Queen of the Forest and Hopeful Holidays

Occasionally you come across a little pearl that is worth highlighting. This exchange between the infamous demigod jon and his nemesis Forest Queen, recently on the Humboldt Herald, is one of these pearls.

jon makes the following statement:

"Thanks for the heads up fair wage folks! I swear I will make a meeting in 2014. Good luck on your efforts they are an important first step toward rebuilding our middle class despite every effort of the 1% to have a feudal class for some unknown reason."

The pearl is Forest Queen's response:

"Well Jon, at least you always offer up a perfect segway – “ . . .despite every effort of the 1% to have a feudal class for ‘some Unknown Reason.” “Unknown reason?” This ‘moral superiority’ of yours is a great impediment to momentum for those who are pushing and pulling humanity forward ~from the individual to the collective. You are implying Jon that our localized consciousness is lacking, and that we are globally ignorant. Your stance is invalid. [Emphasis mine]

“To know nothing of the past is to understand little of the present, and to have no conception of the future.” Nothing has changed Jon. The NWO/OWN has been around for thousands of centuries. It’s the same as it ever was . . .the Comfortably Numb slave/Master relationship that many ‘will’ not relinquish to make a stand. 

The NWO advances different ways, at different speeds, in different countries . . . but we are all marching steadily towards total domination by our rulers. REMEMBER, there is no such thing as an arms race between China or Russia and the U.S. There is no competition between those countries against each other. They are all working to advance the use of drones to CONTROL THEIR OWN PEOPLE. The race to build drones is a race to control people, waged by corporate governments on their own people in the common cause of world domination. This is NOT an arms race by governments to protect their own people against other ‘hostile’ countries. China is now referred to as the ‘Middle Empire.’ 

~i regard politicians as frauds and liars. Imagining the overthrow of the current political system is the only way i can be enthused about politics. One free thinking man, Buckmaster Fuller said; “Humanity now faces a choice: oblivion or utopia.” 

We need more critical thinkers. Critical thinking is important because it is logical, therefore includes self-defense, personal empowerment, liberal democracy in civic duty, philosophy, and the search for wisdom. ‘Valid’ vs ‘Invalid’, ‘Strong’ vs ‘Weak.’ Every field has its own specialized terminology and logic is no exception. Gun control, for example, isn’t over what “Policies” will best reduce gun violence, or how to interpret the Second Amendment. The level of resistance is rooted in “fear of government power and control.” The issue then is whether (1) it’s reasonable to think that the Federal Government poses a threat to the American people, and (2) whether private gun ownership has an important role to play in mitigating or neutralizing that threat. 

Edward Snowden vindicated, NSA to shut down in six months. Bless up the Constitution!"

---

If anyone bothered to follow these exchanges on other blogs, SoHum Parlance II for example, I'm afraid you would find what Forest Queen said here and elsewhere was totally lost on this guy. Instead, unfortunately, what you hear is the loud and heavy sucking sound of a large parasite drowning in all that energy, recognition and acknowledgment.

Whenever it looks like the darkness is about to overcome the light, the light shines a little brighter. Here is my raised cup to all the enduring bright lights.
[Source]

--Joe

How To Commit The Near Perfect Murder

First pick your target. It doesn't hurt if the person considered is a low-class doper, but that's not necessary. Make sure you have a club or baton, something of your choice. Be sure to bring with you a back-up protector for a partner that's armed with a deadly weapon - a 9mm is a good choice. Now wait until you find this person someplace where there are no witnesses and attack him with the club. Remember, the most important part. Be sure to let that person take the club from you so that he now has a weapon. Now, just shoot him down like a mongrel rabid dog. Simple as that. Well, it doesn't hurt that the Chief of Police and the District Attorney are your friends either.

Oh! I almost forgot, make sure the person is high on dope. When your victim is all doped up, then everything you do is justified and legal. It doesn't hurt to be protected under a “Stand Your Ground” law, but that's not necessary either, since we don't have such a law in California. One additional note, it doesn't matter if you shoot your victim several times in the back either just as long as you make sure he's still holding the club.

If you think this scenario is just fictional fantasy for a ridiculous interpretation for self-defense justifying murder in cold blood, you need to read the following two Times-Standard newspaper articles of Tuesday, September 25, 2012, DA report finds no unlawful conduct in Fortuna shooting – Gallegos calls death 'an avoidable tragedy' and Thursday, September, 27, 2012, DA's report details officer-involved fatal Fortuna shooting – Autopsy: Newmaker had potentially lethal level of meth in his system.

There is a third article printed Monday, September 25, 2012 with the following quote:

A representative for attorney Dale K. Galipo, who is representing Newmaker's (the dead victim) parents, said that the lawsuit would proceed despite the DA's conclusion. 

“We anticipated that there would not be any findings of wrongdoing on behalf of the officers,” Eric Valenzuela said. “It is very rare that a District Attorney's Office will file charges unless the incident is caught on video and is super egregious.”

Here the DA, Paul Gallegos renders legal judgment and sells out his represented community  for short-term political gain (protect the police at all cost) for long term consequences. He grants the police the defacto right to kill at will forcing the populace to deal with their lawlessness personally. 

I wrote about this at the time: Resist AND Die – Why?  

And: Self-Defense Is a Bitch

You won't find anything about this back-shooting travesty of justice and law on any local blog.

In my book, Fortuna residents get what they deserve as does the rest of Humboldt County. Just don't piss on their religion.
[Picture Source]

--Joe

Good for the Police - Good for Everyone

Today's Times-Standard front page headline says: A question of self-defense - Fickle Hill shooting highlights complexity of state law. Then goes on to detail the following circumstance highlighting the so-call "shooting."
According to the Sheriff's Office a "highly intoxicated" man "wandered into the wrong home, thinking it was his." Quoting the newspaper:

The homeowners -- a 24-year-old male and an 18-year-old female -- were awakened by their dogs barking and quickly realized they weren't alone. The male homeowner then confronted the intruder in the living room, telling him to leave. The man refused, telling the couple to leave his house, according to the sheriff's office.  

The couple then left their home, taking refuge at a nearby neighbor's house, before the male homeowner and his 42-year-old neighbor decided to go back and confront the intruder. According to the sheriff's office, the neighbor grabbed his shotgun for protection.

Important to note what also happened here as detailed by the Sheriff's Office Lt. Steve Knight:

"...the wife at the neighbor's house, reporting the intrusion and stating that her husband the neighbor were returning to the residence." 

Here, the couple clearly did what every sane, responsible person would do in the face of a "highly intoxicated" person who honestly believed he was in his own home and defending and protecting his right to be there, safe and secure. The police were called, the people were in a safe place. Going back with a shotgun forced a fatal or potentially fatal confrontation that, under the circumstance would easily been handled a deputy or two. To claim "self-defense" under such circumstance, regardless of the home-owners rights is TOTAL NONSENSE!

The homeowner and his adult neighbor created or initiated the confrontation, similar to George Zimmerman's shooting of the unarmed teenage boy, Trayvon Martin. Once the couple left their home they ceded any right they may believe they had, specially once they called the police, to deliberately confront what they knew to be a belligerent intruder to reclaim their home. That is why they took the shotgun.

The problem we all have with the continued discussion in the paper by a couple of "law professors" regarding the individual's "right to self-defense" with the use of lethal force against an unarmed man, in particular enforcing what he justifiably believes is his right to self-defense, is the escalating use of lethal force demonstrated by the police and the unilateral dismissal by the District Attorney to justify such police action as essentially justified "self-defense" - they "felt" their lives were threatened when they initiate the unjustified confrontation. Locally the most current situation that comes to my mind was the shooting to death of Jacob Robert Newmaker by Fortuna police officers Maxwell Soeth and Sgt. Charles Ellebrecht discussed on this blog here.

The problem here, is that the District Attorney Paul Gallegos is hung by his own petard when he allows the unjustified use of lethal force by police officers resulting in the deaths of innocent people simple, in most cases, reacting to the police assault by defending themselves in the same way any human being would act.

Clearly, these two individuals, the homeowner and his neighbor, should be in jail charged with, if the man is still alive and remains that way, attempted murder. However, as a life-long believer in the citizen's inherent right to self-defense I find this application really troubling. Reason why? Because of what was also in today's Times-Standard Opinion Page under "From Time To Time" by The Rev. Eric Duff: Visit to fair triggers thoughts on guns. He concludes his social judgment of the Constitutional rights under Law by saying:

No one should be allowed to use or have access to a gun without training. Guns are not toys; they are weapons. There will always be honest people who choose to own guns for legitimate (hunting) purposes. The rest, the hand guns and the repeaters and so on should be limited to security professionals, who have been trained, and who know the consequences for an accidental, or intentional, shooting.  ***

If you own a gun, are legally qualified to use it, and have safety measures in place, by all means have it. What needs to end is the mindless and needless effort to make guns available to anyone who wants one. This doesn't do any good for anyone.

I DO NOT own any gun for "legitimate (hunting) purposes. I do own a legally registered gun for "legitimate (self-defense) purposes. This is the kind of mindless judgments people have come to expect from an elitist religious preacher. Unless you are "trained" so as to "know the consequences" you are unfit, too stupid and incompetent to own let alone use a weapon to defend yourself. It is this kind of mindless thinking that produced the Mubaraks, the Saddam Husseins and the Bashar Assads of the world that cause the current situation in the Middle East and currently in Syria and Mexico. This is what the Reverend Eric Duff's of this country would bring to America. To understand this, you have to go no further than see how the police across America treated the Occupy Movement people.
[Source]

--Joe

Resist AND Die – Why?

[UPDATE II :: March 30, 2012 :: Stand Your Ground and DIE – WHY?]


[UPDATE below - Court ruling offers new details on EPD excessive force case or so says Thadeus Greenson about the murder of Martin Cotton]

Violent exchange culminates in death of a felon – Thadeus Greenson's take on the police shooting of a 26 year old man for doing nothing, but being a felon.

[This is an UPDATE on the posting below: Self-Defense Is a Bitch]

A good explanation for WHY is contained in today's Wednesday, March 21, 2012, Times-Standard: Fortuna shooting investigation continues – Details surface in police deadly force incident, written by Thadeus Greenson.

[A “deadly force incident” means someone got shot and killed by the Fortuna police, okay?]

What kind of an “incident” occurred in Fortuna? According to Greenson, Fortuna Police Chief William Dobberstein said officers were dispatched to a woman's report of a “crazed person banging on the door and yelling and screaming in her front yard.” A scary situation, to be sure, BUT nothing life threatening happening. The question I ask is, did this guy actually commit a crime here? Anything to justify his death? When the police get there the “suspect” is gone.  Nothing more than a little door banging and some hollering from the front yard. But, then notice what happens. The police identify the guy and find out he's “had numerous prior contacts with” the Fortuna police. So now they know who the guy doing all the “door banging and hollering is, (their favorite trashy troublemaking scumbag) Jacob Newmaker.

What happens next? He's spotted by the police “about three-quarters of a mile from the residence where the 911 call originated. No serious threat to anyone there – he's running away. The police chase him on his bicycle, “right behind him with his lights and sirens going.” In the melee he crashes his bicycle and the “officer confront[s] him.” Notice what happens next. Clearly the officer knows he's got a scared and agitated guy trying to stay away. What followed? “An altercation.” What does the officer do to control the situation, where at this point nothing's been done that is life threatening or even a crime? This guy was clearly “confronted” by the police officer. The police officer caused whatever “altercation” that occurred. He used his Taser to “shock” and already agitated individual that "hurts like hell." This is exactly what this agitated person REALLY needed right then, “a pain compliance technique” that "hurts like hell" used on a clearly agitated, or even“highly motivated” suspect.

Was Jacob Robert Newmaker threatening anyone? NO. He was motivated to run, to try to get away from the threatening police officer causing him pain. And that's all they did was cause him MORE pain, “Dobberstein said the officers then tried to get Newmaker into handcuffs, using pepper spray and batons strikes to the legs to try to gain compliance.” “Gain compliance” is just a fancy way of saying, “do what you're told.” That's usually what rapist say to their victims too.  Once the victim complies and submits to the rape, the rapist is justified and exonerated from any crime or criminal act because to victim willingly yielded or went along; complied.

And this is the real problem that caused this man his life. The police clearly using “pain compliance techniques” to effectively torture a person into submitting or yielding – doing what they are ordered to do establishes the lack of legitimate authority to enforce the law and effect a safe and sane arrest. When this country was governed by people that enforced the law, police  officers simple effected the arrest and that was that. Now that they ARE the law they use torture devices to force compliance with their dictates. Resist or question their legitimacy and you most often end up dead.

The most compelling statement in this newspaper report is by Fortuna Police Lt. Matthew Eberhardt: “He was armed with a deadly weapon.” Greenson elaborates: “Newmaker was unarmed until he picked up the officer's baton, at which point he was considered armed and dangerous.” If this statement is true, then these police officers ARMED him and then used that situation to shoot him down like a dog. No different situation then what those two CHP officers did to Felix Omai in Garberville. They initiate a violent attack (what they call an arrest for some crime) then use their attack to justify why they made the attack or so-called arrest.
More importantly, look at yet another descrepency in Thadeus Greenson's reporting. Please note: “At this point, dobberstein said, the initial officer on scene attempted to use his baton to gain control of Newmaker's uncuffed hand, but the suspect was able to grab the weapon. (Note: “grab the weapon” the police officer was using on Newmaker) Quote Dobberstein: “Then, there was a tug-of-war for the baton, and he was able to wrestle it free.” Now note what Greenson says further along in the article: Newmaker was unarmed until he picked up the officer's baton, at which point he was considered armed and dangerous.” Did he wrestle the “weapon” or a “baton” from the officer or did he pick it up off the ground?

This idea that a baton is NOT a weapon in the hands of a “trained” police officer and therefore becomes something “less than a lethal weapon” does not pass the smell test. If a 9mm handgun is a lethal weapon regardless of who is holding it so is a baton. If the police are justified using deadly force against someone holding a baton then anyone legally defending themselves is justified using deadly force. This idea as expressed in Greenson's somewhat propagandized article continuing to soft-pedal another police killing that there is a difference depending upon who is holding the weapon is a classic example of how the Rule of men enforce their law to defend and protect their criminal conduct and special privilege.

Thadeus Greenson, to his credit, did produce a rather all encompassing article. Or, to his discredit slanted and biased the report in his normal fashion. Even so, the part he included from Robert Feliciano, a former training sergeant with the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department who now serves as a qualified expert witness on police us of force is well worth reading and considering. I've included that excerpt at the end of this article.

What's the over reaching message in this, yet another tragedy? I'd start with the general premise issued by the Eureka Chief Murl Harpham when he said we need "tough cops." A general definition of his kind of tough cop was illustrated in the Joseph Cotten murder. Where once again the police crime of murder is passed off as a passé, non responsible act of "excessive force." Then I would go to the heart of how local police officers are trained and how that training engenders a racist, bully-type attitude that is demonstrated in their conduct. In the Robert Newmaker situation that probably starts with Fortuna Police Lt. Matthew Eberhardt. Bottom line, this guy, Jacob Newmaker was vulnerable, the police officers knew that and took full advantage, to this man's death.

---

[UPDATE II Link to The Joe Blow Report - Stand Your Ground and DIE – WHY?]

--Joe

Self-Defense Is a Bitch

Cops don't kill anyone anymore in Humboldt County, they just leave them dead on the street.

Once again, the local newspaper, the Times-Standard soft-pedals the killing by police of another mentally disturbed person. See the front-page Saturday, March 17, 2012, story title: Officer involved shooting leaves Fortuna man dead – REALLY?

Makes it sound like there was some sort of gun battle going on with an officer, or some police officer just happened to be around somewhere when a Fortuna man was found dead. Evestigate the newspaper a little more and you will find that and unknown “26-year-old” was "shot" and “killed.” Why? We quote the newspaper: “[A]s he allegedly attempted to strike officer with a baton” he had taken away from one of the MORE than one officer. Who, apparently, had used all their little toys, to no avail, so they just shot him dead.

In truth, what we simply have here is that, a police officer shot dead a Fortuna man. The bullets that killed the man didn't come out of the blue and somehow “left” the poor guy “dead.” It came from a specific person, a Fortuna police officer. The simple fact is, that an unnamed Fortuna police officer killed that man. NOT some bogus nonsense, "Officer involved shooting leaves Fortuna man dead."

Once again, just like the newspaper's title is misleading, so is their report of the incident. The headline says the dead guy “attempted to strike officer with baton.” So does the reported police news release.

A second officer arrived and joined in the effort to subdue Newmaker in a struggle that became increasingly violent, according to the release, culminating with Mewmaker's allegedly wrestling a baton from one of the officers.
"As the suspect was in the process of attempting to strike the officer with the baton, the other officer fired his weapon at the suspect to stop the atack on his fellow officer," the release states."

Thadeus Greenson, the writer of this news report adds his slant, as tries to justify another police slaying: “Ultimately, an officer fatally shot Newmaker after he took one of the officers' batons and began striking him with it.” This Report has found this kind of biased newspaper reporting from Thadeus Greenson, in particular, to be status quo – NORMAL.

Please note here, the police news release says "As the suspect was in the process of attempting to strike ..." - this is about as remote and ambiguous a NON-THREATENING action as anyone could be involved in that certainly does not pose an eminent threat to anyone's life. "In the process of attempting"? This is total NONSENSE.

The absolute question that begs an answer is, how can “attempting to strike an officer with his, [a police] baton” justify the use of deadly force? Do the police NOT strike, or threaten to strike, people all the time JUST to avoid the use of or the need for or use deadly force? Isn't that why they pack batons?

People need to take a real serious look at what the Fortuna police have done here. When peaceful demonstrators legally exercise their citizen rights and are regularly set upon by the baton-wielding police beating them into submission they are threatening the very lives of these legal, and peaceful demonstrators. Clearly, if the police are justified in this killing under these conditions and stipulated circumstances, then people guilty of NO crime when their lives are threatened by a baton possess the legal right to defend themselves and with lethal force if necessary against any and all criminal assaults. The police in this country and in particular Humboldt County that take great delight brutalizing people, in particular the Occupy Movement people might want to pay close attention to what they are establishing.

--Joe

Impunity Rules Supreme

Times-Standard's Matt Drange reports today that: “Fatal shooting ruled to be justified; report found no unlawful conduct in police shooting of Eureka man.”

This judgment was expected, but it is no less the tragedy. Not because another person is summarily shot down by the police, but because of the defacto license it gives all local police to continue and expand their assault on the general public.

Look at how the District Attorney Paul Gellegos and Assistant District Attorney Wes Keat's use of “after-the-fact” information to demonstrate unsubstantiated and unprovable “intent” to justify the killing, if not murder.

"Sequoia's system helps explain how such a senseless thing takes place,” Keat said in an e-mail to the Times-Standard. “He made it clear in an intense physical struggle over the gun that he intended to use it on the officers. It is a tragic thing but no part of the outcome was the fault of the officers.” [Emphasis added]

Previously EPD Chief Garr “Neilsen said that the report came back as he expected, adding that Sequoia would have killed Coon had the officers not reacted the way they did.”

There is absolutely no proof that what they say was justified at the time of the killing. 

The last time I checked, all law-abiding citizens possess the legal right to own and carry firearms for legal self-defense and other purposes. The reality however, is that in these Northern Counties, the mere possession of such a weapon will get you summarily dead. The police position and implementation, that is continued and justified in this ruling is that WITHOUT any proof of intent, other than simple possession, they are legally justified to act with lethal force.

Since the death of this boy, not one letter was published in the Times-Standard that addressed some of the outstanding issues and questions involved. As far as this community is concerned, no doubt due to how the Times-Standard used “after-the-fact” information to bias their reports, the police were totally justified right from the start.

What they reported is that David Sequoia was, without any justifiable provocation, physically assault by Kris Coon. At that point, Sequoia had the legal right to resort to a weapon in his self-defense. That's point number one. Point two is, neither one of those police officers knew for an absolute fact at the time they shot Sequoia that it was actually his gun. They just plain got lucky. To say he was going to kill Coon or the police officers is an unsubstantiated assumption that led to his unjustified death.

Point three is, Kris Coon's unwarranted and unjust actions mixed with police knee-jerk reaction to use lethal force as a first response caused that boy's untimely death. He is responsible and needs to bear some accountability too. Problem is, the only way you can justify what the police did is justify what Coon did.

The bigger problem that faces everyone, whether they like it or not, is that when people like Kris Coon can get away with going at their neighbor in the same way he obviously did, pits neighbor against neighbor. More than that it tends to make the police the enemy, rather than a friend to call on in a time of need.

The Joe Blow Report has written extensively about this right after the incident. The Report raised some questions, conflicts and contradictions about the incident as reported by the Times-Standard. They reported this outcome as a foregone conclusion - no harm no foul. The cozy relationship expressed in this kind of continued reporting exposes compromised reporters. This community deserves better. Here is the list, starting with the first article:

1. Who Really Killed David Sequoia? – March 19, 2010
2. Basic Freedom: No Right To Touch
3. Personal Safety in Eureka is an Illusion
4. Stacking the Deck – March 24, 2010

What we'd like to know is WHY no one at the Times-Standard or anyone else has not asked these outstanding questions and got some explanations for the rank contradictions. Everyone (mostly) seems to think EPD Chief Garr Nielsen is doing a good job with the police department. How that is justified when he can make this kind of a statement is beyond reason: "It appeared to be a pretty clear-cut case,” Nielsen said. “It seemed from the outset that the officers used necessary force given the circumstances.” When he answers and defines these "circumstances" maybe then he'll have some credibility. Until then, Impunity Rules Supreme.

--Joe

Stacking the Deck

[UPDATE :: TUESDAY, April 6, 2010:  "Eureka" Slaughter NOT an Aberration Either]
[UPDATE Below]

This is the Report's fourth commentary on the police shooting of David Sequoia. No doubt not the last either. The Times-Standard newspaper continues to tell everyone what happened according to the survivor's as if everything they say is the truth. They continue to refer to Sequoia as a criminal “suspect” in the process of assaulting everyone with a gun; “a grave threat.” That is the unsubstantiated opinion Greenson and the Times-Standard continue to publish made by Chief Garr Nielsen. This Report does not dispute the fact that those officers were put into a threatening situation. To say Sequoia put them there is unsubstantiated nonsense.

Thadeus Greenson continues his reports in the Wednesday, March 24, 2010, Times-Standard another one-sided account of what happened to David Sequoia in his article: “Two officers in Eureka shooting identified.”

If you hadn't read all the other reporting with some objective scrutiny or careful consideration you'd think that there was some wild-eyed, pistol-packing criminal type, some thief, rampaging through a peaceful neighborhood, threatening, shooting, attacking and fighting with innocent people, including a local resident trying to protect his family and property, when he was consequentially confronted by the police and subsequently shot when he “twice” pointed “his” revolver at a police officer. All open and above board, totally legal and justified.

Greenson doesn't say that the guy shot in the head execution-style had first been assaulted by the local resident, Kris Coon for simply “lurking about” in the alley. Notice how Greenson twists or slants what Coon earlier reported, “Coon said he wound up in a confrontation with Sequoia, who was still armed with a hand gun.” In another report, Greenson writes, “Once the officers saw the gun, which was still in Sequoia's hands, Coon said they instantly began yelling at Sequoia to drop the weapon.” Nielsen continues, “officers issued numerous verbal commands, and also attempted to physically wrestle the weapon from Sequoia.” Notice now what Coon says about what just transpired, “Finally, Coon said, his grip on the barrel of the weapon began to weaken, and he felt the gun turning toward him.” So what the officers actually saw was NOT a gun in Sequoia's hands, but a gun in both Coon and Sequoia's hands. So why did they jump to the conclusion that the gun belonged to Sequoia and that he was the aggressor? Coon had just said he had jumped Sequoia and slammed him to the ground in the mis-belief that Sequoia was a thief. He does say, however, that when the police officers arrived they found Coon and Sequoia on the ground fighting, as it turns out, over the possession of a handgun. Coon says he had a hold of the barrel, “desperately trying to keep it pointed away from him and his house, where his 12-year-old daughter and wife were inside,” and Sequoia apparently had the gun by its grip, the only way he could fire the gun if he was an actual threat to anyone. Greenson says both officers along with Coon tried to wrestle the gun away and when in the melee Coon supposedly pointed the gun at or near officer Patrick Bishop's face he shot him in the chest. The coroner says that was a fatal shot. When, somehow, Sequoia was still able to bring the gun to bear on Bishop his Sargent Rodrigo Reyna-Sanchez put his gun at the base of Sequoia's head and shot him instantly dead.

On the obvious face of this, what's wrong? First, according to Kris Coon, Sequoia did NOT threaten Coon. Coon “confronted” Sequoia. He freely admits he was the aggressor and jumped without any provocation Sequoia “slamming” him to the ground. Sounds to me like Coon was the stronger of the two. Next Greenson says the police officers, once they too realized there was a gun began wrestling with Sequoia trying to get the gun away from him; immediately identifying him as the “aggressor.” Apparently, this effort was done with only one hand because their other hand held their own guns. Point being, to hear their accounts you would think Sequoia was some kind of super-strong gorilla able to overpower all three men while holding onto the grip or butt of the gun. That would be the part with the least amount of leverage. It seems to me that if Sequoia was able to overpower three men sufficient to threaten their lives, two of the men trained police officers no doubt in good physical condition, he certainly could have overpowered Coon and shot him straight away. He certainly would not have waited to use that gun until slammed to the ground. At that point Sequoia had the legal right to use that gun for self-defense if he so chose. Apparently, according to Greenson, that is what he had just done when confronted in a dispute by two of his supposed friends over on California Street.

This Report is not taking issue with the Eureka City Police officers justifiable right to shoot that man to death given that he was an actual threat. Unfortunately, everything that was said by Kris Coon, the officers involved as reported by John Driscoll, Thadeus Greenson and the concurring statements of Chief Garr Nielsen do not justify that man's untoward death. What they do show is that everyone involved jumped to unsubstantiated conclusions, conclusions totally without merit and acted aggressively on them resulting in the untimely death of that man. That seems to be an inherent problem within the Eureka Police Department that Chief Garr Nielsen has done nothing to fix.

All our lives, regardless of what class, race or religion, are just as valuable as any police officer. No one forced any of these people to be police officers. Doing their job, dealing with ongoing situations of the type involving Coon and Sequoia obviously forces quick, life-changing decisions. That's what they freely and personally took on to themselves. That's part of their job. That is what all taxpayer's pay them to do. That does NOT make them heroes nor does it make them more important or their lives anymore valuable than anyone one else. When people inadvertently or purposely break the law, it is the “LAW” that they offend, not the police officer or the police department. Police officers routinely act like it is a personal affront anytime someone seems to personally impugn them or their integrity. The fact that they wear a badge and carry a gun does not make them god. It's too bad these reporters, and the Times-Standard management, don't understand that fact and report with a little more independent objectivity. In the long run, since it is the responsible thing to do for the community the Times-Standard supposedly serves, they just might save someone's life, even someone like Kris Coon.

[UPDATE :: Monday, April 5, 2010]

Filibuster Lying
What does it mean when we can't get the simple facts from the newspaper anymore? Either the news-conscious public are so inured or dumbed down the media believes they can say anything and everyone will go along. Tragically, the media and their whore-mongering politicians backed up by a corrupt judicial system seem to think they not only have the right to tell people what to think, but HOW to think.

It was this atrocity hitting the American news that began the end to the Vietnam War. That guy with the gun was a South Vietnamese General, Chief of National Police and the man he publicly executed a man in handcuffs ONLY accused of being a Viet Cong soldier. Why? Because the majority of American's couldn't stomach being responsible for such an atrocity. The atrocity wasn't the brutal and summary public murder of that young man, but the blatant, in your face attitude, repudiating rule of law, justice and human rights; everything America used to stand for and that was worth sacrificing your children for. These same atrocities are going on constantly, only this time they are carried out by U.S. forces in other obscure places. This time, because it is American men and women enforcing this despotic system of the wanton butchery of all that is right, decent and legal, while they try to hide behind their so-called rules of a phony war, it's okay to lie, stack the deck and preach incessant propaganda. This is the latest “act” of self-defense in this war against the masses: How Americans are propagandized about Afghanistan - written by Glenn Greenwald and contains the following Headline: U.S.-led forces in Afghanistan are committing atrocities, lying, and getting away with it.

March 22, 2010, by Jerome Starkey, war correspondent for the Times of London. Here's a partial excerpt:

It’s not the first time I’ve found NATO lying, but this is perhaps the most harrowing instance, and every time I go through the same gamut of emotions. I am shocked and appalled that brave men in uniform misrepresent events. Then I feel naïve.

There are a handful of truly fearless reporters in Afghanistan constantly trying to break the military’s monopoly on access to the front. But far too many of our colleagues accept the spin-laden press releases churned out of the Kabul headquarters. Suicide bombers are “cowards,” NATO attacks on civilians are “tragic accidents,” intelligence is foolproof and only militants get arrested.

If you think this kind of crap, lies to justify the murder, only exists in far away places, you'd better open your eyes, look down the street and think again. The local Times-Standard is no better than this:

But far more often, Americans are completely misled about events in Afghanistan by the combination of false official claims and mindless stenographic American "journalism." And no matter how many times this process is exposed -- from Jessica Lynch's heroic firefight to Pat Tillman's death by Al Qeada -- this relentless propaganda machine never seems to diminish.

--Joe

Basic Freedom: No Right To Touch

I opened up my Saturday, March 20, 2010, Times-Standard newspaper to the headlines that said: "I could have been killed so quickly." That statement was made by Kris Coon, the man that attacked David Sequoia. In my book, David Sequoia was the one that was in the right to defend himself against Coon. David Sequoia did absolutely NOTHING to physically threaten Kris Coon and his "family" other than "look scared" and "lurk around" in the alley. The simple truth is the Eureka Police shot the wrong person. They had no way of knowing that the gun was Coon's and that Sequoia was himself fighting for his life. When your involved in that kind of life and death struggle there's no way to hear or recognize a police officer's orders. Both men had a grip on the gun. Coon couldn't drop the gun if he wanted to. The mind is too focused on survival to hear anything. For Chief Garr Nielsen to say, under these circumstances, that Sequoia was pointing the gun at the officers is absolute nonsense.

Coon says, "I was fighting him" WHY? "Because I was thinking he was stealing from my carport." "THINKING" absolutely does NOT justify putting your hands on someone let along FIGHT with that person. Obviously, he was not stealing, he was running for his life. Too bad, Sequoia thought the guy chasing him with a gun was threatening his life, when all the time the real threat was from the guy living on Summer Street that believed he had the right to attack him for lurking in his alley.

It seems there are many people in Eureka that believe they have the right to touch someone whenever they want. Kris Coon, the guy that got David Sequoia or David Barger killed Thursday afternoon in Eureka enforced that right, the right to "search" the young man "lurking around" in the alley near his carport. Coon says he thought Sequoia was trying to steal his tools and demanded the right to search him and his possessions. When Sequoia refused Coon jumped him and threw him to the ground. NO ONE HAS THAT RIGHT! At the least, Coon assaulted that man and at the most caused his untimely death.

Normally, I'd feel real sorry for the EPD officer or officers that shot and killed that boy under these circumstance. They were deprived of their legal right to deal with such issues in a controlled life-saving manner. Normally. Except for the simple truth that these police officers believe, act and enforce the fact that their defacto value superceeds ALL common citizens of this city, county, state or country. Why is it that, in the picture above, that officer is packing an assault rifle?

Not even the police have the right to just walk up and put their hands on someone unless they can prove in a court of law that they had probable cause to do so. Probable cause, in my book, means they have sufficient reason to arrest that person.

My wife and I walk the streets and alleyways of Eureka on a daily basis as do a lot of people, including school children. Does that mean we are all subject to being attacked by worried, paranoid people that simply “think” we are there to harm them? The question is, do we all need a gun and the trained expertise to use it to protect ourselves from our paranoid neighbor's and if so, who is going to protect us from the police that see all guns as a threat to them?

[Picture source]

--Joe