on this post.)

SSCC #14–Elk Grove Police

By | |
Comments Off on SSCC #14–Elk Grove Police

An Elk Grove police officer acted lawfully in January when he fired his AR-15 rifle at a handcuffed suspect, seated in the back of a patrol car, who officers thought may still have been armed, according to Sacramento County District Attorney Jan Scully.

No weapon was found on then-32-year-old John Hesselbein when officers searched him for the second time after the shooting.

Because nothing screams lawful use of deadly force like shooting someone with rifle while handcuffed in the back of a police car.  Later in the article we see the real reason this individual was absolved from criminal liability as a member of the state, the section of the DA’s office responsible for investigating criminal liability of government employee’s was disbanded.  It’s much easier to just clear him of liability than actually investigate and prosecute.  It’s also much easier to cover up a ND as a justified shoot.  Cause if it’s an ND, then the department can be held liable.  It’s a win win for the state.

Also why grab your rifle if he’s handcuffed in your squad car and you suddenly feel threatened?  Seems like a prime example of a moment for a TASER.

State Sponsored Criminal Count: 14

Because the police have every right to shoot you while you’re handcuffed in the back of a police car.

H/T to Uncle.

SSCC #127 – Denver PD

By | |
Comments Off on SSCC #127 – Denver PD

The anti-rights cultists keep telling us that law abiding citizens should be allowed to carry firearms because they will assault people over simple disagreements.

A Denver police officer pleaded no contest this morning in Erie Municipal Court to disorderly conduct in connection with a June incident at the Colorado National Golf Club in which the off-duty officer was accused of punching a man in the face. 

…

According to Erie police, Carlile and a friend were watching a Colorado Rockies game on TV in the clubhouse bar when two other men, both Erie residents, picked up the remote and changed the channel to a college championship baseball game. 

[Sarcasm]And that children is why only police officers should be allowed to carry firearms into bars and civilians should be disarmed.[/Sarcasm]   

The good news is though he has a 1-year deferred judgment, a $750 fine, and was suspended.  Wait, what!?  For assaulting a man over a TV channel he wasn’t fired, he wasn’t put in jail, but was just given a simple fine.

In this instance I’m glad this walking jock strap of a dolt left his piece at home.  This is however, a perfect example of how police are not some how rendered magically impervious to the being human.

I support bar carry because I don’t drink in bars, and I know I’m not alone.  I go with friends, usually I am the DD, and in my circle the DS as well.  I drink but only really at home or in private.  Further many restaurants that serve alcohol end up off limits due to the asinine law.  I don’t like drinking in public because it renders me to Condition White.  It is illegal to carry and drink, I fail to see why there’s an extra line since all it does is cause issues for the law abiding, especially those who are being responsible and taking care of their friends.

State Sponsored Criminal Count: 127 – Kevin Carlile

Because if you’re watching TV and someone changes the channel, the proper response is to physically beat them.  Establish your dominance as the alpha male!

SSCC #491-Ogden

By | | , , , , ,
Comments Off on SSCC #491-Ogden

But Hill opened his front door and was met with six men who he said were dressed in black, with no police identifiers that he saw. Three had assault rifles, Hill said; two were carrying tactical shotguns.

It’s worth noting that the home owner had to ask more than one before anyone on the other-side of the door identified themselves as police officers.  Then after he opened the door they promptly arrested him, and then they informed him his name was Derek and he was AWOL from the military… None of that information was correct.  The officers then refused to listen to the homeowner and then harrassed and intimidated his wife and children.

The money quote that put these guys on the count:

Melanie Hill said one of the officers made a comment about her husband coming to the door with a bat, saying that had it been a gun, the officers would have “blown you away.”

Because that is a lawful justification for the use of lethal force?  Merely being armed when answering a suspicious knock at the door by unresponsive people in the middle of the night is a reason to be shot?  Good to know.  Guess these guys went to the same training classes as officer roid-rage.

And remember folks, this was all over someone who was AWOL.  Not someone who is actually an immediate threat, but because they were AWOL.   This is your government and how they view the people.  Had they shot this man in cold blood, qualified immunity would protect them.  As far as I’m concerned, start shooting the bastards, period, end of discussion.  They can show up at the door and act reasonable or they can die.  Their job isn’t safe, that’s a given, but it shouldn’t be made safer by endangering those who are innocent.

Not to mention this classic line occurred as well:

Eric Hill said he received a phone call from police Chief Mike Ashment several days ago, explaining that the warrant was served at his house because it was the last known address of the man facing the arrest warrant.

The Hill family bought the house six months ago, Eric Hill said, but added that his neighbor told him the man police were looking for was the previous homeowner’s nephew, who had never lived at the home.

So in other-words they endangered the life of a family because they were too lazy to properly do their job.  In my world that’s negligence.

State Sponsored Criminal #491: John Doe

Because when you show up at someone’s house wearing all black with guns, you have a right to shoot the property owner for merely being armed.