The Minuteman » Accountabilibuddyable

Category Archives: Police

SSCC Honorable Mention–New York

By | | , , ,
Comments Off on SSCC Honorable Mention–New York

A New York Police Department officer has been indicted in the shooting in February of an unarmed man who was pursued into his Bronx home amid a crackdown on street corner drug dealing, according to a law enforcement official.

Well at least he’s being charged.  The person shot is yet another victim on the war on nouns.  While there certainly appears that there was some chaos in that apartment, this definitely should be heading to a jury.  It’s not quite accountabilibuddyable as he hasn’t been terminated from the department yet.  There were no weapons found, however drugs were found according to an older article.  It also appears that even their superiors were questioning their actions from the beginning.

The Bronx district attorney and the Police Department’s Internal Affairs Bureau are investigating the shooting, but in interviews, more than a half-dozen police officials — from detectives to commanders — picked apart the decisions made that day by the members of the Street Narcotics Enforcement Unit, known as S.N.E.U., and raised troubling questions about their actions.

Is the war on nouns really worth killing others over as well as basically giving police a blank kill someone over pot card?  All of this is the inevitable result of these laws.  Just because something is legal, doesn’t mean you have to do it.

State Sponsored Criminal Honorable Mention: Ramarley Graham

Because a baggie of pot totally looks like a gun and is totally worth shooting someone over because you didn’t want to wait for someone else to “steal your glory”.

SSCC #346–Decatur

By | | , ,
Comments Off on SSCC #346–Decatur

Decatur’s police chief said allegations of wrongdoing against two officers who fired as many as 13 shots during the Jan. 1 shooting and killing of a dog at Danville Park Apartments were “not sustained,” but the officers violated department policy by not activating their microphones.

So what, they couldn’t hit the broad side of a barn, is that really surprising for law enforcement?  No, but this isn’t acceptable, especially given the fear was over a dog.

Some residents of the apartment complex complained that the shooting, which sent at least one bullet through an apartment door, was unnecessary and put residents in danger.

“I think this is appalling, seeing what I saw firsthand as a direct witness,” said Patti Meadows, who said she called police Internal Affairs to complain following the incident. “They put others’ lives in danger. This was not an environment to pull guns out.”

Meadows said she was standing near the officers on an upstairs walkway when they opened fire. The boxer dog wasn’t being aggressive, she said.

Another witness, Hailey Brown, told The Daily she offered to put the dog back inside the apartment after officers opened the door and let it out.

Some time’s you have to quote a chunk to illustrate the whole problem.  Note the officers opened the door that let the dog out.  The owner offered to take the dog and lock it up, instead they fire 13 shots into an apartment complex with innocent bystanders  around.  While in a good shoot, officers are often protected from the danger of a shoot through, this would be a hard justification.  This story from Uncle today shows what should happen before officers discharge their weapons.

The deputy, a 23-year veteran of the department and 5-year police dog handler, took Gunner to the vet to explore “options available to curb his aggression,” police said. But while the deputy and the veterinarian were trying to attach a leash to the dog, Gunner leaped in a biting lunge toward the deputy’s face, and he blocked the dog with his forearm, the release said.

That was an aggressive dog that needed killing.  A dog looking at you does not equal aggression, though many officers seem to feel that is the case.  Unless it is obviously trying to bite you, suck it up there chief.  Even more than that, let the barn latch on your arm so it won’t take 13 bullets to hit it in a friendly rich environment.

I will say they at least scored a 38% hit rate, however that makes me believe the dog wasn’t as mobile or aggressive as they claim.  However this right here was the icing on the cake:

Taylor said he consulted District Attorney Scott Anderson, but they were both of the opinion that shooting into a residence was not a crime if there was no criminal intent.

Wonder if they would say the same thing if it wasn’t officer friendly shooting through a dog, but instead a non-anointed citizen shooting through Cujo.  We constantly hear about how we’re accountable for every bullet, and I’ve had conversations with friends whom I respect quite well and the above actually appears that it would hold true.  However they would put it to a jury to decide, doubly if you were dealing with a local choir boy where you passed the initial interview.

State Sponsored Criminal #346: John Doe

Because when you’re bummed you’re on duty on New Years, shoot someone’s dog to liven it up.  Leave your mics off then it’s your word against everyone else’s, don’t worry about safety though because there’s no criminal intent right!?

h/t The Agitator

Warming the Subcockels of my Heart

By | | , ,
2 Comments

Via Uncle I found this post on ARfcom.

But why would I post this under accountabiliabuddible?  This text is why:

Just got back from talking to the detectives. They wanted to record my
side of the story as a witness. They asked me if I had heard them say
they were Sheriff’s, I said yes they did 2 or 3 times. They asked if I
heard them say stop resisting, I said yes I heard them 2 or 3 times.
They asked if I thought they were being too rough, I said not at all.
They asked what I had said when the girl said “he’s not resisting” and I
answered saying “I told her he is resisting twice.” They also asked if I
thought he was resisting, and I said definitely, he would have been in
custody in 2 seconds if he wasn’t.

They thanked me for being such an awesome witness and being on their
side, otherwise that girl could testify saying that he was not
resisting and hurt their case. One of them ended up with a sprained or
broken finger. They said it probably won’t go to court, but if it does
they will likely have me testify.

That’s the thing about people recording interactions with the police.  I have no horse in the race.  While I do run the criminal count, I would be as pleased as punch if the day came and I couldn’t get new material for it.  I am more than happy to hold officers accountable, not just for their bad actions but their good ones as well.

The video in this case both corroborated the officers statement, as well as the witness statement.  It was good for the officers, not bad.  The only officers who would fear video like that are one’s breaking the rules on a regular basis.  The bad part about breaking the rules is when the time comes you do need to do something for real, you’re liable to shoot yourself in the foot because you’re “trying to protect yourself.”

I applaud the officers for their professional conduct.  It made this case clear and concise and helped prevent false claims from putting them in the count which I wouldn’t have liked.

SSCC #345–Davidson Co.

By | | ,
Comments Off on SSCC #345–Davidson Co.

Via WizardPC comes this tale.

Now, Minick’s widow and mother are filing a federal civil rights lawsuit against the city of Nashville, the Metro Police Department, sheriff’s office, the hospital and the deputies, claiming false arrest, false imprisonment, cruel and unusual punishment and inhumane treatment.

But no crime was committed, according to investigations by Metro Police, the sheriff’s department and the grand jury. They concluded that deputies used proper force in restraining a violent man in a hospital.

This is a nasty one.  Why?  Because honestly as we’ve seen lately people do get that violent while on drugs.  It is a chaotic scene that is dynamic and while one may not intend for something to be lethal it does happen.  I think in this case, it’s a very grey area where blame cannot be clearly established.  So why would I include it in the count?

The answer is simple, they investigated the incident themselves.  That does not bode well for the departments faith that their officers did no wrong.  If they really had faith they would call in an independent third party.  Am I really that wrong when the FAA and NTSB did exactly that recently?

The midair collision of two small planes about 50 miles from Washington is under investigation by Canadian officials because one plane was owned by an FAA employee and the other by an NTSB employee, federal officials said Tuesday.

Why not ask the state patrol, or another county to investigate the incident.  It would have helped keep the whole incident on the up and up.  Instead they investigated themselves, when honestly an external investigation is the only way they could have had a prayer of actually surviving.

State Sponsored Criminal #345: John Doe

Because that independent third party thing is never needed unless both parties involved are “anointed”.

SSCC #344 – NYPD

By | | ,
4 Comments

Via Ry comes another instance of sheer stupidity that evidently is business as usual and nothing significant.

But within minutes, he said, one of the two officers became enraged —
and the judge became his target. The officer screamed and cursed at the
onlookers, some of whom were complaining about what they said was his
violent treatment of the suspect, and then he focused on Justice
Raffaele, who was wearing a T-shirt and jeans. The judge said the
officer rushed forward and, using the upper edge of his hand, delivered a
sharp blow to the judge’s throat that was like what he learned when he
was trained in hand-to-hand combat in the Army.

After reading the article it makes me think that the onlookers probably had reason to be upset with the officer.  The officers biggest mistake was striking anyone without cause.  But see, in New York, officers can assault anyone they want for any reason they want.  Don’t believe me?

The episode, Friday morning just after midnight — in which the judge
says his initial complaint about the officer was dismissed by a
sergeant, the ranking supervisor at the scene — is now the focus of
investigations by the police Internal Affairs Bureau and the Civilian Complaint Review Board.

The civilian review board might be able to accomplish something but I doubt it. 

Deputy Commissioner Paul J. Browne, the Police Department’s chief
spokesman, said in an e-mail that all force complaints, whether they
involve serious injuries or not, are referred to the Civilian Complaint
Review Board, an independent agency that investigates allegations of
police misconduct that does not rise to the level of a crime. The
department’s Internal Affairs Bureau investigates complaints of
excessive force that involve serious injuries.


“In this instance,” he said, Internal Affairs “is reviewing the
complaint because it was brought to its attention by the judge, not
because of the level of injury.”

So in other words, your officers can commit assault with impunity unless they severely injure their victim.  It’s no wonder why officers dislike people with video cameras.  It helps prove assault when they don’t cause permanent injury.  Too bad it doesn’t appear that the department would actually do anything about it.

State Sponsored Criminal #344: John Doe

Because being a cop means that when you’re in the ‘roid rage’ you can beat the hell out of and threaten whoever you want.  Even a sitting a judge.*

*Note I don’t think they should get any different treatment than the rest of the general populace.  However when even the judge isn’t getting traction to deal with the issue, you know there’s a serious problem.

SSCC #342 & #343–San Francisco

By | | , , ,
Comments Off on SSCC #342 & #343–San Francisco

On Friday, federal and state prosecutors alleged that two of the machine-pistol type weapons were sold to Camilleri by a Sacramento County sheriff’s deputy abusing an exemption in state law that lets peace officers buy weapons that are illegal for civilians to own.

See, even those most of the really fun toys are outlawed for civilians in California, police officers are exempt from the ban on fun.  I applaud him for wanting to spread the fun, except for two things.  One it was against the law, what made that person so special. Two, you’re buyer ended up being not exactly one with the most reputable of character.

Now some of the comments are your standard anti-gun rhetoric.

U.S. Attorney Benjamin Wagner said the pair made thousands of dollars by selling dozens of weapons over four years. Court documents say the men sold exotic weapons including .50 caliber handguns, semi-automatic versions of Uzi-style submachine guns, and pistols that shoot high-velocity ammunition used by the U.S. military.

Pistols that shoot high-velocity ammunition used by the U.S. military, you mean like an AR-Pistol?  Give me a break there sport, this is an effort to wound up some PSH for the anti-rights folks.  Personally I think the officers defense attorney is right in the following statement:

McGowan’s defense attorney, William Portanova, said his client is a gun collector, not a dealer, who may have been confused by state firearms laws that he said are “complex, contradictory and full of silly loopholes.”

“They are so complicated that you can easily break the law without realizing you’ve done that,” he said. “Even a trained law enforcement official can do it wrong, whether he intends to or not.”

Emphasis mine.  Though it appears that these individuals acted as straw buyers, which is already illegal and well known to be bad.  Never the less, ignorance of the law is no excuse, and mens rea has gone the way of the Dodo.  Not to mention much of this confusion and loophole issues were created by anointing law enforcement.  He was exempted from laws others weren’t.  Yeah, this one a sponsored criminal.  Mainly because the onerous gun laws helped create the environment for it to happen.

State Sponsored Criminal #342:  Ryan McGowan

#343: Thomas Lu

Because the law applies to the, not to me.

via Phssthpok

SSCC Honorable Mention–NYPD

By | | , ,
Comments Off on SSCC Honorable Mention–NYPD

Via Ry comes this wonderful doozey.

A 26-year veteran police sergeant was arrested Friday morning by the New York Police Department on charges accusing him of committing computer crimes dangerous to minors, city police said.

Sgt. Patrick Rosney, 53, was arrested Friday morning when he arrived for work at police headquarters. He was handcuffed while in uniform.

It appears in this case he is not being given any quarter and this has earmarks of moving into the Accountabilibuddyable realm.  As he was only suspended, at least without pay, I’m not quite ready to stack it in that realm.  It does have the certain possibility of making it though.

Given the previous incidents involving cops and children on the count, this is still an honorable mention.

State Sponsored Criminal Honorable Mention: Patrick Rosney

Because the best part of being a cop is all the little girls trust you.  That is except the guy that on the other end of the conversation who’s also a cop.

*As I said, some times I’ll do them on the weekend when it really pisses me off.

SSCC #341–Fort Worth

By | | , , ,
Comments Off on SSCC #341–Fort Worth

Remember when I said something about when a cop shows up a puppy has to die… I wasn’t kidding.

Twenty-four hours after a Fort Worth police officer fatally shot Lily, a 5-year-old border collie-English setter mix, its owners still don’t understand why the police officer was on their property and why he used lethal force.

So the officer walks on to the property, after the owner tells him stay where he was.  The owner didn’t call the officer.  The officer as usual gave the same statement we hear so often:

Police spokesman Sgt. Pedro Criado said in a statement Monday that the officer waited by the driveway when two barking dogs charged him aggressively while he repeatedly asked a man at the house to call the animals back. Then the officer jumped onto the porch pillar.

So the officer trespassed, then shot the owners dog all over “copper theft” with no reasonable suspicion of involvement.  Then to top it all off:

But the officer still had the gun raised and pointed toward her husband and surviving dog, she said.

So the officer also committed assault with a deadly weapon.  Unsurprisingly, nothing has happened to the officer.

State Sponsored Criminal #341: Officer John Doe

Because an officer can go where ever he wants, shoot any animal he wants, and point a gun at anyone he wants.  He’s god, didn’t you get the memo?