Tag Archives: civil rights

The Darren Wilson Video They Don’t Want the Grand Jury To See

While there is no video of the Darren Wilson shooting Michael Brown unfortunately (mainly because Ferguson was to busy spending money on cool cop toys rather than dash cams and officer cams), there is another video of  what appears to be Darren Wilson threatening to arrest a man for exercising his First Amendment rights then Wilson lying about it on the police report.

So, if as it appears, that Officer Darren Wilson is willing to lie on a simple police report when there is really nothing on the line, what is Officer Wilson willing to lie about to a grand jury when his ass is on the line….

Get the full story and video at PhotographyIsNotACrime: Video Emerges of Ferguson Cop Darren Wilson Arresting Man for Recording as Grand Jury Decision Nears

…In fact, Wilson admitted in his report that it was him, which you can read here, claiming that he told Arman he was allowed to record, but only arrested him after Arman stuck the the camera in his face and refused to cooperate with him regarding an investigation about abandoned cars in his front yard.

So the video not only shows he has no regard for citizens’ right to record him in public, it also shows he has no qualm about lying on police reports considering he had to walk about 20 feet to arrest him, stepping around a pile of junk to get to him. Nothing close to having an annoying camera stuck in his face….

 

 

Rise of the Warrior Cop, pre-order in paperback now available

riseofthewarriorcopA must read for any limited government, liberty minded individual.

Amazon: In Rise of the Warrior Cop, Balko shows how politicians’ ill-considered policies and relentless declarations of war against vague enemies like crime, drugs, and terror have blurred the distinction between cop and soldier. His fascinating, frightening narrative shows how over a generation, a creeping battlefield mentality has isolated and alienated American police officers and put them on a collision course with the American public and the Constitution.

Praised by Anthony Romero, ExDir, ACLU; Arianna Huffington, Huffington Post; Ron Paul, former Texas congressman and Republican presidential candidate; and Glenn Greewald, constitutional lawyer, and columnist.

You really should order this NOW!  And follow Radley at The Washington Post.

“The DUI Exception to the Constitution”

Bet you didn’t know there was a DUI Exception to the Constitution did you.

Yep, its right there. The courts have said so. Right between those printed lines.

Read Lawrence Taylor of DUIblog.com explain exactly why.

In the course of various postings concerning MADD, I have received emails suggesting that they are a civic-minded organization which does not deserve my criticisms. As I have said on many occasions, I believe them to be a well-intentioned group of “true believers” — who, like most zealots, have a rigid and narrow focus and are ignorant of the harm they cause to others. And in other posts I have tried to explain the nature of that harm.

Many years ago, I was invited to give a lecture to a “think tank” of government, corporate and academic types. In the years since then that I have given versions of it to other groups, the legal and political situation has only grown worse.

Perhaps the lecture itself might better explain why I consider MADD to be a continuing threat to our institutions and constitutional safeguards…..

I hope to convince you in the next hour, some of you, that the greatest single threat to our freedoms, the freedoms set forth in the Bill of Rights, is not from Iraq or Iran. I don’t think it’s from North Korea. I don’t think it’s from the extremists of the Muslim world. The threat, as it has always been throughout history, is internal: It is from within. But I do not think it is from the American Communist party or extremists on the right. I hope to convince a few of you that the greatest single threat to our freedoms today comes from a group consisting largely of American housewives. They call themselves the Mothers Against Drunk Driving. MADD.

READ THE REST………

Just in case you thought you were free…Minnesota Appeals Court: Avoiding Police Justifies Traffic Stop

Minnesota Appeals Court: Avoiding Police Justifies Traffic Stop

A motorist who avoids a police car is inherently suspicious, according to a ruling handed down by the Minnesota Court of Appeals on Tuesday. A three-judge panel found that even if the officer observed no illegal conduct, a traffic stop and interrogation is justified when a driver seems not to want to be around a patrol car.

On January 23, 2009 at around 3pm, Mario Pacheco had been driving in South Minneapolis. While on Minnehaha Avenue, two city police officers spotted Pacheco’s car, which pulled over and parked on the side of the road after signaling. The officers made a u-turn to get a better look at the vehicle. Returning to the scene about a minute later, they found the car once again driving. Pacheco again signaled, pulled over and parked. The officers conducted a traffic stop and cited Pacheco for driving on a canceled license, but Pacheco appealed on the grounds that police had no reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity to justify the stop.

A district court noted that Pacheco did not make eye contact with the police and that he had violated no traffic laws and therefore suppressed the evidence obtained from the illegal stop. A three-judge appellate panel disagreed, insisting that the officers had reasonable suspicion that a crime was taking place.

“The reasonable-suspicion standard is not high,” Judge Renee L. Worke wrote in an unpublished opinion.

The appeals court had previously been of the opinion that evasive behavior did not justify a stop, but in 1989 the state supreme court overruled the appellate judges in a similar case, Minnesota v. Johnson.

“The district court apparently interpreted Johnson to require an officer to make eye contact with a driver in order for conduct to be considered evasive,” Worke explained. “This is a misinterpretation of Johnson. The supreme court never mandated eye contact as a requisite for evasive conduct. Rather, the supreme court’s discussion of the trooper’s eye contact with the defendant was made in an assessment of the basis for the trooper’s reasonable, articulable suspicion.”

At trial, the officers testified that pulling to the side of the road was behavior inconsistent with how an average citizen behaves and that he thought Pacheco might have been “casing businesses or residences in the neighborhood to burglarize them.” One officer insisted the stop was necessary “to investigate his behavior and to make sure that he wasn’t attempting to commit any crime.” The appeals court believed this was sufficient.

“Viewing the totality of the circumstances in this case, the suspicion caused by respondent twice abruptly parking his vehicle when followed by a squad car is strengthened when the car is traveling through an area that the officers consider to be a high-crime area,” Worke concluded. “Based on the conduct of respondent and the officers’ concern for the area where the stop occurred, the officers exhibited the requisite reasonable, articulable suspicion to justify the stop. Accordingly, the district court erred in concluding that the stop was invalid and suppressing all evidence gathered from the stop.”

A copy of the decision is available in a PDF file at the source link below.

PDF File Minnesota v. Pacheco (Court of Appeals, State of Minesota, 7/27/2010)