Police abuses

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

What Husar said. 24 bullets into the guy likely means at least two magazines, as they are few 24 round plus magazines, and even fewer used by police. Two magazines means the cop shot the guy multiple times, then reloaded and continued shooting.

And those are just the bullets that hit the guy; it's likely some missed, unless the cop was very close.

CR

---

I don't know, unless you had a good restructuring of the crime scene, it's hard to tell. This man's character is certainly lacking, and the numerous violations he's been caught with doesn't give him the benefit of the doubt as far as I'm concerned, however, as a general rule the x factor of shots being fired, doesn't necessarily equate to willful malice. The fact that he shot his ex wife's husband to death, if it can be made certain he wasn't in danger for his life, does however. And then of course the rape charge really doesn't swing things in his favor.

LOL he shot an unarmed man 24 times in the man's front yard while his children watched. This was not self defense, this was murder.

The douchebag probably showed up to hassle his ex wife and her new husband came outside and told him to get the hell off his property.

What's sad is that the cop's dad is defending his son's actions in beating up the kid

In San Jose, police handcuff and then taser and beat with batons a non resisting 20 year old Vietnamese exchange student.

Quote:

---

The worst part is the sound.

As you watch the video of San Jose police officers beating and Tasing 20-year-old Phuong Ho, the hardest thing is to hear the college student scream in pain. That and the sickening thud of batons, seen only dimly in the cell phone video but unmistakable to the ear.

It is the kind of thing you expect from rogue precincts in Los Angeles or New York. In downtown San Jose, it is stunning.

---

The thugs with badges got caught on a camera phone, which is why their lies where caught.

In Denver, cops attack and then arrest a man who said he was going to get a video camera to record them.

Quote:

---

Taka Fushimi said a deputy then said he was going to tow away his son's bike.

"Then he proceeded to say if they towed it, my son wouldn't ever see his bike again. And I said he was full of ****, ya know ... He told me to go back to the house," said Taka Fushimi.

On the way back to the house, Fushimi admits he told the deputy the case was one of prejudice. He said the deputy responded back, "Yes, it is."

Fushimi said he threatened to get his video camera and that's when the officer came after him. He said the officer first jumped on his back. Then threatened to arrest him before he pushed him into the family's glass window.

Neighbor Terryron Thigpen said she saw the whole thing from her balcony.

"He just went and jumped on the dad," said Thigpen.

Thigpen said she yelled for police to stop and was horrified to see them arrest and assault 85-year-old Taka Fushimi Sr.

Fushimi Sr. said he was just coming out of the house to find out what was going on. He bent down to pick up his son's wallet when officers twisted his arm and pushed him to the concrete.

---

Finally, in Boulder Colorado, the local police chief decides he doesn't like the annual naked pumpkin run on Halloween. The problem for him is public nudity is legal, so he looks to see what he can charge these people with and decides on indecent exposure, a class 1 misdemeanor 'to knowingly expose his or her genitals in circumstances "likely to cause affront or alarm."' It also gets the person put on the sex offender list for the rest of their lives. Of course, the only people likely to see the event at 11pm are the many people who come out specifically to stand along the route and watch. But chief isn't letting the law get in the way of what he wants.

Quote:

---

For nearly a decade, naked pumpkin runners did their thing unmolested, stampeding through the frigid dark past crowds of admirers who hooted, hollered and tossed candy. But last year the run attracted more than 150 participants, and Police Chief Mark Beckner fears things are getting out of hand. "It's a free-for-all," he says.

So he intends to stop it.

He will station more than 40 officers on the traditional four-block route tonight, with two SWAT teams patrolling nearby. All have orders to arrest gourd-topped streakers as sex offenders.
...
More recently, Boulder has played host to an annual Naked Bike Ride to protest dependence on fossil fuels. And the Boulder Daily Camera, the local newspaper, serves up a steady stream of stories about clothes-free joggers and nudist gardeners.

Casting about for a law to apply, since nudity per se is not illegal, police hit upon the state's indecent exposure statute, which makes it a Class 1 misdemeanor for anyone to knowingly expose his or her genitals in circumstances "likely to cause affront or alarm."

Given that the Naked Pumpkin Run starts at 11 p.m., long after young trick-or-treaters have retired, and given that the route is packed with fans who come out specifically to see the event, runners argue that it's absurd to think their prank is causing either affront or alarm.

Even if the run does catch a few people by surprise, "the joy it brings overall far outweighs the one or two people who could be offended," says Callie Webster, who is 22 and a veteran pumpkinhead.

Police acknowledge they have not been flooded with pumpkin-run-related complaints, but say that's beside the point. A throng of naked people with jack-o-lanterns on their heads is, by definition, an alarming sight, Chief Beckner says. Therefore, it's illegal.

Those convicted of indecent exposure rarely get jail time, but they must register as sex offenders, just as rapists do. Which seems a bit excessive to Boulder County District Attorney Stan Garnett.

"A lot of times," he says with a sigh, "these people are just being idiots."

Still, Mr. Garnett says he will back up the police, adding, "We will take the cases they give us."

---

CR

On the plus side, that girl will think twice about kicking shoes at police officers in the future.

More likely, she'll detest cops and thus the police will have turned more of the community against them.

And in related news, a cop can't handle a 10 year old, tells her she's going to jail for not listening to her mom, tries to handcuff her, is apparently unable to, so he tases her. :dizzy2:
:no:
CR

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/stonechild/

http://osgoode.yorku.ca/osgmedia.nsf...0He%20Die-.pdf

Old news.

My friend's and me were talking the other day, when one of them pointed out something interesting. As he said it "nowadays I feel safer around a person in uniform (soldier) then a cop, that shows how our society is". I completely agree with him, so did everyone else. Im tempted to start a poll here just to see what people say.

So; tell me why someone should feel unsafe around someone in uniform?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

So; tell me why someone should feel unsafe around someone in uniform?

---

Thats not the point. Why should somebody feel safer around a soldier then a person specifically hired to "protect and serve" you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mooks

Thats not the point. Why should somebody feel safer around a soldier then a person specifically hired to "protect and serve" you?

---

That's exactly the point. Is an unarmed man in uniform more of a threat than an armed man with the authority to arrest you?

The 'protect and serve' motto is a fallacy because law enforcement in most of the west is reactive. They are specifically hired to enforce laws.

Although I'm quick to anger, whoever believes what you stated is either ignorant and/or resides in the developing/third world. When someone in the western world feels that way it is less a measure of society and more an indication of how they perceive the world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

So; tell me why someone should feel unsafe around someone in uniform?

---

Maybe because in some counties they like to arrest 9 months pregnant women, force them to give birth while shackled, refuse to let the mother hold the baby, and say they'll turn the baby over to state custody if no one else comes to pick up the child in 72 hours.

Quote:

---

The most recent atrocity committed by the self-proclaimed "America's Toughest Sheriff" involves a woman who was detained while 9-months pregnant. Alma Minerva Chacon's case has been receiving media attention due to the brutality with which she was treated. The very same night of her arrest, Chacon went into labor and found herself afraid and alone, being rushed to a local hospital with her hands and legs chained in shackles.

Once she reached the hospital, nurses repeatedly begged the Sheriff's staff to allow them to unchain the mother, but they refused and Chacon was forced to give birth while still shackled to the bed. At one point, the nurse asked for them to release her so that she could be escorted to the bathroom for a urinalysis, but even that request was denied. But the worst came once Chacon gave birth to her baby girl.

Still chained to the bed, Arpaio's police staff refused to allow Chacon to hold her newborn baby and then warned her that if no one came to pick up the child within 72 hours, she would be turned over into state custody.

---

Or maybe for one of the numerous other examples in this thread alone, showing that thugs with badges can brutalize and kill innocent people and get away with it.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Maybe because in some counties they like to arrest 9 months pregnant women, force them to give birth while shackled, refuse to let the mother hold the baby, and say they'll turn the baby over to state custody if no one else comes to pick up the child in 72 hours.


Or maybe for one of the numerous other examples in this thread alone, showing that thugs with badges can brutalize and kill innocent people and get away with it.

CR

---

As discussed, "someone in uniform" describes a member of the armed forces. Look before you leap, Rabbit (yes, pun intended).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

That's exactly the point. Is an unarmed man in uniform more of a threat than an armed man with the authority to arrest you?

The 'protect and serve' motto is a fallacy because law enforcement in most of the west is reactive. They are specifically hired to enforce laws.

Although I'm quick to anger, whoever believes what you stated is either ignorant and/or resides in the developing/third world. When someone in the western world feels that way it is less a measure of society and more an indication of how they perceive the world.

---

Just so we are clear here, I used the term "Man in uniform" as a replacement for soldier. Its common around here (Virginia beach, Virginia; military bases all around here).

Or perhaps they have had worse experiances with cops then you? Or maybe just more experiances? With soldiers your less likely to have your car searched, semi-interogated for 20 minutes, and then forced to listen to him/her brag about how theyres so many potheads in this neighborhood but that theyre all losers who are going to move to Norfolk anyway (to name a experiance of my own).

Please do tell what you meant by the western world perspective thing though.

My point is that unless you're an underage Japanese girl on Okinawa or a puppy in Afghanistan, you can feel pretty safe around someone in uniform. I also wasn't referring to me, specifically. It is just an odd thing for a U.S. citizen to say. Sort of a western liberal-elitist opinion. I've known naturalized citizens who had reasons to fear groups of soldiers in their home country say the opposite.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

My point is that unless you're an underage Japanese girl on Okinawa or a puppy in Afghanistan, you can feel pretty safe around someone in uniform. I also wasn't referring to me, specifically. It is just an odd thing for a U.S. citizen to say. Sort of a western liberal-elitist opinion. I've known naturalized citizens who had reasons to fear groups of soldiers in their home country say the opposite.

---

Cops and soldiers are both to be feared. A cop will drop you far outside of town without a shirt/jacket, wearing only jeans and sneakers, in a frigid Canadian winter, or a soldier will bayonet a 14-year old girl trying to stop him from building a golf course on her ancestral burial grounds. :shrug:

That is so incredibly racist Megas. Incredibly, incredibly racist. (and yeah, untrue as well) :no:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Just Vuk Again

That is so incredibly racist Megas. Incredibly, incredibly racist. (and yeah, untrue as well) :no:

---

The bayonet was a minor incident in the Oka Crisis. And the cop thing is in my earlier post on this page.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Megas Methuselah

The bayonet was a minor incident in the Oka Crisis. And the cop thing is in my earlier post on this page.

---

I obviously was not talking about those incidents.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

The 'protect and serve' motto is a fallacy because law enforcement in most of the west is reactive. They are specifically hired to enforce laws.

---

That's a myth that is spread by the anarchist 5th column in the west to force their militia agenda down peoples' throats.
The reactive actions save the potential next victims and despite that, police forces here do have proactive campaigns, programs etc. to reduce crime, sometimes they show presence, sometimes they visit schools etc. all to prevent crimes before they happen. The anti-police of course, tend to indirectly demand from them to be able to look into the future, which is complete rubbish of course.
A lot of the posts in this thread here seem to show the inherent flaws of camaraderie and corporate identity etc. because everybody tries to hide the flaws of the comrades/corporation under the carpet in a mislead attempt at comradeship or whatever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Maybe because in some counties they like to arrest 9 months pregnant women, force them to give birth while shackled, refuse to let the mother hold the baby, and say they'll turn the baby over to state custody if no one else comes to pick up the child in 72 hours.

---

That was quite the most barbaric thing I have read for a while.

Are there really no mechanisms for removing and charging someone like that sheriff - who is clearly racist, a brutal criminal and is depriving people of their constitutional protections?

Such behaviour would be embarrassing in Saudi Arabia, let alone the United States.

Well, just when you thought you'd read it all in this thread...

The 'child birth in shackles' story reaches a new low. Barbaric indeed. What on earth is he thinking, is he doing? This is not law enforcement, this is a sheriff having his own little dictatorship for him to play Mengele.

:no:



I appreciate America's penchant for direct democracy. I do wonder whether directly elected sheriffs are not at the root of many law enforcement problems. Vast swaths of America are patrolled by a largely unchecked law enforcement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

That was quite the most barbaric thing I have read for a while.

Are there really no mechanisms for removing and charging someone like that sheriff - who is clearly racist, a brutal criminal and is depriving people of their constitutional protections?

Such behaviour would be embarrassing in Saudi Arabia, let alone the United States.

---

You should read more.

That's a rather baseless charge founded on an incomplete story. We don't even know what the mother was charged/convicted of.

Don't tell me that you see a brown woman and assume there is racism involved. That's pretty racist itself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

You should read more.

---

Perhaps. Or perhaps I am not yet indifferent to injustice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

That's a rather baseless charge founded on an incomplete story. We don't even know what the mother was charged/convicted of.

Don't tell me that you see a brown woman and assume there is racism involved. That's pretty racist itself.

---

The publication in the link clearly has a particular agenda. Nonetheless, the sheriff appears to have a penchant for arresting Latinos. If it walks like a duck...

There is no charge or conviction known to mankind that would justify such treatment of a woman (and endanger her child). At least in any civilisation worth the name. The United States is a great civilisation that would normally abhor such behaviour, and I would expect you to be of the same mind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

Perhaps. Or perhaps I am not yet indifferent to injustice.

The publication in the link clearly has a particular agenda. Nonetheless, the sheriff appears to have a penchant for arresting Latinos. If it walks like a duck...

There is no charge or conviction known to mankind that would justify such treatment of a woman (and endanger her child). At least in any civilisation worth the name. The United States is a great civilisation that would normally abhor such behaviour, and I would expect you to be of the same mind.

---

Banquo: Fighting for truth, justice, and the American way. I can do hyperbole too. ~;)

Stop it man; use your head. What are the demographics of the county? What are the issues it faces, etc? You see a white man arresting Latinos and presume racism. Tell me how that isn't racist itself.

We both know that there are circumstances in life which justify far harsher actions. Context is key which is why oversight is important.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

We both know that there are circumstances in life which justify far harsher actions. Context is key which is why oversight is important.

---

Another article on the subject

Of course I cannot comment on the source, but this article also suggests that

a) the shackling was completely over the top (I do not see any charges that would justify this treatment

b) racism might indeed be an issue here (due to lack of time I did not dig deeper though

Quote:

---

Editor's note: This is one of a group of individual accounts of racial profiling by Sheriff Joe Arpaio's forces.

---

Also:

Quote:

---

Sheriff's Office policy states that jail inmates be restrained for "security reasons in an unsecured facility," said Jack MacIntyre, an MCSO deputy chief. McIntyre said a 12-foot chain link was attached to Chacón's leg.

"Let's assume someone is faking labor — that's a hypothetical — and she then chose to escape and hit or assault the hospital staff," McIntyre said. "She could do that easily because it's an unsecured area."

---

Yes - let's make up stuff to justify this treatment :thumbsdown:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

You should read more.

That's a rather baseless charge founded on an incomplete story. We don't even know what the mother was charged/convicted of.

Don't tell me that you see a brown woman and assume there is racism involved. That's pretty racist itself.

---

From Ser Clegane's article (above):

Turns out Chacón owed more than $1,000 in fines for driving without a license and had a misdemeanor shoplifting charge. She said that because she isn't allowed to get a driver's license because of her undocumented status, she wasn't able to earn money to pay the fines. She had to drive, she said, to work and support her children. She said even the shoplifting charge came because, after her husband died, she was desperate and stole food to keep her children alive.

The Sheriff of that county is, likely, racist, and his deputies are involved in many violations of human and constitutional rights.

He's had newspaper founders arrested.

He's launched militaristic raids that burned down houses and crushed cars, where deputies prevented a dog from fleeing the burning house - trapping it inside as it burned to death - and the only person they caught was someone with a traffic violation (ie speeding).

His officers have grossly violated the constitution by taking documents from a lawyer defending someone in a court of law, and he's refused to punish them.

He's deputies have threatened to arrest a reporter for looking at public records. The mayor of Phoenix says:

At a luncheon in March to honor Cesar Chavez, [Phoenix Mayor Phil] Gordon said the Sheriff's Office was doing little more than locking up "brown people with broken tail lights." He reiterated the theme in a May 2008 Latino Perspectives Magazine article, writing that Arpaio has "created a 'Sanctuary County for Felons' with his reckless priorities–that target brown skin and cracked tail lights– instead of killers and drug dealers."

EDIT: Oh yeah, the jailers in the county jail also broke a paraplegic's neck by strapping him into a sort of medieval restraint chair (for six hours), after he demanded a catheter he needed. He needs surgery to remove a vertebra from his neck, and can't use his arms as he used to. They've killed another man in the same chair and severely injured numerous others.

CR

Sorry, don't buy the hype. If this guy is out of hand, that's why we have the FBI.

:inquisitive:
Um, it's not hype. It's recorded facts and actions.

CR

I really liked that guy at first, what with the pink suits for the inmates and cracking down on illegals. Now I can truly say that I hope he catches a bullet.

That entire area is in cahoots with this man. He has judges, he has fire officials, he has relatives in the local media. If it weren't for the internet, which I'm sure he hates, we would know none of these hijinks.

I think it is entirely possible he is being investigated by the FBI. The Justice Department has already investigated him and he kept the results hidden until someone FOId him, and he is refusing to make the changes to the jail JD is telling him to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

Don't tell me that you see a brown woman and assume there is racism involved. That's pretty racist itself.

---

How so?