Showing posts with label Humboldt County Sheriff. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Humboldt County Sheriff. Show all posts

Saturday, March 10, 2012

Personhood and the Police

[UPDATE Below - Recognizing Personhood from little gods - What it means to be an American Elite]

Law enforcement officials frustrated with Occupy signs
This is today's Times-Standard frontpage headline for Friday, March 9, 2012. "Law enforcement" being Humboldt County Sheriff Mike Downey and the so-call "Interim Eureka Police Chief Murl Harpham.

This title actually misrepresents "law enforcement's" real frustration. Their issue is really with the District Attorney and the fact they don't have carte blanche or the full discretionary power and unconditional authority to eradicate the Occupy people from Eureka's streets at will. Be assured they are diligently working on a so-called legal solution to rectify that problem and solidify their State police power authority.

We all know their history dealing with the local Occupy Movements - Brutal, Arbitrary and Perverse in total disregard to any legitimate right to peacefully protest or demonstrate. Which, by the way, is the general public's legally provided way to "give direction" to elected representatives.

The following statement in the Times-Standard by Sheriff Mike Downey sheds some light on why.
Downey said he hopes members of the public fed up with the activities in front of the courthouse will go to the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors with their concerns. 
"The public generally is no longer in support of what's going on" Downey said. "The public needs to give direction to the Board of Supervisors." [Emphasis added]
Who is this "fed up public" Sheriff Downey is speaking for or representing? Is this not what the Occupy Movement is trying to do, speak for the general, fed up public? Or is he talking only about the people that financed his election? Why does he and Murl Harpham make a distinction between the Occupy Movement who purport to represent the 99% of Americans and the so-called general "public" who obviously only make up 1%?

Herein lies the crux of the issue and goes right to the heart of what happened to Felix Omai and why. The general population that votes believes that they have some say in matters relative to their existence. In other words, they believe that their vote guarantees their recognition and general personal representation. Or, at the very least, a hearing ear and at least some consideration for their needs and wants. What the 99% don't or won't accept is that their vote, as such, is both redundant and irrelevant. The only vote that counts to all elected representatives is the dollar; the more dollars, the more personhood. They know that the one with the most dollars usually always gets voted into office. Hence the attitude of the elected representative toward their supposed constituents is disparaging, demeaning and belittling consistent to their lying acts of betrayal. They see, if at all, the general population as sub or non-human, not much better than and subject to about as much consideration as mongrel dogs. Throw them a few scraps, or lying promises and they'll rollover on command.

The problem is that the select class of ruling elites do not see nor do they hear anything from such people as make up the likes of an Occupy Movement - people that believe they actually count in this system. Did you notice that the only people mentioned by Sheriff Downey that matters are the few fed up people like him making complaints about the Occupy people? Accordingly, those of the Occupy Movement that are trying to express the wants and needs of the majority of people are considered nothing more than a gang of trouble-makers that are a blight on the community, interfering in the affairs of normal people.

What the Occupy Movement has proven is that there is no reasoning or communicating with City or County governments regardless of what they are currently doing. There's only one way to communicate with these elite, exceptional oligarchy that presides over an ever constricting police state. They, the police and their masters, must FIRST see you as an equal. For that to happen YOU must see them exactly for who and what they are and deal with them accordingly. This reality was demonstrated in superb form in the movie Avatar. I suggest all wannabe Occupy Movement people go see it or see it again and this time take a realistic lesson into what it means to become and act like a person worthy of being seen and heard.

Currently there are 106 comments on the Humboldt Herald for their Quote of the Day:
So with this I am suspending all efforts to do anything with the continued assault on the courthouse, the employees and the general public due to the immunity given to them by your [the District Attorney's] office. — Humboldt County Sheriff Mike Downey in a letter to DA Paul Gallegos regarding the ongoing Occupy Eureka protest outside the courthouse.
Check out some of the local blog-talkers if you think what they say is representative of local opinion. In particular I recommend the comment by Janell Eggar. As someone in the mix or on the firing line, she makes or proofs my article and reason for writing it. Before you can ever hope to talk to someone, let alone communicate with them, you must FIRST get their attention. Only an authentic, legitimate person can do that.

[UPDATE :: Thursday, March 15, 2012 – Link to SoHum Parlance II – Estelle Event in Fortuna]

Here is the initial statement I made and Eric's reply. 


Still promoting the auction, I see…

Voted in every election since I turned 18 Joe. It’s not even just about politics. It’s part of what it means to be American. So yes, I’m still “promoting the auction.” Always.

Currently there are over 70 comments on this thread. Many of the comments associated with the above exchange deal with the issue of "Personhood." Without the acceptance and recognition of EQUAL personhood, whether it be by individuals, communities or nations, there can be no meaningful communication and certainly NO peace. Many of the comments and their writers clearly demonstrate the war-mongering attitude of the elitist bully constantly striving to control everyone and everything. To these people, intellectual and ideological diversity and exchange is their pariah. So, be warned.

Once the difference between the common American individual (one of personhood, that of individual legitimacy and value) and the Elitist American God, so aptly demonstrated in this blog thread, I closed down further conversation on Eric Kirk's blog. The simple truth is, there is absolutely nothing you can say that these kinds of self-centered oligarchic elitist will ever hear as long as they believe they are a god. I found it quite interesting that, with just a little coaxing from me, Ernie Branscomb identified and defined this as the very issue alienating him that he thinks justifies his constant litany of degrading, racist insults. 
--Joe

Friday, January 7, 2011

The Arrogance of Stupidity – Lemmings and Lunkheads


Lemmings:
“Because of their association with this odd behavior, (mindlessly marching over cliffs) lemming suicide is a frequently used metaphor in reference to people who go along unquestioningly with popular opinion, with potentially dangerous or fatal consequences.” 
Lunkhead:
"a stupid person; these words are used to express a low opinion of someone's intelligence." 

When I read comments such as this one in the Friday, January 07, 2011, Time-Standards' Letter to the Editor, “Any answer from the Sheriff's Office?” I am really forced to sympathize with police officers and their thankless job today. I give daily thanks that I don't have to make a living on the road anymore when I read some of these kinds of letters (The merging lane lemmings infect McKinleyville by David R. Young) recently appearing in the Times-Standard newspaper.

When I drove commercial vehicle interstate and whenever I encountered these kinds of drivers, immediately a big neon sign began flashing all over their vehicles: HAZARD! These people are a wreck waiting to hurt or kill someone, driving around in their arrogant, self-righteous, judgmental stupor. Notice what he says in his very first two sentences: “Recently I was traveling south on the 101 corridor I was going 51 miles an hour and behind me was a sheriff's patrol car. I was in the left lane and we continued on for some time with him behind me.” Anyone with a modicum of sense, consideration and decency, not to mention a working understanding of law governing traffic and driving in California, when seeing any police car come up behind you when driving in the left lane, GETS OVER AS SOON AS POSSIBLE! 

Of all the things that define Mr. Huber, this is the one that inspired this blog observation: " ... [I]f both lanes are by miles an hour there is no fast lane you can ride in either on there is no law that I know of that stipulates you must be in the right hand lane is there?" Notice it NEVER crossed his mind to get over to let the faster traffic go by. As long as he was mostly obeying the speed limit everyone else could go to hell. That's why we have laws, to deal with these kinds of people. Maybe one of Mr. Huber's friends will give him a CA Driver Handbook and mark the laws that govern this issue. I rather doubt even that would do any good. He certainly didn't accept the trained police officer's authority on the matter.

Notice the arrogant disclaimer that defines his actual state of mind when he wanted to know how he could be impeding traffic in what he says was a 50 MPH zone when he was really doing a measly “ONE” mile over the speed lime. James Huber says: “His answer was: “I flashed you twice with my bright lights to pull over. You did not respond.” Now this was at 7:30 p.m. I surely would have noticed that he did not flash me.” He admits he was holding up traffic, speeding and then he calls the Deputy a stupid liar. Moreover he then has the audacious temerity to get it published in the local newspaper. [Emphasis added]

The law is specific on these matters regardless of whether or not you are going the speed limit. The problem with these kinds of drivers is that they think they are the traffic cops with the right to tell everyone else how to drive, but when they get pulled over, Katie bar the door! Problem with this kind of mentality is that no one is morally, ethically or legally endowed with the right to tell anyone how to drive. It is the “law” tells everyone how to drive. All the police do is enforce the law – BIG DIFFERENCE.

When you take it upon yourself to judge law by deliberately violating that law as if you have the right, you judge law. The LAW gives that right to only a select few people and they are the Supreme Court Justices. So when people, like these guys, take it upon themselves to judge law they subvert the authority and legitimacy of the law and everyone that enforces and judges those laws. Is it any wonder, then, why the courts and enforcement officers get personally offended when dealing with such people?

Clearly this officer was trying to do this “man” a favor. Does he appreciate the gift? Hardly. He sends a letter to the newspaper and fully expects some sort of apology from the Sheriff. That officer would have done EVERYONE a favor by giving this guy a ticket. And if I had my way, forced him to be interviewed by the DMV for competency and made to take written and driving test to prove his right to a driver's license.

I've driven in some states where the Sheriff's officers enforced traffic laws same as the Highway Patrol. I'd like to see more of that in Humboldt County. Far too many times I witness Highway Patrol officers just roll by people trying to bully trucks and other cars on the highway. Sheriff's patrol cars are, it seems to me, less obtrusive then the CHP and people are not expecting them.

Personally, I've been commercially licensed from the first day I was legally eligible and still carry a Class A license.

Here's a copy of the letter by James Huber of Fortuna, CA:
Any answer from the Sheriff's Office?
Letter to the Editor
Posted: 01/07/2011 09:13:24 AM PST

Recently I was traveling south on the 101 corridor I was going 51 miles an hour and behind me was a sheriff's patrol car. I was in the left lane and we continued on for some time with him behind me. And to my amazement about halfway through he threw on his lights on to pull me over, which I did immediately. Upon pulling over the officer approached the car and asked me the obligatory question, “Do you know why I pulled you over.” (I thought to myself if I knew I would not have done it) I said no officer what have I done. His response was, “You were impeding the flow of traffic.” I was shocked. I asked how could I be impeding the flow of traffic if I am going 51 miles an hour and the speed limit is 50 miles an hour. His answer was: “I flashed you twice with my bright lights to pull over. You did not respond.” Now this was at 7:30 p.m. I surely would have noticed that he did not flash me. Secondly this officer never approached far enough up to my window so I could see his badge number or name he always stood at the post between the front and rear door of my vehicle. Luckily I was not ticketed. He said this would be a warning but a warning for what? Are you supposed to go faster than 50 miles an hour posted how fast should you go I have known people who have gotten tickets for going 52 miles an hour and if both lanes are 50 miles an hour there is no fast lane you can ride in either one there is no law that I know of that stipulates you must be in the right hand lane is there? Would love to see an answer from the Sheriff's Department on this.

James Huber
Fortuna
 [Source]
--Joe

Friday, August 13, 2010

It's Official – Shooting Justified

Short notice on second page of the Friday, August 13, 2010, Times-Standard says: “Deputies going back on duty after shooting death.”

Another press release statement from the Sheriff's office reveals Sheriff Gary Philp's decision: “After reviewing physical evidence, officer statements and witness statements, Sheriff Gary Philp decided to return seven-year veteran Deputy Dave Lundie and Deputy John Fomasi to regular duty, according to a Sheriff's Office press release. Philp determined that neither deputy violated Sheriff's Office policy or procedure during the incident.” [Emphasis added]

“Press release” information doesn't provide much if any opportunity to ask the Sheriff any questions. Surely, there are people in this community that would like to know what “policy or procedure” justifies using lethal force to shoot someone for “refusing to comply with officers' orders”? I know I would. Be nice if the Sheriff would produce the “metal handle of a garden rake” so everyone could see the real threat that suppposedly confronted these officers that a three-foot heavy guage steel or 3/4 inch lead pipe could.

 Again we see the Times-Standard's propensity for their play on words when reporting on police action in this community. In the above referenced article they state: "He was shot multiple times after allegedly approaching officers aggressively with the metal handle of a garden rake [...]." That statement is considerably different than the "broken" three-foot" piece of a "handle" reported earlier. By the way, my rake handle is five feet long, it's not metal, but it's not a child's toy either.  For the record, the Tuesday, August 10, 2010, newspaper article reported that Sheriff's Lt. Steve Knight said it, “looked like a three-foot metal pipe.” He also says that Robert Garth was close enough to these officers that, “at one point, had contact with one of the officers.” So, they could clearly see if that “handle” constituted an actual deadly threat. It obviously DID NOT constitute such a threat to the victim – the guy that called in the assault.

Since this action by the Sheriff establishes a baseline for the justifiable use of lethal force, i.e., the mere perception of some sort of fear induced threat or failure to immediately comply with an order, this community needs to see and know exactly what the Eureka Police Department and Sheriff's Office's policies and procedures are. If nothing else, they certainly need to be explained for everyone's protection. Be interesting to see if there's any kind of follow-up by the Times-Standard or any other local media outlet on this latest incident and the related questions that have serious implications for everyone in this community.
--Joe

Tuesday, August 10, 2010

Lethal Force – Always the First Resort

... or:
Shoot first, ask questions later.

[UPDATE Below]

What's it take to get shot by North Coast police officers? What do we learn, if anything, from the latest reported police killing of Robert Garth on Saturday, August 7, 2010, by Humboldt County Sheriff's deputies?

First, by the time the deputies arrived at the scene of the incident, he apparently, as it was reported to the deputies, had a broken rake or garden tool handle in his hand that he'd been using to assault another man. Apparently, that man had time during the ongoing assault to call 911 and tell them about being assaulted with a rake. The report is he was treated at the hospital for head and chest wounds. The garden tool handle caused physical damage, but apparently not life threatening, since he declined medical assistance at the scene. Apparently, the assault with the "garden tool" didn't hurt him enough that when the deputies arrived that he couldn't “run away” as he is reported to have done. Was the rake handle a “deadly weapon”? Usually, such metal garden tools are made of flimsy material, as testified to by it breaking. Did it even matter? As soon as he turned on the deputies, the guns came out.

Who in their right mind, holding a flimsy piece of metal, advances on two police officers with drawn guns pointed directly at your heart? It is also reported that he was barefoot. Next, he was shot multiple times apparently by BOTH officers because he “kept advancing.” Apparently, Robert Garth was in “close” enough “proximity” so as to touch one of the officers. Are you telling me that they couldn't determine what Garth had in his hands and that two highly trained able-bodied Sheriff's deputies could not easily “stop the threat” or disarm this guy if they wanted? How much harm was he going to do after being shot a couple times? Where's the mortal threat here?

The Times-Standard's Thadeus Greenson reports that “Garth was arrested a number of times over the past handful of years, including arrests that resulted in convictions for possession of a deadly weapon and obstructing a peace officer in 2007 and for battery in 2005.” Robert Garth had a history with the local police. The question is, did these deputies know this guy?

Finally, notice “who” caused the deputies to fire their weapons: “Knight (Sheriff's Lt. Steve Knight) said the deputies repeatedly instructed Garth to drop his weapon but he did not comply and kept advancing, causing the deputies to fire on him as they retreated backward.” This is probably the most telling statement in the Police Press Release account of the incident. These deputies showed absolutely no capacity or intention to disarm Garth without using lethal force. As demonstrated, if he did not immediately do what he was told, he was dead. As far the the officer's were concerned their responsibility to this person ended right there. You either instantly submit or you die – simple as that. This man was obviously not rational and clearly posed a threat to others as well as to HIMSELF. Whatever happened to the police priority to protect and defend those that are not only a threat to others, but to themselves? [Emphasis added]

What, then, poses a “threat” to a police officer? This is important because the general public needs to know how to interact with these officers in order to protect their safety and lives. The fact that these deputies, as Knight says, “We're trained to stop the threat [...].” Begs the question, what does he say defines that “threat” in the context of their, police officer training and general attitude toward the general public? He says, “[T]hese officers were in fear for their safety, and in fear for their lives.” [Emphasis added]

Accept what he says, just for a second, that this is a valid reality. What in the hell does that say about the legitimacy and mental state of mind of the police officer's ability and capacity to safely enforce the law in this community? What triggers a “threat” to “personal safety”? They decide what or that there even is a “threat” according to their perceived “fears.” What actually puts these officers into “fear” for personal safety or life? Notice “lethal force” is activated for simple issues of “personal safety.” What are this “issues”? Non-compliance with officer “instructions,” that's all.

We've all experienced "fear" at one time or another in our lives. Fear caused by a genuine "threat" to one's "life," however is an extreme experience one usually never forgets. That is a different experience than "fear" caused by a "threat" to one's "safety." Here's the definition to fear:
1. a distressing emotion aroused by impending danger, evil, pain, etc., whether the threat is real or imagined; the feeling or condition of being afraid.
2. a specific instance of or propensity for such a feeling: an abnormal fear of heights.
3. concern or anxiety; solicitude: a fear for someone's safety.
What do we learn in this latest incident?

What I learned is that we have police officers operating on a hair-trigger in our community and that we live here at our own risk or peril. They justify the “shoot-first, ask questions later” based upon the “value” of their own perceptions of personal safety and NOT that of the general public they are supposed to serve and protect. That means, that anytime you do not instantly do what a police officer tells you to do, regardless of what that might be, you run the risk of lethal force – dying.

Does that remind anyone of the time your father told you to do something and when you didn't instantly move you got smacked upside your head or worse? It didn't take many “smacks” to learn that you NEVER threaten you father's authority; you never made your parent's look bad. Is that the kind of authoritarian society we live in today? Or, for that matter, want to live in?

More importantly, since we need the police, this kind of policing has negative consequences for them as well. While they may all answer to their respective governments, they need the community's backing and our personal support for legitimate operation and authority. Why they can't see that, I don't know. When this relationship is reduced to “it's either us or them,” we're in serious trouble. The picture in the newspaper says it all.

[UPDATE Thursday, August 12, 2010]

Initially, I had decided to let this shooting incident pass until I read in the paper how long it was before the police removed the body. That seemed rather unreasonable and disrespectful to the family. It also demonstrated "attitude," attitude that's consistently demonstrated in the above picture. What stands out is the effort of the policing authorities to make sure they did everything they could to protect and justify the shooting. It's going to be interesting to see if the forensic evidence is consistent with the officer's stated accounts.

Here are a couple of links with more information:

  1. The Reporta:  Story:  Aftermath of the Blue Lake Shooting
  2. Redwood Curtain Cop Watch:  Story  Sheriff's Officers Opened Fire On Robert Garth: "The cops didn't even give him a chance," says witness neighbor.
Let's see if there is any followup from the Times-Standard. Or are they going to continue to publish the unquestioned press releases as fact.
--Joe


Meaning of "first resort": "To have recourse."
"Shoot first, ask questions later" - Unintended consequences.
Versus: "Last Resort."
Times-Standard Articles: 1) Saturday, August 7, 2010: Deputies shoot, kill suspect near Blue Lake
2) Sunday, August 8, 2010: Deputies shoot man on SR 299
3) Tuesday, August 10, 2010: Blue Lake man shot on 299 identified

[Image: Great photo from the Times-Standard]