The Minuteman » Tag » Cops Behaving Badly

Tag Archives: Cops Behaving Badly

SSCC #353 – ATF

By | | , , , , , , , , ,
Comments Off on SSCC #353 – ATF

Rochester police and federal agents made a mistake in Charlotte this week that has one woman baffled and frightened. She wants to know how they could mistake her house for one they were supposed to raid in a drug bust.

Simple really, they don’t hire the best and brightest.  Tyrannical bureaucrats don’t want enforcers who can think, much less read and tell the difference between the address on the warrant and the house they just arrived at.

How close was this almost a fatal screw up for the ATF as well as the home owner?

“My son had heard me arguing with this man and it was not a voice he’d recognize. My son is a hunter, he put a bullet in the chamber of his gun. They heard that, they yelled down long gun, at that point there he told another ATF agent that was with me, handcuff her and take her out,” Dominicos said.

However the real take away is the following:

“I’m still terrified. It’s almost like a P.T.S.D. experience, you keep hearing things. You think oh my God I hear a door slam, I hear someone pulling into my driveway. I see a light it’s like oh my God are they back?”

That’s the point.  Law enforcement and the government want us to live in fear.  Their actions exercise the very definition of the word terrorism.    The best part of the story though is the discrepancy between the home owners story, which is considerably more believable, and the statement released by police.

“Upon encountering an elderly resident, the team realized that they were at the wrong location at that time and left the premises.”

No you did not, you put her in cuffs and took her outside until someone bothered to read the house number and street name and noticed it didn’t match the warrant.

Considering this can happen to anyone, anytime, and quite easily can have dire consequences, why is this considered acceptable?  Especially since unsurprisingly the bad guys pretend to be cops.  At this point it’s better to just let the bullets file and sort it out afterwards.  Maybe if cops would knock first and be civil about it this wouldn’t be a problem.  If you think the screw ups are rare:


View Original Map and Database

Don’t give me the line about how serving a warrant is dangerous because the majority of warrants served are for non-violent offenses.  When the criminal is actually dangerous, they negotiate him to come out to reduce collateral damage.  There is the argument about the destruction of evidence, well if we weren’t serving warrants over victimless crimes involving nouns that wouldn’t be a problem now would it?

Even better though, with the consistently increasing use of SWAT teams in unnecessary circumstances, the number of people caught in the middle who are innocent continues to increase.  You can not use the service more and expect it to also become more accurate about it’s use, if anything it will become less accurate.

No knocks, like the TSA, need to be done away with.  They have both grown since September 11th and it’s eroding and destroying the last semblances of freedom and liberty.  The police state is here and we need to put an end to it.

State Sponsored Criminals 353: The ATF

Because it’s not the job of the swat team to read the warrant or make sure they’re at the right house.  If there’s collateral damage, the law-abiding citizen should have just behaved, he had no reason to defend himself.

via Uncle.

SSCC #352–Dallas

By | | , ,
Comments Off on SSCC #352–Dallas

The district attorney is considering criminal charges against a Dallas County sheriff’s deputy who resigned last week.

The Dallas Sheriff’s Department is reeling because Deputy James Yarbrough potentially put his fellow SWAT officers in grave danger when he told a man that they were coming to his business with a warrant.

So if you or I had discovered a raid was about to happen to a friend and we called to warn them, would the DA only be “considering” charges in that case? 

Yeah I don’t think so either.

State Sponsored Criminal #352: James Yarbrough

Because tipping off your buddies to a “lawful” raid is perfectly acceptable if you’re “anointed”.

via Bob S.

SSCC #350 & #351–Clayton County

By | | ,
2 Comments

The Clayton County sheriff has hired two of the former Atlanta Police Department officers who were fired in the aftermath and investigations of the botched and unconstitutional Eagle raid, according to a report by WSB TV.

The city had to settle the suit for over $1 million dollars.  That’s right those two individuals cost the city $1 million in tax payer funds* and they are now employed some place else to repeat the process.

It is not as if there wasn’t cause to fire them either:

Adams and Mayes tried to get their jobs back with the APD by appealing to the city’s Civil Service Board but the three-board panel upheld the firings in both cases.

But evidently the County sheriff feels that those are the type of men he wants around his citizens.

State Sponsored Criminal #350: Willie Adams

#351: Cayenne Mayes

Because when you lie and violate the rights of citizens that is perfectly acceptable for you to go work some place else.  It’s not like someone who exercises bad judgment should get a job in a different line of work.

*I realize that while tax payers foot the bill, ultimately it’s the insurance company paying out.  What the taxpayers will foot is the increased rates because of their actions.  In the end that actually has the potential to cost the public more than just the payout.

SSCC #349&#350 – Fayette

By | | , , ,
Comments Off on SSCC #349&#350 – Fayette

Surveillance video shows the dog looking for his handler. When the dog did not see the deputy, it attacks the worker, biting him in the arm and groin.

The worker dragged the dog into the Walmart where the deputy managed to get the dog off of him.

If that had been your dog or mine, it would be destroyed as a dangerous animal and we would carry personal liability for the action of the animal.  The handler here is at fault as well for not maintaining positive control of his animal.

Interestingly, I wonder what would happen if the the store employee killed the dog.  If you assault a police dog it is considered assaulting a police officer.  The courts when involved with a human officer tend to look down on you defending yourself against a corrupt cop unless there is some serious evidence.  Heck, Indiana for a while even forbade it, stating you can seek redress in the courts.

I suspect you would not end up in jail, but I’m sure that you would still end up in front of a jury.  I can guarantee you this officer is not even going to be suspended, and the dog will continue on duty as normal.

State Sponsored Criminal #349: Jayne Dog

#350: John Doe, Jayne Dog’s Handler

Because when a police K-9 goes berserk in a public place it’s excusable.  When you’re dog bites someone in your yard that shouldn’t be there, they put it down.  If it just looks at a cop they kill it.

SSCC #348–Hopewell

By | | , , ,
Comments Off on SSCC #348–Hopewell

A former Hopewell police officer was convicted Wednesday of sexually abusing three women he had been investigating for drunken driving or shoplifting offenses.

Now while he was convicted, the following must also be noted:

Mark D. Baggett, 34, of the 500 block of MacArthur Avenue in Colonial Heights entered Alford pleas in Hopewell Circuit Court to three counts of aggravated sexual battery. Under an Alford plea, a defendant does not admit guilt but acknowledges there is sufficient evidence for a judge or jury to find him guilty.

He certainly could get pegged for 20 years, and that would be a good start.  He is a Sponsored Criminal for the following reason though:

… Baggett used his position and authority as a police officer to elicit sex, or attempt to elicit sex, from three women in the their 20s and 30s in September and October.

This is by no means anything new, and it has come up plenty of times before in the count.  The department even upon discovering the information didn’t fire him, instead they allowed him to resign.  Maybe if the department wants a positive public image they should grow some balls and discipline their officers themselves and not just rely on the law.  There is this thing called morals and ethics that exist outside the law and you should make your officers exercise good judgment in both regions.

State Sponsored Criminal #348: Mark D. Baggett

Because the biggest mistake he made wasn’t doing what he did, it was getting caught.  That’s why we didn’t fire him, we just were going to suspend him without pay while he rotted in jail.

SSCC #347–North Carolina

By | | , ,
Comments Off on SSCC #347–North Carolina

A state trooper is back on the road after a two-day suspension given after a Winston-Salem motorist says he was shot with a stun gun and repeatedly kneed in the face for calling the trooper a derogatory name.

Save it for court, never argue on the side of the road it will just land you in trouble.  This however attracted my attention.

Gordon said Davidson’s cruiser was not equipped with a video camera. The patrol rebuffed a public records request from The Associated Press seeking the release of the report required when a trooper uses a stun gun or firearm or of the written statements given by the troopers involved in the incident, saying the documents are confidential under the agency’s interpretation of state personnel laws.

Imagine that, you gave an officer with no way to be held accountable committing assault.  Not just committing assault but getting away with it.

State Sponsored Criminal #347: Sean B. Davidson

Because you too can commit felonious assault and not get charged by merely joining the North Carolina State Patrol.

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