Tag Archives: Constitution

Some of the Many Ridiculous Reasons Why Police Have Killed Unarmed/Innocent People

The following post was written by John W. Whitehead and was originally published at the Rutherford Institute under the title, “All the Ways You Can Comply and Still Die During An Encounter with Police.

As the name implies, it discusses some of the many outrageous excuses the police have used to justify killing unarmed and oftentimes completely innocent people. Furthermore, the favorite rationalization used by police apologists to absolve murderous cops from responsibility for their actions and instead place blame on the victim is the tired (and fairly psychotic) old “comply or die” song and dance. However, as can plainly be seen below, many of these examples involve people who were actually not resisting in any way.

All the Ways You Can Comply and Still Die During An Encounter with Police

By John W. Whitehead, The Rutherford Institute

Police are specialists in violence. They are armed, trained, and authorized to use force. With varying degrees of subtlety, this colors their every action. Like the possibility of arrest, the threat of violence is implicit in every police encounter. Violence, as well as the law, is what they represent.”—Author Kristian Williams

How do you protect yourself from flying fists, choking hands, disabling electrified darts and killing bullets?

How do you defend yourself against individuals who have been indoctrinated into believing that they are superior to you, that their word is law, and that they have the power to take your life?

Most of all, how can you maintain the illusion of freedom when daily, Americans are being shot, stripped, searched, choked, beaten and tasered by police for little more than daring to frown, smile, question, challenge an order or just exist?

The short answer: you can’t.

Now for the long answer, which is far more complicated but still leaves us feeling hopeless, helpless and vulnerable to the fears, moods and misguided training of every cop on the beat.

If you ask police and their enablers what Americans should do to stay alive during encounters with law enforcement, they will tell you to comply (or die).

It doesn’t matter where you live—big city or small town—it’s the same scenario being played out over and over again in which Americans are being brainwashed into believing that anyone who wears a government uniform—soldier, police officer, prison guard—must be obeyed without question, while government agents, hyped up on their own authority and the power of their uniform, ride roughshod over the rights of the citizenry.

For example, a local law enforcement agency in Virginia has started handing out a guide—developed in cooperation with a group of African American pastors—on how to interact with police. The purpose of this government resource, according to the police, is to make sure citizens feel “comfortable” and know what to do when interacting with police in order to “promote public safety and respectful interaction.”

Curiously, nowhere in the “Guide to Interacting with Police” is there any mention of the Constitution, or the rights of the citizenry, other than the right to remain silent.

In fact, the primary point stressed throughout the bilingual guide aimed at “building trust and cooperation,” is that citizens should comply, cooperate, obey, not resist, not argue, not make threatening gestures or statements, avoid sudden movements, and submit to a search of their person and belongings.

The problem, of course, is what to do when compliance is not enough.

I’m not talking about the number of individuals—especially young people—who are being shot and killed by police for having a look-alike gun in their possession, such as a BB gun. I’m not even talking about people who have been shot for brandishing weapons at police, such as scissors.

I’m talking about the growing numbers of unarmed people are who being shot and killed for just standing a certain way, or moving a certain way, or holding something—anything—that police could misinterpret to be a gun, or igniting some trigger-centric fear in a police officer’s mind that has nothing to do with an actual threat to their safety.

Killed for standing in a “shooting stance.” In California, police opened fire on and killed a mentally challenged—unarmed—black man within minutes of arriving on the scene, allegedly because he removed a vape smoking device from his pocket and took a “shooting stance.”

Killed for holding a cell phone. Police in Arizona shot a man who was running away from U.S. Marshals after he refused to drop an object that turned out to be a cellphone. (This actually happened in Las Vegas and the cell phone was in Keith Childress’ pocket when two LVMPD officers shot him. – Editor)

Killed for behaving oddly and holding a baseball bat. Responding to a domestic disturbance call, Chicago police shot and killed 19-year-old college student Quintonio LeGrier who had reportedly been experiencing mental health problems and was carrying a baseball bat around the apartment where he and his father lived.

Killed for opening the front door. Bettie Jones, who lived on the floor below LeGrier, was also fatally shot—this time, accidentally—when she attempted to open the front door for police.

Killed for being a child in a car pursued by police. Jeremy David Mardis, six years old and autistic, died after being shot multiple times by Louisiana police in the head and torso. Police opened fire on the car—driven by Jeremy’s father, Chris Few, who was also shot—and then allegedly lied, claiming that they were attempting to deliver an outstanding warrant, that Few resisted arrest, that he shot at police (no gun was found), and that he tried to ram his car into a police cruiser. Body camera footage refuted the police’s claims.

Killed for attacking police with a metal spoon. In Alabama, police shot and killed a 50-year-old man who reportedly charged a police officer while holding “a large metal spoon in a threatening manner.”

Killed for running in an aggressive manner holding a tree branch. Georgia police shot and killed a 47-year-old man wearing only shorts and tennis shoes who, when first encountered, was sitting in the woods against a tree, only to start running towards police holding a stick in an “aggressive manner.

Killed for crawling around naked. Atlanta police shot and killed an unarmed man who was reported to have been “acting deranged, knocking on doors, crawling around on the ground naked.” Police fired two shots at the man after he reportedly starting running towards them.

Killed for hunching over in a defensive posture. Responding to a domestic trouble call, multiple officers with the Baltimore County police forced their way inside a home where, fearing for their safety and the safety of others,” three officers opened fire on an unarmed 41-year-old man who was hunched over in a defensive posture. The man was killed in front of his two young daughters and their mother.

Killed because a police officer accidentally pulled out his gun instead of his taser. An Oklahoma man suspected of trying to sell an illegal handgun was shot and killed after a 73-year-old reserve deputy inadvertently fired his gun instead of his taser. “Oh! I shot him! I’m sorry!” the deputy cried out.

Killed for wearing dark pants and a basketball jersey. Donnell Thompson, a mentally disabled 27-year-old described as gentle and shy, was shot and killed after police—searching for a carjacking suspect reportedly wearing similar clothing—encountered him lying motionless in a neighborhood yard. Police “only” opened fire with an M4 rifle after Thompson first failed to respond to their flash bang grenades and then started running after being hit by foam bullets.

Killed for telling police you lawfully own a firearm and have a conceal-and-carry permit. Philando Castile was shot and killed during a routine traffic stop allegedly over a broken tail light. As he was reaching for his license and registration, Castile explained to police that he had a  conceal-and-carry permit. That’s all it took for police to shoot Castile four times in the presence of his girlfriend and her 4-year-old daughter.

Killed for leaving anywhere at all when a police officer pulls up. Deravis Caine Rogers was killed after starting to drive away from an apartment complex right around the same time as a police officer pulled up. Despite the fact that the police officer had no reason to believe Rogers was a threat or was suspected of any illegal activity, the officer fired into Rogers’ passenger side window.

Killed for driving while deaf. In North Carolina, a state trooper shot and killed 29-year-old Daniel K. Harris—who was deaf—after Harris initially failed to pull over during a traffic stop.

Killed for being homeless. Los Angeles police shot an unarmed homeless man after he failed to stop riding his bicycle and then proceeded to run from police.

Killed for being old and brandishing a shoehorn. John Wrana, a 95-year-old World War II veteran, lived in an assisted living center, used a walker to get around, and was shot and killed by police who mistook the shoehorn in his hand for a 2-foot-long machete and fired multiple beanbag rounds from a shotgun at close range.

Killed for having your car break down on the road. Terence Crutcher, unarmed and black, was shot and killed by Oklahoma police after his car broke down on the side of the road. Crutcher was shot in the back while walking towards his car with his hands up.

Killed for holding a garden hose. California police were ordered to pay $6.5 million after they opened fire on a man holding a garden hose, believing it to be a gun. Douglas Zerby was shot 12 times and pronounced dead on the scene.

Shot seven times for peeing outdoors. Eighteen-year-old Keivon Young was shot seven times by police from behind while urinating outdoors. Young was just zipping up his pants when he heard a commotion behind him and then found himself struck by a hail of bullets from two undercover cops. Allegedly officers mistook Young—5’4,” 135 lbs., and guilty of nothing more than taking a leak outdoors—for a 6’ tall, 200 lb. murder suspect whom they later apprehended. Young was charged with felony resisting arrest and two counts of assaulting a peace officer.

Now you can make all kinds of excuses to justify these shootings, and in fact that’s exactly what you’ll hear from politicians, police unions, law enforcement officials and individuals who are more than happy to march in lockstep with the police. However, to suggest that a good citizen is a compliant citizen and that obedience will save us from the police state is not only recklessly irresponsible, but it is also deluded and out of touch with reality, because in the American police state, compliance is no longer enough.

Frankly, as these incidents make clear, the only truly compliant, submissive and obedient citizen in a police state is a dead one.

If you’re starting to feel somewhat overwhelmed, intimidated and fearful for your life and your property, you should be.

As I point out in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, “we the people” are now at the mercy of law enforcement officers who have almost absolute discretion to decide who is a threat, what constitutes resistance, and how harshly they can deal with the citizens they were appointed to “serve and protect.”

Sad, isn’t it, how quickly we have gone from a nation of laws—where the least among us had just as much right to be treated with dignity and respect as the next person (in principle, at least)—to a nation of law enforcers (revenue collectors with weapons) who treat us all like suspects and criminals?

Huntington Beach CA Police Try To Find Any Reason To Cite Man Because He “Has a Chip On His Shoulder”

The video and description within this post was shared with the CopBlock Network by Steve, who preferred not to give his last name. It was shared via the CopBlock.org Submissions Page.

In this video, Steve states he has just returned from a short shopping trip within a local Walmart and is “greeted” by a group of police officers, including a Orange County animal control officer. They state that they were called by a witness who was concerned for the safety of his dog that had been left in the car. (Toward the end of the video, the animal control officer admits that he had already determined, based on the outside temperature, that the dog was not actually in danger.)

From there, they keep demanding ID from Steve, who refuses to do so, maintaining that he hasn’t committed a crime. The Animal control officer contends that he is investigating whether the dog is registered, although at one point he admits that he is only doing that because he feels that Steve “has a chip on his shoulder.”

One of the other cops also states that Steve doesn’t actually have a Fifth Amendment right to remain silent unless they “have Mirandized” him, which is a pretty blatantly  inaccurate interpretation of constitutional rights. If I didn’t know just how often cops don’t actually know the law and the Constitution, I would think he was just playing stupid in a bad attempt at fooling Steve into answering their questions.

Eventually they do give up on trying to get Steve to give them his ID. However, prior to leaving one of the Huntington Beach officers states that Steve’s windows are tinted to dark and that they should wait to see if he drives the car so they can issue a retaliatory citation for that “crime.”

Finally, after huddling up briefly and looking back to make sure Steve isn’t close enough to overhear their diabolical plans (which probably consists of mailing a citation for the dog license to the address his car is registered at), they slink off to find someone else to harass.

Date of Incident: September 8, 2016
Officers Involved: Officer Jackson – Badge No. 2098, Officer Roberts – Badge No. 2137, Deputy McCartney – Badge No. 21
Departments Involved: Huntington Beach (CA) Police Department, Orange County Sheriff’s Department (Animal Control)
Department Phone No.: HBPD – (714) 960-8811 OCSD – (714) 935-6848

The man in the video had stopped at a Walmart in Huntington Beach, California. The car was parked in the shade with a sun visor on the front windshield. Outside, the temperature was only 75° and the back windows were rolled down three inches, since there was a dog in the backseat. The man was only in Walmart for about 15 minutes.

When he came back to the car, there were three squad cars with six police officers and one sheriff from animal control outside. One of the officers had stated that they received an unverified complaint over the phone from some concerned citizen that an animal was being endangered and that they were there to investigate.

I learned a lot from this video including the fact that police believe that you only have a right to free speech if and when they give you permission. The reality of it is that the police have absolutely no jurisdiction unless you give it to them, and if you do they now have a license to kill you if they want.

There was no citation given and there was no arrest because the man refused to show his ID; yes your name will be used against you to cite you, to arrest you, to imprison you, hold you for ransom, and maybe even kill you.

The first question you answer you have given them jurisdiction, so don’t answer their questions. You be the one to ask all the questions and do not answer theirs.

– Steve

Federal Judge Richard Posner Sees No Value in Studying “Outdated” Constitution

According to Judge Richard Posner, of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, the “eighteenth-century guys” responsible for writing the Constitution could never have foreseen modern culture and technology.

Therefore, in his eyes, it’s just a waste of time for judges to study the Constitution and the history behind it, since it’s irrelevant to today.

Those comments came in an article as part of an ongoing series of articles entitled the “Supreme Court Breakfast Table,” which bills itself as, “An email conversation about the news of the day.” It’s hosted at Slate.com and features a discussion of issues relating to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court Justices.

Within that post on June 24th, Judge Posner stated:

I see absolutely no value to a judge of spending decades, years, months, weeks, day, hours, minutes, or seconds studying the Constitution, the history of its enactment, its amendments, and its implementation (across the centuries—well, just a little more than two centuries, and of course less for many of the amendments). Eighteenth-century guys, however smart, could not foresee the culture, technology, etc., of the 21st century. Which means that the original Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the post–Civil War amendments (including the 14th), do not speak to today. David Strauss is right: The Supreme Court treats the Constitution like it is authorizing the court to create a common law of constitutional law, based on current concerns, not what those 18th-century guys were worrying about.

In short, let’s not let the dead bury the living.

Nor, according to Mediaite.com, is this the first time Judge Posner has expressed that he gives no fucks about the Constitution and its old-timey ways:

Posner, an influential jurist who has served as a federal judge for thirty-five years, has previously voiced his disregard for the Constitution. “I’m not particularly interested in the 18th Century, nor am I particularly interested in the text of the Constitution. I don’t believe that any document drafted in the 18th century can guide our behavior today,” he said during a 2015 colloquium.

Judge Richard Posner 7th CircuitThis is why the reliance on the courts and the Constitution itself for justice is an exercise in futility. Regardless of what the original founders meant when they wrote it, the people wearing those robes right now are the ones that interpret it now and guess who they work for.

I can give you this little hint if you need it. Whenever you end up in court it will be the same people that guy sitting at the other table works for. It will also be the same people those guys that escorted you into that courtroom work for.

Some of them, like Judge Posner, don’t even pretend to respect the protections the Constitution supposedly provide. Recent rulings essentially eliminating Fourth Amendment protections should be evidence enough that he’s not alone in that disdain.

Supreme Court’s Curtailing of the Fourth Amendment is Admissible Evidence of Police State

Supreme Court Decision Fourth Amendment Cop Block

This post was written by  and originally published at the Center For a Stateless Society (C4SS) under the title “Supreme Court Ruling is Admissible Evidence of Police State.” Posts and other content you think are worth sharing with the Nevada Cop Block can be sent in to us via the NVCopBlock.org Submissions Page.

(Note: This has been posted in its original form and no edits to the original text were made. Some links may have been added within the text and images have been added. In addition, the conclusions expressed within this initial introductory summary represent my own interpretation of what is being stated within Kelly Vee’s own writings.)

In the post below, Kelly Vee discusses the recent Supreme Court ruling in the case of Utah v. Strieff which allowed the inclusion of evidence found during an illegal search to be admitted if it was subsequently found that a warrant existed for someone with the name of the person that had been illegally searched.

Although this has been (rightfully) decried as an invalidation of the Fourth Amendment, essentially encouraging police to profile and illegally detain people in the hopes that they will discover a warrant after the fact. Vee points out why such a decision should not actually be surprising, given the nature and true purpose of the court system.

Supreme Court Ruling is Admissible Evidence of Police State

On Monday, June 20, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that evidence police find during illegal stops is admissible in court. As long as the officer can find some outstanding warrant in your name, the court will excuse the officer’s illegal stop. The Supreme Court’s decision would be disappointing if you expected the Supreme Court to do anything other than serve itself.

Monday’s ruling seems to contradict Mapp v. Ohio, or at least seriously expands the definition of a legal search. In Mapp v. Ohio (1961), the Supreme Court ruled that all evidence obtained through illegal search and seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution was inadmissible in court. In her scathing dissenting opinion, Justice Sotomayor wrote, “This case allows the police to stop you on the street, demand your identification, and check it for outstanding traffic warrants—even if you are doing nothing wrong.”

American schoolchildren are taught that the Supreme Court is the ultimate check on government power. When the other branches of government get out of hand, the Supreme Court – somehow free from perverse incentives and filled with good will – will step in for the common people. This fairytale designed to boost faith in government is overturned as the Supreme Court stands behind the prison state, yet again.

Should we be angry? Absolutely. Should we be shocked? Absolutely not. Americans should not feel reassured or secure by the final arbiter in the U.S. justice system. Americans are not safe from their government. The notion that the government will check its own power is misguided and naive. The Supreme Court is made up of former Solicitor Generals, Attorney Generals, and prosecutors. Regardless of lifetime tenure, their incentives are far from pure. Individuals appointed by and working for the government, with a lifetime of experience in service of the government, will often side with the government.

The scope of this ruling is not limited to some small subset of violent criminals. Millions of Americans have outstanding arrest warrants. That speeding ticket you forgot to pay is enough to excuse an officer that stops you illegally. Anything the officer finds is admissible in court, as long as they can find a valid (unrelated) warrant with your name on it. In a country where cops murder and get away with it, corruption charges rarely follow through, and the justice system runs rampant with racial (and other) discrimination, one of our few remaining defenses against police misconduct has just been whitewashed to the point of emptiness.

It’s not hard to imagine how this newfound police power will be abused. In the country that incarcerates more people per capita than anywhere else in the world, ahead of countries such as Turkmenistan, Cuba, and El Salvador, millions more wait to be thrown behind bars. The Supreme Court’s ruling expedites the process of putting people in cages by making it even easier for cops to search and arrest people without oversight. All it takes is an unpaid traffic ticket, and no probable cause is necessary for the police to search someone, using anything they find in court.

Police, rarely held accountable for misconduct, now have even less motivation to behave. Even if their stop is illegal and without cause, the evidence they find will work in their favor in court.

The Police State, the Prison State, and the Court System are all a part of the same twisted, monopolized justice system run with perverse incentives at the expense of its constituents. Police abuse their power, the Court affirms their mistakes, and people end up behind bars. Rather than express righteous shock at the recent Court’s decision, we should recognize the natural progression of the State and oppose it at its core. Power seeks power, but if more people understand the root of the problem, we can fight back.

IMPD Officers Cyber-Bully Citizen Over Bumper Sticker; Post Personal Information From Department Background Check

The following post was shared with the CopBlock Network anonymously, via the CopBlock.org Submissions Page. It details an incident where G Philip Rossman,an officer from the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department, decided to publicly post a photo of a citizen’s car, inviting harassment of that citizen based on a bumper sticker he didn’t like within the post.

Subsequently, Sgt. Matt Morgan, Officer Madeline Lathamer, and Officer Mike Wilson, who all also work for the IMPD, gladly accepted that invitation and began bullying the owner of that vehicle. That bullying included posting information illegally obtained, via an inappropriate police background search.

BTW, Officer Wilson a former “officer of the year” hasn’t limited his bullying to the internets. He recently received quite a bit of attention for an incident in September in which he was caught on video assaulting and then wrongfully arresting a man at an Indianapolis hotel. Of course, that’s the bigger issue when it’s a group of Heroes cyber-bullying people. More so than anyone, they have the ability to take those threats beyond the internets and out into the real world.

(Note: If you ever have an issue involving inappropriate, threatening, and/or harassing conduct by police employees be sure to take screenshots of the posts so they don’t get deleted and be sure to send those screenshots in with your submission. We are more than happy to expose bullies for what they truly are.)

Date of Incident: June 3, 2016
Officers Involved: Officer G Philip Rossman, Sgt. Matt Morgan, Officer Madeline Lathamer, Officer Mike Wilson
Department Involved: Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department
File A Complaint: Complaints
Facebook Page: IMPD News
Twitter Account: @IMPD_News
YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/IMPDMedia
Department Phone No.: 317-327-6600

On June 3rd, 2016, G Phillip Rossman (aka – G Phil Corvette on FB) of the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department violated his IDACS user agreement. He also committed a federal violation by posting confidential information, more specifically, a taxpayer’s name and personal information in a very public online post on Facebook. This information was ran through NCIC and posted online by a number of additional officers.

The incident began when Officer G Phillip Rossman took a photo of this subject’s vehicle, their license plate, and the bumper stickers displayed on the rear bumper. He took this photo while stopped at a red light at the intersection at Sheek Road and Main Street in Greenwood, Indiana. Officer Rossman (who at the time of the photograph was in his personal vehicle) then chose to post this picture to his online Facebook account under the name of G Phil Corvette.

He posted this photo to where any member of the public could view and have access to it. In his post, Officer Rossman comments and encourages other officers to specifically target this tax payer’s vehicle, as well as the individual driving it. In the photo the subjects license plate was clearly visible and once again, this post was made public for anyone to see and have access to.

Along with this post, there were additional inappropriate and slanderous comments made by several IMPD officers. Those officers include Mike “Marine” Wilson and Madeline Diaz Lathamer.

Officer Mike Wilson not only makes inappropriate and unprofessional comments, but he also publicly posts extremely slanderous and defaming comments against the subject, as well. He wrote in a public post identifying information on the driver, even posting personal identifying information for others to share publicly. Officer Wilson’s public posts have since been deleted by him, but sensitive personal information was visible to all.

This is extremely inappropriate and even unlawful behavior. It reflects poorly on the department as a whole when officers engage in such misconduct and abuse of power. Officer Mike Wilson has violated not only his IDACS user agreement, but has committed a federal violation by posting confidential NCIC information online for the public to see. (see sections 6.3/6.4.3 IDACS user agreement and title 28 in regards to NCIC) He has also committed slander and defamation of character on the driver of the vehicle in which Officer Rossman profiled and targeted.

IMPD officer Madeline Diaz Lathamer also made inappropriate comments in this public post. More specifically she wrote “Oh the fun that could be had without one.” The driver of the vehicle targeted was found to be a law-abiding citizen and a retired police officer who displayed bumper stickers that spoke out against government and police corruption. What was displayed on the vehicle was protected by the First Amendment. The vehicle targeted is deemed “personal property” and it is owned by the driver. What the owner of this vehicle chooses to put on their vehicle and what they choose to display is their right as a taxpayer and a US citizen.

Officers Rossman, Wilson, and Lathamer failed to realize that targeting and profiling specifically based upon something that is displayed and that is covered under the First Amendment is highly illegal. As an American, we have the right to express our feelings and concerns towards government corruption and even assemble in peaceful demonstration if we choose to. No one should be targeted by any police officer because of that. And it most certainly does not give any officer the right to post personal identifying information publicly.

Also involved in this incident was supervisor Matt Morgan of IMPD. As a supervisor, Sgt. Morgan has a responsibility to report issues of misconduct involving another officer. Rather than performing this specific duty, he chose to contribute to the online posts. Upon receiving a word that the owner of the vehicle had intentions of filing a formal complaint to IMPD internal affairs, Sergeant Morgan deleted his online comments. Screenshots of his comments were obtained prior to this deletion. Sergeant Morgan through his own words, “prides himself on getting people stirred up on here.” This is not how a supervisor should present himself to other officers or members of the public.

Sergeant Morgan is a representative of IMPD both on and off duty and he knew that the photograph posted by Officer Rossman was inappropriate. He was also aware of the fact that police resources and law enforcement programs were misused in order to run the license plate in the photo. Yet, rather than reporting this type of behavior and misconduct, he chose to condone and be part of it by contributing in the comment section. Sgt. Morgan has neglected his duties as a supervisor and should be held accountable for his actions and misconduct.

Since this inappropriate post has been made by Officer Rosman, the driver/owner of this vehicle has not only received hateful text messages from former coworkers, but family members have also received hateful and threatening messages on their Facebook accounts. These threatening messages sent to family members have expressed that “when you mess with this family, meaning “the police family”, you mess with all of them.” The owner/driver’s mother was also told in an online message that she needs to “watch her back.” Another message said that they “hoped their mother was a good driver.”

There is absolutely no excuse for this. Note that the owner/driver’s mother is an elderly woman, she enjoys her time on social media and Facebook. It is a way for her to communicate with her former classmates, as well as family members. Officer Rossman clearly doesn’t understand the Constitution and that officers can and will be held civilly liable when these rights are violated.

Officer Rossman has placed himself, other officers, and his department; the IMPD in a position of civil liability. This is a matter where disciplinary action absolutely needs to be taken. What Rossman and Wilson and the number of additional officers who unlawfully ran this information have done falls along the lines of conduct unbecoming of an officer, misuse of equipment, and official misconduct.

An investigation into the violations of NCIC and IDACS was requested. On June 8, 2016, the Indiana State police IDACS division was contacted. Consequently, the Indiana State police initiated an audit of the driver’s license plate. The audit will determine which and how many officers have unlawfully run the victim’s plate based upon the photograph that was posted by Rossman online. In regards to exposing this type of misconduct and corruption, Officer Rossman’s victim has also considered contacting media, as well. It is this type of misconduct, inappropriate behavior, and abuse of power that the public needs to be made aware of.

What these officers have done and this type of profiling is yet another reason why the the public does not trust their law-enforcement officers. This will be addressed accordingly and for those who abused their law enforcement powers by running this confidential information and posting it for the public to see online, other complaints and civil litigation will come from this. The Indiana State Police, IDACS/NCIC, and IMPD internal affairs have all been notified and all comments posted have been retained and provided as evidence against the officers involved. (Mike “Marine” Wilson – Facebook name and account)like a coward, chose to delete his comments once word had spread that formal complaints were being filed and an internal audit was being conducted.

Sadly, it’s the good officers and even the family members who feel the strain of other officer’s misconduct. Undoubtedly , these officers need to be disciplined for their misconduct and what should be deemed as a criminal act against a citizen. This is a form of harassment and even profiling. It is important that the public knows and is aware that when they visit the city of Indianapolis, these are the type of officers they may encounter. Never be afraid to report police misconduct. They need to be held accountable for their wrongful acts just like any other citizen would.

Spokane County Sheriff’s Deputies Cite “Constitutionalists” as a Justification for MRAP Vehicle

The video above and the description below was shared with the CopBlock Network by “General Gonzo S. Patton,” via the CopBlock.org Submission Page. Along with the video description, he states, “I despise this attitude in these Chickenshit Ticket Writers.”

The video was originally posted by Alex JonesInfowars channel on Youtube back in 2014. It features a conversation between an unidentified “local resident” and two Spokane County Sheriff‘s deputies relating to the necessity of having a MRAP military vehicle and whether a group of children, who the deputies state were being given a ride, are being conditioned to accept the militarization of the police.

The deputies’ response to the questioning of the necessity of surplus military vehicles being passed on to local police departments is somewhat interesting. One of them states, “we’ve got a lot of Constitutionalists and a lot of people that stockpile weapons, lots of ammunition. They have weapons here locally.”

December 17, 2014

Department Involved: Spokane County (WA) Sheriff’s Office
Department Phone Number: (509) 477-4754
Citizen Complaints: Complaint Form (PDF)
Facebook Page: Spokane County Sheriff’s Office on FB
Twitter Account: Spokane Sheriff Office
Youtube Channel: Spokane Sheriff

The link was forwarded to me and is outdated, but serves as a reminder that our Heroes and Chickenshit Ticket Writers look upon those of us who believe in liberty, the Bill of Rights and the Constitution with disdain. I am posting this as someone who taught at the Washington State Criminal Justice Training Commission for nine years and when I graduated from the CJTC, I graduated top in my class, carried a badge and actually believed in the motto: Protect and Serve. This is rogue behavior and part of why I retired.

– General Gonzo S. Patton

Update: Arkansas Police Chief that Arrested Man For Open Carry Burned His Own Truck; Stole From Department

In August of last year, I wrote a post about a video that had been submitted by a Cop Block reader showing a police chief in Bald Knob, Arkansas questioning Richard Chambless, a Second Amendment activist who had been arrested while legally open carrying a hand gun.

During that video, Chief Erek Balentine was very insistent that open carrying actually wasn’t legal in Arkansas and even eventually berated Chambless in an angry outburst toward the end of the interrogation. He also had some sort of issue with the fact Chambless was carrying a police scanner at the time of his arrest, implying that it was an indicator of criminal intentions.

A month later, Chief Balentine resigned, presumably under public pressure as a result of the publicity generated by the video featured in the first post, stating he was in “fear for his family’s safety.” However, this is where things really start to get interesting.

According to Balentine, someone had spray painted “2 Amendment” on both sides of his truck and then lit that truck on fire. Obviously, this was some whacky, extremist gun nut retaliating for Chief Balentine’s arrest of Chambless for something that wasn’t just legal, but was expressly protected within the Constitution. Right?

Bald Knob Police Chief Balentine Resigns

Former Bald Knob Police Chief Balentine

Now the real truth has come out, though. Former Bald Knob Arkansas Police Chief Erek Ballentine is a big filthy liar and a thief on top of that. And, although this is the least shocking revelation involving this story, he’s just not a very smart or well thought out criminal mastermind, either.

Not only has he joined the ranks of cops who have staged an “attack” against themselves as part of the Fake War On Cops, but he also joined the very crowded ranks of cops who have committed fraud and stole from their own department.

In fact, the entire burned truck incident was intended to somehow distract from the fact that he had stolen a shotgun, which had been donated to the police department for a fundraising auction and then sold it and pocketed the cash. The fraud part of the equation is based on him having filed a insurance claim on the truck he actually burned.

Of course, no story about a criminal cop (I realize that’s a bit redundant and that I’m not supposed to use double negatives) and the Good Cops he works with holding him accountable would be complete without that Bad Apple getting the typical Policeman’s Discount.

After initially being charged with federal felony charges of arson, mail fraud, and possession of a stolen firearm (which he was in possession of because he stole it), Former Chief Balentine was allowed to plead guilty to the single charge of possessing the stolen firearm and promise to pay restitution to Progressive Insurance for the false claim. As part of that deal the Feds agreed not to pursue the more serious charges of arson and fraud.

Original Video of Man Arrested in Bald Knob, Arkansas for Legally Open Carrying a Gun

Breaking News: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Found Dead in Texas

It was just announced that United States Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who was 79 years old, has been found dead. Scalia was staying at a resort style ranch in Texas while attending a private party and taking part in a hunting trip at the time of his death. Reportedly, there were no signs of foul play and it is believed that he died from (as yet undisclosed or unknown) natural causes overnight. Justice Scalia had been the most senior justice currently and historically is the second longest serving Supreme Court Justice.

Via MySanAntonio.com:

Associate Justice Antonin Scalia was found dead of apparent natural causes Saturday on a luxury resort in West Texas, federal officials said.

Scalia, 79, was a guest at the Cibolo Creek Ranch, a resort in the Big Bend region south of Marfa.

According to a report, Scalia arrived at the ranch on Friday and attended a private party with about 40 people. When he did not appear for breakfast, a person associated with the ranch went to his room and found a body.

Chief U.S. District Judge Orlando Garcia, of the Western Judicial District of Texas, was notified about the death from the U.S. Marshals Service.

U.S. District Judge Fred Biery said he was among those notified about Scalia’s death.

“I was told it was this morning,” Biery said of Scalia’s death. “It happened on a ranch out near Marfa. As far as the details, I think it’s pretty vague right now as to how,” he said. “My reaction is it’s very unfortunate. It’s unfortunate with any death, and politically in the presidential cycle we’re in, my educated guess is nothing will happen before the next president is elected.”

RELATED:Scalia: Black students do better at ‘less-advanced’ schools than UT

The U.S. Marshal Service, the Presidio County sheriff and the FBI were involved in the investigation.
Officials with the law enforcement agencies declined to comment.

A federal official who asked not to be named said there was no evidence of foul play and it appeared that Scalia died of natural causes.

A gray Cadillac hearse pulled into the ranch last Saturday afternoon. The hearse came from Alpine Memorial Funeral Home.

RELATED:Black UT students, alumni share successes online after Scalia comments

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott released a statement Saturday afternoon, calling Scalia a man of God, a patriot and an “unwavering defender of the written Constitution.”

“He was the solid rock who turned away so many attempts to depart from and distort the Constitution,” Abbott said. “We mourn his passing, and we pray that his successor on the Supreme Court will take his place as a champion for the written Constitution and the Rule of Law. Cecilia and I extend our deepest condolences to his family, and we will keep them in our thoughts and prayers.”

Scalia was nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1986 by President Ronald Reagan.

Justice Scalia’s death and its timing will have many ramifications, both politically and legally. Beyond the obvious fact that he is a member of the highest judicial body in the country, the fact that he tends to interpret laws conservatively could create complications during an election year. Currently, President Obama, who is obviously a liberal, would be responsible for naming his replacement, which could tip the balance from a conservative majority to a liberal majority on the court. However, there is a pretty good chance that he would have trouble getting any nominee approved prior to the election and the start of a new presidency. Therefore, the significance of who becomes the new president and what their political leanings are will become a huge issue during the election, since they would be able to appoint his eventual replacement.

In addition, the likelihood that a new justice won’t be seated until after the election is over will leave an even number of justices available rather than the typical nine. In close cases, this would leave the court without a tie-breaking vote.

Nevada Sheriff’s Deputy Claims Open Carry is Illegal in Reno

This was received, via the submission form, from an open carry advocate in Reno who wishes to remain anonymous. It recounts his encounter with a member of the  Washoe County Sheriff’s Department during a traffic stop in Reno, NV. More importantly, it addresses some questions that arose due to the fact that this particular police officer was under the impression that openly carrying a gun in Reno is illegal (spoiler: it’s very legal). Additional comments and reaction is included below.

I’ve made some spelling, grammar, and punctuation corrections, as well as adding links throughout for informational purposes, but in terms of content, this is the story in its entirety as received:

I moved here about a year ago and have been open carrying in Reno, Nevada since I arrived, never had much trouble had a lot of people come up to me and ask about it.

So, today I decided to register and submit a post (originally on NVCopBlock.org) because on the way home from moving stuff out of storage we got pulled over by a sheriff’s deputy on a motorcycle. He gave us a ticket for my derpy friend not having his registration on him, but otherwise everything went fine.We immediately told him we were both armed and open carrying. He didn’t even draw or look too worried, just told us to put our hands on the dash. Then three seconds later, he told us to get out and switch the license plates around because he had the registration sticker on the front plates not the back. So we did that while he was issuing the ticket.

Open Carry is Completely Legal and Unrestricted in Nevada

Afterwards, he gave us the ticket and asked us why were open carrying and then proceeded to laugh when we told him it was our right and it’s for our own protection etc., etc…He mocked us and said we should just relax and enjoy life sometimes…(Whatever that means?)I then replied, ”well we cant exactly carry you around with us 24 hours a day and 7 days a week, sir.”

We bantered back-n-forth a bit and then, when we were about to leave, he said ”If I really wanted to be an ass, I could cite you for open carrying in Reno, because the Reno city ordinance overrides the state law about open carrying in the state of Nevada.” He then went on to tell us we should look it up and probably not open carry anymore and kept saying ”he was pretty sure it overrides the state ordinance.”

Artist Rendering of the Person who Submitted this Story

When he said that it came off VERY threatening and I wanted to start an argument right then and there, but that probably wouldn’t of been the best idea…I got his name and badge id…if I can do anything with it…

So I started googling….and I’ve researched the laws here A LOT before I even started open carrying…every time I hear something I always look it up…but for a sheriff to bring some BS city of Reno code that overrides the constitution and state law made me research some more…and that’s how I found this thread and I’ve since printed up 10 of your excellent pamphlets! Thanks!

I’m 99.99% certain that he is incorrect…and please correct me if I’m wrong…but how do police, cops, sheriffs, whatever not know the law? This is mind boggling….

ALSO what should I do with a officer who DOESN’T know the law and tries to do something about me legally carrying ?

I wish I would of recorded the whole ordeal…isn’t there like a hotline I can call and it records my stuff? and then I can download the call on my computer?

As stated earlier, it is very much legal to open carry in Nevada, which of course includes Reno. In regards to Reno law taking precedence over state laws, nothing could be further from the truth. The first problem with that idea is that there aren’t any Reno statutes prohibiting open carrying of firearms. The second flaw (and the reason for the first one) is that the State of Nevada specifically restricts local jurisdictions from passing gun laws that impose more severe restrictions on gun rights than those imposed by state law.

NRS 244.364, NRS 268.418, and NRS 269.222 state that the legislature reserves to itself the right to regulate the transfer, sale, purchase, possession, ownership, transportation, registration and licensing of firearms and ammunition in Nevada, and that no county, city or town respectively may infringe upon these rights. (emphasis added)

In relation to the Constitution, we’re unfortunately at the mercy of whoever is interpreting it and in the case of gun laws the Supreme Court interpreted it to mean that states have a right to restrict how and where citizens may exercise the Second Amendment . Which is why there are varying degrees of legality for openly carrying firearms throughout the different states. That’s one of the many reasons why relying on a piece of paper to “protect” your rights is a bad idea.

Fortunately for those of us living in Nevada though, our state has one of the most liberal (in the literal sense) applications of gun laws. In fact, with the exception of the requirement to register guns in Clark County (which has been eliminated since this incident happened and never applied to Reno, regardless), there are no restrictions on open carry within Nevada.

However, less fortunate for us is the reality that it really isn’t that unusual for “police, cops, sherriffs, whatever” to not know the laws that they are planning to enforce and often there’s little or nothing we can do about it. In answer to the question of what you should do when confronted with a heavily armed government employee that doesn’t understand gun laws, my advice would be to assert your rights, while attempting to avoid a violent confrontation that could go very wrong. When in doubt, the safest bet is to wait it out and then file a complaint after the fact (that’s where that name and badge number come into play). Sometimes it can actually make a difference. However, that’s a choice you need to make for yourself.

And of course, we advocate always recording any interaction that you have for police to create a unbiased record of exactly what happened and why. I’m not personally aware of any service that records downloadable audio, but Bambuser has put out a great app that allows you to record and stream live video from your cell phone that is instantly posted to the internets and therefore can’t be erased or tampered with if the phone is confiscated.

Then get that video to us

Pennsylvania Police Cite Man for Exercising Freedom of Speech

The videos and commentary included within this post were submitted by Robert H. Eastman, via the CopBlock.org Submissions page.

Date of Incident: November 25, 2015
Officer Involved: Officer Mack, Sergeant Lesheski
Department Involved: Sharon (PA) Police Department
Contact Number: (724) 983-3210

On 11/25/2015, I was using a small P.A. system to speak about the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. From 9 am to around 3 pm, I stood on the corner of East State Street and Vine Avenue.

After a while and having received lots of general encouragement and thanks from passersby, someone asked that I keep it down. I said I would do my best, but being on main road I still was louder than I wanted to be.

Finally, when I was packing up an officer from the Sharon Police Department approached me. He stated that Mack was his name. He then began to threaten me with arrest or a ticket for disturbing the public because someone had taken offense to me voicing my opinion about the law of the Constitution.

Efficient-GovernmentI informed him that he had no power under the Tenth Amendment to arrest or cite me for any crime, unless it was Constitutional. The rest is all in the video. He threatened to take action if he received any more calls. I told him he would have to and that I was moving down the street. Both videos can be found at the above link to YouTube.

Thank you for your interest in the rights outlined by the Constitution.

– Robert H. Eastman

Part One

Part Two