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

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

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]

What Is A Sandbagger?

What! Sandbagged again?

According to and sourced at the Dictionary of American Slang and Colloquial Expressions, Online Etymology Dictionary and the American Heritage Dictionary:

1. to force someone to do something. : I don't want to have to sandbag you. Please cooperate.
2. to deceive someone; to fool someone about one's capabilities. : Don't let them sandbag you into expecting too little.
3. To downplay or misrepresent one's ability in order to deceive someone.
4. A bully pretending weakness to affect a sneak attack by ambush.

Also involves the idea of: "Ambush" -- The Thesaurus main word is: "robber" = "a person who steals."

So here we have sneaky, deceptive, conniving, bully or thug, a thief that works in the dark, lays in wait, that uses force to stab you in the back, to make you comply with what they want.

The following is a brief history and description of a "sandbagger" taken from a golfing website called, of all things the, Sandbagger. 

Sandbag and Sandbagger are terms used in three primary fields of endeavor in this article:
1) Golf.
2) Gangs and street toughs or thugs. (how it is applied here)
3) Poker

Golf:
1. Generally, any golfer who misleads others about his ability level, claiming to be worse than he actually is at golf.
2. More specifically, a golfer who artificially inflates his handicap index in order to better his chances of winning tournaments or bets.

A sandbagger is considered by many to be the lowest form of life on a golf course. Sandbaggers can inflate their handicap indexes by selectively leaving out their best rounds of golf when they post scores for handicap purposes.

Then, when the sandbaggers enters a tournament, they show, for example, a handicap index of 18 when, in fact, their true “Sandbagger” handicap might be closer to, as an example, 12. Voila, they've just bought themselves 6 extra strokes off their net score, and lowered their odds for winning their flight or the tournament.

Sandbaggers are, at base, cheaters and hustlers.

Golfers who are found out to be sandbaggers are often ostracized and always berated and looked down upon. Winning a tournament or bet in this fashion is called "sandbagging." A golfer who has won by sandbagging is said to have "sandbagged" his opponents.

What is the Origin of the Term "Sandbagger"?

A sandbagger is a nasty species of golf vermin who lies about his true playing abilities - making himself seem worse than he is - in order to gain advantage in tournaments or bets. We all know what a sand bag is, but how did bags of sand enter the golf lexicon?

First, the word doesn't derive from the type of sand bags we're all familiar with. It's not the defensive sand bags - those used for flood control, lining foxholes, and so on - but the offensive sand bags that give us the word "sandbagger."

Gangs and street toughs of the 19th century used sand bags as a weapon of choice. Take a sock or small bag, fill it with sand, wrap it tightly, and wail away on someone (well, don't actually wail away on someone, but imagine that you are) and you'll see how effective a weapon a small sand bag can be.

Gang members used such weapons to intimidate their foes or average citizens. To threaten and bully the populace.

This definition of sandbagger - a person who uses a sand bag as a weapon - can still be found in many dictionaries; it's the first definition for the word in most older dictionaries.

But the word didn't go directly from its gangland origins into golf; there was an intermediary step in its adoption by the sports world, and golf, to mean someone who misrepresents his ability to gain an advantage.

According to the website Word-Detective.com, that intermediary step was:
Poker.

Say you're in a poker match and you're dealt a fantastic hand. If you place a huge bet right off the bat, you might scare most of your poker mates into folding. Instead, you might choose to bet small amounts, hoping to keep your opponents in the match, increasing the pot, up until the moment you show your cards.

As Word-Detective.com puts it, the poker meaning "... described a player who held off raising the stakes in order to lull the other players into a false sense of security. The poker sandbagger would pounce late in the game, clobbering the other players with his good hand."

The poker player, in other words, misled his opponents about how good his hand was ... until it was time to whip out the "sand bag" and beat those same opponents with it.

And that's how "sandbagger" came to have its golf meaning.

Would-be Sandbaggers come in all forms, sizes and shapes.  I wonder if we got one sneaking aroung the Report? [Source]

--Joe