Resisting Arrest - Sitting Down

One of the more disturbing trends since 9/11 is the idea that somehow just because you wear or carry a badge, i.e., police, fireman, or dog catcher you're automatically a hero. Now, for getting paid to do the job men and woman have been doing for hundreds of years, they're somehow special. For some reason their lives take on a value way beyond that of the people they are there to serve and protect.

This blurb (Twit) came across Twitter the other day and caught my attention: "Officers' safety comes first, and not infringing on people's rights comes second." - Lt. Fran Healy, Philly Police -- http://bit.ly/bONda1

Officer "SAFETY" trumps "PEOPLE'S RIGHT"? Since when? The first RIGHT of the PEOPLE is their SAFETY. Isn't that what these people are there to protect and defend? Isn't that the new name for police departments anymore? Department of Public Safety? Notice the word "public" - NOT "police" safety. The problem in most of these cases, "police safety" is not the actual issue. All that is required for the police to deploy lethal force is their fear of some, as yet undefined, threat. The guy had a gun in his belt, or was packing a rifle and turned to look at who was hollering at them and in another case the guy had a broken piece of a metal rake handle in his hands, who was close enough to an officer that he could have put his arms around him.

Unfortunately for everyone, this is NOT an unarmed and in many cases untrained society. What the authorities with their "better safe than sorry" policy has done is take everyone back to the days of the Wild, Wild West. That "shield" they're given has meaning; it represents something important, more important than the person wearing it or at least it used to. At that time it provide far more protection than "some cop with an attitude" or any fancy bullet-proof vest, pepper spray, billy club, fancy sophisticated weaponry and training, Taser, or high-powered guns.

The Times-Standard newspaper's Donna Tam, this time, reports today, Wednesday, September 9, 2010, that: Eureka Police Department arrests man on six charges - Sounds like they got another bad one. It only took three or four officers and a little pepper spray to get the job done. They only had to beat him up a little bit. At least they didn't Taser him to death like what took place in Seattle, WA: Another Death From A 'Non-Lethal' Taser.

Donna Tam says, "Sims reportedly waved down Eureka Police traffic officer Tim Jones while he was driving on Buhne Street in Eureka. Jones conducted a traffic stop, but Sims did not stop until William Street, between C and D streets" From the sounds of it, you'd think the guy wanted to get arrested. Which is probably a good thing. It's "those kinds of people" that make driving in Eureka so enjoyable. Officer Tim Jones needs to be commended. In fact, all the officers need to be commended for showing some restraint. (From the looks of the picture I can well understand why "Sims suffered minor injuries" after being pepper sprayed. I guess what Donna Tam meant was it took three officers to "immobilize" Leroy Sims.) Many times such people are really only asking for help in the only way they know how. In this day and age that's kind of like playing Russian roulette.

No one in our American Society legally gave the police the right of summary accuser, prosecutor, judge and executioner.

[Picture Source & Source]

--Joe

Tazer Torture

[UPDATE Below]

Death on the North Coast

As reported in the Times-Standard newspaper, Wednesday, June 23, 2010: Del Norte man dies in Taser incident.

Incidentally, the Times-Standard also tweeted: @eurekaTS: Our most-read story today is about the Del Norte man who died from a Taser incident.

Here again a sick person is killed by the police incompetently trying to affect an arrest. According to the Times-Standard as told to them by the Del Norte Sheriff's Office, “...the deputies found Daniel Sylvester, who became violent and assaulted the deputies.” Why is the report always the same? They knew going in, again as reported, “...a 911 call regarding a man with a history of psychological problems who was 'out of control' – when they got there “the reporting party” ... “were scared and had left.” Uniformed and armed police officers confronting such a person in such a situation always pose a threat to the sick person. So, why is it that the very first thing they do is “deploy a tazer”? Even sane normal people when really angry are not prone to immediately submit to some officers order when they believe the officer is unreasonable. Hell, you can't even ask one of the guys a question without threatening them or their perceived authority.

Here again is a classic example of the standard use application of tasers by the police. Taser guns are often used by police as a compliance tool on unarmed individuals who pose no deadly threat, who are drunk or on drugs and simply quarrel with officers.

This idea that this or any other person is guilty of some crime just because a police officer decides to confront someone is taking our normal relatively peaceful communities into the same reality that this country brought to Iraq and Afghanistan – Shoot first and explain it away after. Personally, while I and my family support the police and always look to them as our first line of defense, we certainly do not want to live is some sort of bastardized police state.

Two well-trained, able-bodied police officers BEFORE receiving Tazers, where there was absolutely no justification for lethal force, would have simply taken control and enforced that sick man's arrest. Why? Because they weren't there to protect their thin skins as a first priority. They were there to HELP that sick person. And not by first torturing that poor person to death because he or she didn't respect and instantly comply or obey their every command and dictate. Those two deputy Sheriff's officers might as well have done the same thing the two Eureka Police officers did to David Sequoia, simply put a gun to his head and execute him. It amounts to the same thing – they're both dead and for the same reasons.

As long as the police are unable to do their jobs without people first giving them that right, there are going to be many more unnecessary deaths. The police, the individual police man or woman are NOT the Law. They enforce the law. There is a difference. They are not accuser, prosecutor, judge, jury or executioner. So how it, that is how they conduct themselves when they enforce their legal mandate when someone refuses to immediately so what they want?

Websites of interest:

1. Police Brutality (and Atrocity) Blog
2. Electrocuted While Black  "Tracking and reporting on pre-trial, extra-judicial death penalty, because it's 21st century lynching, by another name."
3. Tazer International Advisory Bulletin - Issued to police October 12, 2009.
4. Use of Force Continuum - 6 level specific process police follow.
5. Amnesty International's continuing concerns about Taser use. U.S.A. use of taser.

[UPDATE :: Tuesday, June 6, 2010]

Mother of man Tased and killed in Del Norte speaks out – now we get the other side of the story.

Why are the witness accounts always different than the police official reports? The Times-Standard's John Driscoll reports that the mother, who initially called the police and told them of her son's mental state of mind before the engaged him says, “her son was backing away from deputies.” So what obscure, nonsensical reason could this person possibly be doing that made these officers believe he was attacking them, that they were “fighting for their lives”? You think maybe he raised his voice a little and told them to stay away? Fear can do that you know?

 --Joe

Taser Torture or Monster Bash?

More is definitely better. This is the Taser X3. "On Friday, Taser International held a demo day at the Alameda Sheriff's Office Regional Training Center in Dublin, Calif., to show off some of the latest in electronic control devices." So says ZDNet Photo Galleries.

Upgrade to semi-automatic!

The Taser X3, the newest device with multishot technology, goes beyond the single-shot capabilities of first-generation tasers and provides the ability to deploy a second and third cartridge immediately. Also, it can simultaneously zap three bad guys at once.

If you click the link above this is what you will read:

TASER X3

The X3 is a revolutionary new multi-shot ECD that can engage multiple targets, display Warning Arcs™ while loaded, and deliver a calibrated Neuro Muscular Incapacitation (NMI) pulse that results in improved safety characteristics. While the X3 offers enhanced firepower over existing ECDs, it also represents a quantum leap in sensor and computation power – making it by far the most intelligent hand-held force option ever developed.

Doesn't that just stop your heart? NO? Well what do you think about this long-range solution called the XREP? That means, Extended Range Electronic Projectile.  How would you like to get shot with a 12 gauge shotgun and then get electrocuted. If that doesn't stop you heart I don't what will.

Taser International says its XREP (Extended Range Electronic Projectile) is the most technologically advanced projectile ever deployed from a 12-gauge pump-action shotgun. The self-contained, wireless electronic control device fires accurately up to 100 feet and attaches itself to the target before deploying its charge.

This is nifty!

 The energy from the impact of an XREP breaks a series of fracture pins, which release the main chassis of the XREP projectile. After impact, the casing falls away and six Cholla electrodes automatically deploy to deliver Neuromuscular Incapacitation over a greater area of the body.

 How about The Taser Shockwave system that utilizes the frightening-sounding Taser X26 Neuromuscular Incapacitation technology?

Now this get our attention! According to these people "Shockwave is the first generation of a technology called Remote Area Denial (TRAD). The Shockwave unit seen here can be locked together, forming an even larger bank for stand-off capability. It's triggered via a 100-meter firing wire, so you can set it up and wait in the bushes for your target."

"Sit in the bushes"? Are they hunting deer or pigeons? How would you like to get hammered by a couple or three Taser X26 right out of the blue?

Make you think about wandering around in the bushes where they're growing pot doesn't it? Or how about what's involved joining in on some worthwhile demonstration that's protected by the US Constitution?

--Joe

Legal Extortion – Fine on Suspicion

[Update below]

“Assessed immediately” and “held accountable” Police Chief Garr Nielsen says. You can read the latest “guilty by suspicion” from Allison White for The Times-Standard in the Friday, October 2, 2009, edition: “EPD to fine DUI drivers for emergency response.”

This is as clear-cut an example as you can get of how the government perverts the law and uses their taser-wielding enforcers to extort money. It starts by picking some part of our socially-rejected underclass, in this case supposedly drunk drivers, and singling them out for special treatment. Then authorize any unfortunate encounter with any of these “enforcers” as a suspicious situation, thus making the reject a suspect and now it's open season. Oh! There's a minor regulation supposedly regulating what can and can't be done, but the general outcome has proven they are mostly ignored.

Notice how it's all justified by saying the small fee, $350 is authorized by CA State Law. Just make sure you are in Eureka and the EPD is handling your “emergency response.” Get the CA Highway Patrol involved and you could be paying $12,000!

It's the perversion of the law that is astounding. Eureka City Attorney Sheryl Schaffner says that this fee collection on suspicion is “civil and not criminal.” That's why the “threshold for evidence is not as great.” And takes the cake, “The stakes are also different. Civil consequences are generally money; it not going to cost you your liberty.” Really? We'd like to know just exactly how she defines “liberty.” I guess it's okay with her to walk around naked, homeless and starving – just don't get thrown in jail.

More importantly, how is it that the individual police officer now has the authority and legal right to be accuser, prosecutor, judge and jury in civil matters bypassing all the safeguards the “law” is supposed to provide? Notice how she hedged answering how the “suspect” gets their money back when found “not guilty” of anything. She said, “it is unclear how someone would contest the fee, but there is usually an administrative appeal process through the EPD.” The EPD is going to admit they took the money when they did not have the legal right and then give it back? Not likely. That's what proves the extortion.

Here's the definition of "extortion":

The 'Lectric Law Library's Lexicon
EXTORTION - The use, or the express or implicit threat of the use, of violence or other criminal means to cause harm to person, reputation, or property as a means to obtain property from someone else with his consent. USC 18

The Hobbs Act defines "extortion" as "the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right." 18 U.S.C. S 1951(b)(2).

Don't get us wrong, here. We believe drunk drivers as well as all criminals, either admitted or judged and convicted by a just court should be held accountable. That's why we have judges. They are to dispense punishment whether physical loss of freedom, financial or both in accordance with the law when the law justifies such punishment. Not put it off on the police to enforce some vague civil law, that according to them, won't fill the “general fund” coffers. What it won't do is get a serious backlash for fines sufficient to deter drunk driving should the general populace that drinks and drives realize their jeopardy.

But then how can you not justify this kind of knee-jerk, “the end justifies the means,” way of trying to deal with the lawlessness that pervades our streets? It starts out with “money.” What's next? A summary beating or multiple taserings because the suspect is disobedient and uncivil? More importantly, whose next? The homeless?

[Photo source - Brian Fairrington, Cagle Cartoons]

UPDATE :: Wednesday, October 7, 2009

Here is this opening portion of the "Taser Policy" posted at Civil Liberties Monitoring Project:

308.5 TASER GUIDELINES
When properly applied in accordance with this policy, the Taser is considered a non-deadly control device which is intended to temporarily incapacitate a violent or potentially violent individual without causing serious injury. It is anticipated that the appropriate use of such a device will result in fewer serious injuries to officers and suspects.

Notice the words emphasized: "control device" "incapacitate" WHO? "violent or POTENTIALLY violent" WHO? "suspects" -- Suspicious individuals with a "potential" for "violence." Does that include the potential for verbal violence? Or are they talking about simple non-cooperation?

Be interesting to know what the EPD guidelines are. Couldn't find them posted on the Internet.

--Joe

Tasers and Excessive Force

The Report has discussed Taser use in the past. We firmly believe that Eureka City Police use of Tasers does NOT serve to protect the best interest of the community or its citizens. When will the EPD arm and certify use of the new Taser gun -- called the Shockwave -- a powerful crowd-control weapon?

"With the push of a button at a stand-off distance of up to 100 meters, the Shockwave unit deploys multiple standard TASER® cartridges that are oriented across an area arc. Full area coverage is provided to instantaneously incapacitate multiple personnel within that region."

Tasers Are the New Killers: Watch Their Popularity Surge!

As Taser use proliferates and deaths grow, lack of police accountability becomes a serious problem. Continuing to argue that Taser's are safe is:

... allowing Tasers to occupy a gray area -- not lethal except when they are -- will make it that much harder for police to be held accountable for excessive force and homicide. Cops already get away with shooting suspects dead with little to no consequences. Arming them with Tasers under the pretense that they are safe will only perpetuate this trend as inevitable deaths occur.

Like "pre-emptive" arrests, the 50,000-volt Tasers that London police are carrying as they stand off with G20 protesters this week may be seen as a necessary precaution. But the past several years have shown the slippery slope governments create in the name of security.

This issue seems most appropriate for Humboldt County with its sordid history of impunity and lack of accoutability as Taser use emphasizes police safety rather than that public safety. Because Taser's are proven lethal, this community needs to know every time a Taser is used by the Eureka Police Department or any other agency and why. That report needs to be published by the local news media.

Since Taser use is about intimidation and forced submission, actually torturing "suspects" into agreeing that the police have the right to arrest them, police safety and simple logic suggests people just might be a little more cooperative with police officers:

- "while also suggesting that suspects are less likely to resist police officers for fear of being tasered to death. "People now recognize that the Taser is painful and that Taser -- maybe they're thinking -- may kill me, and they're co-operating too"

If city, county and state governments are putting public safety first, then put out Taser usage so that we know what we're dealing with the next time a police officer decides to have a talk with one us.

You can read the complete discussion here.

Addendum :: Why torture is legal in America today:

America, due to Bush/Cheney policy, has added torture to our standard operating procedure, even if it is now held in abeyance by the Obama administration. That morally reprehensible act, while now out of favor, is essentially legal and Constitutional because no Congressional objection has been made and no one has been held accountable.

[Source of quote]

--Joe

What's Wrong With This Picture?

EPD: Officer draws gun to stop angry crowd at EHS

A Eureka Police officer drew his service weapon to back down an angry crowd Wednesday night after making an arrest in front of Eureka High School at about 8:30 p.[Full Story]

---

The print edition says, "Woman Tasered following high school basketball game"
Officer draws his gun on crowd - Sean Garmire

PLENTY IS WRONG! Even if you take the story at face value. It points up or identifies some of what is seriously wrong with the police and law enforcement in Humboldt County today. If you can believe EPD Lt. Murl Harpham, and I'm sure you can, this guy, officer John Silvey, was scared crapless and totally incompetent. "He felt threatened"? It seems, they all feel threatened all the time! Had he fired his gun at that crowd, for whatever reason, effective policing in this county would not be worth a plugged nickle.

First, officer John Silvey was grossly incompetent. Any legitimate and moderately trained police officer, man or woman, but especially a man with full authority to expedite an arrest would have placed the woman directly in handcuffs and delivered her to his patrol car without exposing himself. That woman was obviously not interested in resolving her problems "legally" since she had already taken the law into her own hands. That was his first clue, if he was to believe those that were accusing her, in particular the Principal Joseph Pawlick. Obviously, he did not see her assault anyone. She was obviously extremely upset and when she did not immediately "calm down" and "speak" with the officer like the dutiful, obedient citizen is supposed to when spoken to by the police, he had cause to arrest her. He effectively set her up. This is why I say he had no authority to affect the arrest in the first place. The second reason is that he tried to Taser her. Tasers are used to torture people into submitting to police demands when they are incapable of legitimately doing their mandated job.

Throwing her to the ground in front of a crowd? Since when does an officer take a person down to the ground in a crowd of potentially hostile people? All that did was reinforce the appearance of further bullying a distraught woman. Couple that with the ineffective use of the Taser and you've got a mob in the making. This is what you get when people, for whatever reasons, refuse to accept the police's right to enforce their authority on these terms. That woman is looking at some serious "felony" charges, all thanks to the incompetence of the Eureka Police Department and their officer John Silvey.

This is what you get when a society degenerates into a total state of anarchy, when the courts enforce a double-standard and law enforcement is only implemented at the discretion of the police when they are mostly trying to defend themselves and their jobs. The police degenerate into a gang of thugs and bullies and the populace merely tolerates them as long as they appear to be protecting the majority, but only for awhile. The next time that mob just might not stop, or the officer's finger slips, then what?

The Humbold Hearld has commentary on the Associated Press picking up on this. While Heraldo's initial post is rather neutral, the commentary is more interesting.

UPDATE :: Friday, February 20, 2009

Times-Standard Pg. A3: "EPD reviewing gun-drawing incident at Eureka High"
"Chief: Initial reports indicate the officer followed policy"
Nielsen said: "it seems the officer believed his safety was under threat by the advancing group." "My initial read of the report is that he conformed to our policy." Whose policy? (Emphasis added)

According to Nielsen, EPD officers are taught to use deadly force to protect themselves or others from an imminent threat to their personal safety. And “any time you pull your weapon out of its holster, the assumption is that you are prepared to use deadly force if necessary,” Nielsen said.

The police are licensed to shoot anyone (use deadly force) they feel is a treat to their personal safety. A threat to someone's "personal safety" is altogether different than a direct threat to their lives. Realistically, anyone could get shot for simply telling a police officer what you think of him and the horse he rode in on!

In plain language, according to Eureka Police Chief Garr Nielsen, police officer's lives, by legal policy, are more important than anyone else. They have the right to defend themselves with deadly force for anything they feel might threaten (only) their personal safety (not their lives), but we do not. That policy might work if these "police officers" were not operating in a state of near "post-traumatic stress disorder," forced to deal with a social system that is on the brink of total meltdown.

We realize that these officers are required to deal with the contemptuous, scummy dregs of our society on a daily basis. Problems arise when they forget that not all of us walk in that sewer. When their "policy right" to perceived "personal safety" trumps my right to personal safety and that of my family; the right to be free from challenge and threat, to NOT be touched in any compromised way (physically searched), we've got a serious problem.

--Joe

. . . and The Beat Goes On!

Northern Calif. man dies after police use Tasers
The Associated Press
Last Updated 1:26 pm PDT Thursday, May 29, 2008

WOODLAND, Calif. -- A Woodland man has died after police officers fired on him with a Taser stun gun.

Police in Woodland, about 20 miles north of Sacramento, say the man became increasingly agitated as they tried to talk to him Wednesday morning. He had just left a clinic for people with mental health issues.

The man is believed to be in his 40s but his identity has not yet been released.
Lt. Charles Wilts says the man was not armed but was holding a pencil and moving closer to the officers when they fired at him.

Wilts says at least three officers deployed their Tasers, but it was not clear how many times the man was shocked. He also was struck in his arms and legs by police batons.

The Yolo County Coroner's Office planned an autopsy Thursday.
http://www.sacbee.com/114/story/974981.html

A what? A "pencil." An "important non-lethal tool"?

Joe says, Okay! So, what? So, consider this piece of brilliant blogging by Ernie Branscomb.
( http://ernielb.blogspot.com/ )

Outrageous Outrage.
Friday, May 30, 2008

Think there is any connection?

Ernie asks the question: Also, there were a great many innocent white people killed by Indians. The past needs to be “Past”.

I agree with Heraldo that what happened was horrible. I also agree with Anon.R.Mous that we really don't want to know who did it. What would that accomplish?

Joe asks, "Have you taken a good look around at our community lately, Ernie? None of us crawled out from under a rock yesterday. We all bear the burdens of the 'Past' whether we like it or not. That memory is carried in our DNA and it plays out everyday and in every way. As an example, the mentality that justifies the US assault on Iraq is the same justification used in all Indian massacres. So, 'What would that accomplish?' I reckon the answer might be in the immutable law, 'You reap what you sow.'" Heraldo has a point, even if it was August 5, 2006!

--Joe